Louis D

I noticed the 4mm setting getting slightly softer, but still quite usable. From 5mm to 8mm, I'd rate the Svbony zoom as excellent.

There shouldn't be much apparent field of view difference between the SLVs and the HR. The LVs, NLVs, and SLVs below 9mm all have 45 degree apparent fields despite what the later versions claimed. Check it for yourself. Hold up a ~50 degree plossl to one eye and either the 4mm or 6mm SLV to the other eye while looking at a bright background. The SLVs will have a smaller image circle. The Svbony zoom has an AFOV between 58 and 61 degrees, so it should look considerably wider than either the SLVs or HR.

To build on what has been said above, I would recommend not going with a wider passband than that found in a UHC type filter. Think of them as a more selective light pollution filter for use on nebula. The only way you're going to see galaxies is to seek out a truly dark sky site to observe from.

The focus wheel is not to be confused with a zoom wheel. The image is getting larger out of focus, but it is not a useful image to observe. You might want to buy a zoom eyepiece to get started with observing if you like the idea of zooming to enlarge the image on the fly. Once inserted in the focuser, you bring the image to focus such that it is at its smallest. Then, you can twist the collar around the eyepiece to zoom in or out to enlarge or reduce the image size in a continuous manner. You might need to refocus at each zoom setting because zooms tend to not be parfocal (remain in focus at all settings).

As long as the primary mirror movement lubricant is still in good shape to allow smooth focusing, it should work right out of gate. I've had two of these Synta made Maks, one Orion and one Celestron, and both are spot on in collimation and have no focus shift or backlash. You'll just need a decent alt-az mount/tripod and red dot finder to get started. It looks like it was used on a photo tripod based on the still attached quick release plate. The tripod and head are probably kicking around somewhere in that same attic. If you can't find the tripod, you'll need to unscrew and remove that quick release plate before using it in a dovetail clamp based mount.

Interesting, I've found just the opposite. My old, long focus Barlows won't come to focus in refractors when used in the diagonal because they require so much in focus (up to 4 inches). Of course, you can use them ahead of the diagonal at a higher than marked power without focus issues. This in-focus issue doesn't arise in all but the smallest Newts because the secondary mirror is so far away from the focuser. You simply insert the Barlow 4 inches into focuser. Try doing that with a diagonal! Of course, you may introduce a diffraction effect if the Barlow protrudes into Newt's light path. In practice, I've not noticed it with even my longest Barlows. Shorty Barlows come to focus in everything in my experience, so are generally the better choice unless going for the highest quality views possible. I've found that the older, Japanese made long Barlows of the 90s produce the tightest images at high powers. The difference is subtle, but it is there over shorty and mid-length Barlows of similar cost (sub $150). I've not tried any of the super premium Barlows or Powermates because I can't justify the cost involved for how little I use Barlows.

Here's some APOD moon halo images: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap220102.html https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap210201.html https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap180502.html There are many more that have been featured over the years.

Here's evidence at least the 25mm Meade 3000 went to Taiwan:

If you're using an iPhone, pick up a used phone with the necessary sensors, but older or with a bad SIM card tray. You don't need service to use SkEye.

I'd put polish near the top of the list. If the lens polish isn't extremely smooth, you'll get scatter. This scatter can easily ruin high power, low contrast planetary viewing by placing a veil of haze across the image.

I think you'll find a preference over time for an eyepiece swap to get to higher powers rather than swapping out the eyepiece, swapping in the Barlow, and then swapping in the eyepiece into the Barlow and then having to refocus quite a bit with many Barlows. I'd recommend the Svbony 3-8mm as well. See my write-up below: It will probably be going on special sale price during the lead up to the holidays.

I use that same technique to confirm or reacquire comets hidden in the twilight murk. The latter is needed because I slowly lose sight of them while observing them. It's bizarre, but my brain just averages them out with the sky glow over time as some sort of background noise to be ignored since it isn't moving or changing. It's a good thing astro cameras don't behave the same way.

You could also trying using the SkEye phone app as a push-to finder to help get you in the ballpark. I mount my phone to my scope and then center a bright star or planet and then realign SkEye to that object. I still keep a QuikFinder and RACI finder scope on there as well.

Try decreasing the exposure with the exposure compensation slider. Slide it to the left into the negative numbers. Your camera is trying to expose the dark background sky at 18% gray. Try the -3 setting for starters. That should get you in the ballpark of the correct exposure for starters. Try other settings and see what you get.

The UHC filter would probably help to reduce skyglow so you would get better contrast of nebula against the background skyglow. For star fields or open clusters, you probably want to avoid using a UHC filter because it throws off the star colors and would probably cause star bloat. You can always increase contrast on star fields in post processing by adjusting levels/curves.

I was reading up on your phone's cameras, and near as I can tell, simply choose lower resolutions. It will result in lower resolution images, but, for instance, 2x2 binning at 1/2 the linear resolution (1/4 total pixels) results in 4x as much light gathered per pixel. Give it a try at various resolution levels to see which produces the best compromise between resolution and image brightness. Lower resolution results in a shorter exposure time to get to the same image brightness (density) as at higher resolution. If your mount doesn't track, keeping exposures shorter will reduce image blurring as the Earth rotates under the sky.

Pentax XLs, XWs, ES-92s, 30mm UFF, ES-82, etc.

Being an ultrawide, low power freak, I would recommend getting a GSO coma corrector first. I demand sharp stars from edge to edge while letting objects drift across the field of view. The inherent coma in a parabolic mirror prevents this with even the finest eyepieces. I use the CC during all but high power observing sessions where the small amount of central spherical aberrations gets noticed. I rarely use a Barlow. Get a Svbony 3-8mm zoom if you want high power views in a compact pacakage.

Don't use an ultrawide angle camera lens with an eyepiece during afocal projection photography. As you've discovered, it results in a massive mismatch in fields of view if you do. Try using the wide angle and then the telephoto cameras to see if you get a better field of view match. For night photography, you'll definitely want to do pixel binning with those high resolution imagers behind those camera lenses. You could try taking ultrawide angle images of the night sky using that ultrawide camera. Just mount the camera to a tripod and take some images of different exposure lengths to see what you get.

If you are indeed performing afocal astrophotography and the black area outside the eyepiece's apparent field of view is bothering you, buy an eyepiece with an angular apparent field of view wider than the angular diagonal field of view of your camera.

The Svbony zoom goes for around $120 with tax delivered here in the US. The BHZ Barlow runs about $165 with tax delivered in the US. The BHZ + BHZB combo goes for around $380 with tax delivered. The BHZ alone is $280 with tax delivered. Thus, the BHZ + SZ would be about $400 or about $20 more than the BHZ + BHZB combo purchase. I'd rather have two separate zoom eyepieces myself for that $20 difference.

I like how Vixen couldn't quite decide where to put their logo or even what that logo should look like over the years.

I'm wondering how far out of focus the image is. That's the only way I can see spider vane shadows at the eyepiece. Try racking the focuser end to end to see if you can minimize the out of focus image. If the image gets smaller in one direction, but stops shrinking before reaching sharp focus, let us know which way that was, all the way in or all the way out. We might be able to make suggestions on what to do next.

In my experience, once you have enough damage to get past the typical 2% of insured value deductible, file for everything possible to make it worth your while. When I had a lightning ground strike wipe out my plumbing and multiple electronic devices, I had repairmen and original cost receipts along with photos and videos of the damage to show them. They just took my word for everything and wrote me out a check for plumbing/electrical repair costs and full replacement value of fried electronics minus my deductible on everything. Six months later I found I'd missed that my water softener had gotten partially fried as well, so its $600 repair didn't end up being covered because the claim was closed. It worked post-strike, but at only 40% capacity. That was a subtle issue to track down and root cause once I noticed the reduced capacity. Thus, make sure to assess all damage before claiming. It will be hard to know if anything you have is repairable back to the level it functioned at before. That would depend on finding a repair facility qualified to do the repairs, and it being able to do the lab testing necessary to verify factory tolerances are being met once repaired. Good luck with that. Instead, push for full replacement value as much as you can. It turns out trying to dispose of a fried 50" plasma TV was the most difficult task of all related to that claim. Our trash collector and our recycler wouldn't take it. I finally found a local repairman who would take it for spare parts. He could sort through it to see what was salvageable.

Well, polos are not sold in the US except as clothing, so I have no concept of it's hauling capacity. For comparison, when I go camping, I take my 2003 Chevy Astro van. It swallows up my 8" Dob like it's nothing. Of course, I get 12mpg city and 17mpg highway with it, but with gas prices around $2.50/gal, it doesn't bother me much for the rare times I take it anywhere. For you, finding faint smudges in Bortle 9 skies is going to be the real challenge. If you can find a large globular cluster in the murk, the 8" should be able to resolve its component stars at 200x or higher power despite the sky glow. Planets should reveal more details and the fainter moons of Saturn should be more apparent. You should also be able to split tighter double stars with the 8". The 6" Newtonian is right at the cusp of being able to resolve large globular clusters by way of comparison. You definitely get the outer parts, but the central area tends to still be fuzzy.