Louis D

2 hours ago, Jiggy 67 said:

They are huge reductions, their must be a reason 

They're $169+tax in the US, and many retailers still show limited stock of them.  By comparison, they're only $80 to $90 shipped from FLO to the US, less if more than one is bought at a time.  Since I'd have to buy over $800 of them to get hit with the 8% tariff, that leaves only 8.25% sales tax for me to remit.  Something is going on, but what?

1 hour ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

I have just held the SLV 5 and 15 mm EPs up to my eyes and the 5 definitely has a slightly smaller AFOV. They are very comfortable to use with glasses, I find. The coffee tone wasn't obvious in my LV 9, but it was in the LV 7mm

Thanks!  That lends credence to the school of thought that the sub-9mm SLVs are the same in AFOV as their LV and NLV counterparts.

Perhaps the sub-9mm LVs used more Lanthanum elements than the rest?  Perhaps some other rare earth glass causes the cofffee tone that only the sub-9mm versions used?

I hope you didn't sell that 7mm LV.  They're hard to find nowadays.  It's worth holding onto just for collectability sake.

13 minutes ago, FLO said:

The Vixen LVW series (including the 42mm, one of me all-time favourite eyepieces!) are discontinued. The SSW and SLV series are not discontinued. They are ongoing. 

HTH, 

Steve 

Thanks.  Better tell Optics Planet they're misinformed on both counts. 😁

7 minutes ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

I have three SLVs (5, 9, and 15mm) for my travel gear, and they are excellent. They are very close to the performance of my Pentax XW EPs, in everything except field of view. They are comfortable, very sharp, and better than my previous LVs. I only had the 7 and 9 mm, and I found them to have a slight brown cast absent in the SLVs. Furthermore, the stiff rubber eyecups were a pain to roll back, especially in cold weather. I can wholeheartedly recommend the SLVs

Are the SLVs as easy to use with eyeglasses as the LVs once you got those stiff rubber eyecups folded back?  I totally agree on the latter being a pain to use in the field, so I only bought the 9mm before moving on to the Pentax XLs.

I've not noticed a distinct coffee tone in my 9mm, but I wouldn't doubt it because just about all eyepieces made with Lanthanum glass, such as the Radians, exhibit this to some degree.

Last, does the 5mm SLV really have a 50 degree AFOV?  I've read conflicting reports on the sub-9mm SLVs actually having the same 45 degree field as their predecessors.  If it does have a 50 degree field and no coffee tone, I'll bet they were redesigned to avoid the use of Lanthanum glass for cost reasons and to open up the field 5 degrees.

32 minutes ago, Space Hopper said:

I never knew that was an issue @Louis D 

My 15x50s are rubber armoured and date from 2004, and they are as good now as they were back then.

Mind you, i live in Derby UK, not Texas !! It's a bit cooler (make that about 20ºC cooler) here. They're not going to melt here in any hurry, believe me ! 😄

I found a CN thread on this very subject.  It is definitely hit or miss.

I also had it happen to me on a 1992 vintage Sony Hi-8 video camera.  The black rubber grip on top turned to goo in storage after having used it regularly without issues until switching entirely to digital in 2008.  I dug it out again about 5 years ago only to discover it had turned to goo in storage.  Neither the Rebel nor the camcorder had ever been exposed to solvents, Deet, temperature extremes, or humidity extremes, especially in storage which is when it happened.

5 minutes ago, Alan White said:

All this Vixen kit on clearance, are they departing Astronomy? or Eyepiece production?
I for one hope they are not, Irathr like Vixen kit.

Well, I know the LVWs were definitely discontinued over 5 years ago.  I've also read that the SSWs are discontinued as well.  The same appears to be true for the SLVs.  Perhaps @FLO could chime in here with definitive knowledge on the subject.

First came the LVs, then the NLVs, then the SLVs.  The first two were made in Japan, and the last made in China.  The 7mm and 50mm focal lengths were dropped after the LVs and the 30mm redesigned and relabed as an NLVW.  The sub-9mm SLVs claim to be 50 degree AFOV while those focal lengths were 45 degrees in the LV and NLV lines.  The 8-24mm zoom remains unchanged as an LV.  It appears that the 40mm NLV lived a short life between the LV and SLV lines.  The original LVs had roll down rubber eye cups that revealed 100% of the possible eye relief.  The twist up-down  eye cups on the NLV and SLV lines always steal a few millimeters of eye relief away from eyeglass wearers.  By all accounts I've read, the SLVs seem to be as well made as the original Japanese NLVs.  I think the original LVs look totally posh compared to the later, plasticy NLVs and SLVs, though.

