Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_30_second_exp_2_winners.thumb.jpg.b5430b40547c40d344fd4493776ab99f.jpg

Rick_It

Members
  • Content Count

    118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

50 Excellent

About Rick_It

  • Rank
    Star Forming
  1. The 62mm should have the same glass as the Evostar 72mm ED (323€ on FLO, 10mm more aperture but mechanically inferior).
  2. Italian prices are out, and they are much better than the australian ones. https://www.telescopi-artesky.it/it/skywatcher/rifrattori-apocromatici-/4726-rifrattore-evolux-62ed-skywatcher.html https://www.telescopi-artesky.it/it/skywatcher/rifrattori-apocromatici-/3150-rifrattore-evolux-82ed-skywatcher.html Evolux 62mm: 304€ Evolux 82mm: 760€
  3. You can derive the refractive index and the Abbe number of a glass, but this require dismantling the scope and testing the single lens using professional equipments.
  4. IMHO, when characteristics are not fully declared, it is a safe assumption to assume for the minimum / cheapest specifications. In this case, as the scope is still advertised as ED, I assume HK61 (chinese copy, and slightly worse, of FPL51). Then, if someone tells me that CA is on par with the ED80 (FPL53), I will change my mind. But, if this is the case (and SW is using FPL55 or FC100), then this is really a crazy marketing strategy. If you are using a good glass, why don't you declare it?
  5. For sure it is not FPL53. But what's important is if the glass is FPL53 "like" (FPL55, FC100) or if the glass is FPL51 "like" (FPL51, FC1, HK61). I think a direct comparison (star test at high magnification) of the Evostar 80mm ED with this new Evolux should reveal the truth. The Evolux has almost the same diameter but it is a bit faster than the Evostar. If they are using an inferior glass (FP51 equivalent), chromatic aberration should be noticeable higher than CA in the Evostar 80ED.
  6. The funny thing is that this situation, called natural monopoly, is a standard example of market failure which calls for state regulations. But state regulations are anathema for US and UK policy makers. Sorry for the OT
  7. It depends on the economy of scales of the monopolist
  8. Congrats FLO and Rowan, the mount is a very interesting product. The mount is heavy and quite expensive: I think you could explore the possibility of producing a smaller mount - call it Rowan 50. It should have a payload of about 8-12kg (with/without counterweights), a weight of about 3-4kg, no slo-mo controls (as a cost-saving measure) but still the encoders option (this is what really differentiate this class of mounts).
  9. I had the scope and the diagonal. I confirm the diagonal can be aligned.
  10. Watch out. Encoders seem to be mounted internally in the Rowan 100, but externally in the AZ8. Having the encoder internally mounted (like in the AYO mounts) is better.
  11. Think out of the box https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p6880_Explore-Scientific-MN-152-f-4-8-Maksutov-Newtonian-Telescope-with-Field-Correction.html
  12. With a stable tripod, the EQ3.2 is not a bad mount. Visual only and, I stress again, with a good tripod, it can really arrive up to 5Kg (I used on that a TAL100RS). I also remind that a very light tube like a C5 is very steady. I suggest you to try the SW 72ED with a reducer/flattner for AP, as you want something light but also with a short focal lenght and a fast f-stop. The 80mm is longer, heavier and slower: probably too much for the mount. Guided or unguided pictures? I don't expect the EQ3.2 to have a very precise tracking.
  13. This is the achro version but with the same body as TS: https://www.omegon.eu/instruments/omegon-binoculars-argus-12x50/p,47247 You can probably choose between two bodies (rubber or leatherette) and two glass version (achro or ED). As the APM uses the FK61 (one of the cheapest ED glass available), it's difficult to downgrade the glass even more while keeping the "ED". Different coatings are available, probably.
  14. So small and light, I would go with a Celestron Hummingbird and a monopod or, if 1.25" eyepieces compatibility is not important, with an Opticron spotting scope (MM4 60mm ED, weight 750gr or MM4 77mm ED weight 1250gr).
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.