-
Posts
8,440 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by RikM
-
-
Might sneak in and watch this one if I’m still welcome.
I take it hecklers are not encouraged? 🤣
- 3
-
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.
- 2
-
On 25 August 2016 at 10:47, cotterless45 said:
Hmm, sounds good, just that nearly everything is sold by the time SGL comes around.
At Psp (rip) we used to have a table / car boot on Saturday morning. You could browse stuff that what was sale. It was better just to announce a sale for that morning/ day.
I'm bringing some goodies for sale, they'll be at my pitch,
old Nick.
That's exactly what we have done for the past few years and we feel it's now time for a change.
- 1
-
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.
-
9 hours ago, RikM said:
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.
As promised:
- 12
-
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.
- 4
-
2 hours ago, Frank the Troll said:
Took a look on google, your right, its a Phenix but its describe as a EQ5
Picture is the same mount shown on this page: http://neilenglish.net/the-phenix-refractors-rising-from-the-ashes/
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 )
- 3
-
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.
- 1
-
-
Just saw this and noticed 2 things wrong:
1/ He is observing during the day
2/ If he is observing the Sun, there are no safety filters in place.
I can only assume that he is bird watching.
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.
-
-
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.
- 2
-
Using a larger aperture with an off-axis aperture mask does the trick.
-
... but I can now declare on this thread as complete...
Ha ha ha.....
That's a good one!
- 1
-
I have a Fullerscopes 40mm ortho. It is very nice as a finder in my son's Mak and for afocal Luna photography.
Edit: I got that wrong. Mine is a Kellner. Still very nice though.
-
-
Another small but significant update. When comparing binocular FOVs using the astronomy tools FOV calculator the image text now includes exit-pupil size.
You can select up to seven different binoculars and compare their magnification, objective diameter, FOV and exit-pupil size. This is true even if you are using the smaller astronomy tools window on our product description pages. Please see the Helios Apollo binocular and Opticron 80 WP binocular pages for examples.
Hope you find it useful
That's great Any chance of adding the same (7 options + exit pupil on image) for the Telescope visual FOV?
-
Thanks for a great web resource guys. Having the DSS images is a really nice feature, thanks
Are the eyepiece simulations from focal length & aFOV or from fieldstop diameters? Does it really matter?
Summer month observations
in Observing - Discussion
Posted
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.