mikeDnight

EEK! I hope the droppsy's isn't contagious !

Wow, that image of your DC's lens caused me to almost use an expletive. I'm really sorry your DC is no more, but at least your insurance takes a little of the sting out of it. I have had beautiful DC, which I loved, but I couldn't resist the DZ with its claim of better colour correction. My DC didn't show any false colour and neither does my DZ, so the actual advantage eludes me slightly. The DZ is certainly capable of high power, but I used my DC on occasion at 474X, so it was no slouch either. I can't honestly say the DZ is noticeably better than the DC as I wasn't able to run them side by side. The DZ seems to be a little cooler optically, and with a better focuser (same as DF). The DZ tube is shorter but the retractable dew shield doesn't extend any further beyond the lens cell than the DC or DF, just 80mm. Can't say I've noticed a flatter field with the DZ but I haven't really looked for it. If you loved the DC you'll almost certainly love the DZ, but whether its worth the difference in price can only be answered on a personal level. You already have a tube clamp so that makes the purchase a bit cheaper. I suppose it makes sense to buy the DZ if you're looking for top end optics in a doublet 4" refractor that's currently in production. I'm just not certain that the DZ will do anything that the DC or DF couldn't also do.

Thats a beautiful looking refractor Garry. I cant wait to read your views about it. Ive observed wigh a few WO refractors but not the 110, but i was very impressed at their performance.

The universe is dynamic and alive. When you look at Jupiter for only a few minutes you'll notice its rotation as new features come onto the disc. It's also wonderfully detailed and complex - ever changing, and is thrilling to watch. Looking at the Orion nebula and seeing the glorious clam shell gas cloud along with the subtle hint of pearlescent green is awe inspiring. The contrasting colours of many binary stars leaves many observers wowed. And now and then the majestic yet ghostly visit from the depths of space of a spectacular comet emblazens its image in your mind. But for many of us, even the hunt for an elusive deep sky object is reward enough, and when we find it, what a thrill it gives us. Then there's the night itself, where the smells, freshness, and sounds, all adds to the over all experience. Many a time my companions have been two Tawny Owl's holding a conversation that I'm privileged to listen to. Or the sudden surprise as a sniffling Hedge Hog rising up as if with the hydraulic suspension of an old Citroen car and race across the lawn at high speed. But for me it's the personal discoveries i make nearly every time i observe. Other men may have seen them before but that doesn't matter, as i now have the privilage to explore and discover things for myself, things they saw long ago. It is true that the images in books and on line can be spectacular, and very few objects will match visually what big telescopes and CCD cameras can reveal, but there is something of the art of taxidermy in those images. They may be beautiful but they are dead. Take a look at a spectacular picture of the planet Saturn for example. It is awesome there is no doubt. But then look at Saturn through the eyepiece of even a small telescope and ask yourself which is better, the image or the view through the telescope?

I know its tragic, but don't fret, the glorious Moon will be back soon! 🌙 😆

I'm going to stick my neck out and say the 8" F5 wins. I've no real idea of course as I'm thick, but isn't it more to do with focal length rather than focal ratio? So wouldn't the 8" with its 40 inch effective focal length win out over say a 10" with a 50 inch focal length? I know what my report will say, as they all said the same thing, - "...nice boy, could try harder."

I've not yet used a LUNT 40mm and couldn't really say what's best. Im not sure how much use a 40mm will be on the night sky, so that alone wouldnt sway me one way or another. Id imagine Lunt to be a better buy than the coronado pst due to the latters variability in quality control.

We probably all pay too much attention to figures and statistics we don't fully understand. I've haven't yet looked through a Vixen fluorite that wasn't in every way the equal of any Tak I've used. Even their older ED's were outstandingly good, and better than some top end brands costing thousands of £ more. I'm sure their more modern triplets are every bit as top class.

Hi Victor. Using a binoviewer greatly improves the visibility of intricate detail in a PST, so I'd imagine the same would apply to the 40mm LUNT. And with a blackout hood the definition and contrast improves even further.

Hmmm... Fluorite... 💘💋💋💋💞

Pepper mint or Spear mint! Whats your preference?

No insecurity here I'm happy to say! I'm very content viewing through my 100mm Tak, and rarely get the urge to peer through other scopes, unless they are refractors. There are many great refractors that compete favourably with Takahashi these days at a fraction of the price, and I love observing with them all. But Tak still set the standard for top tier refractor optics that others desire to attain. As regards the extortionate high price of a Tak, an FC100DF costs around £6 per day over the first year. As the years fly by the Tak price pales into insignificance. Tak are as cheap as chips when viewed as a lifetime investment.

