Louis D

I used XSi (450D) cameras for semi-professional work until their shutters died, so they're good for about 80,000 clicks.  For general shooting, I prefer my T3i (600D) due to higher resolution, lower noise, and the fully articulated LCD.  I've seen quite a few astro-modded versions here in the states for good prices, so keep an eye out for them as well.  After the T3i, it seems like Canon has mostly been bent on improving video characteristics rather than still captures, so I haven't felt a compelling need to upgrade.

1 hour ago, johninderby said:

I see why they’re only producing 300 and not making it a regular production item. Selling more than that could be a problem at that price. Wonder if this bit of price gouging will hurt their reputation?  🤔

It sure isn't going to help it.  Limited edition cameras rarely have any lasting collector value, so I don't see why this would be any different.  Once those original purchasers pass on in 30 or 40 years time, no one will really remember or care about what made it collectible in the first place.

I'd almost rather have a Televue branded, high end wristwatch that was astro themed for that kind of money.  At least I could use it every day in that case.

I wonder if they'll hold their value like Beanie Baby collectibles have.

Regardless, I won't be buying a TV Apollo 11.

3 hours ago, Jiggy 67 said:

I’ve had them down for about 2 weeks so the grass has grown a bit but not much as it slows at this time of year. I’ve spent about 5 nights out on the mats with no negative effects on the lawn. When I’ve done that previously without the mats it’s been a mud bath and ruined lawn

So, it might actually improve the health of the lawn overall.  It's too bad it won't drain and dry out on its own after it rains.  Damp lawns like that die here in Texas due to root rot.

I use the 22mm AstroTech AF70 (Celestron Ultima LX, Olivon 70, etc.) and 22mm Nagler T4 with glasses to correct my astigmatism.  The Nagler is wider and slightly better corrected, but more difficult to take in the edges.  I've never tried the 22mm Vixen LVW, but it's supposed to be really good.  The 20mm Pentax XW is supposed to have field curvature, so if you also have presbyopia (think bifocals or progressives), the edges might not be in focus when the center is in focus.

The 20mm APM XWA HDC Hyperwide might be usable with a Dioptrx and gets good reviews.  The 21mm TV Ethos is certainly usable with Dioptrx, but is vastly expensive.

Here's a comparison image of some of my 20mm-ish eyepieces along with their fields of view:

17 minutes ago, Jiggy 67 said:

For those of you with a similar problem and considering solutions, a quick update, this cost £120 odd (I ordered one mat too many so would have been cheaper) they are all pegged firmly down (pegs come with the mats) and they work perfectly with no movement whatsoever. No mud, feet perfectly dry no matter the weather 

Are you planning to leave them down all the time?  If so, keep us updated with how the lawn copes with them.

If you plan to use heavy eyepieces or a binoviewer, get a rack & pinion focuser.  The Crayford-style focuser on my AT72ED slips under heavy loads as I point it close to zenith no matter how much I tighten the tension screw.  The Skywatcher focuser is generally considered worse yet.  Otherwise, it's a great wide field scope good to 100x without false color.  Above that, there is some fringing on bright objects thanks to its FPL-51 glass.  I've thought about trading up to the AT72ED II with FPL-53 glass and the R&P focuser.

Remember, extended object brightness is a function of exit pupil.  At the same exit pupil, an extended object will have the same brightness regardless of aperture, just different sizes.  Resolution will suffer with smaller apertures, but not extended object brightness as it relates to exit pupil.  It is true that point sources will appear brighter in larger aperture scopes than in smaller ones at equal exit pupils.  Smaller scopes actually work better for larger extended objects like the North America Nebula because it compresses the object down to a recognizable scale.  This also works for star clusters like Collinder 70 in Orion's belt.  It is unrecognizable as a cluster in larger scopes, but it really jumps out at you in smaller scopes.

I really like my AT72ED.  It is very compact as its case which can hold a 2" digonal and a couple of eyepieces.  I use a 6 inch dovetail to be able to reach balance by extending it back to the focuser.  With its FPL-51 glass, it has a little color in focus on bright objects up around 125x.  I've not taken it on a plane, but it would be fairly simple to do so.

I took my ST80 on the road to Nebraska to witness the total solar eclipse in 2017 partially because I already had a solar filter for it that I made nearly 20 years ago and partly because I'd be staying along interstate highways which have issues with car break-ins.  It was fully sufficient for the task at hand.

It depends on what you plan on observing what refractor you would want to bring along.  For planetary work, I'd get an FPL-53 class refractor like the AT72ED II.  For lower power DSO observing, the difference between it and the FPL-51 AT72ED would not be apparent.  For white light solar observing, a fast achromat like an ST80 would be fine.

9 hours ago, JeremyS said:

I'd like a wider field than most of the 12.5 mm 40deg FOV eyepieces. I see Orion has a 20 mm but also read about some problems with them.

Any views?

I have the 70 degree, 20mm Orion Centering eyepiece.  It's fine in the center but highly aberrated by astigmatism in the outer 50%.

I also have both the 40 degree, 12.5mm Celestron Ortho Microguide and 46 degree, 12mm Meade MA Astrometric eyepieces.  The Meade is wider but very astigmatic in the outer field.  The Celestron is pretty much sharp to the edge.

Below is a comparison image that includes the 20mm Orion and another that includes the two astrometrics.

I've used the original mushroom top ES-82 in my 127 Mak (f/12).  It worked fine with no discernible vignetting.  I'm sure it would work fine in a Mak180 because it has a larger rear baffle than the 127 Mak.  f/12 is pretty gentle on eyepieces as well.

1 hour ago, Leon-Fleet said:

@Louis D its gone!  

 

Get used to that feeling.  It happens a lot on good deals on the astro classifieds.  On the upside, there is the elation of snagging a bargain every once in a while.  That's how I got my AT72ED, DSV-1 mount, 22mm NT4 and 14mm Meade 4000 UWA smoothie.

4 hours ago, Leon-Fleet said:

@banjaxed - i've seen the ad, it looks like a great set up but a bit far to go an pick up I'm afraid. 

Ask if they'd meet you halfway to split the distance between you two.  Find some nice town in the middle to explore and make a day trip of it.

For visual or astrophotography?  For visual, there's the Sky-Watcher SkyMax-127 AZ GTi for £476 from our sponsor FLO.  If a Mak doesn't suit you, you could get the Sky-Watcher Star Discovery 150i WiFi for £389 and have some money left over for eyepieces and other accessories.  If you insist on astrophotography, I think @banjaxed is right, most of your £500 will have to go toward the mount alone.

1 hour ago, Saganite said:

Hi Rob,

I would definitely go for something like the Skytee/ Ercole, or Berlebach castor. These give virtually zero damping time with my 4" f7.4

Neither the AZ4 nor AZ5 could give me this at high powers and were soon sold on.

With my DSV-2B on a Manfrotto 058B tripod, I found I had to put Sorbothane pads under each tripod foot to quickly dampen vibrations (1/2 second vs. 3 to 5 seconds without).  I suppose a wooden tripod might dampen these vibrations.

47 minutes ago, piff said:

Thanks guys. I am, actually tossing up between two Skywatchers, both 102 mm aperture. One is a refractor with a focal length of 500 mm and the other is a Mak with a focal length of 1300 mm - the latter being only a fraction of the size and looks very convenient as a "gab and go" scope but I am concerned whether this would have equal viewing quality

If you can stretch to a 102mm ED refractor, it will easily outperform the 102mm Mak and still have a much wider field of view.

Check for play in the focuser/adapters holding the laser.  I've found if you can wiggle the focus tube and send the laser all over the place, you can't really trust it very much.  Sight tubes and collimation caps are more immune to these vagaries.  The best thing I've found a laser for is getting the secondary pointed more or less at the primary's center after I loosen everything up to start over.  I can see the laser beam hitting the side of the tube or edge of the mirror and make adjustments while looking into the end of the tube in real time.  No having to dodge back and forth to the focuser.  After that, I fine tune with the cross-haired sight tube and collimation cap.  I then double-check with the laser.  Sometimes it's pointing where you expect, other times I have to push the focuser just so to bring it back in alignment.  It could be argued my eyepieces aren't being held in perfect alignment with the optical axis, but their alignment isn't as critical as the mirrors' alignment.

