Louis D

4 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

I once had a 6" F8 achromat made by a local scope manufacturer. It had an octagonal mahogany tube which I polished with bee's Wax for days on end, much to my wife's annoyance. She thought I thought more about the scope than I did about her.  Then one night i went to bed befor her and thought it would be funny to lay the scope under the quilt on her side of the bed.  We were only young, and i hadnt learned yet just how dangerous women can be.  Like most men, once my head hits the pillar I'm out like a light, and on this occasion with my arm around my mahogany tube. I laugh a lot, but more than ever when I'm nervous. I woke with quite a start as the quilt was ripped off me and to see my 23 year old, bright blue eyed naked wife going off on one of those emotional rants, all because I had a telescope in bed with me - on her side of the bed. I just couldn't stop laughing (a nervous reaction). Women are so touchy about such things, - I'll never understand it.  Still we're both still together thirtythree years later. My telescope now sleeps in another room!

You're lucky she didn't smash it to make a point.  Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

2 hours ago, russ.will said:

Wear them round your chest gun-slinger style. The warmth may keep them from misting up.

No? I'll get me coat...

Russ

Sort of like this?

2 hours ago, Mr niall said:

The other big consideration is weight. I had a pair of 15x70s - they were great but too much to use handheld for any period of time. So I changed to a pair of 10x50s. In reality they're probably still a bit much. It's not a case of overall strength, but the fine motor skills required to hold something dead steady at an awkward angle for a long period of time. If it were me I'd be happier with 8x42's - but that is just me!

I have both 8x42 and 15x70 binoculars.  The 8x42s are great for quick grab and go observing of wide star fields.  The 15x70s are usable hand-held if you can recline in a lawn chair, hold them by the objective end, and brace them into your eye sockets.

To be clear, stick with porro prisms for astronomy for many reasons unless you have really deep pockets.

1 hour ago, Butterfingers said:

Thanks very much for your reply. I’ll take a look. Would you be able to recommend binoculars?

For hand-held use, I recommend around 8x40 or 8x42 porro prism binoculars if your budget is tight.  As long as they're well collimated, though, I've found just about any pair of binoculars to be useful for scanning star fields.

6 minutes ago, miguel87 said:

My 9mm is just a standard 50°, so I guess my thinking is that it would be nice to have a wider view other than just my panaview. But it is fair to say that is not a necessity.

I will be getting the scope out tonight (despite the moon) and will see if I feel the need for another piece!

Mike

Now I feel so stupid.  There you are in your avatar picture with your 8" EQ scope.  I somehow missed that yesterday.

Really it depends on your budget, but 13mm plus or minus a millimeter tends to be a very popular focal length eyepiece for many folks with many different scope types.

On 03/04/2020 at 20:38, Erling G-P said:

Been there..  😉

To the OP; do note that schmidt-cassegrain telescopes are generally considered among the worst telescopes to start astro photography with, due to their long focal lengths (= high magnification = much more sensitive to tracking errors)

I think that back in the film era of astrophotography, SCT tracking errors must have much less noticeable since they were very popular in the 80s and 90s for astrophotography.  You just had to be careful about trying to swing the camera through the fork mount.  Some didn't have enough clearance to do that.

7 hours ago, Piero said:

Something in between like a 75x? What can that show that the other two magnifications don't? I don't see an use case, except from collecting one more eyepiece.

If you're using 50 degree eyepieces, I find many open clusters and nebula view better at 75x than 100x by giving them a bit more context.  They're just a bit too small for my liking at 50x.  If you have a 9mm 100 degree eyepiece or ES-120, then that doesn't matter all that much since it provides so much context already and 75x might be a moot point.

3 minutes ago, miguel87 said:

Thanks everyone for your replies. I like to keep eyepieces to a minimum from a financial and practical point of view. My entire collection is 6mm and 9mm Vixen SLV, 20mm Vixen NPL, 32mm 2" Panaview and a Tal 2x barlow.

This gives me exit pupils of 0.6mm, 0.9mm, 1.2mm, 1.8mm, 2mm, 4mm and 6.4mm.

You have made me question my need for another eyepiece.

Mike

As long as you don't mind swapping the Barlow in and out, then you're pretty much good to go.

On 05/04/2020 at 04:56, miguel87 said:

I currently use a SW 200P (focal length 1000mm).

18 hours ago, miguel87 said:

Sorry I must have made a typo somewhere, my scope is a newt on an EQ mount, not a dob.

No typo on your part, just a misunderstanding on my part.  The SW 200P would refer to the SkyWatcher 8" Dob over here since the 8" EQ version isn't sold under that name here.  The closest would be Orion USA's SkyView Pro 8" Equatorial Reflector Telescope that probably corresponds to your scope.

I'd say 75x to 100x is my favorite workhorse power range for everyday observing of many objects under typical sky conditions.  As such, I would highly recommend a low-teens eyepiece to fill that gap.

Your 8" Dob is actually 1200mm in focal length, so your current powers are 38x, 60x, 133x, and 200x.  That leaves quite a gap between 60x and 133x, so I'd recommend something around 86x to 100x with a 12mm to 14mm eyepiece.  The 12mm BST Starguider is pretty decent at f/6.  So is the 12mm Meade HD-60, though it's been discontinued and is considerable more expensive in the UK than the Starguiders.

How about this site?

Wooden Telescope Part 2: Tube and Mount

I've compared them to the Meade HD-60 here.  The 8mm and 5mm are very good, the 12mm pretty good.  Things get progressively worse going up through 15mm, 18mm, and 25mm.  Never bad, just nowhere close to premium performance like the 8mm and 5mm models.

