Highburymark

Or Ian King who works/worked with FLO?

Unlike some other American astro products, which are significantly more expensive in the UK/Europe than the States, I notice that Feathertouch prices over the pond are almost as high as here. $600-$650 for a basic 2” Crayford and then another $150 for an adapter, direct from the factory. So maybe $200 less than here, but in the same ballpark. Doesn’t make the price any more digestible, but at least they’re reasonably consistent. Nevertheless, with FT crayfords on sale here for £950, you can buy an excellent 4”, FPL-53 apo refractor (with a great focuser according to Mr Spock above) for less than an FT focuser - that’s just bonkers.

I should add Alan that it was the old model Steeltrack I had, built for Newtonians but it also fitted a Lunt solar scope I had, and I got it at a very cheap price when the new one was launched. I am sure the new ones are very good. I should have made that clear.

I love them too - but as reflected above they are not easy to find new these days, and there’s a big backlog at the factory. Then there’s the cost - it’s really worth shopping around, as at some outlets even the 2” Crayfords are almost £1k, as John pointed out. A ridiculous price. The two I bought 4-5 years ago for a Lunt 60 and an FC-100DC were about £400 each, so they have shot up. It’s often the adapters that hike the price. But they turn refractors into Rolls-Royces. The rack and pinions are just as smooth - the FT3035 fitted to my TSA-120 is superb, carrying heavy binoviewers without breaking sweat. But now that Moonlite has stopped making manual focusers, we could do with another top class source. The Baader Steeltrack I had was disappointing in comparison.

I have the ED 1.5x which is made for the TSAs and FSQs. Again, optically excellent. But I also very highly rate the 4x Powermate, which I use all the time with my binoviewers and specialist Leica and Zeiss 25mm microscope eyepieces. These are the brightest and sharpest eyepieces I own, so magnifying them four times for lunar and planet work is a pretty good test of a barlow/extender - a test the PM4x passes with distinction. This gives me 144x in my 120mm refractor. Sometimes I use both the 1.5x ED and the PM4x together for 216x.

Superb - sounds like a great first session.

I’ve been toying with idea of trading in my one very wide binoviewing pair (Morpheus 12.5mm) for a pair of Delos 14mm. Mostly used for solar Ha, the Morpheus pair are incredible for showing a full solar disc at around 125x, but my Delite pairs are a noticeable step up in sharpness. On the Moon, the difference between them is closer. The Morpheus are excellent all-rounders though, and terrific value at the moment in the U.K. - £180 or so.

We’ll need a report sooner than that I’m afraid 😄 An interesting contest. Personally I love the Delos and Delites. I do think they have the edge over most other medium widefields in sharpness. But I thought the 11mm T6 Nagler came very close - never tried a 13mm.

I don’t see why not. It might even be more effective at managing heat issues. But as always with technical solar questions on a public forum I will happily admit my lack of expertise and advise checking with the manufacturer. You’ve certainly got some amazing options for solar now Stu - looking forward to hearing about the bigger scope that Peter built.

Glad there’s some progress. I’d absolutely agree that it’s not needed at higher magnifications with binoviewers.

I thought it was definitely better than previous polarising set ups I tried Paz, but I never found them effective before. I notice a couple of posters on CN have reported no improvement, so no guarantees!

All prism binoviewers are polarised to some degree, so I remember the same issue cropping up with Quarks and binoviewers Stu - the Quark has internal polarisers. I think rotating the Quark itself tended to equalise the brightness through each channel - at least to a level where the brain compensated and views were decent. I’d be surprised if something similar isn’t possible with the new wedge as a lot of people prefer to binoview white light, and both the current Baader BVs on sale show quite strong polarisation. Worth checking the manual, even if it means brushing up on your German. Otherwise, a mirrored binoviewer would obviously solve the problem 💰💰💰

One caveat - isn’t the fluorite element at the front with the FS-128? I’m no expert but it’s worth checking with Tak that it’s safe for WL.

