Paz

I've had a few outings recently where I've set up on a half chance hoping it may turn out ok, given thats the only way to have some chance of observing rather than none at the moment... and then watch as the clouds double down and I realise I've set up for nothing!

The SM125mm does go deeper than the 102mm refractor on DSOs. I didn't measure it empirically but I would describe the improvement as obvious but not epic. I think a bigger jump in aperture would be necessary for the difference to be epic. I also have the 120/600 f5 achromat and still use it from time to time but I use the 102mm f7 more because the quality-to-effort ratio is better and because the 102mm f7 is a more general purpose scope. I found the 120/600 does better on dark extended objects at low magnifications, but on less extended targets, and targets that resolve into stars and bright targets and as magnigication goes up the 102edr catches up and pulls ahead. I haven't looked through a 152mm achromat to be able to compare it to a 125mm apochromat. If weight is not an issue and only observing DSOs at low magnifications is the task then it sounds like a bit of a conundrum as to which to go for. One thing I would say is to check if the 152mm can use binoviewers without having to barlow it. You can shorten the ota on the TS Optics125mm scope for binoviewing at low magnifications, but if the 152mm has to have some barlowing, then you may find that (for binoviewing at least) you can't get the lowest magnifications in the 152mm scope. It's difficult as all those scopes are good for their design purposes, it's just making choices about which compromises you give and take on.

A dew shield extending from the front of the ota till help a little, plus any material you might be able to add to the back of the secondary to insulate it from losing heat to the sky, and capping the top of the ota if you have any gaps/rests bewltween observing things will help. I think insulating the tube should help in theory but that's not something I've tried.

I used to use a voice recorder to have a more accurate record and would listen to it and write up my notes from the recording. That recorder eventually broke and I didn't replace it but recently I used the voice recorder in my phone and that went very well. I think I will try that some more or buy another dedicated voice recorder and go back to that method. I always write up my sessions, it is a drag sometimes but I seem to be obsessed with sticking to the habit. Being able to read back through them is great and it's funny that they are completely focused on astronomy. My written astronomy diary goes back many years, but you would not be able to tell anything about what happened in the world or in my life, only what I saw and what kit I used, and if anyone else observed with me they get the honour of a name check!

I think how people enjoy hobbies is a very personal thing by which I mean what you enjoy matters more than how many other people enjoy it. I enjoy visual observing but I hardly know anyone else who does. Things will constantly move on, and soon enough the activities that we enjoy will be superceeded and forgotten, but I would guess/hope that people will have even more choices available to them in the future, and that for every thing that might get worse (e.g. weather) something else will come up that is better (e.g. space tourism).

This is a good point I did not know, there are things like this to look out for. All other things being equal slower final focal ratios enable smaller central obstructions to be possible and if going for a Maksutov I would recommend f15 or slower. Skywatcher do some Maksutovs which are faster which isn't a bad thing, it is just making different choices about trade offs. The main thing though is aperture, a 150mm maksutov and 150mm CC are in the same ballpark either would be winning.

I would vote for the larger aperture first of all, it will suffer from poor seeing but seeing comes and goes and can be managed to some extent, a small scope can't ever increase its aperture and resolving power. If it is just for planets and lunar I would vote for the maksutov due to the small central obstruction and no spider vanes, but I agree with the comments about getting a f15 Mak or longer and you have to think through and be realistic about cool down times.

Finding a location with good local seeing conditions may be of benefit, i.e. away from houses, pavements, car parks, roads, buildings etc, and preferably somewhere where the ground falls away from you so your line of sight is rising as quickly as possible away from the ground turbulence and local heat sources. I do this often for solar observing and planetary and lunar and this can make a lot of difference. Using various contraptions to dim the image to the optimum brightness works well, I have had great results in the last couple of years doing this. I find an ADC can be of help on Jupiter, Mars, and Saturn, but I find it not so much help on Venus where the benefit of colour correction is offset by the additional scatter. Stopping down the aperture to tune it in to the conditions both in terms of dimming the image, getting underneath the seeing, and slowing the focal ratio of a scope can sometimes help.

I have had a couple of goes out in the field, I can share some feedback from those. Nightime Session SM125 and Altair Starwave 102EDR I picked out the 102EDR to compare it with, the point being to see if the SM125 behaves like a good quality refractor, I was therefore looking for the benefits (and drawbacks) of more aperture but whilst maintaining the same good quality refractor like views. I was mostly comparing the SM125 at 216x (Baader T2 prism diagonal, 4.5mm Delos) with the 102EDR at 204x (Tak prism diagonal, 3.5mm Delos). It was difficult to match magnifications exactly, this was the closest I could get, but it allowed me to be able to observe and compare going back and forth from one eyepiece to the other with no delay. Epsilon Lyra 1 - This target was 77 degrees up and very good seeing. My notes on the SM125 were "...looks good, super clean, first rings mostly intact, big clear split, the gap between the inner edges of the airy disks is about the same distance as the diameter of an airy disk, could be the best split I've seen...". That's what I said in my dictaphone but I think on reflection my 14" reflector will have done better, I just would not remember enough detail without checking old observing notes and that is a completely different scope anyway. The 102EDR showed a good view also and a clear / clean split, but the gap between the airy disks was smaller in proportion to the size of the airy disks, as would be expected. The first rings looked slightly more complete/intact in the 102EDR but I only noticed this because I was looking specifically for things like this. M13 - I used the same sets ups as for Epsilon Lyra above and M13 was about 65 degrees up and quite good seeing. The SM125 was went deeper, resolved more, and presented more extension of the object, but maintaining the same refractor type of the view. There was a very thin veil of turbulence from quite nearby houses that was visible in both scopes if I concentrated on it, but it was easier to see in the SM125. Zeta Hercules - I've read about this one but I don't think I've had a go at it myself before. It was about 56 degrees up, I didn't state the seeing but it must have been pretty good given the results. I used the same set ups as above again, and then tried the 3.5mm Delos in the SM125 taking that up to 279x. Starting with the 102EDR this time (at 204x) my notes were "...definitely no split, maybe slight thickening of the diffraction ring at 2 o'clock...". However it turns out that thickening was the secondary so I think it can be called a split - it was better than a peanut or a bar. In the SM125 at 216x my notes were "...tighter airy disk, almost a split, clear blob on 1st diffraction ring closer to 1.30 o'clock..."., i.e. an improvement on the 102EDR at similar magnification, then at 279x in the SM125 my notes were "...clear knobble at 1.30 o'clock on 1st diffraction ring...". So both scopes were a win, but the SM125 was better due to having more aperture. Checking Sky Safari later the secondary was at position angle 88 degrees and just eyeballing the screen from my perspective it was at 1.30 o'clock, Although it was tougher, I am sure I would have pinned the position angle down just as accurately in the 102EDR if I had observed in that scope for longer. Albireo - I did not compare scopes on this one, I just had a look at 279x with the SM125, Albireo being about 65 degrees up and good seeing. My notes were "...huge split, clean airy disks, almost intact rings, bright orange, smaller blue...". I would not usually look at Albireo at that magnification hence the comment that the split looked huge, but it was a fine view. I had left both scopes out to cool for a while and the temperature was not very low so there were not the right circumstances to test for differences in cool down. I can say though when taking it down the OTA felt warm to the touch kind of like plastic would, I think this will be a bonus in the winter compared to handling a freezing cold metal tube, I didn't have any problems with vibes, the SM125 works fine on an EQ5, although I might raise the legs a bit for a little more height, as I only had the legs a little over half extended. The focuser did fine, collimation looked straight at various altitudes and rotations, but it has not yet been tested in the field with a heavy 2" eyepiece or binoviewers loaded with heavy eyepieces. I think I might want to get a longer dovetail bar for a bit more balancing range to cover light to heavy loads at the focuser, but I will keep going and see if I can cover the bases as it is, it might be a close call. Solar Observing - SM125 Only Solar - The SM125 has enough in focus for me to use the same set up that I use on my ED102R which is good and as I hoped/expected. With Binoviewers and a wedge in green light (30mm NPL's + 2.6x GPC so about 85x) I can tell that the SM125 shows more detail than the 102EDR, for example looking at the stippling all over the face and the faculae around AR3394. The SM125 also shows up the seeing conditions more, the seeing was not great and this was more evident. I did not test it back to back with the 102EDR but white light solar with the 102EDR is what I am most current/familiar with and so I am confident about the comparison. I think the SM125 presents a similar nature refractor view to the 102EDR but resolving more as one would expect from more aperture. The detail/resolving of the sun from the SM125 is I think closer to a C8, but how close would require back to back testing with the C8 which I am not so familiar with when it comes to white light observing, However I can say that when solar observing with the C8 that presents details more softly and it shows up any seeing issues more, A bright planet the moon are the other things I would like to try to cover most of the bases, and testing it with something heavier in the focuser, but fundamentally it seems to be a good quality 5" refractor that's light enough for me to handle happily. I did some star testing on Deneb and Vega but interpreting and reporting on those is beyond what I feel able to remark on, but I am happy with my notes above being fair comment.

I was out for hours last night, the first night out in some time, checking out the StellaMira 125ED and testing it back to back with an Altair Starwave ED102R, concentrating on bright stars, close doubles, and globular clusters. To make sure I have an accurate recollection I used a dictaphone to take notes, and ended up with nearly half an hour of notes!

Great report - Sagittarius always reminds me of being on holiday!

