Mak the Night

I feel like that with a 127mm Mak on the AZ5 lol.

The Porta azimuth and altitude clutches can be adjusted for tension, altitude drift and backlash. I've used my Porta II/Vixen SXG Hal-130 combination in strong winds and it has always been rock solid. There's no way the AZ5 is a sturdier mount IMO, I like them both, but I've never suffered the vibration problems you had. I've done some research though and some have reported vibration problems with longer OTA's. So that's probably what it is, I've only mounted Mak's up to 127mm and modified ST80's on it. I'll make a mental note not to put a long OTA on it lol. I've actually seen pictures of 200mm SCT's on Porta mounts.

Yes, but have you tried a Porta II with a heavy duty tripod? I have Porta II and SW AZ5 mounts and the Porta is far more substantial. It should hold a 200mm SCT, with the right tripod. The Porta II is a far more substantial and better engineered mount than the AZ5.

I'm not so sure any vibration problems with the Porta II are to do with the mount, which is far more solidly engineered than the AZ5. I never used the Porta II with the supplied tripod as I thought it was too light for the mount, and basically just like one of the inexpensive Synta tripods often supplied with AZ3/EQ2 mounts. Which is why I swapped it for the Vixen SXG Hal-130 tripod. It holds an ST80 with heavy 2" accessories with ease and a 127mm Mak with a 9x50 RACI. I've not had any vibration problems with this combination.

I think you'll like the AZ5.

It's pretty decent, maybe not Vixen smooth and simpler in design, but quite usable. I like it because it is light and fast for me to set up. My Porta is on a Hal130 tripod and with my disability it necessitates fetching a garden trolley to set up. The AZ5's tripod is light but good. It holds a modified ST80 well if I stick to 1.25" equipment. It holds a 102mm SkyMax well. If I put the AZ5 mount on a tripod like the Hal130 it would probably hold a 150mm Mak or SCT quite well.

If you mean this mount: It will hold a 127mm Mak although I prefer a Vixen Porta II with a Hal130 tripod with my 127mm Mak. If your pier is sturdy enough I reckon it would be stable enough.

I used to use a pair of 15mm TV Plossls in my WO bino. I swapped them for a couple of Barsta 17mm, one was from an old Celestron kit and the second is a 'Sky-Watcher'. Although I used the WO drawtubes from the stock WO eyepieces that came with the bino. I prefer the eye relief and eye lens size to the TV's. I have a 40mm TV Plossl, which is superb, but too large for a bino pair so I use a couple of SvBony EP's. These also have WO drawtubes.

Yes, EP use and ergonomics are very subjective. Interestingly, the 13mm eye relief of the 19mm Panoptic seems to be right in my sweet spot.

I have them both and have no intentions to part with either lol. They seem very different animals to me, both in physical size, weight and FOV. Both Barlow and reduce well. I tend to see the DeLite as a lunar/planetary EP (it was designed as a sort of light Delos) and the Panoptic is more of an all rounder. It is good for low and medium power viewing in lighter, smaller scopes. I even have a bino pair. Although it can be used for almost anything in my experience.

Well spotted, my T5 is actually made in Taiwan. I'll admit that my experience with these eyepieces is subjective, but it depends on whether you think the TV's are worth the extra spondoolies. Is the glass or are the lens elements that much better in the TeleVue compared to the Explore Scientific? How do you know they don't source from the same manufacturer? In my experience TeleVue quality control isn't that hot either. I once had to return three borked DeLites in a row, it broke my heart. I eventually settled on a 7mm Kokusai ortho'. A bit smaller, but it did what I wanted. I had to return the first one of those as well. Don't get me wrong, I think the TV's are beautifully made eyepieces. If you want the best build quality and most expensive EP's there's nothing wrong with that. I think the 19mm Panoptic is probably the most perfect all round eyepiece made. I've never found anything to compare to it in its class. The telescope the eyepiece is used in will make a difference, but I honestly think that many of the premium eyepieces are expensive because you are paying for the build quality and materials used in construction, plus labour costs of where the OEM is situated geographically. Maybe in a faster scope than f/5 the T5 TeleVue will be better than the ES 14mm. I just doubt it.

http://www.brayebrookobservatory.org/BrayObsWebSite/HOMEPAGE/PageMill_Resources/Comparison test of TVPlossl vs Brandon.pdf Explore Scientific 82º eyepiece. Probably JOC glass, made in China in a state subsidised economical environment: £135. TeleVue 16mm T5 Nagler 82º eyepiece. Made in Japan in a non-state subsidised economical environment: £331. Apart from a slight magnification difference, and a few aesthetic differences, I can't tell any visual difference between these two eyepieces in an f/5 refractor. There's a reason that there is £196 difference between these two eyepieces and it isn't anything to do with visual quality. It has everything to do with economic ideology.

I think the main difference between the more inexpensive Plossls and expensive is build quality and ergonomics. In a small Mak I can't really tell the difference between these 40mm Plossls in quality of view. In an f/6 Newtonian I mainly notice the eye lens difference and the field stop size. Undoubtedly the TeleVue is the 'best' in build quality and overall design/ergonomics. But depending on the scope they're used in, many eyepieces, regardless of what they cost, can give virtually identical views.

I agree, I had a lot of good nights last year. From a superb Jupiter opposition and Ganymede transit, excellent Saturn opposition, through to some superb deep sky views including a really good M42. It's dark where I live in the country though, the nearest coast to me is in Wales and I'm over 180 metres above mean sea level.

Baader 32mm BCO (Plossls) have plastic extenders included as extras. It does make them more comfortable to use on a bino.

The recent spike in TV prices is difficult to justify IMO. Whether it was because of Brexit or any other reason, I think they're in danger of pricing themselves off the market.

I've always thought the 32mm TV was excellent in use and, depending on scope, saw it as my first EP of choice for low power viewing. It has a large eye lens and a huge field stop. I don't think I've used a better 32mm Plossl. I'm glad I bought mine a while ago though as they seem over priced now for a Plossl. For me, it was a matter of adjusting to the eye relief. I do think there are probably better (and possibly less expensive) alternatives nowadays to it though.

Grab'n'Go AstroMaster Kit box revision 5, 342,423:

Ninja training.

I regularly use a 90° Amici prism (I have several including an Orion). I prefer non-mirror reversed views, especially for planetary/lunar. Although the upside down world of the Newtonian is perfectly acceptable to me, I find mirror reversal is a bit weird. Before you dismiss Amici prisms completely due to the prevailing entrenched mythology, read the link below. http://www.telescope.com/Articles/Equipment/The-Advantages-of-Observing-with-Correct-Image-Diagonal/c/9/sc/192/p/106656.uts

I think Synta tend to supply 45° diagonals with small scopes with alt-az mounts that can often be used terrestrially. Most EQ mounted scopes have regular diagonals supplied.

Interestingly, 90° Amici prisms can work well for astronomy and I often use one for lunar viewing. 45° prism diagonals are more for terrestrial use.

You can't beat a good Plossl IMO.

TS Optics 8 mm Planetary HR - 1.25" Eyepiece: Almost certainly Barsta.

+1