mikeDnight

It's a shocker really Gavin. Not the price of the FSQ, but the fact you're nearly running out of floor space. If ever that happens, I've still got some left which you're welcome to use.

I think you'll probably find that many observers rarely set out to spend hours under the stars Neil. Chance would be a fine thing! Personally I normally go out with just 30 minutes in mind, sometimes less, and occasionally (rarely) find myself still at the eyepiece two or three hours down the line. As long as I've had an enjoyable time, be it ten minutes or two hours, I'm happy and content. Having an easy to set up scope adds to the ease with which I can take advantage of clear spells.

You're a dark horse John. Your drawings are excellent and far better than any I produced back then. I think i was using Crayola Crayons around that time . I have a 1960's 60mm Tasco boxed away, and might just set it up and observe with it. Seriously!

I think I've detected the problem Dave. It's your set-up. What you need is a high end grab and go in the 100mm range that can be set up in a matter of two or three minutes. I run a Takahashi rescue for unloved or retired Takahashi telescopes and could always find a place for your FS128, free of charge to such an outstandingly fine fellow as yourself, if its becoming a burden.

What a night you missed Dave! Stars right down to the horizon and as steady as a photograph through my scope, and the colours were so vivid. The Patriotic Triple in Cygnus low against my northern horizon stopped me in my tracks with its colour contrast. Still, don't feel bad, there'll be other nights like that some day.

For me, looking at the night sky with the naked eye, binoculars or a telescope, is almost a tactile experience. Having miniscule understanding, as humans do, of what we're actually looking at excites me, and has kept me thrilled for decades. Strangely, images of the universe, although spectacular and informative, don't have nearly the same impact on me as seeing the milkyway sweep from horizon to horizon, or watching the Moon and planets move among the constellations, and the occasional visiting comet grace our skies with its ghostly presence. In a nut shell, the universe as seen from our back gardens or from a dark countryside setting is vibrant and alive. Even the fresh night air, and the sounds of owl's chatting to each other, or a Curlew playing pop at your presence too close to its ground based nest, all adds to the overall feeling of contentment. Then to be able to climb into bed after a night of exploration and warm my frozen knees on my wife is just wonderful. Strangely, she never seems to mind!

It's a Takahashi illuminator, and it looks very much like a Takahashi finder as far as the focusing eyepiece goes. However I've never seen a Tak finder with the adjustable/focusing front cell, so perhaps it's a hybrid, though it could be a true Tak. The crosshairs on the Tak finder are very fine and engraved onto glass, so that would indicate if its a true Tak. Also, Tak finder tubes are smooth with no groove for a rubber O ring.The finder bracket is not Takahashi!

I'm pretty sure that being "distracted" is not the same thing as being "lazy". I've spent countless observing hours over forty plus years moving from scope to scope, only to return to the one I started off with, finding it more pleasing, and despite its smaller aperture, often giving a better view. Then there are some who don't want multiple scopes because of financial constraints, or limited space, health, or simply because they are thoroughly content with the single scope they do have. There's nothing wrong with having multiple scopes of course, but having only one scope does focus your attention on what it really is capable of, which is more often than not much more than most people might imagine.

Thats a beautiful scope Carl. The beauty of having a single scope, is that you have to use it for everything and don't get side-tracked by swapping and changing scopes. The result is that you really start to understand just how capable your telescope really is.

I seem to see reds and yellows very easily. If you look at the cross of Cygnus, the upper right quadrant, if I can call it that, there is a visual triple star affectionately named The Patriotic Triple. Its Red, White & Blue, and quite widely spread and so needs a low power wide field. I do find the most distinctive colours appear when studying double stars. Higher powers help with contrasting doubles, as does defocusing the star slightly. I would imagine most people could see the contrasting colours in Beta Cygni, which to me are turquoise and gold. The green pearlescant glow of the Orion nebula is something I see virtually every time I observe it, but it wasn't always that way. It took time for me to learn to see what I see with relative ease today, so I never assume a fellow observer is seeing exactly what I'm seeing.

Don't you have a 6" AstroPhysics Chris, and you're enjoying a 70mm Travelscope? I get it, but can't help finding it amusing.

I loved my Equinox 80ED and found that with a cheap binoviewer and a pair of cheap ortho's, the little scope would have me transfixed for an hour or more on the Moon or Jupiter. But depending on how much will you spend on a new focuser and various other bits and pieces? It may be worth considering moving up to something like a Starfield 102ED, which has a terrific focuser, is still physically small, and will pack much more of a punch.

