Paz

I can't comment on variations in scope quality but owning a C8 I can say it relies on good conditions, being cooled down, and being collimated. Occasionally I've had some great views but more often it's disappointing. (I'm visual only).

I'm content with my lot really, the only additional scope I might consider is a dedicated solar Ha scope but that may never happen as I'm doing ok with a quark.

Another potential development for me is night vision instead of more aperture, but that is unlikely unless the costs come down.

Sometimes I fantasise about trading up to the very best scopes but I don't think my eyesight is good enough to warrant it.

I'd probably keep my 5" refractor out of my current scopes and then step down to a 4" if/when circumstances require it. ... but if I could only have one scope it probably would not be any of what I have currently...  I'd be very tempted to go for a 10" dobsonian. 

I've got a few...

ST120 Refractor - with lighter tube rings and a dual speed focuser. I had innumerable good times with this in my early years of observing and on all kinds of targets. Simple, built like a tank, and great value for money.

MC127 Maksutov - the other scope I started out with and used a lot in my early years. Great scope but 4" and 5" refractors have seen more use since I have had those.

ST80 - very light for the aperture but I don't use it much now as my one doesn't have good facilities to put finders on it.

VX14 - my favourite scope.

C8 - This often disappoints due to conditions and my laziness in not putting it out to cool properly or not bothering to perfect the collimation,  but now and again it delivers an amazing view and I then feel guilty about how badly I treat it.

Altair 102ED f7 refractor - became my most used scope by far once I had this.

TS 72ED f6 refractor - use only  for travel really as I am not a fan of small apertures.

Stella Mira 125ED f7.8 - my most used scope since it arrived.

Really I could get by with the 72mm and 125mm refractors plus the VX14,  but I don't think I would now want to part with the ST120 for sentimental reasons.

I would not find it easy to say a best scope but I can say the following...

Best view of Venus... a draw between C8 and 102mm f7 refractor(!l). This was during a spring / evening season experimenting with observing in broad daylight with very strong dimming.

Best view of Mars.... not sure, I've never had any view of Mars I would call epic partly as I've never had many good opportunities to get used to observing it when it is close.

Best view of Jupiyer.... VX14, one evening still in dayligjt/twilight I guess the wobbly stack all lined up for.once, the seeing, scope cooling, planet altitude, collimation etc. Shockingly good views I have to say, the best view of any planet I've ever had and I still think about it years later. I was (selfishly) annoyed at the time by neighbours choosing that session to come over and have  a look and chat which meant less time for me at the eyepiece, I said how amazing the view was but no-one really appreciated it. I guess you have to experience the bad times in order to appreciate the good ones.

I do sketches now and again, not to have a nice sketch but more because the process of sketching makes me see more.

I have an A5 pad and a single HB pencil/rubber and that's my lot.

The other aspect of my sketching set up is that I have to be using a tracking mount and I have to have my observing chair otherwise I find it too difficult.

I don't observe late in the night, and I observe all year round. The sun, moon, and planets are all good daytime targets.

Then there are many double stars, showcase DSOs, asteroids, etc doable without needing dark skies or late nights.

Assuming £2k for the LZOs id a good price, its only a good thing if you actually want one.

I agree with John's comment re what is the aim of having a SM125 and would the LZOs do better.

The SM125 does well in terms of price, weight, aperture, cool down, and quality.

I'm sure the LZOs is better quality but aperture counts for a lot also. I admit, if I was going to go for a top of the range 4" for visual I'd go for a doublet e.g. a  Tak[censored]i and just wait for one to come along second hand. You would have epic quality and even less weight and faster cool down etc.

I have a SM125 and a C8 and I think they cover different bases so having one doesnt make the other redundant, but a 4" is even further from a C8 so there's less risk of those scopes  competing for attention.

1 hour ago, Franklin said:

The only problem with the SLV range is that there are just too many of them and some of them are too close together. Why Vixen dropped the 18mm and the 7mm from the original LV range is beyond me. I had a full set of SLV's at one time but found I really only used the 25mm, 12mm, 9mm, 6mm and 4mm, with the 2.5mm being an optimistic option as mentioned above.

I have the pairs at 20/15/10 for use with high magnifications barlows and glass path correctors which for example at 2.6x makes them equivalent to 7.7/5.8/3.8mm.

2 hours ago, Louis D said:

Do you find that the 6, 5, 4, and 2.5 are all actually 45° like the original LVs instead of the claimed 50°?  I've read many conflicting accounts.

I remember reading about this at the time I was researching eyepieces but I can't remember if I did a test myself when I first got them. I do know I've got them set up in sky safari as 45 degrees, that might be me that added them in as that or that might be the stock eyepiece defaults in sky safari.

I have a set of SLVs as my light let up, currently 25, 20, 15, 10, 6, 4, 2.5, including binoviewing pairs at 20, 15, and 10.

I've also got a 5 but that's on long term loan out.

I think they are great and I got on to these due to needing more eye relief.

I sometimes thing about swapping out the 10s and getting 12s and 9s for better intervals, but I continue to procrastinate about it.

That beats anything I've seen in a second hand store!

It costs a lot but I bet for anyone who knows their books these kind of things have got the potential to earn money as an investment.

I read the astro physics guide to cleaning in my formative years and they advocate the following...

