mikeDnight

I find the OIII blocks star light in smaller aperture scopes, which when I'm sketching, can make positioning the sketch difficult. I called my OIII filter my Veil filter, because its a superb filter for the Veil nebula. I find my UHC filter to be more general across the board, and it doesn't block out star light. It's a great filter for smaller apertures. I use a H-beta filter for the Flame nebula, though I can see the Flame without a filter with patience and with Alnitak out of the field. For the planet's I sometimes use Wrattan 21 orange for enhancing the darker markings on Mars, and Wrattan 80A blue for enhancing the white polar caps and mists in the impact craters Hellas, Argyre and around Olympus Mons. W 11 is supposed to enhance Venus, but I rarely use it as I seem to see detail without much difficulty.

I might be tempted to go for a 28mm Tak Erfle and an 18mm Tak orthoscopic and 5mm Tak LE. But a barlow would be needed for lunar.

Stunning!

That really is an inspiring report Victor. And your refractor looks so sexy caked in ice. May be I'm revealing too much about myself with that last statement! I'm sure the Dob Squad will forgive you in time.

I know its rediculously expensive and it would need a shoe adapter, but the TV Starbeam won my heart years ago. I didn't think it would, but the flip mirror on the Starbeam is a wonderful thing, as it allows you to see the red dot in the centre of a wide star field near the zenith without straining.

Pentax XW's at 5mm & 3.5mm immediately jump to mind. They are excellent planetary eyepieces with 70° apparent fields.

50X per inch of aperture is generally considered the maximum magnification as far as resolving two stellar points is concerned, and so a 5" scope would have a top resolving power of 250X. The great American observer E. E. Barnard found 180X to be his prefered magnification for observing the planet's while using a 40" refractor. On the other hand, William Herschel would at times use 1000X and beyond while using his 7" reflector. Sometimes it's best to use whatever power suits the observer, the target, and the atmospheric conditions, and not to worry too much about technicalities.

If I'm asked if I'd like tea or coffee I go into a panic, so asking which three eyepieces and why leaves me a bumbling wreck. How do I choose when they all make my mouth water?

A GP2 should handle the 115 well. I've used my Tak FS128 and a Meade 127 Triplet very effectively on a standard GP. The weak point, if any, will be in the tripod. If you use a Vixen tripod you should be fine as they are all metal. The Chinese aluminium tripods use plastic in their construction which severely cripples their stability. A tubular steel tripod would be another alternative. Another German equatorial that I truly love is the Losmandy GM8.

I added a few pic's on my previous post to prove I'm not making it up.

Yes, the seeing improved dramatically for me on both occasions.

There are some equatorial/atazimuth hybrids out there but they aren't cheap. The real beauty of the old Vixen mounts is that they had manual drives. Most modern equatorial rely solely on electric. The EQ5 is an exception, although you'd need to do a little adaptation with a hacksaw to get it to convert into Altaz mode. I have to say though, that like Mr Spock, I find a lightweight German equatorial to be just as easy, if not easier to use than an altazimuth. Polar alignment doesn't need to be spot on accurate for most visual purposes, and just aiming the polar axis towards Polaris is generally accurate enough. (You don't necessarily need to see Polaris). They really are dead easy to use, and are mostly hands free if they have an RA drive. If you can't find a Polaris mount, I'd suggest a standard SW EQ5 with RA drive or equivalent, and you'd be set to go. Although I have several altazimuth mounts myself, I rarely use them unless it a field trip, but even then if possible I'd prefer to use an equatorial.

Yes, the AZ4 is a more solid mount than the AZ5. I think they made the AZ5 down to a price, and its casting isn't as large or as solid as the AZ4.

As a grab and go basic but sturdy Altaz, I think the AZ4 is a fairly stable option that won't break the bank. It may only be a simple push/pull mount but I've used one for years and love it. I also use a Tak Teegul Altaz that has slow motion controls, which is great for high power tracking but it is quite a bit heavier than the AZ4. Then theres the option of advertising for an old Vixen Polaris mount, which is both an Altazimuth and an equatorial. Superbly solid with slow motion controls, but only available second-hand.

When I saw this pic of your eyepiece's Michael, my heart skipped a beat. If perfection could ever be attained then this is pretty close to perfection.

