mikeDnight

That's a fabulous Photo Nicola, and in that setting your 76mm Tak will have a great chance to strut its stuff. I love the two legged tripod too! 😀 I think you should start a thread about '"showing your scope in a beautiful setting." I bet it would go on for years!

That's a point that can be so easily overlooked, especially when were passionate about a particular telescope. My passion for refractors used to send my late friend Philip nuts. He was passionate about Schmidt Cassegrains, I suppose because somebody has to be. However, when he looked through any of my refractors, it didn't have to be a Tak, he'd end up selling his SCT because it couldn't produce such perfect star images. Then after a while he'd buy another SCT, then sell it, and the vicious circle continued. Eventually he did settle with a very nice Meade 127mm Triplet and discovered he was actually quite a keen eyed planetary observer - something that came late in his life, as he was too caught up in chasing telescopes rather than observing with them. For me, my motivation at the moment is to see as much as I can possibly see through my 100mm refractor, which is probably something that will keep me pleasently occupied for the rest of my life. Meanwhile, the 250mm F6 Dob looks on from the sidelines. My late friend Phil with his 127mm Triplet. A beautiful scope! And my humble little FC100DC and mighty 10" Dob.

This might give you an idea of how brighter DSO's appear through an FC100, when you get dark adapted and really soak up the subtle detail.

I think if I needed to take an FC on a plane, I'd remove the focuser, and if a DC or DF, the dewshield too. It would just mean I'd need to find a suitable cap for the lens cell and open tube.

I'm not a fan of retractable dew shields. If the shield is retracted over a cold wet tube, it can potentially introduce moisture into the lens cell if the shield is capped. So I'll often bring the fully extended DZ back into the house, allowing it to dry off naturally. Retractable shields aren't a game changer for me at least. And even the superb DZ, for me at least, isn't world's apart from any of the other FC's in the series. The best scope out of the bunch will be the one that's used most. They're all brilliant!

The feathertouch is a beautiful addition and no one would criticise you for fitting one to such a beautiful scope. But they aren't cheap, and so if cost is an issue, why not go for the DF with its better focuser over the DC? Still not as good as the feathertouch though, although a feathertouch can be added at any stage when finances allow. To be honest, Takahashi have made an error by using the FC 60 focuser on the DC. It must be an issue they are aware of yet they haven't changed the design. With the DC focuser, if you use all Tak eyepieces you'll have no problems, and that's probably why they leave things as they are. But by shortening the tube and increasing the length of the draw tube, the " in travel" issue would be done away with. As a purely visual observer though, I do find the DF/DZ focuser really quite good, and much nicer than any Crayford i've used. I use mainly 1.25" eyepieces and can attain focus across the entire range from 35mm down to 1.6 mm. Even when using my paired 35mm Eudiascopic/Ultima's in my binoviewer, without barlow or gpc, I can still reach focus. It's worth noting though that the Takahashi 1.25" prism has a significantly shorter light path than the 1.25" Baader prism, and so I'll sometimes need to change to the Tak prism to get the 35mm's to come to focus with my binoviewer. Hope this makes sense!

Don't forget that the FC100D's also have removable extension tubes on their focusers. Tak love to puzzle with their unnecessary engineering, but it does allow a potentially greater focuser/ eyepiece placement than the 2.5" draw tube movement would suggest. The greatest difficulty I found was with the DC focuser, the difficulty being not enough inward focus for some eyepieces with 2" diagonals. But there are ways around such problems.

You wouldn't gain much by unscrewing the DC dew shield, just 3 inches. The FC100D series only have a 95 mm tube diameter because the beautiful lens cell is housed entirely within the dewshield. The DC is a seriously sweet, lightweight refractor.

Sorry about the incorrect auto correct. I meant "more icey view." I'd just like to add that the FC's, despite being 100mm aperture, make great grab and go scopes.

