Mr niall

Oh I know what you mean. They're specific to the tripod I think. If you were making your own you'd need to come up with something else.

What do they look like? Can you describe them?

Oh no you’ll be fine. Albireo is high until mid autumn right now - the closer to the zenith it is the less it’s affected by LP anyway. Double stars are affected much less by light pollution than galaxies for example. Most of us are plagued by significant light pollution these days. Clusters aren’t that badly affected and some planetary nebula are fine too. Planets and moon of course. Still lots to see! Gamma delphini is another cracker - two little yellow dots on a sea of blue stars.

Well done pal very jealous!

This is mind blowing! Good work.

The 56,60 and 63 would all need mounting so they're not really up for consideration; I'd just get the 80mm. I'm trying to understand if users of 50mm felt they were missing out on the views that an 80mm would give, or whether 80mm users felt the views afforded by extra aperture was worth the faff and lack of mobility that they require. I'm not after a comparison - I now the views are different, I'm more looking for opinions on relative merits of usability given their constraints. Apologies if that wasn't clear above.

Hello there I'm looking at upgrading my skymaster 15x70's which have served me well but feel I need to make a change. I'm lucky enough to spend a few weeks in the south of France every year and while I don't have enough room to bring my scope, I do of course have enough room for bins. But I'm torn - do I go bigger, or do I go smaller. I guess I'd really appreciate some input from those who've experienced a range of bins to point me in the right direction. I've got a pair of the Mistral 10x50's (non ED) at work and they're absolutely brilliant so I know they'd be a safe bet. But I guess what I cant decide is do I want portability at the expense of depth of view, or do I want depth of view at the expense of usability. I guess my biggest complaint with the 15x70's is they seem to occupy a bit of a middle ground. I'm aware the real aperture is about 63/64mm which isn't an issue, but they're too big to be used handheld recently so I have to mount them. Mounting them isn't a total nightmare but I can't help but think if I'm going to the trouble of mounting bins I'd want a bit more "view wise" if you know what I mean. I know the Skymaster Pro's 20x80s are well respected and give great deep views of the night sky and can happily hoover up globs and most Messiers for example. Conversely given the faff of mounting them, I'm similarly drawn to the 10x50's as, apart from being much more compact and "family resistant", they'd be more useful as an allrounder for birding / deer spotting and I wouldn't necessarily have to go to the trouble of mounting them to enjoy them. But would I be missing out? Do 10x50 users feel like they are missing out on some of the treasure's in the night sky or does the wider fov and convenience more than make up for that? Difficult choice... Any opinions appreciated. As with everything else, my max budget is £100 but that has obviously gone out of the window as soon as I see something pretty. For legal reasons (Mrs Niall) its still £100 😉

amazing

Wow…. 😮

its difficult to tell from that picture but if I had to guess I'd say it looks a fraction off. It's difficult to say but it looks like the reflection of the secondary in the primary is showing the edge of secondary holder suggesting the primary isn't looking straight ahead as it should. The gap between the primary and the tube edges looks a bit big too, although that could be a trick of the light. Can you take some more photos? Is it a fast scope (eg f5 or above)? They're usually offset. Shouldn't a Cheshire have cross hairs? If you haven't already check out this guide: http://www.astro-baby.com/astrobaby/help/collimation-guide-newtonian-reflector/

No probs pal ask away.

No just let it run, keep snapping until the timer runs out then wind it up and start again!

It means you wind it up and it runs for an hour. Recommended exposure length for 100mm is 1 min. I was getting 90 secs at 100mm easily enough. Formula is 100/focal length gives you recommended exposure length in minutes.

Debatable.... They are, on paper, much more logical, but the problem is as we look at things from the ground our frame of reference is always up/down left/right. If you are trying to move from one thing to another using an EQ mount you cant move the way you think you should move in your head; you've got to get the hang of describing invisible arc's in your head which can be fairly frustrating. I have never found a manually driven eq mount to be better than an alt-az mount for anything, ever! But I'm just one guy (and not a very competent astronomer!)

