Louis D

1 hour ago, jjohnson3803 said:

I've found the coatings on my mine yellow over time.  Don't know if that's because I clean them with liquid dish soap or they maybe react to UV or air contaminants.

With my progressive prescription, etc., my glasses are close to $800 US per pair, so I don't buy extra pairs specifically for astro.  I guess I could try a cheap pair of single vision sometime.

Absolutely go with single vision in the base plastic lens.  That way, the entire field is in focus at once, you can look up to the sky as needed, dispersion is at a minimum off axis, and cost is low enough that you don't feel bad about having a dedicated pair for astronomy.  Check online retailers.  I've bought a pair of Brodie frames for $9 and a pair of Bennet frames for $19 from EyeBuyDirect and have been perfectly satisfied with their quality.  To avoid coatings on the lenses, on the lens selection page go into clear->customize->1.5 index lens included and there's no additional charge for the lens.  Imagine paying under $20 for a pair of quality single vision eyeglasses.  I took a leap of faith, and haven't been disappointed.  I've got readers and computer glasses from them as well.  Just ask your optometrist for the appropriate prescription for each usage.

I don't know if they sell worldwide, but I would hope there are similar online retailers in other parts of the world.

1 hour ago, Second Time Around said:

VAT goes to central government.  HMRC inspects the books from time to time of those businesses whose turnover is above the threshold to pay VAT.

Local taxes are paid by businesses and the public in addition to VAT and paid direct to local councils.  They're based on property values.

Same here, they're called property taxes.  However, sales taxes (VAT equivalent) allow for a second source of local income to reduce the tax load on property owners.  Sounds like that's not the case in Europe.  It just seems really strange to not keep sales taxes local having grown up with that taxing scheme.  It's why (until recently) interstate sales tax free internet sales have been extremely detrimental to local governments in particular.

1 hour ago, Second Time Around said:

Like others above my prescription changes yearly, especially the astigmatism angle.  In fact the latter changes during the course of the year.

That's really rough.  I'm hoping my eyes never start doing that.  My astigmatism amount and angle have remained relatively constant after presbyopia set in and stabilized a decade ago.

4 hours ago, LukeSkywatcher said:

Back in 2009 the 130P was about £100 from FLO. 

Ah, so you were comparing 2009 130P prices from memory to 2022 150P prices from a web search.

4 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

In the UK all sales (with some exemptions, zero rated items and reduced rate items) are charged at 20% VAT. It's included in the price (unless specified ex VAT) so no need to add it. Other European countries are the same.

There's no VAT on exports, but buyers will have to pay VAT on imports, as well as duty.

Usually quarterly a company will complete a VAT return. So, the amount of VAT on sales, less the amount of VAT on purchases, equals the amount paid over to HMRC (Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs).

Apologies to the mods and everyone who finds this annoying, going way off topic, but I can't find an answer online, and I have always been curious, so here goes:

How does a local government get a share of the VAT money collected back from HMRC?

Does HMRC keep track of local sales receipts and automatically remit a proportionate amount back to them?  Do local governments have to submit grant proposals (as in the US) with supporting documentation?  Is money automatically sent based on the population of the governed area?  Does the national government simply keep all the VAT revenue for national expenses such as defense?  I literally can't find a simple answer to this online.  All the answers pertain to how to collect and remit VAT, but not how local governments receive their share of VAT revenues.

This is not an issue in the US because all sales tax money collected remains local to the state and county/municipal level (each tacks on a percentage).  As such, we try to shop locally to keep our tax dollars working locally to maintain local infrastructure and services.  There are programs in place to redirect state level sales tax revenues to sales poor areas from sales rich areas, so it's not completely lopsided in favor of wealthy areas.

4 hours ago, Icesheet said:

Just had a closer look at this. It’s likely to be the same as the TS photoline 80mm triplet. Same specs and I don’t think Svbony manufacture their own optics? Not sure who manufactures them for TS. 

If you hunt around the following websites, you might be able to identify which company makes it based on mechanical similarities:

• Kunming United Optics
• Sharpstar
• Jinghua Optics
• Long Perng

4 hours ago, Clarkey said:

You are making me feel much better about my kit now! I dread to think how many scopes you have.

Fewer than you have in your sig. 😉

4 hours ago, LukeSkywatcher said:

The 130P was about 100 pounds. The 150 is about 3 times that. I googled it.

Perhaps you got a hit on a Skywatcher 150 Mak, Skywatcher 150PDS, or Skywatcher 150 EvoStar? 🤔

Simply post a link to whatever you got a hit on at 3 times the price of the SW 130P Heritage Flextube which would be about 3*£175 = £525 to clear up this misunderstanding on pricing.

3 hours ago, Carl Au said:

My MKIV Baader Zoom and Barlow

Not using them much?

2 hours ago, LukeSkywatcher said:

I was going to suggest Skywatcher Heritage 130P. I didn't even know there was a 150 version. The 150 is a lot pricier than the 130. 

The 150 is only $35 more than the 130 here in the US.  Unless the size difference is an issue, I'd go for the 150p.

1 hour ago, badhex said:

Thinking about it, presumably you have to keep the eyecup screwed fully down then? 

Yes.  I've measured the eye lens recession to be 7mm!  It would have around 19mm to 20mm of usable eye relief if it was brought up to be nearly flush with the top.

Given the weight and length of the OTA, it sure seems massively undermounted on that EQ mount; or am I missing something here?

How do you get on with the TS ED 35mm in your sig?  I find its 14mm of usable eye relief a bit tight with eyeglasses.  Otherwise, it's a decent, near-maxfield, lightweight eyepiece.  If the eye lens wasn't recessed, it would be great with eyeglasses.

Let us know how you get on with it once you receive it and have a chance to look through it.

1 hour ago, Voyager 3 said:

Thanks Louis great info! 

Where did you find the zoom for 349$? APM website lists it at 395€. 

It's 331.93 € excluding VAT (which is roughly $350) for us Americans.  You have to compare apples to apples because US list prices don't include sales tax since it varies state by state, county by county, and city by city.  Sales tax is an important source of local revenue to help keep down local property taxes.  I have no idea how local governments in Europe get VAT money if they can't directly charge it on sales.  In the US, once the federal (national) government gets its money, states and municipalities have to apply for federal grants for specific projects, not day to day governmental expenses, and hope for the best.

On 28/04/2022 at 18:32, Don Pensack said:

I believe Markus had the factory, United Optics, make the top compatible with a DioptRx, which means the eyepiece under the eyecup has to be in the 41.-43.9mm range, not 37mm.

Well, here's an actual photo Markus posted recently on CN of the eye lens end:

I'm going to say that the M43 thread is under that knurled ring rather than under the rubber eye cup.  As such, the Dioptrx might not be able to reach the M43 thread because of the upper M37 thread.

Here are images of the Sky Rover version:

That seems to confirm my suspicion that the eye lens (27mm) is way too small to accommodate both a 75° AFOV and 18-20mm of usable eye relief at the same time.  You'd need about a 36mm eye lens as in the Morpheus, not 27mm as here, to do that.

It also confirms my suspicion that the M43 thread for Dioptrx is below the M37 thread, rendering it useless as is.  Perhaps if you screwed an M43 to M37 step down ring onto the M37 thread or a Hyperion / Morpheus® M43 extension to the M43 thread it might work.  I'll bet no one at the factory actually tried to put that CN member's donated Dioptrx on it to check for compatibility.

It also confirms the 2" barrel is nonremovable.  This means a lot of in-focus will be required for 1.25" usage.  That could be a deal killer for BV'ing folks running out of in-focus.

Finally, here's the manufacturer's animated gif looking through the eyepiece while zooming showing constant field (good) and slight SAEP (kidney beaning):

Rectilinear distortion looks well controlled, and edge sharpness appears good as well.  Perhaps it would make a good travel eyepiece for me for nighttime and terrestrial usage as long as I don't mind panning my eye around the field while wearing glasses.

Another image in that thread show the price at 2099 Chinese Yen which equates to about $318, so not much cheaper than APM's $349 price.

13 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

The frame is outside visibility not matter how large the eyelens is.

My bushy eyebrows get in the way of anything poking up that high.  I've got Neanderthal brow ridges pushing them out even further.

13 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

Louis' comment about coatings peeling away after years made me laugh.  I have my eyes checked yearly, and my prescription has only been the same two years in a row once since age 40.

Bummer.  My prescription changed yearly for about 4 years in my mid-40s when presbyopia set in.  Then, it settled down and I haven't had a major shift in a decade since.  That's not to say it won't shift again someday.  I'm currently wearing 8 year old bifocal glasses because a nose pad came off my 7 month old pair of daily wearers.  I'm heading out to my eyecare place today to get it replaced.  The prescription is basically the same between the two, and I adjusted in minutes.  There's always fudging of that last quarter of a diopter as far as which one works better, especially when the phoropter goes down to an eight diopter, so you have to go either up or down an eighth for lenses if you land between them for best correction.

13 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

I usually get 3-5 new pairs of glasses a year (computer, driving, daily life, transitions, astronomy).  I can afford it, plus I notice the difference at the telescope.

I generally get one new pair of bifocals a year because they're completely paid for via work insurance.  This last time, I got a pair with magnetic clip-on polarizing sunglasses.  That way, I get polarized bifocals for cheap.  My insurance won't cover polarizing lenses or tints, but they will cover clip-ons.  I buy my reader, computer and astronomy single vision glasses from EyeBuyDirect for a tiny fraction of what my eyecare place wants.  The brick and mortar store has got massive overhead to cover (building, labor, etc.), but I figure I do my part getting a yearly eye exam and pair of glasses to support them.

In fact, I am wearing computer glasses I bought 5 years ago as I type this.  Absolutely no reason to replace them that I can find.

14 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

I call them my "John Lennon" glasses.

If I could get oblong frames to custom fit within my eye sockets like two monocles, that would be ideal for eye relief and full coverage.  Instead, pretty much all frames sit fully in front of your eye socket which is an eye relief and coverage killer for Neanderthals like me.  Yes, I could go with contacts, but I've read that toric lenses tend to spin while hunched over an eyepiece, ruining astigmatism alignment.  That, and I'm outside exposed to year-round eye irritants here in Texas.  There is no off season for pollens here.

1 hour ago, Don Pensack said:

In theory, though it might vary according to who makes it, quartz can be made smoother than glass because it spalls a smaller chip when it is polished.

In practice, I doubt there is a visible difference unless it is a LOT more expensive.

If the quartz is laid down via vapor deposition on a substrate like a coating, it can be flat to the atomic level because it is crystalline, but I doubt that's how it would have been manufactured.  I think it just means it's pure silica amorphous glass.

1 hour ago, Carbon Brush said:

This fellow need 33 dioptre correction. Achieved by a combination of (from memory) 20 in the specs and 13 in a contact lens.

If nearsighted, does his eye focus behind his cornea? 

Makes me glad I bought an Astro Tech 72ED.  It has plenty of in focus left with a GSO 2" dielectric diagonal.

Why would SW sell a scope with a 2" focuser than doesn't have enough in travel to accommodate a 2" mirror diagonal?

You might try a 2" prism diagonal to save a few millimeters of optical path length:

    Approximate direct measure of the diagonal light path (millimeters)

17 hours ago, Paz said:

I went for thinner glass to save weight but this turns out to be a mistake as they dew up quickly in the field if I take them off. Odd as it may seem I think I should have gone with fatter lenses.

Not only that, but higher index lenses have more dispersion, so stars at the edge of the field spread out into rainbows more obviously.  I get the cheapest base pair of lenses and live with the slight extra thickness.  This isn't an option for everyone.  My middle daughter has 5.0+ diopters of distance correction, so even high index lenses look thick.  She mostly wears contacts as a result.

6 hours ago, Alan White said:

No coatings as advised by my optician, they scratch she told me, had to laugh as its anti scratch coating.

I don't like how coatings peel away at the edges of lenses over the years.  It looks terrible and can't be good optically.

5 hours ago, westmarch said:

Hi there,

I also have astigmatism but find that it is easier to view deep sky objects without spectacles - gives a larger field of view with more contrast.

It certainly works better to take off my glasses with short eye relief eyepieces, but unless I'm down below 1mm exit pupil, stars are spiky and planets lose some detail.  2.0 diopters of astigmatism make stars super spiky at 2mm and higher exit pupils.  Dim stars also just disappear altogether kind of ruining the experience.  What's the point of using expensive eyepieces if the image is terrible looking?  I'd have to wear contacts to use Ethos eyepieces, but I already have enough issues with scratchy, dry eyes.

Your left eyeglasses look about identical to my daily wear pair.  I went with a larger, squarer frame for astronomy rather than rounded.  They still cut off the top and bottom of the field in my ES-92s, but are fine left to right.

1 hour ago, globular said:

Although actually the housing is not scaled up like that, rather the shape of it is changed.

As you see below, the RA Prism has a square face holding the round clear aperture; whereas the roof prism housing is a rectangle of the same width but 71% longer.

It makes sense you can't truncate from distance A' to D while keeping a triangular profile to the entire enclosure.

 If you did, it would look more like a GSO dielectric mirror diagonal along the hypotenuse: