Greymouser

I got the Reducer when I bought my C9.25, so have used it quite a lot for visual use only. I would say it very much improves the view, it's almost like a different, better telescope. I do not think I would use the C9.25 without it now, the correction just so much improves thing. I am told it fits my C5 too, but have not yet tried that yet, but will, eventually. My C5 is excellent anyway, so I am not sure I could take much improvement! Without a doubt improves visual, no idea about photography, but a very good buy on my part I think, wouldn't want to be without.

@BernardH I cannot comment on the Porsche, but can comment on the Evolution as I have been using it for quite a while now. I would say whilst the mount is excellent, no doubt about it, good tracking and Goto, ( though I doubt it is much good for photography, ) it is inadequate for the C9.25. It holds it fine and still tracks fine, but the length of the OTA means that the mount is not big enough, the OTA and extra kit can collide with the arm/mount. I would say that they should have made the arm of the mount a good six inches longer, to better accommodate the OTA. They beefed up the tripod for the C9.25, compared to the smaller variants, but did not beef up the mount itself, as far as I know. I would also say there is some issue with vibration with this setup, don't know if that is all the Evolution setups, or just this largest one. It is bearable for visual, but I imagine very annoying for photography. I am saving up to buy an AZ EQ5, or maybe he AZ EQ6, to better support this OTA, but that is probably some way off. Meanwhile I intend to try this OTA on an another AZ mount. I still use the mount, just not with the C9.25, for ages. I would also echo what others have said, try before you buy if you can. I certainly wish I had got the Evolution 8 EdgeHD setup, instead. Also I have to be honest, I use my little C5 on an AZGTi much more. This even though the AZGTi is far from perfect. The search for perfection goes on, which could take quite some time!

I would agree that a 3D printing board would make a lot of sense, even though I do not personally own a 3D printer. Yet. In fact the lack of design knowledge on my part is a big deterrent in buying one.

Can really understand where you are coming from here, even though I have not attempted imaging, I am beginning to feel the same about just observing. I have several scopes, but wonder if they are suitable really for where I live and the amount of light pollution. ( Bortle 6. ) For me it is not so much about gear, except for considering how much I have spent on it, but how it is pretty much wasted gear at the moment. Between the light pollution; tiredness; pain and just the plain lack of opportunity, I find I am just not using the gear. I did intend selling some of it anyway, some never gets used now, but increasingly I have been thinking of just selling the lot and trying a different hobby. I know I would regret it later, so will probably just trim it right down to a minimum and sell the rest, hibernate it to some extent. I do understand though, it is a difficult decision and for me, I consider it a silver lining of the social isolation cloud, that it is hard to sell stuff on the second hand market at the moment, otherwise I suspect it would already be long gone. The decision does not/cannot be easily made at the moment, but it does need to be made, as I do not know how much longer the expensive gear lying around, can be justified. It would proably be easier if I could get away from home occasionally.

Well done, excellent pics there, with a Dob of all things! I have a question though, assuming you can answer it: Just how large a Dob is feasible in the UK, considering our skies, do you think? I ask because I was told not to bother with such a large scope as our skies are just not good enough, to justify one. Yet here we are you proving otherwise.

I just found this guide to build your own replica of Galeleo's telescope. 🤔

Interesting idea. I get Hubble Ultra Deep Field:

Yes the SLT is, but the tripod is very good and the mount only adds £26 to the cost of the tube. ( The 5SE is claimed to be in stock in North Allerton too! )

It means you get two scopes for the price of one, if you buy the reducer as well. Good for planets and decent for DSO too. You can still get the Celestron Omni XLT 127mm SCT Telescope, it seems. Edit: Also, Grovers claim to have the 5SE in stock.

