JTEC

I’ve not used the Extender but the 2x2 Powermate has been a primary option with my 12” Dob and Celestron 11” SCT. It’s optically superb and, as others have said, ‘invisible’. For me the optical excellence would outscore the supposed ergonomic issues. But perhaps too much is being made of these - the Powermate body unscrews so, at least in a bino configuration, it’s a lot shorter - please see the attached pic. The whole set up is very solid. The Powermate is beautifully built and it isn’t going to be he source of any ‘wobble’ or lack of orthogonality in the system.

Adam, all explained here. https://www.rowanastronomy.com/AZ100Update/Manual.pdf

I’d suggest going the binoviewer route if you can - I find the improvement over mono for lunar and planetary viewing transformative and much more dramatic than swapping any single eyepiece in for another, assuming of course that both are of at least decent quality. I do have one each of Delos, Tak TOE and Vixen HR as well as 5 and 7mm Pentax XWs and all are terrific in different ways but the best planetary views - including with any of the above used singly - have been with the binoviewer and pairs of orthos and Televue Plössls . And these are *relatively* inexpensive eyepieces. Something to consider, perhaps, before rushing out to spend the best part of £400 on a Delos, for example? 🙂

I use the AZ100 with my TEC140 and C 9.25. I previously used the Skywatcher AZEQ6. Totally concur with JeremyS’s assessment. Excellent performer in manual and motorised configurations - I recently had the motors fitted - and very user friendly. Beautifully engineered to very high standard. Couldn’t be more pleased.

Can anyone help, please? I’m having to return a refractor objective to the US for testing and possible refurb. It’s a potential warranty matter; having the work done here isn’t an option, so it does have to make the trip. And it’s quite valuable. Can anyone suggest or recommend a suitable shipping company, please? Most of the companies I’ve checked have long lists of items they won’t carry, including optical items and anything made of glass! How on Earth does the stuff get here in the first place? 🤔

Indeed! I found a pic of the binoviewer with the Televue Powermate ahead of it in the Lukehurst Dobsonian.

Agreed 🙂. He made me an equatorial platform for the 12” - again, it was excellent. I sold it on with the Dobsonian - one of a long list of astronomy assets I subsequently regretted selling!

Hi, No it wasn’t needed. The scope was a 12” f6 that was made for me by David Lukehurst. (An excellent scope, by the way.) There was no adjustment possible with the truss poles, nor was any required. You can decloak the optics of the Powermate and attach it directly to the front of the binoviewer; from memory, this required an inexpensive Televue adapter. It made for a very solid setup.

I routinely used a 2” Televue Powermate with the Baader MkV binoviewer in my 12” truss-tube Dob.

+1

Interesting debate 🙂. Is the outcome the measure of an observation or is it the entirety of the observing experience? For a decade or so I imaged, lugging equipment to remote places with beautiful skies slogging away in gaps of cloud in the UK and teaching others to image as well. I remember the excitement of the early results. But more than that I think back to being out under the stars, being there, being part of the night and its silent progress and, as the mount ticked away, scanning the sky with binos or just looking up. Now, I’m a visual observer and haven’t imaged for years and I’m not tempted back. I had enough of jiggling with field-flatteners, trouble-shooting autoguiders, tripping over wires, staring at screens, trialling software, pixel peeping for the technical edge, processing and reprocessing … all of which took far more time than I spent under the sky. But I’m glad I did the imaging. The good thing is we have both, each has its own power, each complements and neither excludes the other.

With TEC140: Baader Mk V with either 1.25 or 1.75 GPC or, more usually, 2” Televue X2 Powermate. 1.25” or 2” Baader prism diagonal. Eyepieces: 18mm Tak LEs, 12.5, 9 and 6mm Tak orthos. The 18s and 9s are most used. 11mm TV Plössls also gave excellent results - 8mm TV Ps. also very good but a bit too tight on eye relief for comfort. Pair of 28mm Edmund RKEs work well but don’t see much use. Embarassed to say that I’ve never accurately determined the mags these combinations give - pretty sure it differs from what a simple calculation suggests because of the variations in spacing and the 1.7 GPC yielding more like 1.5. I’m happy with modest fields of view. The advantages of the bino in terms of lunar and planetary detail perceived and circumventing the effects of floaters have to be experienced to be appreciated, I think. Roland Christen advised going no lower than 10mm eyepieces. Certainly, the 6mms feel awkward to me. The 9mm Taks are my favourite for lunar and planetary, yielding, depending on the negative lens used ahead of the bino, between about x140 and x220, the lower end of the range probably best suited to Jupiter and the higher great for the Moon. On DSOs, I’ve unforgettable memories of peering into the depths of M42 with the 18mmLEs; there perhaps a little more width would have been even better!

Thanks! They do look solid and worth considering. ATB

Has anyone done this? I spoke to Rowan Astronomy and asked whether they’d considered a way of mounting big (100mm, for example) binoculars on the AZ100. They said several people had asked but, with everything else going on, including getting the motors out, there wasn’t yet anything on the drawing board. Could be fairly simple to do, perhaps, and the smoothness and robustness of the AZ100 on a Berlebach tripod might give it a big advantage over many other options.

It was great to catch up, Stu! I hope you enjoy the scope. I think they’re such a sweet mix of simplicity, functionality and image quality that everybody should have one. So, I’m definitely keeping the other one 🙂

Alan, here’s Peter’s reply. It was a PM and I don’t know how to share it, so attached here as a screenshot image.

