JeremyS

I think we all felt for you when that happened @Stu 😩

I do remember you telling that sad story Andrew. But I don’t recall the Tak scope part. I can assure you I would have remembered.

I note your Planet looks slightly darker than mine. I noticed my Uni that arrived today is also a bit darker. Looks like Berlebach has been using wood with more prominent grain recently. Something else to enjoy about a natural product 😊👍🏻 Are you using a counterweight with the Technosky, John?

Got me nervous now. I’m expecting Berlebach Uni, tray and spreader within the next hour.... Unless a Planet turns up 🤔 At least you’ve got the lovely tray to sniff in the meantime

It also depends on how you adjust the clutches. With minimal tightening, I found my TSA 120 (on AZ100 + Planet) is not properly balanced. Which means the azimuthal movement via the manual slow motion is not balanced in each direction. You can of course overcome by tightening the clutches a bit. I first noticed this after I’d set the AZ100 up with an FC100 DZ. I adjusted the clutches so azimuth very smooth in both directions. No counterweight. Replacing the OTA with the TSA at the same clutch setting required a counterweight

You raise some important safety points here. Not least about ergonomics of awkward things like tripods ans scopes. I find that it’s harder to orchestrate manoeuvres in the in the dark, too (wasn’t that a 70s pop group?. 🤔) Indeed I find my Report a breeze to handle (wonder if @F15Rules will spot that deft insertion). Trouble is it’s not really up to the FC100 DZ at high mags. I think this might be another justification for a FOA 60 Q 🤔

Now, I did shift my Berlebach Planet + AZ100 + 3.8 kg counterweight + Tak TSA combo about 2ft across the patio. Won’t be doing that again in a hurry 😬

I can lift the AZ100 on the Planet from my garage about 15 m to the patio. there is a gate to go though, which takes a bit of care. However, I just worry a bit about strain on lower back (mainly due to awkward movement rather that weight) hence why I want to try the marginally lighter Uni 28. I thought about the Uni 18 to save another kg, but the 28 is better height/stability with fracs. I’ve read (I think on CN, without too much froth) that the Planet results in better (more accurate) gotos due to the greater stability. But I don’t need to worry about that.The AZ100 is my fully manual setup for quick looks, so I don’t need the bulk of the Planet. The Planet is still the loadbearer of choice for my AZEQ6. Anyway, so much for theory: let’s see what happens. 😊

Funnily enough, on Friday I ordered a Uni 28 for the AZ100 to save a couple of kg’s compared to the planet. The Planet + AZ100 is ok to carry a short distance, but will see if Uni28 + AZ100 is any more manageable.

Well done Nigella 👍🏻

Super video Chris. Scope looks good. Looking forward to seeing how you get on in the next video

Interesting possibility mentioned on the BAA website here

Have you compared the two at the same mag, Stu? Say, at the 3 and 4 mm setting?

I thought we were already 🙂

Not tried that model, but I have tried other ball heads and concluded that it's best to avoid anything with a ball head for an astronomical telescope of any size.

Don’t forget to put the lid down when you’re through, Alan. 😊

There’s a theme emerging here 😊

Has anyone told you you’ve got lovely legs, John?

Wow I scanned 572 posts in that CN thread. It wasn’t particularly frothy, though . I even saw our own @dweller25 in there. But I saw no compelling arguments in favour of the M210 cf a C9.25

I’ve mastered the former, but have some way to go with the latter 😬

I have same dilemma. I have a very nice C9.25 but wonder how a Mewlon 210 would compare. Considering the C9.25 is mainly for deep sky, it probably has an advantage

Fascinating. No surprises regarding those that you’ve kept!

Not sure I could handle that much CN froth anyway, Dave

No compromise if it happens to be the legendary FOA 60 Q 😊👍🏻