Oops, it was worth a try! 🤪

I might answer this differently from time to time but most likely I would go with Delos and I would pick the 17.3 8, 6, 4.5, and 3.5, and I would have to agonize about whether to go for the 12 or 10. It would be a shame to go without 2" eyepieces or binoviewer sets but if it had to be just 5 and if I think about what observing I do most of the time in what scopes, those would probably be it.

I spent this evening indoors checking out how the scope works on an EQ5 getting used to balancing it with different weights at the eyepiece from light 1.25" to heavy 2", getting it on/off the mount, and getting the hang of where the eyepiece goes as it is pointed around in various directions. When testing the focuser movement pointing straight up I noticed that when I screwed in the tensioner for the rotation of the focuser the focuser moved/cocked slightly. I eventually worked out that 2 out of the 3 the brass flat-head screws that set the underlying focuser rotation tension were loose, one being completely loose. I tensioned them up evenly and the unwanted movement appears to have gone, and interestingly the focuser will now rotate through 360 degrees freely and the single speed focuser knob does not does not now get stuck on the rotation tensioner knob, albeit the clearance is super-close. I set my tripod legs so that when the eyepiece is as low as it will go that I can still look straight into it horizontally using my observing chair. There is an area of the sky at the zenith where the eyepiece would hit the tripod legs but it is very small. I tried an extension pillar with the EQ5 but I didn't like how high that puts the scope. It was easy and stress free to manoeuvre around due to the light weight and the handle on the tube rings is actually useful. I thought I would be taking the handle off but it might stay on. Now it's a wait for clear skies.

I had mine arrive today, here's my comments so far... Packaging - very good, it had evidently seen a bit of action in transit but a close fitting box around a soft scope bag looks like a good combination. Inside the scope bag there were a couple of dings where the tube rings were resting which is good, but also a couple of dings where the focuser knobs were resting which is not so good, it would be preferable if packaged so that the focuser knobs are not bearing any weight. OTA Finish - I checked mine closely and I could see marks where the paper was in contact with the OTA under the tube rings, the same as some others have mentioned. In my case it was very slight and I don't think I would have noticed if I had not gone looking hard for it. I could not get it to show up in a photo. I am ok with the finish of the OTA but I would say I imagine this kind of surface by its nature will pick up and show signs of use and wear over time more than a powder coated metal tube would. Weight - This is the thing that got me interested in going for a 125mm refractor after a long time holding off and not wanting to have to get a heavier and more expensive mount than my EQ5 or Skytee 2. With the tube rings/dovetail/handle on (i.e. without funders, diagonals, eyepieces, etc) I make it just under 5.6kg. This is very good and slightly lighter than advertised, I am guessing maybe because I am excluding the cap over the objective which is a chunky metal one. Here's some comparisons that I've weighed directly myself... C8 + dovetail + dewshield 5.9kg Stella Mira 125ED + dovetail + rings 5.6kg. Altair Starwave ED102R + dovetail + rings 4.1kg Tube Rings / Dovetail / Handle - These are light and well made. At one place the felt under the tube rings was rucked up a little rather than being flush, it looked to me like maybe when it was closed around the OTA the paper underneath it bunched a little and drove the felt back a little, but this is minor, I've pushed the felt back into place and it is fine. The dovetail bar is quite short, I am hoping if I find the right compromise position that I can balance ok with a single light eyepiece or a heavy bino set up by just moving the whole scope and dovetail in the mount and not have to move the tube in the rings, but this will require testing in the field. I am not sure if I will leave the handle on or take it off to save some more weight, but I wonder if the handle helps with stability and therefore vibes, I will look out for this. Objective - This looks super clean and reassuringly green, and lots of internal baffling is apparent inside the OTA. Dew shield - This comes back a good way to reduce size and it goes forward a good way to provide protection. However I imagine sliding it back and forth is going to end up marking the OTA soon enough unless you keep the OTA and the felt under the dewshield super clean. The very end of the dewshield where the cap goes over is metal not carbon fibre. Focuser - This is a standard 2.5" dual speed rack and pinion. The first observation is that there are no screws holding it to the OTA, it is either glued in or press fit or maybe screwed in or some combination. I am sure it is functionally fine but I'll probably be thinking about this a little when I'm in the freezing cold pointing at the zenith with a Terminagler hanging out of it. The focuser is the same fundamentally as the focuser on my Altair ED102R but the ED102R focuser somehow looks beefier, maybe it is or maybe it is just looks like that due to being the same size focuser on a smaller scope. The drawtube moves smoothly, with minor variations in tension through its travel that I would expect to some degree and I guess will iron out with use. The focuser rotates moves smoothly however the single speed focuser knob clashes with the thubscrew tensioner for the rotating focuser so I can't rotate the focuser past that point. The thumbscrew is a very nice one but quite fat and doesn't allow enough clearance. It's not necessarily a problem worth worrying about as long as the focuser is fundamentally straight, I can get a thinner thumbscrew or just rotate in the other direction to get to where I need to be. One other point - the draw tube tensioner screw applies tension very gradually, it feels to me like it is spring loaded or something like that - posh touch if this is what is going on. Other tensioners I have feel on-off in comparison. Collimation - An indoor star test shows it looks straight/collimated and varying the rotation and position of the focuser suggests a square / straight focuser, but star testing in the field looking at stars at different altitudes and using different focuser rotations and positions and loads is required to be sure all is well and that it holds focus etc. I had a couple of scares though - I noticed what I thought was some image shift but thank goodness tracked it down to slop in the Skytee 2 axis letting the scope move around a little. Then I noticed some more movement and tracked that down me moving my weight slightly between my feet and this moving the floor slightly and that moving the mount! Vibes - On an un balanced Skytee 2 (i.e. no counterweighting) it vibes slightly more than the C8 (it is lighter than the C8 but it is longer and with the weight concentrated at each end). The vibes are within the realms of what is acceptable to me and slightly better than I was expecting/hoping for. It will vibe less if counterweighted, and less when on an EQ5 which is the other mount it will be used on. However I am guessing that in the field it will catch the wind more than smaller scopes. That's as far as I have got. I have some field tests lined up for if I get a clear sky which will cover the remaining checks. I could have taken it out for some cloud-dodging solar looking just over the roof of my house this afternoon but I thought that would be unfair on the scope and end in disappointment due to the poor conditions so I didn't try. My main take away so far is that it is genuinely lightweight and easy to handle, it would make no difference to the set up effort required whether I was taking this or the 102mm refractor out. One is heavier than the other but not so much that it matters at all to me. Cool down time will be interesting to test, as alongside size and weight that is a major setting up factor for any scope, I wonder how it will do on that front.

