Louis D

The 30mm APM UFF views really similarly to the Delos. I highly recommend it. The 24mm APM UFF not so similarly. It's nice, but a step below.

Those are the binoviewer specific eyepieces that yield an artificial 3D effect.

I noticed the same thing. I'm guessing that spreading out the red tint over a larger part of my retina decreased the perceived saturation.

My main Dob has no issues with the 34oz 30mm ES-82 or the 31oz 40mm Meade 5000 SWA (after decloaking both), but it tends to nose dive below 35 degrees or so with the 41oz 17mm ES-92, so I had to add some counterweight to the back. I had to add more counterweight to my DSV-2B above about 65 degrees with my AT72ED to keep it from flipping backward.

If you can swing the weight, they are terrific. Viewing through them is super easy and the views are sharp and contrasty to the edge.

I ended up replacing my 17mm NT4 with the 17mm ES-92. Likewise for the 12mm NT4. I don't think I could get the NAV-HWs to work with eyeglasses. Has anyone tried them with eyeglasses?

Did you add a parfocalizing ring or some such to the chrome barrel?

I think if you use two ordinary star diagonals at 90 degrees to each other and look into the eyepiece from the side rather than back of the scope, you'll also get an upright and non-reversed image. This presumes sufficient backfocus, but if the scope supports binoviewers natively, this shouldn't be an issue.

And a more recent follow-on article by Bill P. about the Baader Broadband Hardened Silver (BBHS) diagonal versus a dielectric and prism diagonal.

Their caps appear to be very similar to those from StockCap. Search for vinyl caps OR plugs wholesale to look for other manufacturers.

I keep a separate toolbox full of non-eyepiece accessories such as collimation tools, camera adapters, a filter wallet, rarely used accessories, laser sight batteries and charger, boxed 1.25" correct image diagonals, etc. I keep my Telrads in a foam padded box because they're so large, but my QuikFinder is small enough it lives in a low cost, foam padded eyepiece case for miscellaneous eyepieces like my reticle eyepieces.

@emadmoussa, My large/long eyepiece case is a Doskocil XL which is long since discontinued. The Pelican 1600 is the most similar currently available case. I recently bought this case at Sam's Club for my retired or seldom used large/long eyepieces and barlows. It is no where near as nice as the Doskocil or Pelican because the foam is not as dense and it does not have a base layer of solid protective foam at the bottom. It is much cheaper than either premium case, though. As you might have guessed, I like my eyepiece standing up on end when possible. The case has a much smaller footprint as a result than having the eyepieces lying on their sides.

I picture the app no longer being supported 5 years down the road and not being compatible with the newer OS releases. This then forces you to avoid upgrading your tablet's OS to maintain backward compatibility with it. I've run into this issue repeatedly with various PC peripherals. It sort of "encourages" you to buy newer peripherals, or in this case, mounts. As a result, I've still got 98SE and XP systems still tucked away around the house.

The 24mm APM UFF is similar in design and quite nice. The 30mm APM UFF is an entirely different design and evicted my venerable 27mm Panoptic from my A-team case. Let us know your thoughts on the 18mm. I'm mostly curious if it has enough eye relief to use with eyeglasses.

I'll second the recommendation for https://eyepiececaps.com/. I ordered their $20 eyepiece cap and plug bundle. It arrived quickly and all the various bits fit perfectly.

I'm assuming it's the mount that can't hold the scope steady. That's why Dobs rule for stability compared to low-end GEMs. You can lightly hold onto the edge of the tube while observing to gently nudge it for tracking with very little vibration being transferred to the image. If it's the tripod not dampening the vibrations, trying adding vibration dampening pads under each foot.

I knew you knew, but I was trying to point this out to @thekwango in case it made a difference in choosing between the two sizes. I had forgotten that the extra inch(es) in radius of the tube also puts more of the light path perpendicular to the tube getting it to the focuser. The 8" might actually be shorter overall. The heavier mirror might also allow for the altitude bearing to be further back on the tube allowing for shorter base sides. Sounds like they need to work on finding a way to save some weight. Perhaps something lighter than particle board could have been used. I've seen lots of folks build their own solid wood bases, but even that won't save all that much weight. I've been looking at the ultralight 12" Dobs made of aluminum for this reason. Their main problem seems to be control of structure flexure.

Height-wise, 6" and 8" work out to the same length because the 6" is f/8 and the 8" is f/6. 6x8=8x6=48 inches in focal length of the optical tube. The main difference is in girth and overall weight (and price, of course). If a car can fit a 6", it most probably could also fit an 8". Of course, if you're camping, there isn't much room left over for gear in a small car. If you've got a van or large SUV as many of us have in the US, they can be swallowed up with ease in the back.

Plus one for the 127 Mak on an alt-az mount. That's the route many folks go for compact transportation in the trunk (boot) of a car. The problem is, being a more complex design than a Newtonian, it costs more. TANSTAAFL.

A used 8" classic Dob would work well for your needs and budget.

I'm up to six cases now. Hold onto that old case, you'll need it. I guarantee it.

Sorry @Alfian,I keep forgetting the exceedingly high tax rates in Europe to pay for the cradle to grave social services. Texas doesn't even have a state income tax like the vast majority of US states, nor do they impose sales tax on interstate/international sales into the state. I just filled up my car at $1.91/gallon yesterday. That's about £0.39/litre. All that taxation must really limit discretionary spending on hobbies like astronomy.

It must be something with European shippers. I had an eyepiece sent from Germany to the US, and the box looked even worse than the second photo. Multiple corners were crushed in. The retailer had only put air cushions around the eyepiece box, pushing it to one corner. Luckily, that corner escaped major damage. That, and the eyepiece was wrapped in factory bubble wrap inside its box. I've never had a US domestically shipped box destroyed like that. Either we use stronger boxes or handle them more carefully. Most US shippers won't honor their damage insurance unless they, or one of their licensed associates, does the boxing. Otherwise, they'll blame improper customer packaging every time. Even when you use their associates to pack it, you'll still have to fight them for compensation because they'll try to say it was fully depreciated in value to zero dollars. @Alfian Were the alternate offers from the US or mainland Europe? Britain is so small compared to the US, I can't imagine not driving halfway to meet a buyer. London to Liverpool is only 220 miles. That won't even get me out of Texas. For big ticket, heavy items, most Americans are willing to drive at least 200 miles to a halfway point. I drove 200 miles to pick up my used 15" Dob years ago and turned it into a nice daytrip. I've seen offers of 400 miles or meeting at the next big star party to finish the deal on really expensive items like AP scopes or 20"+ custom Dobs.

It depends if it is high density or low density. High density foam like that found in high end cases like Pelican can just be put back in place and will generally stay put due to friction and rigidity. Low density like that found in discount store cases can also be put back in place, but it tends to move about as eyepieces are pulled out and put back. Heck, low density foam tends to keep tearing along the perforation lines over time. I've had high density foam in a couple of 20 year old cases that has yet to crumble, so it's worth the investment.

No, definitely no plastic lenses in there. I do have a Galileo telescope kit that uses a singlet DCX lens for the objective and another for the eyepiece, IIRC. Pretty crappy views, but assembling the whole thing from cardboard tubes and washers was fun.