Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

stargazine_ep14_banner.thumb.jpg.27eb9b06c9c8a1fe5ac3bae21c92743b.jpg

Relpet

Members
  • Content Count

    555
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

468 Excellent

2 Followers

About Relpet

  • Rank
    Proto Star

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Astronomy, films, history books, French Resistance, sitting in the sun pondering the ineffable mysteries of life.
  • Location
    South-west France
  1. My SW 12v 17Ah power tank has been locked in a barn for 5 months waiting for me to escape lockdown and come and recharge it. Having arrived a couple of days ago I was too late. The poor little devil had upped and died on me. From a number of old posts here and on CN I see that people have replaced the original lead/acid battery at low cost with some success. Has anyone done this recently and what battery was chosen, please?
  2. It's been very interesting to see how this thread has led to so many insights but, ironically, the Polish dealer's offer that prompted me to open the topic now says the 2" version is no longer available. I guess there's a good reason!
  3. I wish I could advance this discussion with the same level of knowledge and experience as you chaps but my 2" visual back arrived today. Focusing on a neighbour's chimney stack about 100 yards away I compared the performance of a 1.25" 25mm Celestron plossl with a 25mm ES 2". With the plossl I counted 7.5 courses of brickwork but, with the ES, 11 courses, a difference in view of 47%. There was no vignetting as far as I could discern. However, the plossl is reckoned to have an AFOV of 52° while the ES is marked as 70°, a difference of 35%. To my (probably over-simplified) calculation it would suggest therefore, that by using EPs with identical fields of view there would be a net difference of 12% in favour of the 2" format. In some circumstances that 12% might make a difference sufficient to justify to some observers the use of a 2" diagonal with 2" EPs. If my view of this suffers from being too naive treat me kindly and blame it on my age. As it was, I was equally thrilled with the image I got through both EPs as my new set-up is now complete.
  4. Having started this thread I've been interested to see how it's developed, especially since I bought the Omegon from John! I'm still awaiting delivery of a 2" visual back but as soon as that arrives I'll hope to make a comparison of lunar views using a 25mm ES 2" and a 27mm 1.25" Orbinar flat field. Not a direct comparison but close enough, maybe. As John has said in other posts, the Omegon is a true 127mm so vignetting should, I imagine, be even less noticeable using the 2" but I certainly hope my ancient eyes will get added benefit from a 2" option. I asked the question originally because the Skywatcher 127 is available with a 2" option in Europe, (and I believe Canada) at minimal extra cost, but not in UK. FLO, at my request, were asking the importers why it was not on offer to UK buyers but I've had no response. It's irrelevant now anyway since I'm delighted with the Omegon.
  5. Thanks. I was the very happy purchaser of an Omegon 127 Mak from an SGL member a week or so ago. This will take a 2" diagonal so I'm happy to draw a line under this now.
  6. Hello, John, Just discovered your review of a couple of months ago where you have posted a number of pictures but also describe a number of modifications you have made. As this will be a step into unfamiliar territory for me from my Celestron 4SE I need a little hand-holding. Can you please confirm that all I will need is a diagonal with an SCT thread to fit the visual back.
  7. By the way, shipping will be to Surrey, not SW France! Any chance of a picture showing the diagonal as fitted before you ship it? Thanks.
  8. Thanks, John. Not sure I'll be able to match that quality myself but having slept on it I think I would like to buy ithe OTA Please PM me with your PayPal or bank details. I would use PayPal friends to avoid charges and that would be easiest route for me. I look forward to hearing from you. Peter
  9. Obviously this will need a decent diagonal. May I ask what you have been using, please, or do you have a recommendation? I've been looking for a quality 127 for a while so this is serious interest. Thanks
  10. It's a Polish company which I have used before. The exchange rate, sterling against the zloty, is usually favourable. As far as I can see the focuser is the standard Mak focuser where the mirror moves, not a Crayford. I'm using a Celestron 4se tube at present which I have modified to fit on a Skywatcher AZ-GTI mount and though it's really pretty good for lunar observing I would like something better, I understand, and have found from my own experience, that ordinary 1.25 plossls give excellent results with the 4se but I do have 2" EPs which I use with my PhotoLine refractor. If there is no real benefit to be had then, so be it. Thanks for the responses
  11. Having just submitted an unsuccessful bid on ebay today for a 127 OTA and seen the level of interest and the price paid I'm drawn to the reluctant conclusion that if I really, really want one of these highly-rated OTAs the stakes have to be raised. In Europe, at a comparable price (including shipping) to the standard model, there is a version available with a 2" focuser (quaintly described in the English version of the website as a 2" spectacle lift). I've just asked FLO if this is available in UK but wonder what the optical advantage would be, apart from the obvious joy to be exhibited by my 2" EPs at being brought out of the back of the cupboard once more to gaze at the moon. With this version SW even throw in a 2" EP, which may - of course - be of the usual low quality of "kit" EPs but seems to be an indication of some confidence in the system. Any obvious disadvantages apart from added weight?
  12. Thanks, Ags. After I posted I remembered taking it apart once before to fit a slightly longer dovetail bar. In my 80s I think the memory is going through the shredder. So I could have used tube rings, I guess. As it is I'm very happy with the Heath-Robinson fix.
  13. Yes I did but I thought I would need a supplementary equatorial mount for that. Skywatcher are also keen to absolve themselves of any responsibility for problems arising. Frankly, I've just had another stunning session of moongazing, absolutely rock steady even with 7mm EP
  14. I took up stargazing in France where we have a second home and most of my stuff is located. As we were in UK when lock-down started it's just as well I had a couple of small 'scopes here. I use an 80mm refractor on a Skywatcher AZ-GTI mount for deep sky and, until recently, the NexStar 4SE for planetary and lunar on its own mount. However, having got used to the sheer ease of operating the AZ-GTI from my smartphone I thought it would be useful to be able to mount the 4SE on the AZ-GTI mount and avoid all the fiddle-faddle setting up the Celestron mount. Only problem is, on the AZ-GTI mount the fixed dovetail on the 4SE means you are either pointing the wrong way or mounting it upside down, which is a fat lot of use either way. I contacted FLO to see if they had any ideas but Celestron seem to regard the 4SE as a toy now and don't sell through "proper" astro outlets, only Amazon and some photographic suppliers. Friendly response but no suggestions. So, it looked as if tube rings would do the trick but then you have to remove the fixed dovetail bar. If that is secured by internal nuts then the tube has to be dismantled to retrieve the nuts. Maybe not the best idea. I had a rummage and found I had a spare dovetail bar of a suitable length. I secured that, temporarily, directly opposite the existing dovetail with Gorilla tape. A speedy, socially-distanced, trip to ToolStation got me a pack of heavy duty cable ties to make the fixing more secure. Two hours later, two pairs of pliers and job done. Once the tube was mounted it seemed as rigid as if conventionally attached, even carrying the weight of a Baader 24mm to 8mm zoom. First time out I was apprehensive but I needn't have worried. Tracking was fine and I had a pretty magical and prolonged view of the three-day old crescent moon from the back garden. So, if need be I can revert to the Celestron mount but if I want to drive a few miles to a darker site I need take only one mount and tripod now to use both tubes for lunar, planetary or dark sky. Pictures attached in case anyone else fancies following suit, or, better still has a better idea!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.