iPeace

P.S. It makes more sense to keep the 8 inch f/6 newt, but I could never let this one go...

Don't recall ever having applied one myself, but I wouldn't hesitate to use for hiding paint damage, inferior brand markings, price tags from her, or anything to prevent taxation. One of my scopes - no longer with me - came with one very neatly applied and it was quite fitting.

13 hours ago, A McEwan said:

Thoughts? 

I let my 16 T5 go, nice as it was, because I suspected I wouldn't miss it. I don't mind the gap between the 24 Panoptic and the 13 T6.

But this is unreasonably practical and all very well, I admit.  

The 19 Panoptic seems to provide just about the same FOV as the 16 T5, with less magnification, of course, but more of the Panoptic Charm, if that's your thing...

That's another reason I let the 16 T5 go - I really like the Panoptic views and I had the 19 mm as well. But, I don't really use the 19 Panoptic very often, either...

I use the Baader Mk IV Zoom, and enjoy it very much - for what it is. I don't regard myself as especially discerning in these matters, but I do notice that the view towards the edge of field is not as nice as towards the centre. It doesn't bother me, which probably has to do with how I use it - namely, for the zoom function, and mostly with wide-field refractors. I have owned and used the matching barlow, but have since passed it on. It's a very nice combination, but if you are particularly interested in high-power zooming with excellent edge performance, you can do (a bit) better. The elephant in this particular room bears green lettering.

My 'management summary' would be: with a fast, manual dobsonian, don't expect too much from the Baader Zoom. If you're particular enough to query the barlowed edge performance, you may well be a TeleVue 3-6 Zoom man.

P.S. This may read as an injustice to the Baader Zoom. To be sure, it can serve as one's only eyepiece. Many use it as such and are ecstatic. I love mine.

12 minutes ago, Piero said:

I don't want to install a finder on the Tak, but rather prefer adding this on the other arm of my AOK Ayo 2 mount. Unfortunately, the two arms have a shift of about 1 degree, making difficult the use of TV-60 I have, as a finder for the Tak, particularly when this is used at 250x or more. 

Not cheap, but absolutely brilliant for aligning a second refractor:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adm-guider-mounting/adm-mini-max-guider-guidescope-saddle.html

1 hour ago, Littleguy80 said:

The Equinox 80 is F6.2 and I haven't noticed any CA so far. I believe it's an APO so I shouldn't notice any? Does the F ratio mean that I may see some CA using a prism type diagonal? 

The following may or may not be helpful.

I've not managed to internalize what ATA mean nor how to recognize them when observing. So when I say "the view looks fine to me", it means no more than exactly that.

My Borg 71FL is F5.6. When I use it with a Tak prism...the view looks fine to me.

P.S. ATA = All Those Abbreviations

2 hours ago, Littleguy80 said:

a 1.25” diagonal for the shorter optical path

The Tak prism does this - shorten the path - rather well for me. Nice and light for travel as well.

The TeleVue Everbrite is a very nice mirror.

TS offers dielectric mirror diagonals by GSO, these are made to a very good spec and work very well:

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p1771_TS-Optics-1-25--TS-Optics-1-25--Star-Diagonal-with-ring-clamb---99----1-12-Lambda.html

6 hours ago, Ags said:

Also 68 degrees AFOV is better for a finder eyepiece that 82 degrees AFOV. 

A first read, this seems counterintuitive to me; all things being equal, a wider field of view would show more sky and make it easier to find and hop. What am I overlooking here?

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/moon-neutral-density-filters/baader-neutral-density-moon-filters.html

I use one of these, but not always, just when I feel the need. Very nice.

Nice one, many thanks.

1 minute ago, johninderby said:

The most important thing is finding a scope that you just get along with. Sometimes the “better” scope isn’t the one that you enjoy using.  

+1

2 minutes ago, bluesilver said:

but did putting a smaller eye piece in brig the smaller images up larger and still very sharp. 

Sadly, not utterly and completely. See above.

