Alma

For anyone thinking of popping down this afternoon, traffic in west London is relatively light and Hornton Street car park has plenty of spaces. Took just over an hour to drive in from Windsor.

I’ve had my 15x50’s for about 14 years now and everything still works fine. Don’t use them much for the terrestrial stuff but for casual stargazing they’re brilliant.

Quite, I should have added those options to my post. I use a Berlebach Uni 18 with M10 base plate for my AZ75, but I think the Gitzo 5 Series (which has 3/8”) makes a very sturdy foundation also, but of course it’s much better to use the correct thread.

Yes, it’s a Gitzo GT5532 which has 3/8” thread. I ordered the AZ75 with an M10 threaded base for my regular set up - not everyone would be happy with the idea but the two threads are very similar and 3/8” into M10 works perfectly well (i.m.o.) but not the other way round.

Interesting that you didn’t like the Pentax XW. I had the 10mm Pentax XW and Delos at the same time and although I preferred the Pentax for comfort the Delos was sharper to the edge in fast scopes and I thought had better light throughput. Worth paying the extra i.m.h.o.

The Nexus II works just fine with the AZ75 and I’m using a SmallRig power bank holder to secure it to the mount. The holder can be screwed in either side of the mount using the spare mounting holes and is a very neat and tidy solution. I bought the AZ75 direct from Rowan and so far I’m VERY impressed with it. It’s beautifully engineered and carries all my scopes comfortably (e.g. C9.25, LZOS 123/738). Most impressive of all is the degree of “stiction” control. I’ve used other alt-az, push-to mounts in the past which use conventional Teflon pads and been frustrated with the constant, often inaccurate nudging to keep the target in view but the Rowan solution works MUCH better and is a dream to use. Personally, for my style of viewing I’m happier that they didn’t add slo-mo controls, but each to their own.

I had two of these things fail over time. Nice reticle pattern but too cheaply made i.m.h.o.

++1 for Arctic Muckboots and Heat Holder socks …. I suffer from cold extremities and this combo really works.

Coming late to this discussion .. sorry! I’ve had an AYO II for many years now and it’s served me extremely well up until now, however the AZ75 ticks a number of boxes which I regard as shortcomings with the AYO :- 1) the AYOs don’t have an alt lock (Stu’s knob?) which makes changing heavy eyepieces worrisome, and … 2) the load capacity appears to sit somewhere between the AYO II and AYO Digi II which for me hits a sweet spot. Currently I’m using a 123mm refractor on the AYO with an all up weight of 10Kg which is really at the limit of the AYO ii’s capacity. 3) the AYO II requires an add-on module inserted in the vertical part of the “T” to incorporate the azimuth encoder and the additional module is secured by tiny hex bolts, which has never seemed a very robust engineering solution to me. 4) I believe only the larger AYO’s provide any means of attaching a bracket for a DSC device such as a Nexus II or DSC, which means you have to resort to devising something for yourself. Annoying …. So, I think the lads have done an excellent job of researching the competition here and you can count me in for a new AZ75 when available. Any one want a (much) used AYO II ? p.s., personally I’m not bothered with slow motion knobs provided there’s a decent panning handle.

I guess many people though don’t have the experience or haven’t done enough research to make a fully informed choice - it’s just classic confirmation bias.

Yep, I think the Uni 28 is a good call - it would have been my second choice after the Planet. But I’m going to stick with the Tri-Pier for now as it DOES work really well with the AZ100. I originally bought the Tri-Pier for my CEM40 but I actually prefer that on my UNI18 and the AZ100 on the Tri-Pier. Everyone’s mileage as they say, may differ!

There are pluses and minuses to using a Tri-Pier with the AZ100. The pluses are:- the low centre of gravity compared to a conventional tripod offsets the relatively heavy weight of the AZ100 rather well, the footprint is smaller than a conventional tripod, so if like me you’re prone to stumbling over tripod legs this is less of a problem, There is plenty of clearance for long refractors, there is virtually nil vibration, at least with the scopes I use. The downsides are :- Weight ... 11.7 Kgs vs 11.0 Kgs for a Planet, Handling. There are lots of twiddly adjustment levers to tighten (6 in total) and three leg adjustment screws to play around with before you can use it, Berlebachs are SO much nicer in this respect. Likewise, wood is much nicer to handle than cold steel. As Space Hopper points out there is no accessory tray, although you can work around this with a bit of inventiveness, Aesthetics. Self explanatory really. To be honest if I was starting from scratch I’d choose a Berlebach Planet over the Tri-Pier for the AZ100, but for those who already own a Tri-Pier I would say try it first; it works and works very well with the AZ100.

Actually I used several Televues alternately in all 3 scopes ... Panoptic 19 and 24mm, Delos 10mm, Ethos 8, 13 and 21. Same result whichever I’m afraid and I also alternated between 2 diagonals ... Baader 2” mirror and 1.25” mirror and prism.

Certainly. I’m loathe to describe it as a “problem” as such, more of a quirk as otherwise I think it’s a brilliant scope in all respects. Mike’s experience with his FC-100DC describes perfectly what I saw. It may well be you were experiencing the same thing with your shot at the Pup.

