RikM

I have both Astronomik UHC and Oiii filters and honestly I couldn’t say which I prefer. I tend to use the UHC first as it Tends to show ‘more’ overall. Then I will switch to the Oiii to pick out ‘more detail’ in the interesting bits.

Might sneak in and watch this one if I’m still welcome. I take it hecklers are not encouraged? 🤣

I have the XW's from 5mm through to 20mm and love them. When I eventually get a quality 100-120mm refractor I will surely get a 3.5mm XW to go with it.

That's exactly what we have done for the past few years and we feel it's now time for a change.

I have to say I almost entirely disagree with your 'ultimate guide' for beginners! All the telescopes you 'recommend' are very small aperture and in the main come with lightweight unstable mounts that will do more to frustrate the user rather than give them a good start in observational astronomy. For visual observing, aperture counts. The larger the diameter of your objective, the more light you gather on deep space objects and the more resolution you have on solar system objects. For the budget conscious beginner, by far the best bang for your buck comes with a Dobsonian mounted Newtonian reflector. Not only does a 6" or 8" Newtonian give great views of all classes of astronomical object, but it has the added advantage of a very stable, intuitive, low maintenance mounting. As for advising against a reflecting telescope as they are 'hard to manage', this is plainly wrong. Would you advise someone against playing the guitar because you have to tune the strings? Just as you can get pitch-pipes to aid in tuning a musical instrument, so you can get a Cheshire eyepiece to aid in aligning the mirrors. It doesn't take more than a few seconds and is nothing to be scared of. For those wanting to make a start in astrophotography the advice of 'don't because it's difficult' isn't at all helpful. There are many wonderfully helpful and encouraging imagers at SGL who are more than happy to advise how to get started.

I have a 127Mak and a 70mm refractor and the star shapes and planetary views are better in the little refractor. Okay, I'm comparing possibly a poor example of a Skymax with a very nice Televue Pronto, but for me the star shapes and contrast swing it heavily in favour of replacing the Mak with 100ED or maybe even a 120.

As promised:

I'll take a pic later but my travel kit is a TV Pronto in its case with 5, 7 & 14mm Pentax XW's a UHC filter and a Rigel QuickFinder. That sits okay on my Manfrotto photo tripod.

Yes, I know that's what Phenix calls it but I can assure 100% it's not the same as a SkyWatcher EQ5. It's a very good budget mount.

'Lightweight' is relative. Yes, it's heavier than an EQ3-2 but still much lighter than an EQ5. I had both. It's still a perfectly good mount though

No. It's not an EQ5. It looks like one of the lightweight budget heads sold with Phenix telescopes. I had one for while. They are basic but functional as long as you don't overload it. A genuine EQ5 is a much heavier, much sturdier piece of equipment.

This is the one you need for the SkyWatcher ED100 http://www.firstlightoptics.com/reducersflatteners/skywatcher-85x-reducerflattener-for-ed100.html The first one listed in your original post.

I would be happy to try an XW14 / Delos14 comparison at SGL11 if anyone is bringing a Delos 14? The XW14 and XW20 aren't as flat as the shorter focal lengths but they still have phenomenal light throughput and I find them very comfortable to use.

At the moment, I just take the extra time and only gather RGB. I stack each separately for colour and then deselect filter separation and stack the whole lot together for an L. I process as for normal LRGB described above, adding the colour in stages, boosting the saturation and reducing the noise each time. Seems the best compromise for me at the moment and I am satisfied with how the images are coming out. (The stars are a mess though, sorry )

LRGB is a great timesaver. When you are collecting the L, you are getting RG & B all at the same time, in full resolution rather than a few pixel for each as with a OSC.

Here's my Explorer 150P on the NEQ6 in imaging mode in the obsy. One day I will get the pier installed. For now it works perfectly well enough on the tripod.

He was cloud watching, same as the rest of us Paul Actually, I asked him to stand by the scope because a friend wanted an idea how big the thing was. You are right to point out that proper solar filters are required if you intend to view the sun. In this case, we made very certain to point the telescope in a safe direction and I have tought Matty about safe solar viewing. We normally use a small refractor for that.

Here's my youngest with an 8" Meade Starfinder we had on loan for a while. And this is my 250PX

A lot of folk use car brake discs for a pier plate.

I'll just add my agreement with the points made already. I use my 20mm and 14mm eyepieces much more than my 28mm from home in Glos. I used to use a 30mm and the LP washed the view out. Using a higher magnification, wider angle eyepiece improves the view.

Using a larger aperture with an off-axis aperture mask does the trick.

Ha ha ha..... That's a good one!