Well, I've been trying to figure this out myself - the hard way. My own simple summary is that up to a certain magnification, the refractor provides a 'crisper' image. Above that magnification, you lose the crispness - and nothing can give it back to you fully. Given that inherent 'crisp limit', all you can hope for is more detail. A scope with more aperture will make smaller details appear at higher magnification - details that are smaller than the (smaller) refractor's basic 'pixel size', so to speak. You see more of what's there, just never as amazingly crisp as you were hoping for based on the refractor's view at lower magnification.

So once you realise this - and, in my case, get over it - you get on with it.

For HD views up to a point, it's a good frac for me. Getting more stars out of a globular cluster, or Dave Scott's footprints on the Moon is work for my 8" newt.

I wouldn't be surprised if the scope you need is already in your possession.

Just now, Greymouser said:

visual only

Excellent.

1 minute ago, Greymouser said:

On my C9.25 the view is improved with the reducer, over no reducer, which I found odd to be honest... 

Well. Fascinating. Never tried an SCT. Did the Mak thing for a short while. Now it's refractors and newts. Will follow with interest.

?

The description mentions that the focal reducer is for imaging. Do you use it for imaging, or (also) for visual? If for visual, does it affect the quality of the views at all?

I'm not at all knocking your perception of affairs, just thinking along the same lines...if this works without drawbacks, surely we all should...

4 minutes ago, Greymouser said:

I can step the C5 down to F 6.3

I'm sure this is elementary - how is this achieved?

1 hour ago, Trikeflyer said:

Delite Morpheus or Pentax?

I've owned the XW as well; true excellence. I was slightly more impressed with the views through the Pentax than those offered by the Morpheus, but I struggle to qualify this precisely. The XW has the 'chunkiest' feel to it, perhaps the most 'premium' build of the three (but none of them are lacking in any way...). With its FOV and huge eye lens, it's more similar to the Morpheus, the DeLite being a slightly different concept - smaller and lighter.

So, for me, between them, it's still a choice based on eye lens size, FOV, size and weight, with the XW as a slightly more posh alternative to the Morpheus.

At the prices for new, the Morpheus is pretty compelling value. They're all popular enough to not have to worry too much about passing them on if whatever you try isn't quite the ticket for you.

9 hours ago, Floater said:

TV 76 in there?

9 hours ago, Piero said:

I think it is the TV-85

Correct, it's the TV-85

40 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

What are the little pouches/sleeping bags for the eyepieces, Mike? I.e. where did you get them from?

They are neoprene pouches meant to hold the tiniest of compact digital cameras, gadgets now hopelessly outdated. A local supplier seems to have tragically overstocked them. I ordered a box full of the things a while ago and the supply has lasted me.

They are by Lowepro and are called 'Melbourne'. They do only fit eyepieces up to a certain size.

One grab; everything fits. Eyepieces have own sleeping bags for safe coat pocket stuffing. Case bears name of chief resident.

2 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

before you get drawn into the Televue £££ black hole

A good point, and the Morpheus are excellent value indeed.

Black holes have a tendency not to yield any matter whatsoever, once consumed, whereas a TeleVue eyepiece tends to hold - and yield - its value. A used TV eyepiece is often bought and sold without loss.

But we've been over all this before and will again.

If you don't need minimum size and/or weight, Smart Sterling is on Morpheus, they are really very nice indeed.

2 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

If you get chance to read Bill Polini's Morpheus review on CN before you get drawn into the Televue £££ black hole, I'd suggest you do so. 

Agreed. Bill has also reviewed the DeLites, another good read.

DeLites are more compact and lighter. Morpheus has a larger eye lens and FOV. Both have generous eye relief. All of this you know already.

It's in the shorter focal lengths, below 7mm, that I'm personally most impressed by the DeLites. Not in any way to detract from the performance of the longer ones, super and lovely, it's just that for me they make more difference at the short end.

At 9mm, between the two, I'd say it's all to play for in terms of sheer performance. You may as well base your decision on the physical traits of the units (FOV, eye lens size, weight and bulk). Both are very well constructed, quality bits of kit.

I'd have the DeLite, myself, but that's for weight, bulk and green lettering matching that of my other eyepieces.

8 hours ago, AdeKing said:

the panning arm is much more flimsy

Wouldn't expect this finding. Surely it doesn't flex?

The unit as a whole has been designed to be lightweight, for sure.