iPeace

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

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

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

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.

Excellent. 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...

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

I also own the Starbeam, it came with my TV-85. It's the business, but the proprietary mounting system makes it less flexible. The SS V offers better dew shielding and I prefer its single-coin battery requirement to the Starbeam's stack of pellets. I think that's the last of the hairs I had to split...

It's very well built and its workings are precise. Please keep in mind I haven't paid any notice to whether an SCT mounting shoe is included and if so, whether it's any different from the one supplied with the III...box it came in is buried in the loft... So worst case, if you get a V you might also have to get a decent shoe for it - but you'll probably be so pleased you won't mind.

Sorry to confirm; I have 3 SkySurfer IIIs and in each box, this bit is broken. I don't use that base, though, so it hasn't been an issue for me. I'm happy with the RDF itself. Totally different beast, the V. Absolutely nothing at all like the III. I cannot imagine disappointment with a V. It's not discrete, though.

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.

Correct, it's the TV-85

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.

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.

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.

Wouldn't expect this finding. Surely it doesn't flex? The unit as a whole has been designed to be lightweight, for sure.

Oh, very well...

Stanley the TV-85 out for an early Moon.

Just the price difference; I asked not to include the standard finder scope and they discounted that as well. If you get in touch with them and explain exactly what you (don't) want, they can get it done.