Louis D

Have you ever noticed SAEP (kidneybeaning) in your Radians? It was the first thing I noticed about them viewing through a telescope in the daytime in a shop in 1998 when they were introduced. It immediately turned me off to them, and I went with Pentax XLs instead which display no SAEP to my eye.

So much for the oft trotted out theory that eyepieces with fewer elements always produces a brighter, contrastier image than that from an eyepiece with a large number of elements. Perhaps it's true if the level of polish, coatings, and glass purity are similar between the two eyepieces, but so will be the prices (e.g., Tak TOA vs TV Delos).

I'm surprised no one has mentioned suitcase or travel Dobsonians built by ATMs as among the best travel scopes. Select "travel dobs" on the ninth line down on the left. I can't get the direct link to work.

The only DSOs that benefit from higher powers in my experience are planetary nebula and globular clusters. Do these interest you a lot? The 2.5x Powermate would yield 9.6mm with your 24mm Panoptic, which is a decent mid-high power combination. I tend to favor a bit lower focal length eyepieces, in the 12mm to 14mm range, for viewing most DSOs in my f/6 scopes. What focal length eyepieces did you sell? Which of them did you tend to use the most often? That should probably be your guide to purchasing replacement eyepieces. If you can get double-duty out of a Powermate, then I say go for it.

Exactly why would it make more sense to mount a scope on top rather than on the side of the mount? On an alt-az setup, you'd have to counterbalance a scope on top to keep it from turning the whole mount turtle at high altitudes, adding unnecessary weight to a grab and go rig. Mounting it on the side allows it to be balanced front to rear at any altitude without any additional weights. Here's my dual mount grab and go setup with a Mak side mounted on one side:

Try looking at distant (1/4 mile or further) object during the daytime or wait for the first quarter moon at night. Take the eyepiece out of the focuser and look at the aerial image in the focuser from a distance of a foot or so. It's sort of like looking in a shaving mirror. Does the object appear sharp? If so, we'll assume you have a good mirror. Next, on the moon at night, put a couple of strips of frosted tape across the empty focuser tube center and see if you can bring the moon to a sharp focus on them, sort of like focusing on ground (frosted) glass plates in view cameras of old that were then replaced with a film plate. Next, lock the focuser (there should be a thumbscrew on the side of the outer tube for this purpose) and remove the tape. Last, put the 30mm eyepiece in the focuser and see if the image in the eyepiece is nearly in focus. Unlock the focuser tube and slowly start moving the focus wheel forward or back, depending on which way causes the image in the eyepiece to get smaller and less fuzzy. At some point, it should razor sharp. If it doesn't ever reach a sharp focus and instead starts getting more bloated again past a certain point, you've either got collimation issues or a really bad figure on your mirror. I doubt that your eyepiece is to blame. If you can't ever get a sharp image of the moon on the frosted tape, note at which position of the focuser the image is smallest. If it is all the way in/down, you'll need to move your mirror forward/upward in the main tube to push the image further out the side of the tube. If it is all the out/up, you'll need to add an extension tube to reach focus. You also might be able to get away with not inserting the 30mm eyepiece all the way in the focuser when trying to focus with it. If you can't ever get a sharp image at 30mm, forget moving up to 9mm. It will only get worse.

Unless I want to buy used from the UK and have to go through all this again to convince the seller than it's 65% of the pre-tax price. 🤣 I have bought used from Australia with no issues, and they also have VAT (10%, though, so about the same as our sales tax). The asking price was about 75% of new, but the item had a 9 month lead time, minimum, if new, so I was happy to pay a premium for it. No customs (less than $800) or sales tax (out of country) via AustPost/USPost.

Getting way off topic now, but I just wanted to point out that UK VAT rate has changed over the years according to Wikipedia, and I didn't hear about raging protesters in tactical gear sacking Parliament for any of them: Standard VAT rates since 1973:[40] From To Standard rate 1 April 1973 July 1974 10.0% July 1974 17 June 1979 8.0%* 18 June 1979 18 March 1991 15.0% 19 March 1991 30 November 2008 17.5% 1 December 2008 31 December 2009 15.0% 1 January 2010 3 January 2011 17.5% 4 January 2011 Present 20.0% *During this period an alternate VAT rate of 25% and then 12.5% was introduced for petrol and some luxury goods.[41] This was abolished in 1979.

Invest in a good fluid head normally used for videography. The pan and tilt motions will be smooth and well dampened. Add a 6x30 straight through finder scope or similar to help get the scope quickly on target and then switch to the main scope's eyepiece. Can't help you there. It's the nature of the beast. I don't think there's room on the back for even a 1.25" Crayford focuser on a 102.

Try the 5x Barlow with the 25mm in the interim to see if the image is improved over the 10mm with the 2x Barlow. You have checked that your scope is properly collimated, right? Have you been able to observe the rings of Saturn? They should be pretty obvious.

