Louis D

15 hours ago, gorann said:

I am 98% an imager but I do have a set of eyepieces so I got curious reading this thread. For a wide field eyepiece I have a Williams SWAN 40 mm. How is that rated among you connoisseurs?

Here's a CN review from 17 years ago.  From reading multiple experienced users' reactions to it, it is similar in performance to the 38mm Orion Q70 in performance.  There's astigmatism and field curvature at f/6 starting around 60% out.  By f/8, it improves to 80% out.  By f/10, many folks are completely satisfied with the views.  Thus, it's another notch below the Lacerta ED which gives you about another 10% to 15% corrected field at each level.

Given that the WO's price in Europe is comparable to the Lacerta, I don't really see a reason to go for the WO.  However, in the US, the WO is considerably cheaper than the Lacerta because we have to individually import the Lacerta.

From my Lacerta ED 40mm write-up:

Here's my test image at f/12 in my 127mm Mak, which would be similar to your SCT f-ratio wise:

Distortion is quite low across the field as can be seen above and from the center/edge magnification measurements below:

Thus, the measured AFOV is nearly equal to the eAFOV calculated from the measured field stop and central focal length.

Why not just get the Lacerta ED 40mm for a lot less money?  By all accounts, it's at least as sharp with the same true field of view.  I find it nearly as sharp as the Pentax XW 40mm at f/6 with just 3/4ths the weight.

It's $9 cheaper in either the UK or Europe than in the US on the Svbony site.  I'm a bit peeved by that.

I use a Manfrotto 058B which has a minimum height of 17.3" and a weight capacity of 26.5 pounds.  It is rock solid thanks to the locking leg spreaders.

On 04/10/2022 at 22:58, SthBohemia said:

I have been known to use a dishwasher with extra quantities of 'Get ya glasses sparking clean' additives 🙂 

Considering how etched my cheap glassware looks after repeated trips through the dishwasher, I think I'll take a hard pass on doing that.

Before on the left, after on the right.

On 26/10/2022 at 02:44, badhex said:

I'll need to figure out the right glue to stick them together ideally

I think contact cement is the usual go-to glue of choice for foam.  Its solvent doesn't melt foam, unlike toluene and xylene in model glue.  There are some specialized foam glues which are basically contact cement variants.

1 hour ago, cajen2 said:

The only problem with both the BSTs (wonderful VFM) and the Baader zoom (good images) is the field of view. Both of them need a lot of nudging to keep a target in view. I read the APM Superzoom has a rather larger FOV, but I've never looked through one.

@bosun21 is correct.  I measured the BSTs from 5mm to 25mm, and they are all very close to 60 degrees as noted below:

In the years since I created this table, I've added photographically measured AFOV, and most of the BSTs/Paradigms turned out to be 1 degree wider AFOV via that method.

Going up to 66 to 67 degrees AFOV with the APM SZ isn't going to make a huge difference in dwell time for Dob nudging.  It's one of the reasons I'm holding off on getting one.

If you can find a Meade HD-60 6.5mm, you'll get a 65 degree AFOV with a 64 degree eAFOV due to low edge distortion.  It's actually a 6.2mm eyepiece by my measurements, so I'd consider it a 6mm eyepiece for comparison purposes.  It's very sharp across the field with no SAEP issues.

On 24/10/2022 at 05:28, Knighty2112 said:

Wow! I didn’t know toy soldiers needed access to the internet, along with all the other home comforts in their base/storage locker?  

You totally beat me to it.

Storage units are big business here in the US, as are TV shows like Storage Wars where resellers bid on storage units that have not had their rent paid.  They only get to peer into them from the outside and make their best guesses about the value of the contents.  The rest of the show is about them finding out what they actually bought, and if they'll make their money back.

There are 10 giant storage units within a 2 mile radius of my house.  Many of them are climate controlled while others are for RVs (caravans/boats/etc.).

14 hours ago, Mike Q said:

Thats not a car thats a speed bump lol.  

On the other hand, have you seen how narrow some of their roads and streets are?  They were laid out centuries or even millennia before cars or trucks were a thing.  I don't know if you could even fit your 4x4 truck down some of their lanes.

I'm not a big fan of AliExpress.  Their consumer protection policies are abysmal compared to ebay and Amazon.

Try reading this Orion USA collimation manual.  It sounds similar to your scope.  This CN thread on collimating scopes with fixed primary collimation might be worth a read.

4 hours ago, Space Hopper said:

I'm impressed the AZ100 can handle it with no counterweight.

I'm not surprised.  I sometimes observe with a 14 pound Newtonian on one side of my DSV-2B with nothing on the other side, and it is just as smooth and stable as it is with an 8 pound scope.  Both it and the Rowan mount are made by master craftsmen from top quality materials.  I would suspect the AZ100 could easily handle twice that load.  It's more similar to the DSV-3 than mine.

