Louis D

@inFINNity Deck How did you get your Jupiter image looking so impressionistic? Was that some sort of filter effect or just the atmosphere at work? It's very cool looking.

Do you use any sort of OCA/OCS/GPC or Barlow element to reach focus? Do you use the binoviewers in a slow SCT/Mak? If so, you may be able to get away with cheaper wide fields as I do. The Svbony 68° Ultra Wide Angle 20mm work great in my binoviewer setup at an effective f/18.

There's the Oberwerk 22mm eyepieces which are sold in pairs explicitly for binoviewer/binocular use. They're $300 for the pair.

I wonder if wrapping the tube in an insulating blanket would help prevent dew formation on the tube as discussed in the below thead: Here's an SCT entirely wrapped in insulation on CN:

I've never had dewing problems inside or out with the Sonotube exterior of my Dob. It must be something about metal tubes. We regularly have dew points just below 80 degrees F, so it's not like it's a desert here.

Why doesn't Europe (Russia excluded) have a manned space program? Y'all are smack talking the US effort without offering up anything better. Seriously, without huge military expenditures like the US has, y'all could have a top notch space program.

The difference in astigmatism is minor. 2.00 on the left, 1.75 on the right. I'm left eye dominant, which has made using SLRs/DSLRs a pain over the years because they shift the viewfinder left assuming right eye dominance to make room for the nose.

To do a quick star test of the eyepiece, simply pick out a mag 1 or 2 star, bring it to best focus on axis, and move it from the center to the edge, observing any changes to the star's appearance. Is it still a pinpoint everywhere in the field? Does it change shape or spread out into a rainbow near the edge? Does refocusing the star at the edge make it look sharper out there? It's when you take the time to look for these sorts of changes that you can start to discern good eyepieces from terrific eyepieces.

If only I could simply turn a knob and "focus" out my strong eye astigmatism. I have no desire to get LASIK, either.

IIRC, reports on the Luminos complained about excessive EOFB (Edge of Field Brightening) which makes the outer field appear brighter and cloudier than the inner area, and also excessive SAEP (Spherical Aberration of the Exit Pupil) or kidney beaning which makes holding the exit pupil tiring. Some folks swear by them rather than at them, though, so YMMV. As far as the Axiom LXs, they were the same optically as the Meade 5000 UWA and original ES-82 mushroom tops. All were made by JOC. I have the 30mm ES-82 decloaked, and it is just barely usable with eyeglasses. While the 82 degree field is rewarding to look at, stars are a bit bloated across the field compared to others I have in this range, and especially near the edge as CAEP (Chromatic Aberration of the Exit Pupil) kicks in. The moon turns orange in the outer field as a result, and planets split into red/blue slightly separated version of themselves. Thus, for those of us with undriven scopes who enjoy observing objects drifting from edge to edge before nudging again, the 30m ES-82 doesn't really work for that use case.

Just this week, 25585, who used to regularly participate on SGL, had his Berlebach Nix II chair snap at the hinge, dumping him on the ground. Apparently, the metal rod that is the hinge in simply threaded through holes in the wood without any reinforcing grommets. All the stresses were focused at two points, and the woodgrain split, releasing the hinge rod. Do other folding observing chair designs avoid focusing all of the stresses at the hinge onto bare wood?

I'll have to check my AT AF70s to see if they're as shiny as the Astromania up top. I've never noticed any reflection issues at night with any of them, though. I took a pass on an early Celestron Omni Plossl because it was silver, like the main body color, right up to the edge of the eye lens! Apparently, they've fixed this missive in later runs.

Just be careful not to accidentally unscrew the housing when trying to do photography with it like this poor fellow on CN.

I bought the Astro-Tech AF70 (Omegon Redline SW) version and just screw off the eye cup with the cap still attached to use it with eyeglasses. The revealed M43 thread makes it handy for afocal photography as well with my ancient Olympus C4000 camera. The eye cup is so stiff it cannot be folded down. Alternatively, a Morpheus eyecup can be screwed onto it. I tried it once to verify, and it fit perfectly. versus

I paid $181 for my 14mm Morpheus in 2016 and $158 for my 9mm Morph in 2018. I paid $217 for my 7mm Pentax XW and $226 for my 3.5mm XW in 2012. I recall paying about $229 for each of my 14mm and 5.2mm Pentax XLs in 1998. I also recall paying $300 for my 10mm Delos in 2011 or 2012. So, overall for me at least, the Morpheus were the cheapest of the three 70-something degree LER eyepiece lines. Now, the Morpheus are $299, the Pentax XW are $269 (for now), and the Delos are $387.

I haven't tried the 17.5mm Morpheus, but my 9mm Morph is nearly the equal of my 10mm Delos, so I can highly recommend it. I've been hard pressed to justify getting the 17.5mm Morph when I already have the 17mm ES-92 and NT4. Yes, it would be 1.25", but almost all of my scopes handle 2" eyepieces just fine.

There are cheap, retro style 0.965 sized eyepieces on ebay as a stop-gap measure. They won't match up well with modern 1.25" eyepieces, but they'll at least produce an image. Here's the view through a generic 0.965 6mm Huygens in an f/6 72ED refractor: Here's the view through a generic 0.965 20mm Huygens in the same scope: They're actually not too bad for what they are. The AFOV is 39° for the H6 and 30° for the H20. Usable eye relief is 3mm for the H6 and 13mm for the H20.

What about a simple 42mm to 37mm step down ring? Have you tried that yet? A T-mount thread is simply M42 (42mm x 0.75mm tp). Here's the same link on ebay UK.

Back on topic, I'm still using a pair of 26" NEC 2690WUXi2's from over a decade ago for photo editing. I tried a single 43" 4K monitor at work, but didn't care for it. There was just too much head swiveling and tilting at the distance I had to view it from. I do like the single 27" 4K monitor I have on another computer at home, other than it's twisted nematic tech and solarizes unless viewed straight on. One guy at work a decade ago had a 34" center screen and two wide screens vertically on either side. That way, he could do silicon chip layout in the center while having text documents with multiple pages visible on either side for reference.

Ah yes, there was nothing quite as satisfying as the thwack-thwack-thwack of an electric typewriter. My older sister had one of these. I was totally smitten with it:

Chinese scopes in 2007 were pretty bad in comparison. Mechanically, optically, etc. they were just no where close to the same league. It would be interesting to test again to see if there is much of a visual difference between a Chinese APO and a TEC/AP APO or between a Zambuto mirror equipped Dob and a Chinese made Dob. I know Teeter had a GSO mirror option, so they couldn't have been all that bad.

Until recently, Teeter was still making solid tube Dobs with Zambuto mirrors. TEC makes pretty decent APOs. I'm not sure about a modern, high end Mak-Newt.

I was thinking back to the old continuous chain printers that were so loud they had to be in sound proofed enclosures. I remember the first one I ever heard in the early 80s being near deafening. It was fast, but the whole printer swayed left to right to achieve that speed. It was about as loud as contemporary daisy wheel printers.

At least it was a fair fight. It wouldn't have made sense to compare scopes of different refinement levels.

Yeah, last year my son-in-law the gamer and webpage hosting software developer got one of those 49" ultrawide monitors that nearly fills the width of his 5 foot wide desk in his home office (not his actual office pictured below): I'm not sure if his new employer paid for it or if he did. I didn't ask or care. It looks comical to an old timer like me who learned programming using 3270 terminals in the 70s/80s: At least they were a major step up from punch cards and punch card readers that were still in use at some universities well into the 80s: Graphics? Here's what passed for computer graphics back then: