iPeace

Who says I don't already live there...? Whoops...

Thanks. Double-edged, this. I miss five day cricket matches. But I haven't bought or read a book printed on paper for years. I do have great hopes for improvements in optical equipment for us to use. Make it lighter, less involved to use! Wouldn't it be great if a pair of digital eyeglasses would suffice? Of course, DSO hunters would have to look like Elton John...just as well it would be after dark.

Is that why all those dark-art AP imaging folk don't use diagonals at all? It's my - limited - understanding that those who image go to considerable lengths to give all photons every possible opportunity, as well as plenty of time, to reach whatever it is that they eventually reach in order to create the digital image. (Imagine that - you, the photon, go all that way, and don't even make it to an actual eyeball. You're eventually eaten by a machine. Bummer.)

Maybe it's the photons that don't mind this that are worth seeing - the lazy ones, well, they have their place.

I truly appreciate this, and it makes perfect scientific sense not to go down this path in order to get the best quality image. I like simplicity; it tends to work well and require less maintenance. And it is indeed my brain that is making all this unnecessarily complex. I see this often; the old chestnut that it takes 80% of the effort to realize the last - marginal - 20% of the desired gain. Is it worth the cost? Good question, and I'll deal with it - as it applies to me - in due course. By the way, is this basically true for all observers who use binoculars? Even the big, mounted ones? Are all the bin users also giving the photons a hard time? How about bino-viewers? You know, those great-looking appendages which double your eyepiece outlay. Do they correct the image, or do they just more or less replicate / split / whatever the reverse image for two eyes? Just typing in thoughts here, not making an argument.

Fortunately, for me, at the moment, this effect is somewhat drowned out by me still getting used to using the slo-mo knobs on the AZ8.

Thanks, looking forward to it!

Thanks. To be sure, I'm quite content to be a deviant nutter - the peaceful type. But yes, we all need to discover the universe on our own terms.

Confession time. I'm not a reverse-image person, or have yet to become one (it's been a year now). One of the great things about using binoculars is that they show me what's in the sky as it actually is, both up there, and down here in my Pocket Sky Atlas, or in Stellarium on the phone...you get the picture. The correct-image picture. I have tried; there are a lot of tools out there, such as reverse-image lunar maps, etc. And they're great. And they do help. And I'm still not completely content. I'm aware that the only way is a correct-image prism diagonal. And I'm aware that they are evil. Bad. Inferior. They ruin everything. Why else would everyone put up with reverse-image observing? They're fine for terrestrial observing, everyone maintains, but after dark they belong at the bottom of the case. Then again, perhaps there's two sides to this. Maybe? Not sure. Just like there are those who swear by achromatic refractors, even shorter ones. They're not in denial; they acknowledge there's a bit of colour, or whatever else is inherently "wrong" with achros, it just doesn't bother them enough to make them look elsewhere. I wouldn't know my own experience of this, because I have only ever used an apo. Well, I use bins. And an occasional RACI finder. But anyway, I take no stance on the achro/apo thing, I like my apos and that's enough. The point is, what if there's a way for me to do correct-image observing, that just works for me, even if it doesn't work for everyone? I have owned a Baader correct-image prism diagonal for a while now. A nice, big, 2" job. Baader does everything to make it perfectly clear that it's not meant for astronomy. They almost engrave it on the side. I've used it anyway, the thinking being that I would combine it with the smallest of my scopes (also an apo) to create the biggest of RACI finders. It worked. Very nice indeed. Whatever was inherently wrong with a correct-image prism, it wasn't bothering me. I did notice that my Baader Zeiss prism was nicer, apart from the reverse image, but couldn't quite explain why. Oh well. Baader also supplies what they call "astro-quality" correct-image prism diagonals. I have carried the 2" ClickLock version in the back of my mind for some time now. And there it stayed, because Baader have not had them in stock for several months. Reading up on SGL, it seems the Baader T2 diagonals are very popular, especially the prisms. Hadn't really considered them before, but I delved into the details, and they are pretty cool...you can configure them as 2" or 1.25", just a matter of screwing in the appendages in your chosen size. And...Baader does an "astro-quality" prism in T2...and they actually have them in stock...cheaper - well, less expensive - too. So it arrived quite recently, complete with 2" ClickLock, safely before Doris (the storm), and it's a great-looking and -feeling piece of kit. And tonight was the night. Never have done Venus before; it's always been there, I've just never...well, you've all said that Venus has little to offer besides phases, and...well, anyway, it was high time I did something about it. So out with the AZ8 and the 120ED, new correct-image T2 prism inserted, still well before total darkness. Venus, as usual at this time, was the only thing bright enough to be seen. Starting at 100x, it was a very clear crescent, and very bright indeed. Had to work the Moonlite very gently to get the focus as good as possible in all that brightness, but it was a great view... nothing wrong at all. And as I was tracking, left was left and right was right... My current site is residential in nature, such that individual targets often disappear behind a building for a short time before reappearing again. By now, it was properly dark - at least as dark as it ever gets, here - so I could turn to other targets. Orion was not doable - street light - so up to snag an open cluster. M35 was great, started at 29x, on to 53x and 90x with the view as nice as it ever was reverse-image. Where has this correct-image prism been all my life? Venus reappeared and I returned to it, moving the whole setup back a bit to get a view over the high hedge. Time to see just what the limit was. At 191x, focus was even more critical, but certainly worth the bother. Yes, it's just a crescent phase on display, but really, really nice. More to be had? At 243x, we were really hanging out there. Getting proper focus was very difficult, and either side of perfect focus, Venus definitely had rainbow edges. But when the focus was just right...the image was as good as I've ever seen Jupiter - for comparison - at high power (keep in mind, before now, I've never done any serious planetary with the 120ED, so I'm comparing with a TV85 at 162x-200x on Jupiter, which is great, but can certainly be outdone). But Venus was dimming...what the...ah, the clouds had returned. So, first session was pretty good! No direct comparisons done with other diagonals, but that can still happen. My best skies are yet to come, this year, so plenty to play for, but for now, no indication that this won't work for me. Can't wait to try it on the Moon at high power - correct-image Lunar observing is just one of those things for me. Thanks for reading.