Did you actually buy that scope Paul? I have a lovely vintage 60mm you could have for £40, and it has original moon maps etc in excellent condition. Anyhow, you used to own a beautiful Questar that once belonged to Peter Sellars.

I used to keep copious notes of my observations, but for a long time now I just make annotated sketches. It's rare I'll note anything these days without an accompanying sketch. I find sketches far more pleasant to view than trying to read pages of notes. The object, telescope, magnification, seeing conditions using the Antoniadi scale, and if deep sky, transparency, are always recorded.

I do not believe the UK has "rubbish" skies! Our skies have deteriorated over the last 40 years, of that I'm certain, but we still get excellent seeing and transparency at times. Only a few miles from where I live is a darkish site where ten years ago my friend and I saw M33 with the naked eye. Just a mile away in any direction and you lose that advantage. The point is, there may be sweet spots even close to home, we just need to search them out.

Sorry Stu, I must have got you mixed up with Alan regarding the clouds of Venus. I know you both saw the central rille in your 4" refractors, and Alan did see the subtle Venus clouds. You're right about over emphasising the contrast. Unfortunately its necessary to show all the various subtleties on view, which flicker in and out of view at the eyepiece. Having said that there are occasions when the Martian albedo features really do stand out hard against the colour of the globe. In 2020 that only happened a couple of times for me.

I know you are a keen eyed observer Stu, as you've seen both the Alpine Valley central rille, and the super subtle cloud tops of Venus. Perhaps local seeing may be the deciding factor? I do seem to have steady seeing for planetary much of the time, but also, the sketches represent ten to fifteen minutes of study before all the detail was recorded, so the planet doesn't immediately look like the sketch. Often it can appear bland at first glance. I actually felt that Mars was a bit lacklustre this last apparition, at least for much of the time.

This is brilliant, and a real inspiration to those starting out and worrying about affording or handling a big, cumbersome scope. ☺

Below are two sketches of Mars made on September 27 last year. The top one was as observed through a 200mm F6 (OO) Newtonian, while the bottom sketch was as observed through an FC100DZ. As far as observable detail goes there's little in it, but the view through the refractor was better defined and more aesthetically pleasing. The refractor was also much more comfortable to observe with too, which itself is worth its weight in gold when concentrating on fine or subtle detail.

I'll give you thirty bob for your 128 David! Possibly a tad more if need be!! You know reflectors are best!!!

I think that tells you all you really need to know about how good your optics are. Except its nice to push things into the realms of the rediculous, just for the fun of it, which is what I did with my FC100DZ. While observing a close double using my 1.6mm HR, I wondered how the scope would handle a 2X barlow being thrown into the mix? Honestly, I must have checked I had the 1.6mm HR and not the 3.4mm in the barlow at least three times, as the star images were simply exquisite. In the DZ the 1.6 + 2× barlow gave 1000X, ( the mount was a driven GP). Whats the point other than for fun? Well if a scope gives textbook star images at 500X let alone 1000X, you can be pretty certain its at the top of the hill.

The colour shown in the image of Mars is from the cell phone camera and not the FC100, and the softness is atmospheric. Quite a nice image considering its from a mobile phone and at such magnification.

You need a large reflector so you've something to vent your anger on, and then sell off cheap after you look through a much smaller refractor.

Binoculars are a great way to to learn your way around the night sky. A planisphere is a valuable tool too, as it will show you what constellations are visible above you at any given time, but a good star atlas is worth its weight in gold too. Like you I prefer not to use computers or apps, and over the past 40 years of observing I haven't yet had any need for either. Many deep sky objects are in the grasp of the average pair of binoculars, and if you can mount them on a reasonably solid tripod, you'll have a great time hunting them down. Even the Moon, Venus, Saturn, and Jupiter with its four Galilean moons are also worthy targets through binoculars, as are many brighter comets. The richest field binoculars are 9X60's, so if you can find a pair you'll have a wonderful tool that will last you for a lifetime. I was very lucky when I first started out in astronomy, in that I met an astronomer who used a large pair of Swift 16X70 binoculars as his only instrument. He showed me virtually every Messier object that rose above our horizon, and I rapidly became familiar with the night sky. It was a truly enjoyable experience and the best thing that could have happened. We're still good friends 40 years later. Everything he showed me I also found in my own 12X60's. It was a great way to learn what's hidden in the night sky.

I really like a good plossl in a shorter focal length scope. For my kind of observing its on axis where it really counts, and the humble plossl can offer very sharp on axis performance, performing better than many more expensive complex designs.