mikeDnight

Ask the Great T and cross his Palm with silver!

The Pentax XW eyepieces have shallow undercuts and work well with the Tak prism. XW's IMHO are some of the finest eyepieces available. Another excellent choice would be the Baader Morpheus. Televue are great too, but I really hate their undercuts! The Baader Hyperion is a good eyepiece too, and not as pricey. Or, if you're a moon and planet nut, a binoviewer with a 2X barlow and a pair of 25mm and 18 or 16mm orthoscopics will thrill you like nothing else!

That's a great post Damian, and an experience you'll no doubt remember vividly for the rest of your life. What a pity we don't have a shop in quite the same league in this country.

Hi Chris, If finances allow, I think you should go for the FC100DC. It is remarkably lightweight and an absolute joy to use. As 4" refractors go, you'll be hard pushed to find anything on the market that is better visually. I could, and have, waxed lyrical about this amazing refractor in the past, but for the sake of my fellow SGLers sanity I'll keep it short. The DC is bright, vibrant and powerful, and is a terrific all round performer that is a good choice as an only scope. If you want to cut the over all cost, its worth knowing that a Skywatcher 1.25" steel tripod would carry this scope very solidly, and is a much cheaper option than a Berlebach. To illustrate the physical size of the FC100DC, I've attached a pic of myself stood alongside mine. I'm 6 ft 1" tall, so you can see the scope is quite small. In my case, I can carry the entire scope, AZ4 mount and tripod with one hand. Of course, the tripod can be lowered so as to occupy less floor space in the dinning room. Any Takahashi telescope will hold its price well as regards resale value. And although they are viewed as pricey, if you look at the over all cost compared to other hobbies, the outlay soon pales into insignificance over time. For example, 20 years ago, a friend told me he paid £1000 per year to be a member of a local golf club, and a further £15 for each game he wanted to play. With the Tak its a one off payment and you're a member of the Tak owners club for life.

Don't stop using SGT Carl, cos you and me know that you can't beat a 4" refractor. 😂😈

I appreciate what youre saying, and that 176X may technically be higher than is needed, but I've always found around 180X works well on planets irrespective of aperture. I feel the left hand image to be a view on a mediocre night, while the sharper right hand image is much more in line with the 4" Apo view. Having said that, visually through the 4" the edges of the belts differ from those in an image, and are less colourful.

Objective measurement is really the way to go! Of course I'm not really trying to say a 4" apo is a better telescope than a 12", but its images can be so pleasingly sharp, it can give seriously impressive views to anyone who carefully studies the detail on show. Hence the the often stated claim "packs a punch greater than its aperture class"! But then there are a number of other variables - the studious nature, patience and visual acuity of the observer.

Well, after looking at the four images of Jupiter posted above, I have to say that if my 4" refractor gave an image like the supposed 4" refractor above, I'd give up on planetary observing. The views of Jupiter when its high in the sky are much more like the bottom two images, but with less vivid colours.

I'm on my way Gerry. Swimming was the only sport I was ever any good at. Plus it's a win win with a 15" and a TSA120 to play with. ☺

All I need is an Ant' 1 night with good transparency to tell which is the better scope. Not a graph or Strehl claim in sight!

Oh you are a trouble maker Jeremy! 😈😂😂

That is true about the spreader being an irritation. Often, when using my 2" steel tripod with my Eqionox 120ED, I wouldn't use the spreader at all. Once the legs were open they were very secure, and I never had a problem with ridgidity. I've just cropped the above pic's again, showing the lack of spreader on my tripod. Even when at its lowest setting it was very stable.

It's a Japanese made, tall Vixen tripod, which has a more substantial build and wider spread than the aluminium tripods from Skywatcher. Also, all the components are metal, where as the recent Chinese version uses plastic which is a weak point and can split when tightened. I think the tubular steel Skywatcher tripods are very solid, so perhaps your love key looking scope and mount would benefit from the 1.25" steel tripod, which should still give you a relatively lightweight grab and go set-up. Or you could stick a wanted add on SGL or Astro Buy & Sell for a tall aluminium Vixen tripod.

