mikeDnight

Im sure youll enjoy it Mark!

I'm afraid walking away would be impossible. I think that once astronomy is in your blood you're infected for life. And although I do have peaks and troughs in my enthusiasm, one deep breath of cold night air under a starry sky will cause my enthusiasm to return with a vengeance. If I were to damage my FC100DZ beyond repair, I'd still want another apo refractor in the 4" to 5" range. It wouldn't necessarily have to be a Takahashi though, as I'd be equally happy with Vixen, or TMB, or in fact most of the more recent ED doublet apo's that are available. My first choice would probably be to replace the DZ with a DC version, as I have a deep love for the DC that still burns in my heart. I may however treat it to a feathertouch focuser as Stu did with his. If I could find a second-hand FS128 then I'd grab it with both hands, funds permitting of course. Also, a TSA 120 would be in my sights too. I'm not really turned on by aperture, so a large Dobsonian would probably not even cross my mind. I love the challenge and the rewards of using a high quality, small aperture refractor. Having one good scope is really all I need. I've found that owning more than one makes me feel guilty if I leave the other to one side. I tend to view telescopes as being mildly sentient (much like some of my friends), which is silly if not stupid, but i can't help it. That's why I still love the DC so much, as it was my observing partner for hundreds of nights and we had many wonderful adventures together. Letting the DC go in favour of the DZ really messed with my heart for a while. Don't worry about me though; I have my own personal qualified Shrink - paulastro - who has confirmed I'm nuts. If I couldn't have the old Ultima eyepieces I love so much, I'd probably go for XW's, Baader Morpheus, and for binoviewer observing a hand full of longer focal length orthoscopic's or quality Plossl's.

It may be an expensive option but you could use a 50mm guide scope with an interchangeable eyepiece, and use a guiding eyepiece or astrometric eyepiece. Or use a Takahashi 50mm finder which have a very fine illuminated reticule, but they view straight through.

It's been a few decades since my university days Dave, so I had to look that one up.

Thanks for the clarification John. You must have typed the original questions too quickly for me to keep up. Sorry!

That is genuinely terrific! That top pencil sketch has really captured the natural beauty of the craters. Excellent!!

Am I missing something with the vote questions John? Q) I often/always use go-to or push to. Q) I do not use go-to / push to. I'm not sure if that answers how many do and how many don't use one or the other. If the latter question is ticked, doesn't it imply the scope doesn't move at all? Surely one or the other must be used, even when dialling in coordinates using setting circles?

It sounds like it might be your local transparency that might be the problem. My own site, low down in a valley and close to the river Calder, often suffers from a thin mist that hinders deep sky viewing. It makes for a wonderful lunar and planetary site, but only when the mist is gone do I have great DSO views. I've only had two good transparent nights this year, at least on nights I've observed. A couple of nights ago, even after observing the crescent moon for around an hour, I turned my attention to M1 in Taurus and found it, large and with subtle detail, quite easily in my 100mm Tak. (I was using a 16mm eyepiece giving 50X). Yet a few days earlier using my Genesis SDF on a moonless night and with a 35mm Panoptic (a 4.5° true field at 15X), I couldnt see M110 the fainter of the two satalite galaxies in the same field as M31. That's normally an easy catch! It seems that for me at least, having good seeing and good transparency at the same time, is a rare event.

One of the nice things about the FS128, apart from its excellent optics and build quality, was that it could be carried very well on a GP mount, providing the tripod was sturdy enough. In the pic below is my FS128 on a GP and tripod made by Peter Drew. The wide tripod neck gave it great stability while the tripod itself was light and easy to carry. It's probably my favourite tripod! Here at AstroFest in 2007ish I'd pretty much set up camp at the TruTek stall. At the time TruTechnology was the sole UK importer, so it was rare to see any Takahashi scopes. This was a TOA130. Back home I'd let my FS128 go in part exchange for a FS152, but the brand new EQ6 was no match for the 6". Eventually I had to buy a Losmandy G11 to carry the scope. The EQ6 was returned due to an internal rattle and a factory touched up paint chip, and its inability to hold the scope steady.

Just spent a good hour and a half looking at the Moon. It was a gorgeous terminator, but while looking at Petavius I noticed a fine rille that I'd firs seen last night. It ran from between the outer wall of Petavius and the crater Wottesly, straight between Shellius and Shellius A, then became more difficult to follow. While studying this rille, a second finer but shorter rille running parallel extended from the outer wall of Wottesly towards Shellius A but didn't appear to reach it. Then I noticed the rille from Petavius outer wall was split into a Y which connected it also to Wottesly. The floor of Petavius was fascinating too and covered with intricate tonal detail as well as physical features. From my site the high tree line from the woodland to my south, south west, means I lose the Moon quite early, and because the sky was strewn with starlight and looked transparent, I thought I'd try for M1. Using a 16mm Masuyama eyepiece and sweeping just north of zeta Taurus, the supernova remnant was found very quickly. In the past I've often seen detail within M1, but tonight it was not so easy. Perhaps observing the Moon for an hour had messed with my night vision, but finding M1 was a good indicator of the transparency of the sky, especially while using a 100mm.

If I could turn back time I'd never have let go of my FS128. Although it may not be everyones starryeyed dream scope, but it was the perfect scope for me. I let temptation get to me and part exchanged it for a glirious FS152. I know it sounds silly, but the FS128 was the sweet spot for my kind of observing both in size and performance. I'm not short; the pier was tall!