1 hour ago, johninderby said:

There are a few different AZ5s but all with slo mo controls.

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p4537_TS-Optics-AZ5-Alt-azimuthal-Mount-with-tripod-and-fine-adjustment.html

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-watcher-az5-deluxe/sky-watcher-az5-deluxe-alt-azimuth-mount.html

https://www.365astronomy.com/365Astronomy-AZ5-Versatile-Vari-angle-Micro-Motion-Alt-Azimuth-Telescope-Mount-with-Stainless-Steel-Tripod.html

No room for confusion over the term AZ-5 in the marketplace, is there? 🤣

Download Stellarium and start learning how to use to see what is up each night.

A new planetary comparison review of the 4mm Tak TOE versus the 4mm TMB Supermono was posted on CN yesterday.  The reviewer could see no appreciable difference other than the TOE having a warmer tone.  I'm guessing it uses at least one rare earth element that causes it.  To quote the summary here:

" Conclusion: The only obvious difference between the two is the warmer tone of the TOE. This does not translate into perceived planetary detail. It’s a matter of taste or preference. Every detail that was seen in the TMB was also seen in the TOE and viceversa.
The Tak TOE 4 is very likely the best 4mm planetary eyepiece on the market available today. In the past I have compared the TOE 4 with a DeLite 4, a XW 3.5, a TAK Abbe Ortho and many mid-range orthoscopics and found the TOE to be a step above, specially when it comes to sharpness in lunar observation. An instance in which I was able to glimpse the separation between Rima Dawes and Dawes with the TOE in the TV-102, but not with Delite, XW 3.5 or others comes to mind. TOE 4 is in the same class as discontinued premium glass (Pentax SMC Orthos, TMB Supermonos etc). "

Thus, a very good alternative to run of the mill orthos at 4mm.

11 minutes ago, Scott42 said:

IMO, Takahashi and Fujiyama are the best orthos out there today.  Between the two of them you should be able to cover all the focal lengths.  Beware the 4mm and 5mm orthos have extremely tight eye relief

The 4mm Tak TOE is supposed to have fairly comfortable 10mm of eye relief as an alternative.

7 hours ago, astronomer2002 said:

Thought I would post an update to this saga.

 

Having tried the 41 Panoptic and ES 40 for some time I conclude I like the Panoptic 5% more than the ES. This sounds pretty arbitrary but I have tried to put a figure on it and there is no area where I can say the ES is better through my eyes and my telescopes. To be honest the ES has a slightly larger field despite having a shorter focal length and the same declared angular field.  If it were a question of finance alone I would opt for the ES, but this is astronomy and once you have gleaned a 1% improvement that clinches any decision. I am therefor probably going to sell the ES.

Having said all this I find I use the 31mm and 26mm Naglers more often than the big Panoptic. Indeed the old 20mm Nagler still sees many more outings.

For those who said for wide ,flat, fields you are using the wrong telescope I can agree that a decent short frac has the right credentials and to that end have added a FLT132 to my burgeoning scope collection (and overloaded mount!)

Now I have my widefield eyepieces sorted I am looking at the other end. I have found myself using my old Ortho's on planets even though I have Naglers down to 7mm, since the crispness of Ortho eyepieces surpasses that of any other eyepiece I have ever owned (had a monocentric a long time ago  but it went walkabouts before I had a decent enough telescope to appreciate it).