LVs:

NLVs:

SLVs:

On 26/01/2020 at 06:15, Ciaran Meier said:

Hopefully the price of image stabilization will come down and the technology will port over to other manufacturers. Just image what view a 15x70 image stabilized bino would offer !  

They might have come down slightly in inflation adjusted prices over the last 20 years since they were introduced, but they're still very expensive.  They've never reached mainstream volumes, so I doubt their prices will ever come down.

The original Canon IS binos' rubber armor turned to goo about 5 to 10 years ago, so there might be deals to be had on them.  The same thing happened to my original 2003 Canon Rebel DLSR.  I gave it away to a friend of my son's to learn on.  I have no idea what he did to avoid the dreaded sticky, black hands syndrome from using it.  I often had to resort to acetone to get it all off my hands.

If your budget is tight, get the Revelation/GSO coma corrector and add a 25mm extension between the optical section and the eyepiece holder.  As long as your eyepieces focus with 5mm of the shoulder, it will correct over 95% of the coma in my experience, often far more.  It needs about 11mm of in-focus, so most focusers can accommodate it.

3 hours ago, happy-kat said:

That item shipped to the UK is too expensive and will not fall into low value consignment relief so will pay extra tax on it, have a read up first to make sure you know what extra tax you may be liable to pay.

Off-topic, so I apologize, but how do taxes on packages get collected in the UK?  In the US, if you ship via a private shipper such as UPS or DHL, they do the collection and guess which tariff schedule to apply and charge a brokerage fee.  It can soar to 25% plus a $50 brokerage fee.  However, if you ship via the post office, the US post office generally makes no effort to collect anything on receipt after clearing customs.  I don't know if it is a lack of interest or they are simply overwhelmed.  Perhaps if they charged a $50 brokerage fee, they might be able to hire more help to collect taxes.  I have bought lots of stuff from Europe, Australia, and China and never once payed any taxes on any of it.

Pretty much any dovetail bar can be attached to any tube or tube ring if you have the proper hex head cap screw (HHCS) to fit the threads on the tube mounting block or tube rings.  They're generally 1/4-20 sized.

Dovetail bars vary in style from extruded aluminum to CNC machined aluminum stock.  Lengths and hole patterns vary widely.  Some smooth holes and slots are for attaching the bar to the tube while others are threaded so accessories can be attached to the bar itself.

The question is, does your dovetail clamp fit a Losmandy or D-style dovetail bar?  It's much wider than the more common Vixen or V-style bar.  There are some clamps that will accept both.

1 hour ago, LukeSkywatcher said:

The stick holding the secondary mirror just tightens/loosens when you turn it.

Are you saying the nut in the photo is solidly affixed to the upper tube assembly?  If so, what keeps the bolt/shaft from rotating freely once adjusted to the proper distance to center it above the primary?  For that matter, how do you rotate the secondary holder to square it back toward the primary once the the bolt is screwed in the proper distance?

3 hours ago, Kronos831 said:

Sorry louis , but I cant view the image you sent fore some reason. Are you talking about this nut right here?

 

also the scope is new , how do I tighten in , what screwdriver do I need?

Yep, that's the one.  You'll need an open end wrench/spanner, either of a fixed size or adjustable (often called a Crescent® wrench in the US).  While holding the secondary holder in the proper position to have it aimed directly at the primary, tighten that nut down against the upper tube ring.  The binding action should keep the secondary from twisting.  If it keeps working loose, try fitting a lock washer between it and the upper tube ring (after completely unscrewing the holder bolt) to prevent it from loosening.  Just note the number of exposed threads before removing it so you can reinsert it to the same centered position.

8 hours ago, Piero said:

Her mother was a bit shocked by the size

She probably thinks you're compensating for something else, but she'll never say it.

5 hours ago, Raph-in-the-sky said:

Sadly they don't ship to Belgium 😢

 

Nor the US if I recall correctly.

1 hour ago, Alan White said:

Having now pondered the replies in this thread and folks bodges to fill the undercuts,
a question for you all...

Has anyone had the undercut eyepiece refitted with a non undercut 1.25" or 2" fitting?
I was pondering this, probably not practical, but thought I would ask.

Not really practical for eyepieces with a Smyth lens in the lower barrel, either.