2 hours ago, Wasim60557445 said:

who in the right mind would waste their money on a telescope that expensive,its beyond imagination.

Plenty, apparently.  His last production run sold out, but he decided not to continue doing full custom work despite the demand even at his high prices.  He may convert over to an Obsession Telescopes business model where he only makes identical telescopes production-line style.

10 hours ago, jetstream said:

The area under and around the focuser flexes- a buddy with a VX14 made a plate to stiffen it up.

I see now.  The thin wall tubing was too thin around the focuser.  Sonotube may be heavier, but it is stiffer and never dews up or gets cold to the touch in winter.

Based on the price, it's most likely the 24mm ES-82 and the OP is probably seeing the "ring of fire" common in the Televue Type 5 Naglers and their clones, like the longer focal length ES-82s.  Unfortunately, it's perfectly normal for these eyepieces.

To confirm it's the secondary shadow, put the moon in the center and pull back from the eyepiece.  The black fuzzy patch should become a sharp, black circle.  If you move your head around relative to the eyepiece, the black shadow will move around the face of the moon following your head's motion.

7 hours ago, Jiggy 67 said:

So you don’t like the idea of 6 yellow pouches around your waist?? Could be quite fetching....

I do work with a guy in his 60s who keeps a flashlight, his phone, and a Leatherman tool in pouches on his belt.  He's always having to fix things at unexpected times in unexpected places.  I kid him he has the beginnings of being Batman.

First off, who would keep their eyepieces in those belt holsters while observing?  It just seems like a really bad idea.  Maybe a pack large enough to hold several at once, but individually?

I bought two used 127mm Maks for $200 each, one for me and one for my daughter.  That's basically the same price as a new 90mm Mak.  The latest 127 versions come fitted with a 2" visual back, so you can use 2" eyepieces for a wider true field of view with some vignetting and weird reflections from bright objects.  For planetary, my 8" Dob blows it out of the water, but the 127 Mak is so much more compact and easily pack-able for car trips.  The views through 90mm Maks seem much dimmer than through the 127 Maks despite only being just over an inch smaller.  However, I find the views through my 90mm APO much brighter than either because it operates at a much shorter focal length.  If you need absolute compactness, then the 90mm Mak is the way to go.

Point it at a distant object and remove all the adapters from the focuser.  Hold a low power eyepiece in the focuser opening and move it in and out by hand while looking through it like a loupe.  See if you can get a focused image at any distance.  If you can get a focus, note the distance.  Infinity focus will be noticeably closer in to the main tube, but it's a starting point.  At least you will get a rough idea of where focus lies.

52 minutes ago, jetstream said:

My OOUK VX10 Al tube will flex, so this is the issue here. I can't binoview with this scope. Very hvy eyepieces will also decollimate this scope.

😲  That's wild.  I've never heard of a solid tube Newt flexing.

54 minutes ago, jetstream said:

The 15" is rock solid but the Moonlight will flex about 2/3 racked out with a simulated binoviewer weight. Same goes for the 24"- focuser sag.

However, colleagues tell me the new Feathertouch is worse...

If you're that picky, you might want to look into a Clement focuser.  No flex, no slippage, and virtually no backlash.

9 minutes ago, baticles said:

hmm i cant seem to find that scope got a link?

Search for Meade OR Celestron Schmidt Cassegrain telescopes.  That should get you more hits.

3 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Thanks for this- it all matters to maximize views. In other scopes too... secondary decollimation can be common and I test all my dobs. Doing this allows 761x on the moon with the 15" and as much mag as I can merge with the binos but only up to 2/3 racked out.

I've never heard of heavy eyepieces causing secondary decollimation in large Dobs.  Are they twisting the truss poles somehow?

I'll believe the 4.5mm being heavy.  My 14mm Pentax XL is 352g, my 10mm Delos is 398g, my 7mm Pentax XW is 389g, my 5.2mm Pentax XL is 435g, and my 3.5mm Pentax XW is 423g.  Thus, the shortest focal lengths are actually the heaviest.  It doesn't help they have long metal barrels between the negative and positive sections.  The Morpheus appear to use an engineered plastic like Delrin which probably helps to keep weight down as the barrel gets longer.

That 17.5mm sounds even more tempting at that weight.  My 17mm AT AF70 is 441g, my 17mm NT4 is 727g, and my 17mm ES-92 is a whopping 1153g!  Impressive achievement for Baader.

1 hour ago, baticles said:

so whats the image with it like? is it worth getting even tho its really heavy and would it be good for a first timer?

It probably throws up good images similar to many other 10" mass produced Newtonians.  However, the images will probably be the same as in a Skywatcher Skyliner 250PX Flex Tube SynScan GOTO Dobsonian Telescope minus the two speed focuser.  The mirrors are probably identical.  The Dob would track, just in alt-az instead of equatorial mode, so there would be image rotation ruling out DSO astrophotography.  You could still do planetary AP.  The OTA weighs 19kg and the rocker box weighs 25kg for a combined 44kg, or just about the same, but much less top heavy.

3 minutes ago, MarkAR said:

The 8SE you also link to in your first post has a greater focus length, its smaller and more manageable and will get you a lot "closer".

Actually, "closer" only with a given eyepiece.  The 10" Dob would be able to go to higher power owing to the larger aperture.  It would just require a shorter focal length eyepiece or a Barlow.  But you're right, it's way more compact.  It's just that you can't get much above about a 1 degree true field of view with it.

I think the OP has to decide what weight is comfortable to carry around.  I know my limit is about 50 pounds.  I've got a 15" Dob that doesn't get used because the mirror box is 65 pounds and kills my back to get it out of storage and up onto the rocker box.