Hi Peter The Starquest is indeed shiny new, only a couple of weeks old in fact; but the telescope is essentially the same as you deduced You've picked equatorial mounts. Are you definitely set on an equatorial mount? Nothing wrong with them but I find them a bit of a nightmare personally and much prefer alt-az. Equatorial mounts don't move up-down-left-right like alt-az mounts so they can be a bit fiddly to use when not attached to a Goto system (just my opinion may be giving away my rank amatuerness there!) What sort of photography are you thinking about? There's two types; Lunar & Planetary and "Everything Else". Lunar and planetary is sort of just about feasible with the 130 provided you have a mount with tracking motors (ironically this is where an EQ mount is your friend) but otherwise quite tricky. The starquest doesn't have tracking motors but theres a rumour circulating that skywatcher may be making them available as an add-on in the future. The moon is do-able if you can hover a phone or camera over the eyepiece though. But everything else is out so remember to keep your expectations low to avoid disappointment. You know the heritage 130p flextube is another option again - and a bit cheaper. Would be easier to use certainly. edit: sorry forgot to answer your question! If it were me I'd pick the starquest purely because its newer and looks a bit cooler! But they're basically the same

No Crop factor isn't an issue, 90% of DSLR's are APS-C these days anyway, but it doesn't matter massively at the intended focal lengths anyway. Good polar alignment is the trick. There's a really good review on a german website that goes into quite a lot of detail. https://sternenhimmel-fotografieren.de/test-erfahrungsbericht-beschreibung-omegon-mini-track-lx2/

Very cool, lovely shot

Ebay I'd say, that's where I get all of my cogs. You just need a couple of measurements; The number of teeth, the depth of the teeth (this is nearly always 0.5 or 1mm and is referred to as MOD 0.5 or MOD 1) and the width of the bore. You can get them for pennies.

Hello there. I'd really like to replace my truly terrible Canon 70-300mm. I know the weapon of choice for "not quite widefield" focal lengths seems to be the Samyang 135mm but they're not cheap (well they are cheap, really cheap for the quality but hopefully you get my drift) but the Evoguide is literally half the price. Literally literally (not quite literally) Has anyone tried imaging with the SW Evoguide 50? Looks like it may be reasonable even if 240mm is perhaps a tad over what I would choose. The only risk is that I have absolutely no use for a guidescope so it may be an expensive mistake if I get it and it's terrible! I just want a bit more reach than my Canon 18-55 kit lens which, in all fairness, is a lovely lens.

Thanks! Managed to get the front off and the diagonal out; from there I was able to solder (ish…) the back and white wires back on. Ordered a battery holder from ebay so hopefully just a case of attaching that and re-sighting the reticle and we're back in business! Well, after I've got some half decent sticky pads! Not a mark on the outside. Must be made of the same stuff as Starbug from Red Dwarf...

Thanks everyone that's everything I need. Many thanks wish me luck!

Thanks that's perfect those are the two measurements I need I can solder the rest.

That's fab - what focal length is that? I don't think I've ever seen M16 framed like that.

I bought a shiny new Telrad for my dob last week, and got round to fitting it yesterday evening. Managed to situate it nicely and then went inside and left my scope to cool down. Then it fell off... The 5ft fall on to the patio has completely destroyed it. But not the outside, only the inside... The battery pack is ruined and the reticle has come loose and ripped all the wiring out. I might be able to repair (well I have to try, I don't have the money for another one) but having only ever opened a Telrad once it has occurred to me I have no idea what it is supposed to look like on the inside or where anything goes. Would any Telrad owners possibly be good enough to send me a couple of photo's of the inside of their Telrad so I can get an idea how to rebuild and what to solder where? If anyone is feeling extra extra helpful perhaps they could tell me (possibly with the help of a ruler) specifically where the little reticle thing mounts in the housing? Many thanks all. Niall

I've seen a hint, perhaps, of blue in the snowball nebula, possibly a whisper of green on M27 but never anything else. I've always wondered why Orion never shows colour considering how vividly it jumps out on photo's. But my skies are terrible - I've only just seen M51 for the first time and that's after I made the jump from 5 to 12 inch. And its almost directly overheard, and it still has no real shape even with AV. If I need my colour fix I just go to Alberio!