I've not used the ES but I have used and owned many top end 82° eyepieces and wider. I also have most of the Morpheus range, which are superbly comfortable due to their long eye relief and large eye lens. It's just my personal view, but you have to remember the fields of view are "apparent fields" and not true fields. The actual difference in real field is, from my perspective, negligible. I'd choose the better optical quality over any percieved field advantage. Then of course there's something else to consider. Very few observers ever really study an object at the very edge of the field, but centralize it. And even if its a large target, the object is usually scanned by moving it across the field of view so that each area is viewed from the centre of the field. Seventy degrees is often considered the most natural apparent field that doesn't need excessive rolling of the eye.

There's a thought!

I've used a 2X SW Delux barlow and a 2X Ultima SV barlow for 14 years. Both provide excellent, stunningly sharp images in my cheap Revelation binoviewer, 16.8mm ortho's and 100mm apo, with zero noticeable CA on the limb of the Moon. With this barlow and cheap eyepiece combination, even the superlative TMB super mono can't compete. So I'm not convinced by the poor quality barlow claims, and believe any CA is from either the eyepiece choice, telescope, or atmospheric haze.

Hi Darren, I had many happy hours under the stars using a StarTravel 102. It's really a rich field refractor designed for low power sweeping of star fields, and studying clusters, brighter nebulae and comets. However, with a 2X or 3X barlow lens, the StarTravel can give a pleasing view of the Moon and planets. Does the scope come with any eyepieces or other accessories? You'll need at least two eyepieces, possibly a 25mm and 10mm Plossl, a mirror diagonal, and hopefully a barlow lens. Usually a StarTravel is better suited to an altazimuth mount, but an EQ3 will be ok, just a little more complex. If you buy a Pocket Sky Atlas, you''ll have some fun times ahead as you learn your way around the night sky. ☺

The Prinz Astral 500 was my first scope, bought in 1980 for £130. It came with solar projection screen, three eyepieces, a diagonal prism and a barlow. It was great, or at least I thought it was great, and it looked superb on its equatorial mount. With it I made many sunspot drawings, and it gave me my first reasonable look at Jupiter with its moon's, and Saturn and its rings. It had a nice focuser, although it only took .96 eyepieces. It was the poor eyepieces that really held it back, but with a good plossl it would be an enjoyable scope to use. I currently have a Prinz Astral 500 tube that I saved from a skip, but no mount. I also have a 60mm Tasco complete, but its tripod is a tubular steel affair, so not as nice as the Astral500, but is an earlier 60's model. The Prinz Astral might be looked down on by many, but it was enough to fuel my enthusiasm for astronomy and refractors that has lasted more than 40 years.

The highest power I've ever used on a double was 1000X when I first bought my FC100DZ. It was a silly magnification to try, as at 1000X you need to keep everything critically centralized. Things move fast at that power, and I only used that high power to see if I could break my Tak. The view was really quite lovely, and although the atmosphere was steady, it did begin to push things a little. The view however was still so good that I had to repeatedly keep checking I wasn't mistaken with the magnification. I was using a 1.6mm Vixen high resolution eyepiece and a 2X barlow in my 100mm F8. Removing the barlow to give 500X improved the sharpness of the star image, which was technically perfect. Having a driven equatorial on a solid pier was an advantage. I don't often use 500X but its nice to push the power on double stars at times.

If you keep it simple to begin with, you'll soon find your way around the stars. It can be a thoroughly relaxing hobby, so enjoy yourself. Below is a nice little book that will introduce you to the night sky, as well as keep you up to date with events throughout the year. You dont need a telescope, but if you eventually get a pair of binoculars, you'll be set for a real adventure. Mike ☺

I think that Tak expect Tak users to use Tak eyepieces, Tak diagonals and a Tak barlow or extender-Q. Then presumably all will work flawlessly. Back in the real world, I've found the 2X SW Delux barlow to be excellent (and cheap). Removing the blue spacer tube may well require the use of the black extension tube, and so doesn't resolve all potential focusing issues. You'd imagine that by now Takahashi would have had the intelligence to notice there is a problem with the FC100DC, and shorten the spacer while increasing the length of the draw tube. It is possible to iron out most focusing issues by careful choice of eyepieces and reduces etc. I removed the 1.25" visual back and replaced it with a short Tak 2" back while using a SW low profile 2" to 1.25" reducer, which gave me a little more inward focus.

Nice report Rob. It's often the case that when seeing is good, transparency tends to be poor. And only rarely do the two play nicely together. Still, as you've proved, perseverance can pay off, resulting in an enjoyable and memorable nights observing.

I don't suppose you happen to have a spare Saturn mount under your mattres Peter???