First, the sliding dew shield of the DZ only slides by 80mm, so not really a deal breaker in my opinion. Despite being F8, the DZ can be compacted down to 58.5cm with the dewshield retracted and the extension tubes fully removed. Is that enough to warrant paying the extra? Optically the DZ is simply gorgeous and could quickly win your heart. But I've also had the DC version, which proved to be my most used scope out of the 41 years I've been observing. The DC, which is optically identical to the DF is equally as much a jewel in the hands of a visual observer as the DZ, again IMO. I found the DC to offer vibrant views of planetary detail, especially Jupiter and Mars. The Moon will stun you! The DZ by comparison seems to offer a slightly cooler, more Icey view, if that appeals to you as it does to me, and is similar to the DL, or older Vixen FL102. Bottom line is that all are top class refractors that will give you textbook star images upto 500X on a top class night. DSO's are unusually bright in these fluorite doublets too. The DC will take 2" eyepieces with a 2" adapter, but the focuser travel is only about 38mm. The DF would be a better option if you could afford the extra. But is the DZ worth the extra? Having owned both, I really wouldn't lose sleep over the difference between the three. Below my DC Focuser Below my DZ Focuser.

I use Caloclean solvent free spay and Caloclean cleaning cloth. Available from your local optician and used not only for spectacles, but also for high quality camera lenses. I've used it to clean my Takahashi objective since 2015 and its superb. After blowing off any dust with a rubber bulb blower, spray onto the cloth and not directly onto the lens. Sometimes just breathing on the lens and wiping carefully and lightly with the Calocloth is sufficient. Not too expensive either! Lasts for years!!

Barbapapa - that's a blast from the past. It must be at least 45 years ago since I watched that. Nice moon pic! ☺

The flashing of Sirius can be due to atmospheric turbulence, or residual heat inside the refractor tube. Sirius will rarely ever appear stable because of its low angle.

It's amazing how the amount we see varies such a lot across the UK. I've never observed from SW Ireland, but as I like Guinness and have never met an Irishman I didn't like, I wouldn't mind giving it a go. I never gave much thought to Ursa Minor being a challenging constellation. Even though I live under less than perfect skies, I can see it on any clear night. And so I really do feel for any astronomy enthusiast who has a battle to see the night sky. Back in 2007 I spent a weekend at Prestonmontford as a guest speaker for the SPA. It was purported to be a dark sky site! There was a lot of cloud that weekend, but on the saturday night i managed to catch site of comet Bradfield (i think?), while using an FS102 and a 31mm Nagler. I remember sitting alone as everybody else crowded around a big and imposing Newtonian. Even though I called to say the comet was on view in my scope, only two out of around thirty people bothered to come and look. Those around the Newtonian couldn't even find the comet, and even if they had, it wouldn't have looked nearly as spectacular. Anyhow, on returning home and while driving east along the M65, I suddenly realised just how black my local skies are. Ever since, I've always tried to look positively at my site, as even though it has deteriorated over the last 40 years, it could always be a heck of a lot worse. I think that if i lived in or around a large city, I'd build myself a domed observatory, so that i could at least attain some measure of dark adaption, and make the most of a bad job.

Superb pic's Paul. You're becoming a proper little imager! ☺ The Luna X is looking good, but if you're up for the challenge of finding the rest of the lunar alphabet, I'll pay for the Indian Takeaway of your choice to be delivered to your door. Your refractor really does perform well, and to know that those superb pic's won't be as sharp or as spectacular as the view through the telescope, shows how great a scope your Technosky really is. And to think the currier, on delivery, left your scope in the wheelibin! 😲

As John mentioned, I did have a Hercules Helix fork mount which I felt was extremely good. It was mounted on a solid, tubular steel tripod, and would easily hold a 5" refractor. After setting the tension and balance correctly, the mount would glide quite easily with a gentle push. It had a rapid damping time too, which for the Hercules was under 3 seconds. The Technosky fork you linked appears weak to me, in that it has only a small azimuth bearing, and looking at the altitude bearings, you'll notice they are small and shallow. They should be in line with the central point of the tube assembly. With the Hercules Helix they were adjustable so as to fit various tube diameters. The fork you linked might be very good for binoculars though. Also, like most observers who have had experienced the Gibraltar mount, I find it very disappointing. I'm not a fan of gyro style mounts that require any form of counter balance. Unfortunately theres not a lot of choice on the market, and if i could find a solidly built true fork mount with slow motion controls that was readily available, I'd probably go for one. It's almost as if the altazimuth mount is looked down upon by manufacturers as being not such a serious mount. There are some worthy contenders that come under the serious category, but they are not forks. ( I'd just like to add that there's no such thing as a single armed fork mount. To be a fork it needs two arms). Rowan produce a beautiful looking mount, but you've to buy essential extras to get the thing up and running. Losmandy offer the AZ8, which comes complete for less than the Rowan. Then there's the T-Rex, which is sadly nolonger available new. Other than that, I really can't think of anything that grabs my attention. My trusty Hercules Helix fork mount.

