Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_comet_46p_winners.thumb.jpg.b3d48fd93cbd17bff31f578b27cc6f0d.jpg

Ullomat

Members
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

47 Excellent

About Ullomat

  • Rank
    Nebula

Profile Information

  • Location
    Germany
  1. Hi Mark, I would not go with Eyepieces for this or that objects, but choose your set from an exit pupil perspective. There are PN's (quite a lot of them) which need very high magnifications (small EP, short focal length EP) to reveal there nature as a disc for example. Opposite, there are many very big ones which need lowest magnifications (big EP, long focal length EP). The same for Galaxies and basically for all other DS objects. The 3-2mm EP rule of thump which is often mentioned is a common misunderstanding imho. It just applies to a certain range of objects. For a good range I would go with this EP's (do not know what you already have): 6mm EP, 3mm EP, 1,5mm EP, 1mm EP and 0,7mm EP The more you go to high magnifications, the more the steps should be smaller. For "very good skies" I mean very dark and or very good seeing there is room for 7mm EP and 0,5mm or even 0,3mm EP. The optics has to be up to the tasks also in this case. To get a good overview to this topic I highly recommend the TeleVue eyepiece calculator on their homepage. I do not say you have to buy TeleVue Eyepieces. ? I like them a lot, though. You get there a very good overview for all focal lengths and exit pupils in your scope. Just put in the aperture and focal length of your scope. There is much more data there to get an overview what field of view etc. you get with the certain TeleVue EP's. But the data of other manufactures are close so this helps, too. And try to test every EP at your own scope if possible before you buy. Eyepiece preferences are a very individual. cs, Uli
  2. There is also the iOptron EQ-45. It has an Alt-Az mode, too. Or expensive but with good reputation the Panther TTS-160: https://trackthestars.com
  3. Hi Steve, maybe it would be good to test it for yourself if it works for you. I saw some guys on cloudynights, who had 127mm refractors on the mount. I am a little bit to far away but there are probably some other SGL's more close to you who have this mount also. For me it would be no fun to use your scope on my AZ Pro. cs, Uli
  4. Hi Glen I have an AZ Mount Pro for a while now. It is just OK in terms of build quality. China made all in all. The stability and the accuracy depends on very accurate balancing and leveling. When you do so, it works flawless and has a very good tracking and goto precision. The feature set is quite unique: Battery, WLAN, GPS and automatic initializing. I put it on the tripod, level it, put on the counterweight and the scope and power it on. It does its initializing routine and points to a bright star. Just center the star in two steps and it is ready to go. I connect it than via the Wlan to my computer and do all gotos with Skytools 3. I use it with a Berlebach Uni wooden tripod. The mounting plate is basically for a T-Rex Mount (which I had for a long time) and it works when a small bolt is removed. The thread is a M12 at the mount. So it is adaptable to many tripods. You really do not need the leveling screws of the original tripod. I level with the Berlebach legs and it works flawless. If you have already a tripod, just buy the mount head and the counterweight if necessary. The weak point of the mount is not its weight capacity, it has problems handling longer scopes. If the lever gets longer, the mount cannot compensate the shaking quite well. I once tried a TSA-120, no chance. The same for a TSA-102. I used it a long time with a TeleVue NP-101is (short but heavy at 7kg) this was fine even at high mag. I switched recently to a Takahashi FC-100DL. This is an edge case for the mount and just works because of the light weight OTA just above 4kg and since I have a fine focus. Otherwise it would be too shaky (for me) at high magnification which I use very often. And you need a pier extension for such long scopes. I hoped this helped, just ask if you need some more info. cs, Uli
  5. Hi, I settled (for visual) at 18" (Dobson) and 4" (Refractor). The 4" is very portable, super optics and not much influenced by bad seeing as scopes with more aperture. And 4" is for me the minimum aperture. I tried 85mm two times and it was to less for me. The 18" Dobson is the maximum aperture for me concerning handling (weight, bulkyness) and shows already a lot. I have observed through bigger scopes already, but these where always to heavy for me to handle it personally. There is no use in a big scope which stays indoors because it is too heavy. ? cs, Uli
  6. Hi, I can only comment visual, but it is a good scope for the price. I tested two samples and both where very good collimated. The focuser is also sturdy enough for heavier eyepieces. Color is visible at higher magnifications (120x and above) using an artificial star but ok for the short focal length. I am still considering the scope for grab and go also. cs, Uli
  7. Hi, yes, I was very lucky to have the chance testing and comparing both scopes. Both are very fine instruments. cs, Uli
  8. Hi all, I have an update. Marcus and I did a comparison for more than three hours and we could test the DL, the DC and a Vixen ED-103 side by side. My NP was not there, but since I know quite well how it performs this was OK. I tried to figure out, if the DC(DF) or the DL is the way to go for me. It was quite obvious for me after some time, that I will go with the DL. There is an obvious difference at high magnifications. I noticed finer (smaller) stars and less to no color when the seeing "disturbes" the defraction ring. The view is more "calm". Sorry, I do not know how to explain it better in english. Reminds me of my former TSA-120. The DC is really good also, no question. But the DL has the perfection I am looking for. In addition, the AZ Mount Pro was fine this time with the DL, much better as the last time. So I decided to use this combination. Since I sold my NP-101is yesterday, I today pulled the trigger for a brand new DL for a good price and will pick it up next week. Thanks all for your comments and opinions! cs, Uli
  9. Hi, no not yet. But the search is over anyway. I went with a new DL. cs, Uli
  10. Hi all, I use a 3,5mm Delos, a 3mm DeLite and a 2,5 Nagler T6 for high power observations. 578x, 675x and 810x with my 18" Dobson (driven by ServoCat) 154x, 180x and 216x with my 4" Refractor (AZ Mount Pro) cs, Uli
  11. Hi, I vote for the refractor and later on a bigger Newton in combination. cs, Uli
  12. Hi, from 10mm to 3,5mm the Delos are parafocal. If you plan to get more of them (like me) this is very convenient. I think there is an adapter from TeleVue to get even the 17,3mm and 14mm parafocal to the rest of the gang. I ordered a special adapter for my 17,3mm Delos to get it parafocal to my 31mm Nagler. I consider both as widefield. Than a new focus point with 10mm to 3,5mm. I think you can not go wrong with the Delos or the XW, but it is the best to test yourself and decide, as eyepieces are a very "personal" part of the astro equipment. Ask four people and get five opinions... ? cs, Uli
  13. Hi, I had the T-Rex, a really capable mount. There is (probably was) a motor set for the Avalon mount driving system. cs, Uli
  14. Hi, the problem of the AZEQ5 is its bad tripod/pier combination. The rest is ok imho. But I heard there is a new version of it, but I am not sure. cs, Uli
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.