Mr niall

I’ve just bought the same scope and it was identical. It’s 99 percent fine. Don’t overthink it - just adjust the primary mirror so the hole in the collimation cap is in the centre of the hole on the mirror and you’re good to go edit; ignore that sorry didn’t realise it was a glued primary!

I use this website to double check if anything is there: https://www.spaceweather.com/

What is you are interested in pal? Are you looking for an all round all-purpose guide to the universe or something more specific or tailored to a certain area? I haven't read that book sorry BUT... I do have this one: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Stars-Definitive-Visual-Guide-Cosmos/dp/0241226023/ref=pd_lpo_14_t_0/257-0916732-7095914?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0241226023&pd_rd_r=123be89c-23e7-40e6-ba5e-2c824caa95b5&pd_rd_w=rMi90&pd_rd_wg=zIolz&pf_rd_p=7b8e3b03-1439-4489-abd4-4a138cf4eca6&pf_rd_r=0FXJ9JPH5E79NW2G7XYM&psc=1&refRID=0FXJ9JPH5E79NW2G7XYM And I really like it - has some amazing facts, illustrations, a big section about planets, suns, nebulas - and also a huge section at the back with great maps of the night sky and where everything is.

Are you talking about EEVA (electronically enhanced visual astronomy) - you may want to move your post over to that forum if so. Celestron 925 is a really good choice for this sort of thing as it is definitely a jack of all trades scope for EEVA work.

The good news is none - no filters are required at all in DSLR astrophotography.

yeah that's what I did with mine!

Yes I've used one they are brilliant (but no finder scope) The mini mak has a focal length of 750mm. So if you add a 2x barlow to a 15mm that gives you an effective 7.5mm that's 100x. Maximum usable magnification is a bit of a moving target but some people say 50x per inch of aperture or 2x aperture in mm - so lets say 140x would be your max. So far so good - but... that 7.5mm effective eyepiece would give you an eyepiece of 0.7mm - which will make things a bit dark at the eyepiece but is still usable. In theory - for targets like the moon and planets - that would be a fairly reasonably absolute maximum I'd say. But only for moon and planets.

very nice! Although I think the labels for M57 and M27 might want to be swapped around.

I was wondering if there was such a thing as a light pollution reducing filter that would work with reasonably widefield lenses (eg up to 100mm) on a DSLR? If I could just extend my exposure times up to about 60 secs I'd be really happy indeed! Currently at 50mm and lower I'm getting completely washed out. I guess that is the peril of living in suburban skies! And the gradual change from sodium to LED street lights does kind make it more challenging to pick a light pollution filter as I can't work out what it is I'm actually looking for... I've seen some that look quite good, but some of them seem quite expensive and I'm a bit nervous about forking out if I'm not going to notice any massive improvements. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07FQD5D8R/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=A3ICDZYF91YIY1&psc=1 https://www.firstlightoptics.com/rgb-filters-filter-sets/optolong-l-pro-light-pollution-broadband-filter.html https://www.firstlightoptics.com/optolong-filters/optolong-cls-light-pollution-filter.html https://www.firstlightoptics.com/light-pollution-reduction/astronomik-cls-filter.html

Really does nobody have an opinion on this? I thought people loved a good "scope v scope" battle!

Hi all, I'm trying to achieve a reasonably handy lunar / planetary setup on a modest budget (aren't we all!). This would include imaging - although the camera is a different issue so we'll leave that for now. I've narrowed it down to a choice of two, but they are very different. And I'm not sure which would be more suitable, and they are almost the same money.... I can get the Skymax 127 on an AZGTi for £445 (I can't believe FLO reduced this! Brilliant). It is super compact, well supported, well loved, largely bomb proof, easy to use and so on. I've had a skymax 127 and I do know it is a joy to use. However - I wouldn't really need to take advantage of the Goto (not that that is an issue). It is appealing to think I could use the mount for astrophotography - but then I'd need to buy the wedge, and figure out how to polar align (which I think means buying sharpcap pro or an ASI air or something, which completely torpedoes my budget). Also the aperture is a bit smaller than the alternative (and actually a wee bit smaller again if what I hear about true aperture is true). Would that annoy me?... I don't know. Or.. I can get a 150pl on an EQ3 - and the Upgraded motors with ST4 port - and a polar scope, for about £465-470. The big advantages is that IMHO it is by far the coolest looking scope ever (vital consideration...), bigger aperture, the mount is a known entity. And I could definitely use it "out of the box" for imaging with my DSLR too (before anyone says anything, I have had a star adventurer and eq3 in the past I am just talking widefield and milky way stuff with the dslr, I'm just thinking a step up from my clockwork minitrack). However - it is a beast. A big beast! And that is a consideration. As a system it is probably a bit less versatile than the AZGTI. Unfortunately the full EQ3 pro package at £589 is just a bit too expensive. So I'm not sure - I like the AZGTi for its size, weight, versatility, connectivity - and I'm a fan of Maks. But I'm worried I would possibly rue the lack of extra light grab that the 150pl offered. Has anyone used both systems? Or more specifically has anyone used the 150pl on an EQ3 for any serious planetary work? How did you find it? Many thanks

Hello all! As the planets have appeared I was going to have a go at them with my phone (madness I know). Has anyone tried this? I'm going to use an old 60/700. Going doing the webcam route I would normally just use a 2x barlow and know that I'd more-or-less be sort of ok, kind of, when it came to resolution and sampling. But I've got to use an eyepiece apparently for it to work with my phone. And then my phone has a lens... Very confusing. How do I pick what magnification to use? Or do I just do it completely visual - i.e. get it looking as good through the eyepiece as I can (80-90x I'm guessing with my 60mm scope) and then line my phone up over the eyepiece? Many thanks all.