Personally, I don't like using Barlows or "magnifiers" like the Powermate unless it stays in the focuser all night. It's a pain to insert them between the eyepiece and the focuser and to adjust focus afterward. The 9mm Morpheus is very close to the 10mm Delos in performance in my experience, so I can highly recommend it as a lower cost alternative to a TV eyepiece. The 10mm and shorter Pentax XWs are also a good TV alternative. If you like 100 degree views, the APM XWA HDC line is also a good TV alternative. At 30mm, I recommend the APM UFF once you've returned the borrowed Nagler. There's also the BCO line for planetary observing. You haven't really established a budget or preferred objects to observe. You haven't even stated whether or not your mount is driven or not. All this makes offering advice difficult.

You're showing your age. My grown kids don't read the newspaper, watch TV news, etc. They tend to get their news from social media. Unless an influencer brings it up, I doubt they would notice. They tend to be oblivious of much of the news and like it that way because it often upsets them.

Fished in!

Just pointing out the taxing genius of forcing all companies to hide VAT in their list prices such that now the price including VAT is the nominal list price in every consumer's mind. Had the government not mandated this approach and allowed it to be added at checkout as in the US, no one in the UK would consider price+VAT as the nominal price. I'm just pointing out the difference in the way US/UK views list prices thanks to different price advertising laws. Few Americans have any idea how much they're paying in excise taxes, and I'm certain more than a few Brits have no idea how much they're paying in VAT taxes because it isn't itemized separately at checkout either. And yes, used astro prices have risen considerably in the US as well on certain desirable items that are in short supply. Heck, some used cars are selling for more than their original list price because of the shortage of new cars.

They why not remove it when calculating the true cost of the item before taxes for resale purposes since end consumers seem to be unable to recoup VAT taxes paid?

Ingenious on the part of your government to hide the tax such that no one is aware of it. It also makes it easier to raise it when it's hidden. These hidden taxes are referred to as excise taxes in the US and are applied to specific items like fuel, alcohol, and tobacco products. Sales tax is often applied on top of these hidden taxes making them even more insidious.

A bit smaller objective, but the old AP Traveler was a popular 4" scope that met carry-on requirements. Has anyone ever done a head to head comparison between it and the Borg?

In the US, no one includes sales tax in their computations because it varies from place to place, and is not applied to many foreign purchases and even some internet purchases if the seller has no nexus of business within the purchaser's state. It's also not included in the retailers price on websites. It's computed at checkout and added along with shipping at that time. As a result, the price Americans ask for used items would seem to be much less than VAT country sellers since we're not trying to recoup our sales tax originally paid. For instance, a $100 item would cost on average $106 with sales tax (although it varies from $100 to $111 locally). Using the 65% rule, most sellers ask in the $65 range, and no sales tax is generally collected on personal sales. In the UK, a £100 item would cost £120 everywhere, apparently; and using the 65% rule, most sellers would ask in the £78 range instead of the £65 range because they do not remove the VAT they originally paid and seem to want to recoup at resell. Thus, the UK seems to use the 78% rule instead of the 65% rule that the US uses. Keep this in mind if you ever do cross Atlantic sales. Alternatively, the US uses the 54% rule if a 20% VAT is assumed on new sales in the US to level the playing field.

Is it normal for TV eyepieces to go for 89% of new prices in the UK? £810/1.2 = £675 new vs £600 used.

I have a couple of 127 Maks, one for me and one for my grown daughter to use on camping trips. You'll definitely go deeper and bring in more planetary detail. However, you'll lose wide field views since the focal length is about 2.3 times longer. They're easy to transport thanks to their short physical length, though.

Wow, that works out to within $22 of new price here in the states before shipping and taxes. Your TV new prices must be outrageously high right now.

Unless they go with a design similar to the 30mm APM UFF which uses a compression instead of expansion section ahead of the field stop. Of course, it wouldn't be the same negative/positive design methodology as the rest of the line. However, the eyepiece width could be kept fairly narrow to allow for binoscope usage.

Mostly in the pricing and quality control. Generally, astro items made in Europe, Japan, Taiwan, and USA tend to have higher prices and higher quality control levels. If these new filters are made in one of these regions and have the aforementioned quality control issues (scratches, coating defects, etc.), then it is concerning. If they were made in China, it's not surprising, but then the price is surprising in that case. Chinese labor and overhead costs are a fraction of those other four production areas, but are rarely passed on in full to consumers. When athletic shoe production was moved from the US to China over the last 25 years, prices were kept constant despite production costs plummeting. Shipping costs could not have eaten up all the cost savings. Interestingly enough, the very same suppliers would produce extra shoes and sell them at a cut rate price worldwide through non-official channels that still made them plenty of money but enraged the US companies. Fighting this has been tough for US companies.

As I've said before on other threads vis-a-vis 2" Barlows, the only time I use them is just to change things up for an entire night of observing. It's too much of a PITA to swap it in and out of the focuser due to the massive change in focus position it causes. They're fine if you just leave them in the whole night, though. It's kind of fun to see how my 2" eyepieces react to the Barlow's presence. That, and the presentation is different as compared to similar focal length 1.25" eyepieces.

@Andrew*It's been 14 years since the original post. Did you end up buying the XP from @JeremyS? If so, how did you like it? Did you keep it or sell it on?