33 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

That's very eye catching and part of me would love an observatory with such a beast permanently mounted inside, but how do you touch it without leaving a finger print? I'd have to be permenantly on guard trying to keep paulastro from writing his name in the condensation on the tube.😲

Always wear white cotton gloves when observing? 🤔

1 hour ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

Forgot to mention I am considering putting a hole in the kids play house roof and setting up in my new "Observatory"  on a permanent basis 😊😊😊

Just make it a roll-off roof instead.

4 hours ago, Dark knight 101 said:

You certainly are sorted for small refractor scopes. Your triplet apo would harvest great images, I'll take a look at your images as soon as I have learnt to navigate this forum. I'm still learning how to go places and see stuff. 

Visual only.  I just can't stand false color having started with reflectors.  Even the AT72ED's false color at higher powers was starting to grate on my nerves.  So far, I haven't noticed any false color in focus with the 90mm.

1 hour ago, Raph-in-the-sky said:

$75 sounds pretty good. 

If I cannot find it used, I will get the Omegon copy which seems identical but cheaper (at least for me when shipping costs are taken into account).

https://www.astroshop.eu/flatteners-correctors-reducers/omegon-pro-koma-korrektor-fuer-astrograph/p,53821

Can you buy from Telescope House?  Their Revelation version is only £65.10.

12 minutes ago, Littleguy80 said:

I agree, Lewis. Very good value. I suspect use of a CC implies more interest in stars rather than faint objects. It certainly wasn't a big difference but enough to be noticeable. I was using the Revelation branded version which I think is the same as the GSO. The next step up would be the Explore Scientific CC but even that's about 4 times the price of the Revelation. All comes down to what your preference is and how big your wallet is  

Yep, mostly starfields big and small because of the level of light pollution in my backyard.  It wasn't bad 25 years ago when the nearest small town was 4 miles away.  Now I'm surrounded by a tollway, tens of thousands of new homes, several giant shopping centers, multiple schools and their lighted fields, car dealerships, etc.  I'm seriously considering moving to darker skies when I retire.

15 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

Excellent modifications to your scope. That's the first time a Newtonian caused me to stop in admiration for a long time. Thanks for posting that image! 

I just realized if he covered everything in a mixture of chrome and brass, it would look seriously steampunk like this Moonraker scope:

22 hours ago, Rusted said:

Disagree. Both the "plug" and "socket" are well defined, parallel cylinders with very close tolerances.
Parallelism is assured with the first screw to be tightened. The further two screws merely secure the item more firmly in the socket.
The secured item would remain safely in place regardless of load and equatorial mounting orientation causing rotation of the receptacle provided three thumbscrews are used.

No taper, nor variation in seating diameters is likely, given mass production using massive CNC machines with very stiff boring bars and external bit holders.
The side loads involved during cutting are absolutely minuscule with modern, ceramic, or other hard, cutting bits in free cutting aluminium using free flowing, cutting fluid.
Both items remain chucked for both internal and external turning. There is no removal midway as might occur with amateur hand turning.

Optical Concentricity is a function of the differences in diameter of the two cylinders involved and can never be worse than one screw.

Given the minute errors involved one would be very unlikely to see, nor detect, any optical defect in the image regardless of the number of thumbscrews.

A simple test would involve mounting both items, once tightened together, in a precision, self centering lathe chuck or, even better a precision collet.
A lever, dial indicator will cheerfully monitor concentricity and parallelism while turning the chuck, or collet holder, by hand.

A finder has wide tolerances over widely spaced constraints along the axis. It is designed as such to allow completely independent adjustment to allow alignment.

Or words to that effect.

Well, a lot of folks had issues merging binoviewer images when the eyepieces were held by three screws instead of a single collet (not sure if undercuts were involved since I never owned one of these binoviewers).  You rarely see binoviewers these days being sold with three screws per eyepiece holder.  However, the collet-style holders still have issues with the undercuts causing eyepieces to tip.  I prefer eyepieces with no undercut for this reason when using binoviewers.

I'll agree that I've not noticed any difference in concentricity of a single light path when using 1, 2, or even 3 screws to tighten a diagonal or eyepiece into place.

19 hours ago, Merlin66 said:

Piero,

Didn't work for me....

The holding screws quickly chewed it up.......

Have you tried pinstriping tape from the automotive supply store?  This CN poster has had good luck with it.

17 hours ago, Dark knight 101 said:

For sure I keep all my gear inside, have to pile it up in a corner in bedroom, wife hates it but my gear loves it

My wife used to have an entire bedroom dedicated to her crafting supplies and tools.  Our third child put an end to that.  Now that they're all grown, I'm surprised she hasn't taken it over again.