After comparing recent acquisitions to my ancient Meade RG ortho's (7mm and 16.8mm) I once again I find myself looking for the best. I don't need higher powers for my long SCT's but for the FLT I need to fill the gap in fl's less than 7mm. I have 1970's volcano top orthos in 6mm and 5mm fl, but they just aren't as crisp as the 7mm RG Meade.  I acquired a 10mm BCO, which to be honest does not give the crispness of the Meade RG's followed by a 12.5mm Fujiyama HD-O  to fill in the 16.8mm to 7mm gap, but am looking for 4mm, 5mm and 6mm to use with the FLT to get the best out of that scope on planets and doubles. I have been put off the BCO's as they appear no better than my 40+ year old volcano tops.  I believe I have sourced a 6mm BGO but also need a 5mm semi-premium ortho at least. I am also trying an old 4mm from the volcano top days to see if that is usable and if so will need the best 4mm Ortho I can source.

I find it very odd that there are no mid price range Ortho's out there today with the plethora of short apo's on the market. To get the best out of your 4-6 inch apo on planets there seems to be nothing better than a decent ortho and today they are as rare as hens teeth new and about the same on the s/h market. The BCO's and Kson examples are available, and are cheap, but no better than the ancient volcano tops despite the improvement in coatings there has been in 40 years. I also note the BCO range now stops at 6mm, which seems an odd marketing move.

I really hope the weather picks up soon so I can get out there observing as getting my astro fix through buying kit is getting expensive!

 

Ian B

I suggest you start a new thread on the very important topic of premium, short focal length eyepieces to focus the discussion.  Until then, I suggest you look into the Takahashi TOE and Vixen HR eyepiece lines.  They are probably the best high power eyepieces currently available new.

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

Just realized you were not talking about the 80° APM... The 70° is 200 EUR while the 80° is only 100 EUR. Have you tried the 80° one?

As @John correctly pointed out, the 30mm APM 80° is the same as the 30mm Agena 80° described in my comparison and many others rebrandings.  There have been minor design variations over the years.  The latest versions have fully blackened lens edges and other improvements over the original KK Widescan clone from over a decade ago.  Is it worth $100, no.  But at $50 to $70, it compares very favorably to the various 32mm 70° SWA designs out there in that price range, and you get a few extra degrees of marginally usable field for recentering purposes.  Watch the classifieds for them to come up used.  They have such a bad rep that their resale value is just terrible.  If the 20mm comes up for the same price, all the better because you get a free 2" filter threaded 2x barlow element in the package deal that becomes usable with a 2" filter threaded extension tube.

It's the same as my Agena 20mm/30mm 80° UWA in the following comparison image.  Notice how much better it is than the MPL (6 element Erfle) and Kasai eyepieces.

It is terrible as a 20mm, so bad I didn't even do a test photo through it.  The barlow element vignettes the field of view and adds distortions.  It really needs a TV PBI type element in between to realign the diverging rays as in a Powermate.  It barlows quite well in such an arrangement, but the barlow element is much further removed yielding a 15mm eyepiece.

It has really comfortable eye relief thanks to that giant eye lens.  There are no blackouts, either.

As a 30mm, it isn't bad in the central 50% at all.  In fact, it's sharper than the 30mm ES-82 there.  The biggest problem with it is extreme field curvature.  I once over corrected the field correction in my AT72ED with my TSFLAT2 just to flatten its field, and it only shows minor astigmatism in the outer field once the field is flattened.  If your eyes are younger and have large amounts of focus accommodation, it is quite usable, at least until you get presbyopia in your mid-40s. 😉

If you can pick one up used or new for around $60 to $70, it's totally usable until you can afford a 30mm APM UFF.

3 hours ago, Dumbo said:

Yeah thanks a lot I saw that, I live in Dorset so the logistics of getting it poses a problem, since it would almost cost me £80 to chippinham.

Unless I'm missing something or google maps is amiss, it's only 60 miles from Dorset to Chippenham.  I've driven 250 miles one way to pick up Dobs.  60 miles is about what my spouse used to commute each day each way.  Do you lack a car?  Ask if the seller would be willing to meet half-way.  Perhaps the seller would be willing to make the 120 mile round trip if you paid for gas money and treated them to dinner.

Another option is the GSO/Revelation Deluxe 8"/200p Dobsonian.  I couldn't locate a UK dealer, but there are some within the EU.