I love your sketch. It looks like an honest representation of what you would have seen at the eyepiece. I wouldn't worry too much about errors, they are inevitable, after all you're drawing in the dark using averted vision to observe, while trying to maintain a good level of dark adaption; and the field is often moving. Personally I use a rough sketch book for drawings at the telescope. Very often I mess up when trying to place stars in their relative positions, so I cross out wrongly placed stars and add stars where they should be (all done at the eyepiece ). I've never worried about getting the Starfield so accurate that it matches a star map or image. I'm just happy if someone comparing my sketch with an image can see which star is meant to be which. Also, I have never been able to draw all the stars in the field, as the more I study the field the more stars I usually see, so I limit myself to depicting only the major field stars. Generally I'll add the nebulosity after I've placed most of the stars but the fainter ones may need placing afterwards. I will usually make a cleaned up version of the sketch in a higher quality sketch book soon after the observation. The cleaned up sketch doesn't contain the errors made in the eyepiece sketch, but that's not to say that the cleaned up sketch is completely accurate either. It's just as honest as I can make it and I'm far from infallible. I usually work with graphite pencil on white paper, then image the sketch and turn it into a negative so as to give a reasonably realistic view. It's important to note when studying any of my sketches, that they represent detail seen over time and are not meant to imply this is what someone would immediately see through the eyepiece. Many of my brighter deep sky sketches represent detail seen over 20 to 60 minutes of careful study under a blackout blanket. I think I make sketches rather than write copious notes because sketching helps me to really see and not just look, also, I'm lazy and would rather study a sketch than read a page or two of explanations. A picture speaks a thousand words! If there are known inaccuracies, you could always add a side note.

You can afford to turn on your ceiling lights?

"Narcissism"? I don't believe so! I think Denning was really just pointing out that the differences between observers, their visual acuity, and skill can be dramatic, and that not everyone using the same instrument will see the same level of detail, as knowing how to observe is a skill that grows with experience. The late british planetary observer Richard Baum said "Many look, few observe"! It takes years to fine tune our observing skills, and so neither aperture nor optical quality can gaurantee success. I've often wondered how William Herschel would react if he could use some modern scopes and eyepieces. I've no doubt there would be more than a few colourful expletives, and perhaps that may be followed by the command "Caroline, pass me that hammer", and the sound of shattering speculum metal?

That's brilliant! I have quite a library of old astronomy books, as I love the era when people actually observed and so spoke from experience. One of my favourites is a book called Telescopic Work for Starlight Evenings, by W.F. Denning. Even the title is magical to me, but some of Denning's statements are timeless wisdom. Here's one: "....The observer himself constitutes the most important part of his telescope: it is useless having a glass of great capacity at one end of a tube, and a man of small capacity at the other. Two different observers essentially alter the character of an instrument, according to their individual skill in utilizing its powers". I've occasionally quoted the part of Denning's statement that is in bold, as a mild sarcasm when some have scornfully questioned the truthfulness of an observation I've made. It's a great weapon that usually stunns them into silence.

The last talk I gave to a astronomical society, which they'ed booked well in advance, was on the subject of visual astronomy past and present. At the end, the secretary apologised as the societies only visual observer hadn't bothered to turn up. As the saying goes 'Never say Never', well I'm saying it - "Never again"!

*

I used to own a lovely book by Cecilia back in the early 80's. It was a weighty, dense work that fascinated me, but at the time was a bit beyond my understanding. I kept it for years and eventually passed it on a few years ago. I wish I'd kept it now! I think I reasoned that much of it would be out of date as our understanding has grown. But that's not really true either, as it seems the more we learn, the less we actually know.

I wonder how Venus would image using your FC100DF? Visually I've often found that I get the best views in twilight, so perhaps there may be an imaging advantage in twilight too? I'm not an imager so I'm only guessing!

*

I can't remember Vixen dropping the EDS in favour of the fluorite. I seem to remember the fluorite FL102, 102ED F9 and 102ED F6.5, all being available at the same time. Even the F6.5 was a jaw-dropping performer on the planet's which I remember stunned me at the time. It was a happier time really, as no one ever worried about glass types or this is better than that like they do today, even though no one can really tell the difference anyway. The Vixen's were all simply superb and something to be proud of owning!

The more I look at your scope the more I want it.

I can't say I've ever noticed any bias towards Vixen in your comments Alan.

I suppose Michael not being aware of the spider diffraction in his reflector, is a lot like me not seeing the CA in an achromatic refractor. I know its there but it doesn't generally bother me if its well controlled, so I don't look for it. I do think discussing diffraction in this thread was only meant to be helpful, and although a minor diversion, it is quite important, and potentially linked to the op's question.

That's an awesome scope! It was 20 years ago when I bought a second-hand one of those for an old friend who'd acted as a mentor to me when I first started out in astronomy. He was to blame for my love affair with refractors. Anyhow, one evening while sat in his garden on plastic garden chairs and with 6" of snow covering the ground, we waited patiently for the thick fast moving cloud to clear so we could get first light. After an hour or so, the cloud disappeared and a Crystal transparent sky gave us a truly awesome view of Saturn that looked more like the view through a spaceship window than through a telescope. The Moon was laser etched and the CA, well there was no CA. I honestly believe that ED will give any apo a run for its money.