I’d definitely use the 128 for white light Stu, though I’ve found I have fewer satisfying sessions with the TSA-120 than my old 100 DC because of sensitivity to seeing. But of course in good seeing the resolution is even better with the bigger scope. The double polariser on top of the eyepiece idea was linked to an academic study suggesting they could work better at the end of the chain. You do need two filters per eyepiece, as the light isn’t polarised with my set up at least. The CN poster said he was getting spectacular results with a Quark through this technique. My own earlier experiences with polarising Ha have been disappointing, but this time I did see a difference - not that it turned a double stacked scope into a triple stacked-type view, but it does replicate the ‘thin cloud’ effect that we see so often with Ha and referenced above - improved background contrast of the orange peel surface. As you say Stu, it’s useful with long eye relief EPs like the TV 32s, but problematic with shorter ER eyepieces, and high powers when the view can also get too dim (certainly with binoviewers). So I’d recommend trying it - polarisers can be bought very cheaply - but not to expect anything transformational. The issue with the new Continuum filter is that in a well corrected telescope, 10nm or 7nm should make no difference. It may have an advantage in scopes with poor CA control. There’s a thread on Solarchat about it titled ‘Baader new 7.5nm continuum marketing guff’ (!) which assesses the effects of spectral lines at narrower bandpaths. The author of the amazing Solar Astronomy book suggests that an Oiii filter may be more effective. Having said all that, the three or four reports I’ve seen from 7.5nm owners have all been positive - with particularly good granulation. So who knows?

Wow - congrats Stu and Mike. Are you both keeping your FC-100s?

Lovely Stu. Really hope it delivers. Bet someone at the printers copped it from Baader HQ when that consignment of manuals first arrived 🤬 I’ve been playing around with an alternative polarising option with my Ha scope and binoviewers. This followed a thread on CN which suggested two polarising filters on top of the eyepieces produced good results (for Ha that is). I’ve never been impressed with polarisers for any solar viewing, but I concocted makeshift adapters for my TV 32mm Plossls (see pics) as I had a few polarisers lying around, and I must say it does highlight background Ha surface detail slightly better. Back to WL - it will be interesting to hear how the new Continuum performs. Perhaps it might show more of a difference on faster scopes (your Vixen?) or achromats than the FC-100? Look forward to hearing your views.

Alongside my artificial star and squared paper targets I have pieces of tree bark and (Moroccan) banknotes, which are a useful way to compare contrast and sharpness. If you really want to make it exciting, you can hunt for tiny, deliberate misprints on banknotes which are often used to discourage forgeries. Just remember, the weather here in the UK is often very bad for long periods - we need these little diversions.

Have you tried asking for the views of members on Solarchat Pete? Obviously the etalon is still contacted. Would be very interesting to see how it performed double stacked.

Sorry - I meant Solarmax II All great points! Having come from a Solarscope 50 originally, you are probably used to great views. I wonder if a new Solarscope 50 or 60 might also be within your price range? Or could you trade in the old 50mm etalon? Just a thought.

The Coronado etalons are more variable than the Lunts, so it’s more of a gamble whether you’ll get a really good scope. That is reflected in the pricing, though Lunts have gone up significantly in recent years. The Solarview II scopes currently available are likely to be old stock - at least that’s what the good people on Solarchat seemed to think. If you can possibly try the Coronado before buying, that will at least take much of the risk out of the process. Otherwise, I’d definitely go for the Lunt.

The Borg is F/6.4 - in retrospect probably too fast to be my main telescope, as I mostly use it for Sun, Moon and planets. But it shows what’s possible in terms of weight - it’s roughly half as heavy as most modern 5” refractors.

I’m pretty sure they’re the same eyepieces. They’re not priced sufficiently cheaply to suggest they are any different. I know people who have them and are happy with them.

I should qualify that second line. A few months ago I picked up a couple of Morpheus 12.5mm from the classifieds to see how they performed, and have only used them a couple of times at night - and they gave lovely views of the Moon, very close to Delites. In a solar Ha telescope, however, the Delite 11s are definitely sharper (though not nearly as impressive with a 16 degree narrower AFOV). At current prices the Morpheus are a bargain.

Yes, Morpheus are very nice, modern widefields. In my view not quite as sharp as Delites, but almost. But in an F/10 SCT, I found the Hyperions to perform surprisingly well. I thought the 10mm was particularly good. In a slow telescope (F10 and higher), the Hyperions are real contenders.

Excellent - it’s a really good quality ERF, better than some others on the market, so should work well. Very exciting.