Besides Celestron Ultima Edge, the APM UFF series is also sold as the Meade Series 5000 UHD, Orion Ultra Flat, Sky Rover Ultra Flat Field, Altair Ultraflat, TS-Optics UFF, and Tecnosky Ultra Flat Field.  There may be differences in barrel material and undercuts leading to weight differences.  All are made by Kunming United Optics (KUO).  Choose whichever brand meets your budget, ergonomics, appearance, and weight requirements.

40 minutes ago, Mandy D said:

But, don't you get the (not so) Smart car over there which is microscopic and makes even this VW look huge?

Yes, we do.  I would be terrified to drive it at freeway speeds amongst Chevy Suburbans and Ford F-350 pickup trucks, which are very common here in Texas.

5 hours ago, Pixies said:

For those in the states - this is not a big car, you can't even get 3 adults in the back seat

Believe me, no American would mistake it for a big car.  It appears to be even smaller than a Mini Cooper S, which is considered tiny by US standards.  It's not imported into the US, though.

Alright, to be fair, I could order a BHZ from FLO for about $225 (plus shipping would be $248).  Again, no import tariff or sales tax.  In that respect, the ASZ is $131 more (before shipping) when importing from Europe.  That's still less than the $162 differential ordering in the UK.  I have no idea why both zooms are so much more expensive when ordered from US dealers.  Perhaps that extra 25% tariff on imports from a certain country?  Funny, it doesn't get imposed on direct imports by individuals.

25 minutes ago, malc-c said:

Gentlemen, please.  Normally it's only the ladies that quibble over the extra inch !!

From memory (seeing my nephew is now 18) it was more than likely the 76mm version as the tube had all the writing on it.  Can't recall if it was the SW or Celestron variant.  We struggled to get any detail on the disk of Jupiter, but you could see the larger moons that were on view at the time. 

If the 76mm version had a parabolic mirror, it would help it quite a bit.  You'd just be left with strong coma, which is much less intrusive with Plossls than spherical aberration.  You aren't just losing an inch of aperture, you're also losing parabolization.

BHZ = $309 with sales tax added making it closer to $334 plus shipping

ASZ = $429 in the US with sales tax added on making it closer to $460 plus shipping

ASZ = $356 direct from APM Germany after converting from Euros to USD, plus no sales tax due to international purchase.  International shipping will be somewhat higher, but not $100+ higher.  No import tariffs on purchases under $800, either.

2 hours ago, cajen2 said:

No, it would have been the 100p (=3")

Assuming the 100 refers to 100mm, 100mm/25.4mm/inch=3.94 inches.  I'd call that 4", not 3", unless you insist on using truncation instead of rounding.

The focuser has obviously changed over the last 9 years from the original flat tube to R&P connection:

The telescope is equipped with a Crayford focuser: when the focusing wheel is rotated, a relatively thin axis rotates, which is pressed against a flat groove on the movable eyepiece tube

vs.

2" RAP dual speed focuser, ball bearing and tooth drive adjustment

I have the Long Perng 72ED under the Astro-Tech branding with the flat tube focuser setup from that era.  I can attest it badly slips under heavy loads near zenith regardless of the tension settings.

I just hope they add realign on current object to refine the pointing in some future software update.  Over and over again I hear about folks not being able to get the initial alignment precise enough to put objects dead center in the eyepiece.  Initial alignment should be just that, an initial starting point to get you started, and from which to refine it during the night.

1 hour ago, malc-c said:

He ended up with a Heritage model, with a 3" mirror, liking the idea if can sit on a table and be easy to use.

One of the 76mm models with an f/4 spherical primary?  Just troll the thrift shops and such and you can find them for under $20 used.  Someone had one they had brought to a star party.  Being setup on a table made it next to impossible to sight along the tube, so I shot from the hip to aim it.  As you say, I was able to get Jupiter eventually in the center.  You could definitely make out the Galilean moons and at least an equatorial band.  However, the outer field was an aberrated mess thanks to SA.  It does work, but not very well.  I guess that's what happens when you try to hit a price point.

6 hours ago, wookie1965 said:

Which zooms would you recommend I have the celestron 8-24mm 

In the US at least, only $46 separates the BHZ from APM Super Zoom, so I would err toward the latter if you can wait for it to come back in stock and if the price differential is similar there in the UK.

V-shaped stars are generally related to lateral chromatic aberration where different colors focus at different distances from the center.  Try a really bright star and see if that V shape becomes a rainbow.  It could also be that all colors focus together, but the star image is distorted at the edge into a coma shaped image on either side of best focus and somewhat even at best focus.  Is that eyepiece coma?  I'm not sure what the proper term for it is.