Peter Drew

Always a good way to break into a market if you can afford it.  Provided the product is good, and the Askar seems to be considered good, an entry price that is tempting is offered.  Eventually "bargains" become "good value for money" when prices are increased.   🙂

Are you sure its not just a perspective effect?  A camera cannot accurately photograph two exit pupils at once from such a short range.  Try photographing them individually with the camera exactly in line with the eyepiece.  When set to your eye spacing your eyes will be exactly in line with the exit pupils. A camera cannot do that.    🙂

I have two of these.  I bought them to take the Starsense system for another project.  The telescope itself is surprisingly good but the accessories are marginal quality at best and the mount and tripod are inadequate.      🙂 

Hopefully, not as bad as it looks.  A cover, although giving protection, also creates an effective wind sail.  The garden ornaments suggest it was nothing to do with them.

I've had a Celestron 8se for a number of years and mine at least has given me great views of the Moon and planets.  It also gives as good a view of deep space objects that can fit into its field of view as most telescopes of this size.  The higher power potential can be a benefit for small objects of this type.  You could easily take images of the Moon and planets but photographing deep space objects would need a more suitable mount.  Probably the largest all round telescope at your budget.     🙂 

I would look past the Celestron PS1000.  It appears to be of the Bird-Jones design, the least recommendable of the entry level telescopes.    🙂

It would be interesting to see whether a 4" Takahashi could outperform a 5" Takahashi.   Apples/apples.    🙂

I would suspect the cold weather in the first instance.  These mounts are lubricated with a very stiff grease which gets significantly stiffer when very cold.  Try testing the drive indoors to see if it improves.  If not, it could be of mechanical origin and needs investigating.   🙂

I don't think it's worth spending a lot extra on an EQ1 mount, better to put the money towards a more capable mount.  A single speed motor will be adequate for visual use as the EQ1 is not recommended for imaging.    🙂

After all my years in astronomy I'm still puzzled by the hype surrounding Takahashi telescopes as an OTA.  Granted the performance is legendary but this is due to the excellence of the Canon made objective, so shouldn't Canon deserve the accolades?.  In reality, what is Takahashi's contribution to the hype? a fairly ordinary looking tube assembly, yukky colour (ymmv) and a so-so  focuser which those who can still afford it replace with something better.  Wouldn't another telescope, say an Askar, with the same Canon objective, be a better telescope overall? or are Canon objectives available only to Takahashi ? I'm not knocking refractors, I have at least 20 including 7 150's and a 220.   🙂   

On 30/11/2023 at 00:28, Clive Elliott said:

Hi

irving and sons made telescopes but didn’t manufacture their own optics ?
I think your mirror says Irving. But if you look underneath that inscription you see HW

The mark of Henry wildly who made mirrors for Irving’s and fullerscopes in the 1950’s 1960’s and 1970’s

 

 

 

 

This is correct, and latterly Fullerscopes used David Hinds "A" mirrors tor their top of the range telescopes.    🙂

If they prove to be excellent the price is bound to increase.  Buy soon!      🙂

6 hours ago, JeremyS said:

And reported to RSPCT. 
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Taks.

I've had just the one Tak, a Sky90.  I had to cut an inch off the main tube to get a focus with binoviewers and drilled three new holes in it.  Used it only for solar, my first night time view through it was shortly after I'd sold it, quite impressive for such a small aperture.      🙂  

No big deal to paint a blue tube white.      🙂

I saw Jupiter tonight, first view through a telescope this year!  One of our 16" SCT's has been out of action for several months due to dodgy Meade electronics.  We recently received a complete electronics replacement kit from AWR technology which we hope will prove more reliable.  Due to health issues I need to shut down after 6pm so the first opportunity following the change from BST allowed me to collimate the instrument, it was certainly "out" by SCT standards.  A quick peek at Jupiter confirmed that all was satisfactory, pity the seeing didn't match the occasion!     🙂

Quote

 

Looks nice.  I'm surprised it balances at that position considering the total weight of finder, focuser, turret and 4 eyepieces.  I had a turret once but found that the eyepieces not in use became so cold that when brought into use my warm eye caused them to mist up.    🙂 

1 hour ago, JeremyS said:

https://www.burnleyexpress.net/news/weather/dramatic-moment-a-tornado-was-caught-on-camera-above-pendle-hill-3783345

Thanks for that.  I did actually see an event exactly like that some years ago out towards the Pennine way close to the Stoodley Pike direction.  As with the Burnley one, it didn't "touch down".  Still exciting at the time.      🙂 

I crossed total solar eclipse off my bucket list with my visit to Turkey which was a perfect event and difficult to see how another would beat it.  A tornado is still on my bucket list!    🙂

I have a 220mm F12.5 refractor, I don't think I've had a look at a double star yet!    🙂

Has anyone asked Celestron directly ?     🙂

I have a 4" Vixen FL, widely regarded as being on a par with some 4" Takahashi's, unsurprising as Canon supply the objectives for both makes.  The Vixen gives textbook quality star images and virtually no false colour.  However, these days I need in excess of 200x magnification to comfortably see much detail on planets and at that magnification, in my average seeing conditions, the planet gets dim and often agitated.  So although I've often been tempted, for me it looks like it might be money wasted as I can't remember the last time that I used the Vixen.  I still believe that the experience of the observer and seeing conditions play a large part in what "beats" what.    🙂  

1 minute ago, cajen2 said:

But of course. I didn't buy it for her! 😉

Problem solved.   🙂

37 minutes ago, cajen2 said:

I'm with David on this one. We have to understand that not everybody wants to spend (often fruitless) hours in the freezing cold trying to find little dots or fuzzy patches, amazingly. Young people have notoriously short attention spans and suffer from temporary fads and for every child with a scope, I'd bet only one in twenty goes on to take up astro as a hobby.

My daughter is a case in point. When she was young, nothing would do but to learn to play the violin. I bought her a nice one and a teacher....as soon as she discovered that she actually had to practise, that was it. When a teenager, she wanted to play the guitar. So I bought a Fender acoustic for Xmas. No, again, too much trouble to bother practising. A few years ago, she wanted a telescope. I bought her one but she couldn't be bothered to get it out. I've given up! 😂

I bet she has a "nice" phone.     🙂

I have to agree as I was just the same as were probably most of us on this forum.  But how many, as a percentage of those given "hobby killers" ended up like this?   Considering how many telescopes of this description are sold, if a high percentage, astronomy would be more than a niche interest.    🙂

It's difficult to equate budget with distance viewed, the Andromeda galaxy can easily be seen naked eye for free!  A more practical approach is to consider the brightness of deep sky objects as in general the further out in space they are, the fainter they become.  The larger the telescope, the more light it collects allowing you to see "further".  Your mention of a Dobsonian is likely to be the best value to do this visually.   🙂