Peter Drew

Does this device have to be a binocular? A finder could easily be modified for a close view. 🙂

Reminders? 🙂

Just about to type the same reply. Be aware of parallax issues. 🙂

Using the Quark in front of the diagonal will advance the Barlow effect of the Quark and be responsible for the increase in back focus. Also the use of binoviewers will also increase the distance between the Quark Barlow and the eyepieces, further increasing the back focus and the magnification. The asymmetry of the clipping is most likely due to sag from the long extension. 🙂

☔ ☹️

I'm not completely surprised. Solar telescopes at this level are subject to quality of performance variations which can lead to a smaller aperture at times outperforming one of slightly larger size. 🙂

Sounds about right to me considering the magnification. Common 10x50's are usually F4 - F4.5. 🙂

I read about this years ago and had a try for it and sure enough, although subtle, it was visible. From memory, (unreliable!) I think it was a 3/4 waxing Moon magnified enough to just fit the field of view. 🙂

Best to improve balance if possible. 🙂

Good April ! joke though, pulled me in. 🙂

Good luck with your future. 🙂

I firmly believe that you can. I'm not sure what circumstances improve the chance but once you have seen it I don't think you can "un-see" it. It's not a casual observation, you have to look carefully for it. 🙂

It takes more than this to offend me, however, I'm always bemused that whenever somebody buys one of these telescopes it invokes pages of box opening, pics taken of the scope from all angles and requests for future performance reviews. Whereas another completely different telescope, a reflector in particular, that may be far better suited to the owner's interest might garner a couple of "likes". I would have thought by now that it is such common knowledge that a Takahashi is about as good as it gets and they all look pretty much the same, leaving little else original to say about them. 🙂

Why can't the 12" point to the same direction as the Tak? The Moon should be high enough this lunation not to be locally obstructed. 😀

I could buy a 4" Tak tomorrow if one is available, but I won't and probably never will. Not that I doubt whether the Tak is one of the best available but because I already have a good 4" Vixen Fluorite. Given my age and the conditions I "observe" in, there would not be the difference in performance to me that would justify the price. As it happens, I very rarely use the Vixen, why?, because to use it I have to take a tripod, mount and the Vixen outside and set it up to do so. By contrast I can just switch on a dome mounted 16" SCT which carries a SW 150ED as a finder/alternative view telescope. 🙂

I sold mine for £200. 🙂

Yes, why do astrophotography when someone else can do it for us. 🙂

I've never bothered to completely flock a tube but I have always flat blacked the secondary edge and any shiny part of the drawtube that projects inwards. The most effective antireflection mod that I have found is to apply a flat back area on a white tube opposite to the eye not in use whilst observing. This prevents a light area seen by this eye merging with the view of the observing eye. 🙂

One of 6 that form part of one of my observatories. 🙂

A basic "Todmorden" pier is essentially a 600x600x50 paving slab and a couple of standard hollow building blocks. The items are bolted together with 12mm stainless steel screwed rod. A hole drilled in the top of the top block will allow bolting through to the base of the EQ mount. A piece of tubing equal to the largest diameter of the EQ base will spread the load. Images on other threads. 🙂

I've had one for several years and like it. It seems to give similar views to other single TV plossls. I use it mainly for collimating telescopes as most of my telescopes are too long focus for the high power even the 6mm setting would produce for average visual use 🙂

A "Todmorden" pier will cost around £50. 🙂

One of my pair, manual drive.

I would prefer my Tal1's over any other current Newtonians of similar size. 🙂