mikeDnight

I love reading about your experiences, especially those with your 102ED, as I have a real soft spot for scopes around that aperture. And reading about the fun you have inspires me to get out and take a look myself. Last night was crystal clear here, and as I'd just swapped my GP that has sat for many years atop of my observatory pier for a GPDX, I thought I'd take advantage of the opportunity. I didn't have any particular target in mind, just a brief mystery tour. As I saw the Pleiades glittering quite high in the east, I thought I'd make it my first target. So I reached for my 17.5mm Morpheus, but made the happy mistake of grabbing the 12.5mm by accident. The Pleiades in the 100mm frac with the 12.5mm Morpheus was simply gorgeous, with nebulosity easily seen surrounding many of its stars. The dark background offered by the 12.5mm along with its wide apparent field, framed a perfect picture. Changing the eyepiece for the originally intended 17.5mm lost the dark background and the impact given by the 12.5mm, and as a consequence, the nebulosity was more of a challenge. Next was M31, 32 & 110. The 17.5mm framed all three galaxies well, but again it was trumped by the 12.5. The Double Cluster was stunning in the 12.5, and sweeping through Cygnus was a delight as a countless peppering of stars and star colours stood out strongly against the sky background. But my favourite object from last night was the beautiful ET cluster in Cassiopeia, although I think it looks more like Sid the Sloth. All in all, it was a very enjoyable session that reinforced my love for my very capable little refractor. The mount works great too, although its currently only manually controlled. 😊

Sounds like you need an observatory. I found that grovelling pathetically to my better half helped a lot.

Two beautiful refractors there! I'd be happy for either frac to come on their holidays at anytime. I can't remember ever giving names to any of the many scopes that I've owned, other than abbreviating their brand name. My present scope, not too surprisingly, is called Taki. I do however, think of my scopes as being alive, as if they enjoy in equal measure our time observing time together. Taki is male by the way! Weird or what!!? "What gender is your scope?" might be an interesting thread for someone not right in their head to start, but as I'm perfectly normal I'll leave that one for someone else.

Possibly, but it more accurately reveals his blind ignorance.

The Vixen should be perfectly ok with your existing prism. I used a 100mm F7.4 along with a Tak prism for years without seeing a hint of CA. Often, an observer will introduce more CA into an optical system by the use of complex wide angle eyepieces for lunar and planetary observing, than a prism would ever introduce.

I've owned and used both the SW AZ4 & AZ5, and although I liked the AZ5 I did prefer the solidity of the AZ4. The AZ5 was perfectly capable of carrying my 100mm F7.4 refractor, but it took longer to damp down than the AZ4. With the AZ4 it took 3 seconds for vibrations to damp down where as the AZ5 was 5 seconds. It doesn't sound a lot but it can become frustrating if you're trying to study subtle and intricate planetary detail. The better the tripod the better the performance! Below are a couple of pics of a 5" steel globe of Mars I made from observations made with the 100mm refractor back in 2016. The scope was mounted on a SW AZ4 with a strong aluminium (Vixen) tripod, as the SW aluminium version uses cheap plastic in its construction which allows for flexure. Although the AZ4 didn't have slow motion controls on the Vixen tripod I could use 250X to 300X with relative ease. If you go for an AZ5, which I personally prefer to the Vixen Porta/Porta 'll, a steel tripod would be the better option.

That's the trouble with using fuel. What we really need is to back track a hundred and twenty years or so, when Henry Carvour invented Carvourite, the anti gravity paint he used on the retractable shutters on his space sphere that successfully got the British to the Moon 70 years ahead of the Americans. 😆

Is the idea to live in miserable bubbles on Mars surface, or to live deep under the ground like Morlchs? Either way it will be a soul destroying existence. If terraforming is the plan then forget it. Mars is way too small to hold onto any meaningful atmosphere, it doesn't possess an ozone layer to block UV light, and it doesn't have a magnetosphere to act as a forcefield to protect surface life from bombardment by high energy particles from the Sun. Plus it's too cold for humans to survive unprotected. Never the less, I'd be happy to hand out one way tickets to a large percentace of humanity.