Helios Mistral 10x50 ED WP6. Absolutely brilliant, but on the heavy side a bit

M51 is actually next to Alkaid in Ursa Major.... Honestly ignore the barlow for now. do a quick google for a star chart - something like this: https://freestarcharts.com/messier-51 Study the chart - have a look at where M51 is relative to the other stars in the big dipper - for example if you have a look at M51 it is quite easy to find as it forms a nice right angled triangle with Alkaid and Mizar. Make a note of the degrees of separation. M51 is about 4 degrees away (give or take). It would be handy at this point to remember that the lower power eyepiece you use, the wider the field of view your telescope will give you. But... M51 is a notoriously difficult target. I live in bortle 4/5 skies and I have never seen it in anything less than a 12 inch scope - and even then it was very very faint. Some people will tell you it is incredibly easy, it really depends on local conditions. At the moment - I would concentrate on maybe M44, or perhaps M3 - or M81 / M82. They are easier to find and quite bright.

The job of a telescope (when used in astronomy) is not to magnify things but to collect more light than the human eye. The magnification is not, therefore, the most important consideration. To work out magnification you only need to know the focal length of your telescope (i.e) how long it is. If your scope is a 102 f4.9 then it has a focal length of 500mm. So a 25mm eyepiece will give you 20x A 10mm eyepiece will give you 50x and so on... For looking for galaxies and fainter stuff, the aim is not really to magnify them per se; because they aren't really that small (comparatively speaking). A magnification of 20-50x will be ample for most stuff. Like I said above - the aim of the scope is to make the invisible visible - not to make the very small much bigger. That's why "bigger" telescopes are better in an absolute capacity - as they collect more light. Broadly speaking, the bigger the aperture of the scope, the more light it collects, and the "further and fainter" it can see. Adding more magnification will never make something invisible suddenly become visible.

If you can afford it - definitely LX3. LX2 is great, but LX3 is much better.

Hi Peter - well this is the LX3 rather than the LX2 so it is even more stable. But yes I agree I think much longer exposures are possible. I reckon on a good night you could push to 90 secs at about 100mm. As a disclaimer - I was also dealing with the following that prevented longer exposures: A reasonably light weight tripod on a smooth glass table - I am reasonably confident my polar alignment probably shifted slightly during setup. I'm not using a wedge - just a ball head. This makes alignment a little tricker and more vague! focus could have been better I possibly could have paid more attention to the tensioner spring. If you download a metronome app - you can listen to how effectively your tracking is working. Omegon say you want to keep it at about 130-135. Mine was ticking away at about 130.5 and slowed down ever so slightly towards the end of travel so I probably could have tensioned it better. As I said, very windy! I reprocessed the image and came out with the below. The mount isn't really designed for longer focal lengths but my 18-55 kit lens stops down to f5.6 st 55mm - but my 75-300 opens to f4 @75mm, so until I get hold of a nifty fifty I'm using either 18mm or 75mm! Having had both the LX2 and LX3 I would say the LX3 is definitely definitely worth the extra investment over the LX2 if at all possible (but the LX2 is still pretty great).

Well... after my shockingly childish rant of almost biblical proportions a couple of weeks ago I must concede (somewhat humbly) that you guys really know what you are talking about! what amazes me most is that many of you continued to help even after I threw my toys out of the pram and started criticising everyone and everything astronomy. its amazing what a few simple setup tweaks and process adjustments can do to an image - in my case turning it from unusable to “not too bad”. Just look at the "after and before" shots below! many thanks again all - you know who you are! Niall disclaimer - I did buy a new camera too...

Have you tried stacking it without the flats?

It moves left to right about 15 degrees an hour. Ever evening it starts slightly further to the right than the night before.

Agreed. Stay safe!

I thought the cornerstone of a good hypothesis was that it couldn't be proved wrong - not that it could be proved correct? With that in mind I would recommend a double-blind repeat of your experiment on the basis of scientific rigour. Furthermore I would test a variety of beverages including brandies, wines, rums and whisky's to ensure there is no placebo effect. All in the name of science!

Got one last night

As promised - bit windy last night so ended up with 35x 60sec at 80mm, ended up throwing the rest away. Alkaid in middle, M51 on right, M101 on left. Sure you could do better much better pal. But mount worked fine.

Sorry I wasn't trying to criticise I was just saying that the 40mm eyepiece - like you've realised - does seem to attract a lot of negative opinion. But its not really an "all rounder" and does have it's place. Sadly they do not really excel in shorter focal length scopes like yours. But they are a useful eyepiece in their way. I really enjoy using them.