1. Blowing with air to get rid of anything not stuck to the lense.

2. Brushing lightly  to get rid of anything lightly stuck.

3. Baader Optical Wonder Fluid to get most things off.

4. Acetone or your breath to clean off baader fluid streaks.

5. Saliva to get rid of super tough atmospheric contaminants... but the saliva then needs to be cleaned off fairly quickly.

However, lense licking fetishists will be disappointed to hear that the recommended method is saliva on a fingertip, not licking lenses directly.

https://astro-physics.info/tech_support/accessories/cleaningproducts/optcs-instructions.pdf

Could this where the lense-licking folk lore originates from?

I think cleaning is a very personal thing, my take on the above options is...

Blowing 😇

Brushing 😬

Baader Fluid 😇

Breathing 🤔 yes but very lightly to avoid giblets on my surfaces

Acetone 😬

Saliva 🫣

I've not had a Dob with built in goto or tracking but I do use an equatorial platform with my dobsonian for tracking sometimes.

I'll use it when viewing things at higher magnifications in the faster parts of the sky and it makes observing much easier amd more enjoyable and I'll see more because I can concentrate more.

However it is another contraption to manage so I don't use it unless the targets mean it is worthwhile.

If I was getting a dobsonian now I'd be content with just having a tracking facility.

I mostly lurked on CN initially and as a result built up completely unreasonable expectations based on posts about huge scopes and epic skies, but I never really had the courage to post there.

I then spent more time lurking over here and eventually joined and started posting.

I don't have much in the way of confidence or interpersonal skills when it comes to people , and in real life I would not presume that anyone wants to hear anything I have to say, but on SGL people treat each other as equals and the standard of conduct is by far the highest of any internet community I've observed, so I am happy to participate here. I'm a member of many forums covering a number of hobbies and areas of interest but I just read and don't post. This is the only forum I am confident to post on.

In real life I don't talk about astronomy unless I'm asked, which doesn't happen.

We all don't know each other personally but it is nice to see posts by familiar forum members and as odd as it may seem, I notice when people drop off the forum and don't post for a while or sometimes stop posting and move on to other things completely, and from time to time I'll wonder how they are getting on, which is kind of a marker of what the forum can mean.

You could try them and you can decide if they meet your standards. If not you can tell them that on this occasion they have not been successful!

That looks tough, I've not clocked anything that close myself, but it's now on my hit list to try because why not.

I have a 14"" but I think this will also need good seeing, good eyesight, and good technique, which doesnt bode well for me!

I still do the lense / mirror cover left on thing, that one never gets old!

Glass path corrector are also a common source of my observing fails. I may be observing cyclops and there's still a gpc hidden somewhere in the optical path that I forgot was there, or I'm binoviweing and I find out the gpc in place isn't the one I thought it was etc etc.

On 24/01/2024 at 09:09, AlcorAlly said:

How does the eye/brain know when to perceive an object at infinity? From what I've read, the determining signal is the convergence of the two eyes. But when looking through a telescope the projected image on a focal plane is at physical proximity with the eye. Why does the eye lens still relax? 

The link @andrew s shared explains some of it but I still don't fully understand what triggers the lens in the eye to "perceive" a telescope's projection as an image at infinity, despite the physical proximity of the image plane. 

How it feels to my eye/eyes trying to look at something focused too far away feels different to trying to focus on something too close. When I'm focusing I'm half thinking does it look in focus and I'm half thinking does my eye feel relaxed. On very dim objects I will be thinking more about if my eye feels relaxed to establish focus.

Sometimes I get better results if I'm focused very slightly inside of infinity. I can tell my eye is not completely relaxed  but only very slightly so.

How about a rebrand to spacecadetslounge?

That has a ring to it!

With the tag line... "be warned all who enter here, full nerdity abounds..".

Only 3 for me this January which is quite low. One solar session, one planetary, and one lunar. There have been a lot more opportunities than that but opportunities have to align with not having to other things.

2023 was 5

2022 was 11

2021 was 7

2020 was 8

2019 was 2

My notes go back to 2013 but I only have the above to refer to at the moment. 

My busiest months for observing are in the summer due to warm nights and having more time and energy to actually do some observing.

Yes a UHC filter will help with observing all those nebulae and is a good all rounder nebula filter.

You can get more specialist filters that will do better in certain circumstances, which many obervers have, but then you are getting into choices with diminishing returns.

I don't have much I regret buying because I tend to research things to death and then  procrastinate about it and think it around again  and again. So when I eventually buy things they tend to do or achieve what I expected.

My problem is opportunities missed on the second hand circuit because of the above characteristics.

2 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

He's probably head in hands at the moment, worrying, and asking himself how on earth he's going to sneak his impulsive purchase past the wife.

I wonder how many people would have snapped up this scope but had to pass for this reason? 🤪

I think a 5" mak would be disappointing compared to those dobs, in terms of the increase in the workload of owning and having to manage more scopes oitstripping the increase in observing opportunities.

I wonder if an equatorial platform for the dobs would be an option. That would mean tracking ability without compromising on aperture, retaining the simplicity of alt/az for manually finding things, and retaining a smaller and easier to manage slection of scopes.

I realise advising anyone to have less scopes rather than more is a bit seditious - sorry everybody!

...but if have money to spend on a scope and nothing to lose, I would say a 102mm refractor would be more complimentary to the dobs in that it would give you a broader span of observing options to choose from  overall.