Well, I suppose it depends on your definition of grab and go! From my point of view, the 120ED pro is a grab & go scope, as its relatively lightweight and doesn't need a hefty mount. An AZ4 would carry one as would a standard EQ5. And its a great all round scope that can give breathtaking views of rich star fields and nebulae, while at the other extreme can pack a hell of a punch on the Moon and planets, and double stars. It really is a class act that could probably keep you happy for a lifetime.

Hi Duncan, The 80ED Pro is a very nice scope for visual, but the 100ED is better, while the 120ED better still, especially for DSO's. Trying to go down the visual and imaging route might mess with your head. The 80ED would make a good imaging instrument for DSO's, while at the same time acting as a good general grab and go visual scope. The 100ED is a bit on the long side to act as a wide field imaging scope and is better suited to visual, but it can still be used to image.

Personally i think there will be greater differences brought about by seeing conditions and experience than by diagonal choice. A good observer will see more using a £99 mirror diagonal than a less experienced observer would from a £500 prism. That's the reality, as the greatest variable is the observer himself. The same applies to eyepieces and even to telescopes. W. F. Denning in his book Telescopic Work for Starlight Evenings notes " What one man sees through a 5 inch glass, another man needs a 10 inch." Of course that's not to say that one diagonal isn't technically better than another. Sometimes an experienced observer can fine tune his already superb optic by buying a high end eyepiece or diagonal, but not everyone could see the advantage.

I did use a Tak FC100DC F7.4 quite effectively on an Skywatcher AZ5, and my friend used a FC100DL F9 on one too. I think that on your existing tripod you'll be ok. The weak point as with most mounts is the tripod. Below are my FC100DC F7.4 on its AZ5, followed by my friend paulastro standing alongside his FC100DL F9, also on an AZ5. (However, I'd just like to add that the AZ4 is more solid, but without slow motion controls).

I'm mainly a lunar and planetary observer, and although I've used many mirror diagonals over the years, for five years I used a relatively cheap Takahashi 1.25" prism diagonal. In my 100mm F7.4 Tak, there was no visible colour on the lunar limb and the planet's were vibrant and alive. So you don't need to empty the bank to get a good prism for planetary. Even on the Tak Sky 90 the Tak prism works beautifully, and although there may be some CA at F5.6, its not obvious, and views are razor sharp with no noticeable scatter. When I bought a FC100DZ, I treat it to a BBHS prism, which is exquisite. It also works perfectly well on SW 100ED &120ED's.

Its a Skywatcher Equinox 120ED, mounted on a Hercules Helix altazimuth fork. A great scope and great mount!

I enjoy using altazimuth mounts for visual, as they are naturally intuitive, and for general sweeping up of dso's or general tourism they work very well. But for prolonged high power observing an EQ is my prefered choice, especially if it has a drive in RA, as it allows me hands free observing so I can fully relax and sketch what I see in detail. I can also leave everything running, go inside and get warm or have a brew, then on returning to the eyepiece, The target is still in the field of view. Of course I can, and have, observed and sketched at high power using an AZ mount, its just I personally prefer an equatorial. I know many love Dobsonian telescopes, but I prefer the Newtonian on an EQ if I were to use one, which is rare.

I have to say I really liked the starbeam on my NP101. The flip mirror may seem like a gimmick, but in use, to see a constellation in the mirror with the red dot superimposed showing you exactly where you're aiming, was a real pleasure. I agree its over priced, but that's Televue to the core, everything is twice its actual worth. At the other extreme is the Telrad. A terrific finder, but cheap and nasty, and as ugly as sin.

An SW EQ5 would do the job very nicely, and can use goto if required.

Pineapples are the answer to no more floaters!

Yep, I know it sounds strange, but you haven't met my friends - yet! 😨