Kit testers are individuals who buy and sell for a profit and they pay a fee to the website to be allowed to do this. I think buying from ABS is the same as buying anything online, I've come across mostly good people on there but some not so good now and again.

I was on holiday in Ireland (Dublin and the south coast) a few weeks ago, great country and great people but it was unrelenting clouds from start to finish!

I don't really think about why I don't do imaging in the same way I don't think about why I don't do the many other past times that are open to all of us to do. However being on the forum inevitably means sometimes getting insights into imaging and from what I have seen I would say a few things. The standard of the pictures people can get from amateur gear is amazing, the level of skill and dedication that imagers put into the hobby is impressive, and the scope for spending money and having to solve difficult technical problems appears to be far greater for imagers than it is for visual observers. I do visual observing because I like being out in the field finding and looking directly at things for myself and thinking about the things I'm looking at. I like being somewhere quiet and away from the bustle of normal life, away from computers, leads, power supplies, to be able to concentrate and think about a target and to minimise how much I am having to think about gear and operating stuff. I like that it is a weird niche activity that most people will never do and most people have no idea what you can see with your own eyes. I might be observing an obscure and mediocre double in the middle of nowhere and find myself wondering is anyone else on the planet looking at this right now or is it just me and wondering things like that sitting out under the stars in the dark and the silence (I say "dark and silence" for dramatic effect, obviously for many of us it isn't very dark or silent anywhere these days!). Plus I'm lazy and I would never better the images already being made, I would rather enjoy the pictures already out there. In the end both are great hobbies, it's a case of people understanding what they enjoy at a point in time and picking the right road/s.

I agree with the SLV being a good choice but that will be a tough ask of the 11" sct. I have a C8 and I think 8mm is as far as I normally go with that scope. Having said that, when noone was looking I have in the past secretly tried a 2.5mm SLV in a 14" reflector, that was fun!

I still have mine, most recently I've been using it to measure the size of sun spots.

The weather has been bad, I've got no more kit I need to buy, and no more fettling or reorganising of kit to do, so it's just a case of waiting for opportunities to get out and observe again. However since I've been observing the weather has always been mostly cloudy so long stretches of bad weather whilst annoying feel kind of normal to me. I did get a second hobby going that doesn't depend on the weather and that has worked well, the cloudier it gets the better my guitar playing gets!

I've got a feeling everybody is doing this!

I have 2 Naglers, 8 Delos, 1 TV Plossl, 11 SLVs, 4 NPLs, 1 microguide, probably 10 or so plossls, so maybe 35 to 40 in total, and there's a number if bino pairs in there.

Nice report and your observations about colour are good. I never used to see colour in stars except for the extremes, but the more I observe the more subtle the colour differences are that I pick up.

I have sometimes thought that our bad weather kind of protects us from overdoing it, I can imagine that soon enough it would be exhausting being out into the early hours night after night!