Hi Stu, It's not really that crazy to use a 3" ish refractor for planetary observing, and when its a good one such as the 73mm you're considering, then that's even better. A 73mm will show you the phases of Venus and if your eyes are sensitive to it, hints of the cloud tops. It will show you the belts on Jupiter along with more pronounced detail, the red spot hollow and with good seeing the red spot itself. You'll also see shadow transits. Cassini's division is within the grasp of a good small refractor such as the 73mm, and albedo features on the surface of Mars are observable too. The real awesomeness of such a scope though will be seen when you turn it on the Moon. Id often take my 80mm Equinox out for just a quick look before bed, and find myself still sat on a hoarfrost covered garden bench an hour later. With a binoviewer, barlow, and a couple good 18mm ortho's or plossles, you'll find it hard to turn your eyes away! DSO's are of course limited, but still very enjoyable, especially clusters and rich star fields. It's a great move you're making and I doubt you'll have any regrets.

You have sound reasoning! When I started out in this hobby four decades ago, most people were lucky to have three good eyepieces. These were usually Kelners, Plossl's or Orthoscopic's. Al Nagler was just beginning to influence the astronomy world back then, and I knew no-one who could afford one of his eyepieces. Today of course, many observers have cases full of different types of eyepiece for different purposes. I've done that myself over the years, but found that I would generally return again and again to three or four special ones. One that really proved very special was my 20mm Nagler. That eyepiece was a perfect deep sky match for a 4" or 5" refractor.

I used an Equinox 120ED for many years with a revelation binoviewer, 2" low profile mirror diagonal, and 2X SW Delux barlow. I had no focusing issues. A terrific combination! Although the image below doesn't show the binoviewer, it does show the low profile diagonal, where the 2" to 1.25" adapter sits low inside the 2" diagonal. May be this would give ant extra inward focus needed? Another thing that can allow more inward focus is this genius adapter from Skywatcher, also available under other brand names. It sits flush with the surface of the 2" diagonal and holds the eyepiece or binoviewer solidly in any position.

There's still room for one more eyepiece - a 17.5mm Morpheus. You'll love it! But be careful, as you might end up replacing your 13mm Nagler with the Morpheus 12.5. They are a thing of beauty!

Here are some old cartoons used in Unitron advertisements back in the 1950's. For me they sum up the beauty and comfort of observing through a good refractor. Of course after John Dobson created his plywood box to mount a Newtonian in, things did become more manouverable, but not necessarily better for the reflector user. Equatorial mounts are still wonderful things when observing at high power, but with a Newtonian, rotating tube rings can be a blessing. I still love a nice equatorial even with a Newtonian.

Baader Morpheus are excellent eyepieces that play well with Tak. And they use safety curfs instead of undercuts, and so fit the Tak prism without any snagging. High optical quality with a large eye lens and 76° apparent field make it superbly comfortable.

Stick with what works best for you. If you're comfortable you'll see more, but if you're fighting with the instrument, your heart won't be in your observing. I'm of the opposite view point, in that I find refractors to be much easier and more comfortable than a Dob. I find Dob's play havoc with my back and the eyepiece is never in a truly comfortable position, but with a refractor its the easiest thing in the world to angle the diagonal for a really comfortable view.

I decided on the Tak prism after reading a review of diagonals by Bill Paolini on Cloudy Nights. The views through the Tak prism never failed to impress me, with the only drawback being the Tak locking ring vs deep eyepiece undercuts. Like oil & water! The Tak prism has a very short light path and is quite well suited to the DC with its limited travel focuser. After buying a DZ I decided to treat it to an even better prism, the 1.25" Baader Zeiss BBHS with helical eyepiece holder for fine focus. It's superb, but has a longer light path than the Tak prism. Also, although in daytime use the BBHS does have an edge in sharpness when looking at distant objects through double glazing, on the night sky I honestly can't see an ounce of difference between the two diagonals. I decided on the prism because of it having less scatter than a mirror, and all the light entering the prism also leaves it, so it's very bright. I've seen some very faint DSO's through the DC while using the Tak prism. It's also only a fraction of the price of the Baader and so is real value for money. I suspect there will only be a hairs breadth of difference, possibly imperceptible by the majority of observers, between a good prism and a good mirror diagonal, so I'd say whichever you think you'll prefer, just pick a good one.

It's likely nothing that Marvin with his grease gun couldn't solve!