I agree with John, the C5 is more versatile, as well as being very light. I have one, which I got with the omni EQ mount. ( only added £ 29 to the price of the OTA. ) I have not used the mount yet and use the tripod for a Sky Tee 2. I am pretty sure that you can use the .63 reducer with the C5, though have not done so yet, which gives me a F10 and a F 6.3 scope. I also have the Evoulton ( C 9.25, ) mount, which I can highly recommend, though again another boost in budget, but better than the SE, I am told. You can get a Evo 5. Edit: I use the C5 on a AZGTi mount.

Some of the quality is below par for many here, I would presume, but seven here. Don't think I have missed anybody. ( Yes they all have personalities! )

Had a look at this on Saturday in my ED80 and I have to say it was excellent, especially at low power. Only downside was after looking at that and a little look at the moon, which was also very good, I noticed Orion disappearing behind neighbouring houses. I will miss it for months now, my favourite constellation, which always brings a smile to my face when it first appears and as now, a little sadness as it goes out of reach. How much will things have changed by the time it re appears?

Hello and welcome to the forum, nice back story too.

I watched the first four episodes on Thursday and I have to say: I really enjoyed them and will soon watch the rest. I like all the Star Trek to some extent and think this surpasses them imo only. Think I will have to catch Discovery ( not Prime though, ) too and see what else I have been missing on Prime...

Fair point, but still think it should be suspended, driving now being out of bounds, is not just for any perceived health risk, but the risk of an accident at such a bad time as this. ( Unneeded extra strain. ) A difficult choice I would say, almost dead or fed? I am very glad I am not in that position. I, like John, have several items that need to go, but it can wait.

Hi Tome, welcome to the forum. I would say you have a good start there. I have the slightly larger ST102 and have loved using it.

Hi Dan and welcome to the best forum on the internet, probably. Straight in at the deep end I would say, starting with a deep interest in astro photography.

Thanks for that. Could you provide a link of some sort for this Mr. Cruikshank please, just for future reference.

That looks a superb scope. I have looked at the site of the maker and would like to know if they are good to deal with, or is a working knowledge of Italian a must?

Out of curiosity, have you ever been tested for diabetes? I am not being funny but such a quick change in eyesight can be a symptom of high blood sugar etc.,, or so I am told. I am more concious of such things now, since my own diagnosis of diabetes, though that as now in remission, thankfully. Do not ignore this, see an optician or your GP, assuming you can get an appointment. Damage due to diabetes for instance, is non reversible.

Welcome to the forum and a great introduction with a lovely pic.

Welcome to a great forum and oh how I dream of Bortle 4 at home...

Yes, I think I very much think this now and feel the need to test it side by side with my ED80. Both with and without the reducer on the C5, perhaps add in the 6" classic cas too. Not a terrible problem to have...

Thanks for that everyone, lots of food for thought. I use Explore Scientific eyepieces for all my scopes and have never had any CA with my SCT's, ( nor the 6" reflector, ) so I cannot see it being from them causing CA in the ED80. It is only a very small amount on the bright objects, but I expected it to be better corrected, after reading so many glowing reviews. ( Perhaps unrealistic expectations. ) It is certainly better corrected that the ST102, but that is to be expected, but it seems I will have to spend a lot more to get what I am looking for, if it is even achievable. I suspect that there is a law of diminishing returns with scopes too, as with so many things in life. It also has occurred to me many times, that the different telescopes I have/have tried, all have varying quality, even though otherwise very similar. I suspect this is because none of them are top of the line, in part at least. But it really does seem to me that my C5 gives better views than my C9.25. Not deeper, just flatter and better. There is also the small matter of my own health, a bad back and two frozen shoulders! It has been a while since I have had the C9.25 out, but feel sure it is going to be very manageable, just that the C5 and the AZGTI is just so much easier . I did try the 6" Classic Cassegrain, but have found that disappointing too, so am unsure where to go next. The classic does cool very fast, but I just don't know. How much more experimentation can one person do? Added to which I do worry about my deteriorating eyesight, just how much can I justify spending on another maybe scope? Maybe I should follow Gina's excellent example and move towards imaging. Though that opens up a whole new kettle of fish!

Edit: sorry I misread the OP.