Thanks Mike. They were mounted side by side alt-az on a Rowan AZ100. I’m pretty sure it was the roof and not the trees as I observed the same thing for about 45 minutes to an hour as Orion made its transit over the house. The eastern side of the house was well away from the trees. Your earlier description of a “stationary blur” describes it well. If I kept my eyeball perfectly still over the eyepiece there was a reasonably pin sharp view, but the merest movement sent the image into a mass of scintillating blurs. I’ll have a good look at my neighbour’s roof but it looks just like your standard, tiled roof with nothing out of the ordinary. I think it’s a case of poor maintenance and extremely poor insulation.

Hi Stu. It’s repeatable, but only on rare occasions and thinking about it only during the Winter months. I don’t recall the same effect with the FC-76 (the one I bought from you) but then I didn’t use it that much. It just seems odd that the 80mm and 123mm triplets seem hardly effected at all whereas the Tak went into meltdown. Before I turned to M42 b.t.w. I took a look at the Moon to make sure all 3 scopes had cooled properly and the view through the Tak Fc-100 was outstanding - almost as much detail as the superb LZOS 123/738.

Not really - I had the scopes dual mounted set up on the same mount so I could look from one eyepiece to the other in a second or two. Also, it seemed to come from the entire length of the roof, not just a single flue. Think I’ll have a chat with my neighbour about his insulation, or lack thereof. The main thrust of my question really is why one scope should be so susceptible to heat plumes than others - the difference was very significant.

I’ve had my Tak FC-100 for about 3 years now and I think it’s a fantastic little scope in terms of sharpness, contrast and light throughput. However it has one annoying little habit and I’m interested to hear whether any other owners have experienced anything similar. The scope itself b.t.w. is a DC model to which I added a 2.5” Feathertouch, replacing that rather silly (i.m.ho.) FS60 focuser on the DC. Let me describe what happened about a week ago. There was a rare break in the clouds and I decided to whip out the Tak for a quick look at Orion. Now Orion is relatively low on the horizon but not THAT low so that atmospheric issues should be too much of a problem. The first view was a mess so I changed eyepieces, changed diagonals, checked for dew, etc. but nothing changed that horrible view. I might add that this isn’t the first time I’ve experienced the same thing with this scope, but it’s rare. Also, I’ve not experienced this with my other scopes which are f/6 triplets. Last night I think I finally pinned down the problem - heat plumes! I dual mounted the Tak alongside my 123mm f/6 triplet and tracked M42 for about 3 hours. Everything went great, in fact the Tak performed beautifully for a couple of hours giving the bigger LZOS triplet a really good run for its money. Then, quite suddenly everything went to pot with the Tak. It happened precisely when the mount started tracking above my neighbour’s roof. I suspect his house lacks insulation and there’s a lot of heat escaping through the roof. So, I kept tracking until M42 completed its roof transit and things appeared to go back to normal. I say “appeared” because trees partly obscured the view, so difficult to be completely sure. Throughout this time the triplet maintained its excellent view and didn’t suffer any degradation in the view. I should add that I also tested an 80/480 triplet separately which similarly remained unaffected. So, I’m curious. Is this a facet of the FC100 design? Is it a particular quirk of fluorite? Is it typical of doublet lenses in general? Has anyone else experienced this problem with the FC-100 in particular or any other scope, or is it just my particular unit that has the issue? I don’t want anyone to interpret this as Takahashi bashing b.t.w. or to be deterred from buying this model - in fact I think it’s a great performer for its aperture and a very worthwhile investment. Alan

I had a couple of issues during lockdown with missing bits and poor packaging rather than quality of the products themselves. A Rowan AZ100 mount arrived missing the flexi slow motion controls and encoder cables. Then I ordered a Berlebach UNI18 for my CEM40 which, despite both the box and top plate being labelled for a CEM40, came with a completely different top plate. Both issues were very quickly and efficiently resolved by the retailer (FLO). I’m really not complaining though - I count myself as lucky to be able get such items at all during these difficult times.

No industry experience I’m afraid, however I’ve seen Swarovski’s excellent Swaroclean coating described as “hydrophobic”, I.e. water repellent. There’s a Wiki article here which gives details on hydrophobic technology :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhydrophobic_coating

Looks like it’s the LZOS f/6 130/780 packaged with the M82 Massimo Riccardi reducer. Somewhat strange marketing approach advertising it as a f/4.5 scope, but I can confirm both are absolutely top notch. I have the slightly smaller LZOS 123/738 and it’s a superb scope for visual use. I also have the M83 Riccardi reducer. This will be a brilliant rig for both visual and AP use.

Good choice. I have to say Berlebachs are much nicer to handle than the tri-pier.

I have mine on an iOptron Tri-Pier which I already owned and just added the EQ6 adapter. I thought about getting another top plate for my UNI18 for the AZ100 but I’m very happy with the Tri-pier and I think it’s a good match especially with heavier scopes. The Tri-pier is a little heavier than a Planet but it has lots of clearance for long refractors and I quite like the fact that you can adjust the pier settings for height.

Just checked whether turning green is a symptom of COVID; apparently not, so it must be the TEC. Have a great time with it.

Yep, Rupert goes out of his way to make sure you get the right match of scope and accessories - his knowledge is invaluable. Was thinking about that TEC 140 FL myself but you got there first; congratulations!