I asked Peter Drew a while ago as I wondered about having the optics realuminised - not that they appear to need it. I’ll dig out his reply. From memory, the primary is glued to a layer of felt which, in turn is glued to the tube end disc. But I’ll check.

In case it’s any use, here are a couple of pics of the one I’m keeping. As you can see the altaz clamps are a bit different and there’s a two arm, one piece secondary support. Someone has also fitted a helical focuser - I don’t know whether this was original or not. It feels a little wobbly compared with the rack and pinion/helical focuser on the other one but works well when you’re used to it. You can also see the polythene lid that I believe the scopes were supplied with. This scope is not so ‘tidy’ as the one for sale but the images are every bit as good.

Just remembered, Rob built me a 10” Newtonian, again with Hinds optics - that had a single arm support for the secondary. My other 6” has a straight through finder (which I don’t tend to use, the RA finder is much more comfortable and convenient), slightly different clamps/knobs on the altaz head and a ‘straight across’ double arm secondary support, though the concept and implementation are otherwise identical.

It’s me selling it 🙂. The scope ‘natively’ took .925” eyepieces; the Baader adapter enables 1.25” and adds a helical component to the focusing. Years ago I ran an astronomy course in London and Rob Miller lent me one of these, saying ‘Wait till you see the views through that … ‘ I remember having good views of Mars. That scope had the same finish as this one, so, yes, I think that’s the ‘classic’ look. I have another one, which I’ll keep, that someone has painted white. The views are identical through both scopes - excellent. From memory, I don’t think the original had the right angle finder, but Peter Drew would know. I’m happy with a Telrad on the other one. I have other scopes as well but this is the ultimate ‘quick and easy’ with very good optical quality and the resolution of a 6” scope. It’s a one handed lift, takes little time to settle thermally and is smooth in operation. And, unlike my other scopes, not a wire in sight!

This chap liked my Telrad 🙂

I find it interesting that, unless I missed something, not a single Ethos, wonderful though they are, has yet received a mention 🤔 I’m not rooting for the Ethos, just a little surprised given their exceptional capabilities. My favourite eyepieces for the mostly lunar and planetary observing that I do are pairs of Tak orthos in the binoviewer. This combo outperforms anything mono I’ve used, including single current top line models like, for example, the 10mm TV Delos and Pentax XW 5 and 7mm. For wider field mono, I have a soft spot for the 22mm Nagler - inexperienced users also seem to enjoy the views through this eyepiece I’ve found.

If you really want to set the cat among the pigeons, keep the Nagler and the XW, then get hold of a 10mm Delos. 🙂😼

You might find this advice from Roland Christen helpful - his remarks appear towards the bottom of the page: http://www.darksights.com/Binoviewers.htm He’s saying, I think, that using a Barlow/GPC ahead of the binoviewer is not only convenient in terms of allowing the use of more comfortable eyepieces but strongly advisable to reduce the (small) amount of colour inevitably introduced by the binoviewer prisms. I have the Zeiss binoviewer and typically use it with the Televue 2” x2 Powermate ahead of it. The Baader GPCs, designed by RC to match the Zeiss, also, of course, work well. I do change eyepieces rather than the Barlow or GPC because it’s a lot less fuss - swapping the GPCs involves disassembling the set-up and they’re quite small and fiddly. FWIW, when I do use the GPCs, it’s nearly always the 1.7, which, reportedly, actually yields about x1.5. I use the Tak orthos mainly for lunar and planetary in 18(LE), 12.5, 9 and (despite RC’s advice) 6mm. I also have a pair of the 28mm Edmund RKEs. All of these work very well. The Zeiss is very robust and well-collimated and I think it’s correct that if there are problems in the collimation and orthogonality of any aspect of a bino, shorter eps will make them all too obvious. If I had to choose just two eyepiece pairs it would be the 18mm Tak LEs and the 9mm orthos. If just one pair, probably the 18mm LEs with the option to swap GPCs. This has nothing to do with the quality of performance in the bino - they all work great - it’s just that, with the things I like to look at, they allow most options to be covered and give the best match. Finally, I do urge anyone to persist with binoviewers and work through any issues - they absolutely bring an extra dimension to the viewing experience, not just on Moon and planets but on many DSOs as well.

With the refractor, mono, probably, 13mm Ethos, 10mm Delos and 7mm XW. For lunar and planetary, I almost always binoview with either the 1.7 (gives x1.5) GPC or the x2 Powermate, so that would be pairs (if I’m allowed?) of 12.5, 9 and 6mm Tak orthos, with the 9mm getting the most use. I’m constantly thinking about ‘rationalising’ my eyepiece collection which has built up over many years. (And a new member is on the way - a Svbony zoom at an irresistible £39.99) Apart from the Tak orthos and a pair of XWs, the 7 and 5mm, I haven’t built any sets. Looking at the other end of f15’s question, I have a few high end eyepieces that see little use. Top three among these are the 3.4 Vixen HR, Tak TOE 4mm and 30mm APM flat field. Superb as the first two are, at those sorts of focal lengths, I’d almost always be using the binoviewer. And I just don’t seem to find much use for the 30, except as a finder - if the skies were better here, I’d probably find more use for longer and wider ‘sweeping’ options.