That settles it. Least said, soonest mended.

It is very nice indeed. Good to know the box has been recovered.

They are slim, but nicely so and I have full confidence in them. I have been experimenting with ring and dovetail configurations, with the options I like most adding the most weight. I am now back-tracking a bit, and relying on these to actually carry the scope with two of the originals to hold accessories. If you are just looking to replace the two original rings, you cannot go wrong with these.

I fully understand and commiserate.

Don't mind me, Stu.

Oh, come on, Stu! Derek just told us all about it a few posts ago!

Not the best of pics, just to give you an idea.

They are nice. As for you: spilt milk.

Well, I do prefer them, but I can't consider them an essential upgrade. They are a bit more sturdy, and offer more options for mounting on either side of the rings (more holes, and all M6). There is no room for bolts to protrude between the ring and the scope, so keep that in mind.

Actually, it's a well known diameter. I bought CNC rings off-the-peg for my 120ED: http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p3283_TS-Optics-CNC-Alu-Rohrschellen-fuer-Teleskope-mit-116-mm-Tubusdurchmesser.html

116 mm

Yes, I should. Sounds great! A stone's throw from a village named "Muker", what could possibly go wrong? Honestly, if it weren't for the North Sea... but that applies to several current issues, I imagine.

Who knew?

DISCLAIMER: buying a nice mount doesn't make me any less of a numpty. Still a fully paid-up, card-carrying member of that collective. I can only write as I find, but I really want to get this right as it seems that I'm somewhat alone when it comes to hands-on experience with this mount and you all deserve to get an accurate picture. Part of my challenge is that I have only a year's experience (and we all know that adds up to a limited number of actual observing sessions) with a limited number of different mounts so it's hard to tell how good things can actually get. This could be the best mount ever made without me knowing it; alternatively, I could think it's the Canis Globulars while you would wonder what the fuss is about. I'm definitely enthused, but your mileage may vary. Intended audience is the visual, manual, alt-az mob. Probably refractor users. All comers welcome, but you won't find anything motorized, equatorial or go-to here. So...what to say? Height With the tripod legs fully extended, the mount is at a nice medium height. At just over six feet (and shrinking) myself, I have no trouble observing all the way down to the horizon - not that that's what one would want to do. Targets lower towards the horizon can be observed standing upright; further towards the zenith, it's time to pull up a chair. You can, of course, retract the legs for a nice, intimate, sedentary lunar (sketching?) session. If you like to observe at the zenith whilst standing up straight, you'll most likely need to insert another pier; they are stackable and sold separately. Weight It's lighter than you would expect given its sturdiness and how solid it looks - the "open air" construction of the pier contributes to this. Significantly lighter than the combo it replaces (Ercole, extension pier, EQ5 tripod). Unloaded, it's a one hand job; all up with a TV85 I can move it about with two hands, but would not carry it any real distance like that. Won't try to move it with a 120ED on it. Tripod Very stable, very easy to use. Placement of clutch knobs well thought-out for access during adjustment. Feet have some lateral movement to follow uneven terrain nicely. Legs extend and retract very smoothly and quietly. No need for spreader or any kind of contraption to keep the legs in place. Makes me think I may give up on the idea of a Berlebach... hmmm, still reads like heresy. We'll see. Clamps Just plain wonderful. Mount head I have never used - or even touched - anything motorized when it comes to astronomical mounts (well, amongst the commercially available, that is). So, it's all manual for me. This is the best I've encountered, very beautifully built. Includes a nice convenient spirit / bubble level. The slow-motion control knob for azimuth is stationary relative to the tripod as the head swivels, so I find myself switching hands to use it as I