Dark adaption isn't necessary for observing planets, but you still want to shield yourself from distractions such as bright lights hitting the eye from the side. What you do need to do though is to learn to relax and let your eye naturally scan the planet. There are areas on the retina that can detect very subtle detail, so that may mean looking slightly to one side as centre vision isn't usually that good, or at least mine isn't.

180X is a real magnification sweet spot for Jupiter, and it really doesn't matter which telescope or aperture you choose. You may get away with 200X but that will be an exceptional night. With Saturn its 200X to 250X when seeing allows. It's better to use less magnification and maintain a sharp view than over power it and lose definition.

Thanks Sunshine. You're not alone in spending thousands only to find you could have saved thousands. I'm sure many on SGL and on CN would be quite wealthy by now if only they'ed found the right thread in time. I did roughly calculate what I'd spent over the years only to find myself pretty much back where I started, with a small refractor. I think it may have been in the region of £60,000.00. If I'd gone for a 6" top end Tak right at the start I'd be around £50,000 better off.

That's a really good question and easy to answer. No matter what Dickenson and Dyer would have you believe, or Televue for that matter, none of Televues refractors throughout the decades even approach the Takahashi in performance as far as lunar, planetary, and stellar observation goes. The two refractors are really both specialist instruments, in that the Tak is a high performance, high definition telescope, where as the Genesis SDF, like all its siblings, is the ultimate rich field comet seeker. The Genesis SDF at F5.4 will do something the Tak could never do, which is give a near 5° true field or ten full moons wide. On the otherhand, the Takahashi will deliver tack sharp views of double stars at 500X, and lunar views at 200X that are so sharp you feel like you're viewing the Moon from just a few miles above its surface. So apple's and oranges really. Both complement each other perfectly without falling out. As for the idea of barlowing the SDF, well it would still soften out at 200X. Even the NP101 IS loses steam as the power touches 200X. At 200X the Takahashi is just warming up. I learned the hard way that Televue scopes are not the All Things To All Men that the advertisements would have you believe. I bought one back in 2007 along with all the Naglers and a couple of powermates. I sold it within a year after a friend's Vixen 102 F6.5 ED left the multi thousand pound TV in a cloud of dust while observing Saturn. From a visual perspective the TV scopes are everything Al Nagler initially intended them to be. They really do give an unbeatable Space Walk Experience, and give pleasing views of moon and planets. The Takahashi's are surgical!

Although its often stated that aperture is King, and that longer focal lengths are better for lunar and planetary, there are other factors that often come into play. Atmospheric seeing is one such factor, where smaller apertures appear to be unaffected while larger apertures can be hindered greatly, so things are not as clear cut as they may first seem. However, where a 6" scope may be unaffected by seeing while a 10" may be hindered by it, it doesn't necessarily mean the 10" will perform like a 6". Very often the smaller aperture will actually outperform the larger scope. That is one reason many astronomers have more than one telescope, so they can bring out the gun that suits the situation and subject being studied. Longer focal length scopes can show less aberrations than their shorter equivalents, but its good to remember that advancements in optical design of both telescopes and eyepieces has largely overcome such differences. Today a good quality shorter focal length lens or mirror when matched with equally well designed eyepieces, Barlow lenses or powermates, can match or even surpass their longer siblings in performance. And shorter scopes are often easier to use, cheaper to mount and easier to store or house, and because of this they may be used more often than a cumbersome Goliath.

Of course you can always see more than you can draw, and I have no doubt your extra 2mm aperture gives your scope the edge, after all, aperture is king isn't it?

Very nice pic's Paul. I was observing Langrenus on the same night and thought I'd doodle it and Petavius. It's been a while since I've put pencil to paper and felt I needed to get back on the horse so to speak. Not a real horse of course as that would be silly!

All my refractors are grab and go in my mind, as I can carry any of them, along with their mounts in one go. The smallest is a 72mm ED. Next is a Genesis SDF 101mm F5.4 richfield. And finally a Takahashi 100mm F8 Apo.

Just trying to be helpful.

Genesis 101 SDF & FC100DZ playing happily together.

Now stop it before the tripod suggestion backfires on me. I didn't know they did different colours.

Very easily!

I knew I could rely on you Paul to maintain absolute secrecy. In fact come to think of it, Chrissy only ever suspects I'm up to mischief when you're around. I wonder why that might be? And yet she still baked apple pie for you.