Unless you're in need of the money for another project, I personally wouldn't let the DL go for less than £2000. It's a jewel of a telescope!

I really like them, although I'd have prefered a 50° to 60° AF. My first look through the 16mm Masuyama was quite memorable, in that the clarity and contrast was immediately evident. Sweeping through Cygnus revealed the black dust clouds effortlessly, and star colours were vivid with on axis images piercingly sharp. However, there was significant distortion towards the edge of the field in my F8 scope, but because the field was so wide, it was easy to draw away from the eyepiece slightly and block out the edge of field. If anyone wants very high contrast on axis and is willing to forfeit the edge of field, or has a longer focal length telescope, the Masuyama may be just the ticket.

I think I'd lean towards a 90mm Mak as a lunar and planetary scope. The 90mm Maksutov's I've looked through were all really quite impressive, and although I'm a real refractor nut, I very much doubt your 70mm travelscope could compete. Of course a telescope is only ever as good as its weakest link, so I'd suggest you also acquire a good quality diagonal and eyepieces. You won't need expensive wide angle eyepieces with a Maksutov, as good quality plossl's or orthoscopic's will give superb views.

You'll need to be careful you don't find yourself collecting the entire range. They can be quite addictive. I've got most of the range from 35mm down to 5mm, although they aren't all Ultrascopic's. Some are Celestron Ultima's, Parks Gold, and Baader Eudiascopic. They are all pseudo Masuyama's, a design based on the Zeiss astroplanar. Sadly, none of the above are currently in production, although they do appear second hand quite regularly. The largest I own, the 35mm, is lightweight and offers a low power field that appears to jump out of the eyepiece as if suspended before the eye; quite a special effect not shared by many eyepieces.

To accurately assess or compare planetary performance between scopes, the scopes would need to be literally side by side, with top class seeing, using the same eyepiece design giving the same magnification, and on the same night. Seeing can differ greatly even over just a few metres at the same site as I've found many times. Then of course there's the visual acuity of the observer, as we don't all see the same level of detail, even among observers having many years of experience at the eyepiece. The great W. F. Denning summed things up perfectly when he stated "What one man sees through a 5 inch glass, another man needs a 10 inch". (Telescopic Work for Starlight Evenings).

The graph makes no sense! It appears to imply that a NP101 has a higher planetary rating than a TSA 102, and a NP127 higher than an FS128, both of which are pure Alice In Wonderland. The TSA is in a whole different league than the NP101 as a planetary scope, and the FS128 is a formidable high contrast high definition beast that would leave a NP127 panting for breath. And why are there two different points indicating the FS102? There are so many variables that have nothing to do with the telescopes objective that rating a telescope on it's planetary performance based on it's aperture, lens type, or manufacturer is all but impossible. Personally I wouldn't give any credence to it at all.

Hi Malcom, I'm not sure about the Bortle rating of my sky. I did try to find out a few years ago, but I don't think its accurate as I've seen things beyond what I imagine I should. I think it was similar to yours. The nebulosity around some of the Pleiades is something I see regularly and without much effort. At first it looks like a light mist around the brighter stars and you might first think youre looking through a slightly misty sky, but looking at other stars of similar magnitude there's no haze visible. The longer you look, especially if you shield yourself from surrounding light, the more extensive the nebulosity becomes. The Pleiades is now with us again so you'll have plenty of opportunity to bag the nebulosity visually. It may help if you use an eyepiece in the 20 to 10mm range in your 4", as this should give you a dark enough sky background to help the nebulosity stand out. Longer focal length eyepieces may show a lighter sky background and so wash out the subtle nebula.

That's a good catch of objects and a nice report. The nebulosity enmeshing the Pleiades is certainly visible in your 102mm refractor, and can be seen in smaller instruments too. I believe its visibility is an indication of transparency and so if you're seeing nebulosity you have a reasonably good sky. Below is a sketch I made of the Pleiades a few years ago, using a 100mm refractor.

That's a good point about the thumb screws. With mine I have to keep the thumb screws on the inside otherwise there's no way the images will merge. I'm so used to my binoviewers mechanical shortcomings that its second nature to me now. I also need to sharp focus my right eye using the scopes rack & pinion, then retract the left hand eyepiece by a millimetre or so until that too is sharp, then lock it. I never use the diopter adjustment as it demerges the image. Doing things the way I do, the views are spectacular.

Hi Andrew, I think the Revelation is just a brand name and that really its just a generic binoviewer. WO and Celestron look very similar, as does Skywatcher. In the pic below, you can see the use a locking screw to secure the eyepieces. The BV didn't come with a GPS or barlow, so I either use a SW Delux barlow or a Celestron Ultima SV barlow attached to the nose piece.

Most definitely yes! One of the major reasons people struggle to see detail in deep sky targets, especially in smaller apertures, is because of intrusive light hitting the eye from the side. Covering your head and eyepiece will improve your dark adaption after only a few minutes, and improve it greatly after 20 minutes. The horse head is the most challenging feature I've seen so far and I saw that through a 4" refractor from my suburban site. Achieving total dark adaption may be impossible because of sky glow, but by shielding our eyes from stay light in our local environment is definitely achievable and very beneficial. Even subtle detail within otherwise relatively bland objects starts to revile itself, and shows even small apertures to be very capable deep sky scopes. Below is a small selection of sketches of observations I've made using my 100mm refractor: M57 Ring Nebula Tak FC100DC

I've been using the same old Revelation binoviewer since 2008 and think its an amazing piece of kit. I feel it is arguably the single most impressive game changer, as far as lunar and planetary observing is concerned, of anything I've ever bought, and worth every penny of the £99 I paid for it. I have used other binoviewers alongside my own but have not really noticed much of a difference between them. I've not yet had chance to observe with a Takahashi binoviewer, which I imagine you're referring to when you say "fully Tak light path!"? I think its the 45° angled bino head that put me off buying one.

The Tak LE's are really nice but some suffer from ghosting issues. My 5mm LE had the problem where the Moon was stunning, but as it drifted out of the field, there was a strong ghost image of the Moon still visible. My main gripe was that the image of the Moon and the ghost image had an overlap of around a third of the field of view. An alternative would be a secondhand Orion Ultrascopic or Parks Gold. These are beautiful eyepieces nolonger in production but can still be found secondhand. Vixen LV's and LVW's are special too, but are also nolonger in production. Baader Hyperion are worth taking a look at, as would be a longer focal length Orthoscopic combined with a barlow lens which will give you better eye relief.

The 7mm XW isn't a big eyepiece and could easily be used in a small refractor or reflector without pausing a problem. If however you'd like a lighter eyepiece, you might consider the Baader Morpheus. These are superb and lightweight, although they still sport a beautiful large eye lens that's so comfortable to use. They barlow beautifully too!

Everything as stated in the above responses. The 7mm XW would be my choice for mono viewing, but the binoviewer, barlow and plossl or orthoscopic option will leave even the best mono eyepiece standing. The XW's are excellent planetary eyepiece though.

I too like that about Takahashi. They seem to be trapped in time holding onto their classic look while other manufacturers add bells, whistles & go-faster stripes. Even Tak focusers are the same as they've always been, which has proved to be a bone of contention for some, but I think they're fine for visual. They did offer a Feathertouch option engraved for Takahashi for the TSA series; very pretty and didn't spoil the classic look. Classic look aside, it's the optics that have advanced over the years, although you'd need a very keen eye to tell the difference visually. They've always been state of the art relative to their time.

I believe it would, but if you can put up with the fixed dew shield, the FC100DF would be a cheaper option and optically (visually) just as stunning IMHO.