move around the sky. I don't mind this, but you may prefer to fit flexi cables, which are not included and do require a small bit of DIY - check YouTube for this. Solidity and stability Had it out for two nights so far, once with two scopes, the TV85 and the 120ED, and once with the TV85 only. It's very solid and stable, any vibrations settle very quickly. The lighter, shorter TV85 was, as is to be expected, the most stable of the two while the longer, heavier 120ED was certainly as stable is it ever was on the Ercole. Clutches Very easy to adjust, very easy to fine-tune to get the exact amount of tension for using the mount in Ercole mode. For me, does the Ercole thing even better than an Ercole. Smooth and steady. Absolutely lovely-jovely. Slow motion control Very, very nice. This is the feature most people will be curious about, and the one I must take the most care in describing accurately. This is also the feature requiring the most attention from the user in order to get maximum performance. Get your assembly properly balanced; we can't blame a mount for what Newton came up with. Furthermore, it's easy to get the idea that it's not so great if you use it in the wrong way; don't use it to slew! Trying to cover larger distances in shorter time with slo-mo - basically, moving the scope about with fast twists of the knobs - will introduce jerkiness that will make your wallet twinge with after-pain. It's not meant to work that way. Switch to Ercole mode by loosening the clutches, slide around to acquire your next target - using it in "periscope mode" is a lot of fun with the right eyepiece - tighten up the clutches again and you're ready to track using the slo-mo controls. With the clutches tightened, the slo-mo is very smooth and precise, enabling effortless micro-nudges at high power. The tiniest of niggles would be that every so often, I notice that the worm gear is continuous (at least, I think that's it) because of a tiny "gap" in the action. Easily forgiven. I can make much (much much) smoother and smaller adjustments than I ever could with my GSO mount (which holds only a single, smaller scope). Perhaps as a result of it being able to so smoothly provide for slow, small adjustments, when you try to rush it you immediately realize it's not designed to be rushed. Which brings me to another realization, perhaps more of a personal thing. In use, this mount is continuously providing feedback as to how I'm doing. If I'm paying sufficient attention to what I'm doing, the mount disappears; if I forget about balancing, neglect proper clutch tension, etc. I immediately get a gentle, unambiguous and intuitive reminder. Short of a - perhaps imaginary - mount that will handle any amount of ignorance on the part of the user without a squeak, it doesn't get any better than that. So...? It's expensive. Yes. Not the budget option. Let that sink in for a moment. Good. For that outlay, you get an excellent tripod, a riser pier, two premium clamps and an alt-az mount that - IMHO - outperforms an Ercole and is at least as well made. Then you get slow-motion control which, if properly used, is absolutely dreamy, and probably as good as it gets without spending even more than this on the mount head alone (if you can indeed find any such thing, as it seems the T-Rex is, sadly, definitely out of production). And - less relevantly, perhaps - it's absolutely yummy to look at. Less relevant indeed; you could paint it the least attractive shade of glossy, fresh-spring-horse-dung olive with suspicious-looking 3-D butterscotch speckles and I'd still prefer it. I'm sure humanity can do better than this. But for now, I'm done looking. I like it very much. Can you tell? Thanks for reading.

Two nights of clear skies on the trot. Can't be right. Will delay my full report...

Back in after a great session, including another instant star party, this time with the local constabulary. Apparently some neighbors had very thoughtfully notified the police of my activities in my front garden. So the local fuzz got a nice look at the Moon. The AZ8 did a splendid job. I will gather my thoughts on this first use and try to write something coherent for those interested. The one-liner would be something like: Already the best mount I have used and will get even better as I get more used to it.