Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

Ullomat

Members
  • Posts

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ullomat

  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, 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
  10. Just seen this topic, this new mount looks indeed very interesting ! cs, Uli
  11. Hi Mike, thanks for this great feedback! I have some news concerning my personal DF vs. DL challenge. I have been at my local Takahashi dealer's store again yesterday and did a complete test of the DL with my iOptron AZMount Pro. The DF was still not in stock as mentioned before. Final conclusion is, the DL is not as stable as I want to have it riding on the AZMountPro. Due to its length, there is a lot of vibration with the mount mainly in AZ. This is the weak point of the mount since there is only small bearings. This is more a problem pointing on objects near the horizon and gets better with the altitude of the object. Damping time is worse than 3s at 250x in that bad case after a focus change with a high amplitude. This was tested indoors so already a light gust of wind will be a problem under real observing conditions I think. My current NP-101is (more than 2kg heavier) has only 2s damping time due to its shorter tube) and a much smaller amplitude, we testet this, too. This is bad news, since the AZMountPro is my preferred portable Mount. This in mind, the choice will be probably the DF version, since I want to stick with the mount. But since I am planning a more portable setup, the smaller and little bit lighter DF is even better in this respect. In addition, my main targets are DS targets and the advantages of the DL optics compared to the DF should be not so dramatic (I hope at least...) The DL optics are perfect btw, really good. Some time during the next weeks I will meet with Marcus, he has both the DL and a FT modified DS so I can do a last comparison of the both (and my current NP-101) optically and mechanically on the AZMount before I finally pull the trigger and buy the new scope. I'll report the final step afterwards. All the best and cs, Uli
  12. Hi all, a lot of testing and reading has been done. The TSA did not fit for the AZMount Pro, too heavy and too long. It seems the AZ Mount has reached it's limits there. Now the choice is between the FC-100DF and the DL. I had the chance yesterday to do a side by side comparison of the TSA-102 and the DL at my preferred dealer. Very impressive, the DL was on the same level. Testing on an artificial star at 250x - 300x. Unfortunately, they had no DF or DC in stock to compare the f7.4 Version, too. As a surprise for me, the DL was quite stable on the AZ Mount. The length compared to the TSA is quite the same, but it is abt. 2,5kg less. This made it I guess. So the DF would be very solid. I know, the decision is mine at last, but I would appreciate any thoughts concerning this topic. I guess some of you are already through this ? For both of them money's not enough ? but I can call me fortunate enough to be able to buy one of these great scopes. cs, Uli
  13. Frankly, I never had a TeleVue Plössl. But if it is as good as the other TeleVue EP's, it will not disappoint. cs, Uli
  14. Hi Marcus, I'll check out first if it fits on my AzMount Pro. But should do so since the weight is just abt. one kg more than the NP-101is. The price tag seems to be OK. cs, Uli
  15. Hi all, additional question, did anyone once compared the FC-100DC(F) side by side to an TSA-102? The mechanical differences are obvious but how different are they from the optical perspective? I have an offer for a pristine TSA-102 right now and this is tempting... cs, Uli
  16. Hi Marcus, we have to do this, yes. If I will follow the FC-100x route, there is still to choose between the DC(F) and DL. cs, Uli I'll check out the Borg as well. In addition, the Vixen SD-103 and more interesting the Vixen SD-115 seem to be not a bad choice
  17. Hi, 26mm for the magnum Version and 21mm for the standard version. For transport add 20mm thickness for the legs of the chair. cs, Uli
  18. Hi all, I already did a comparison between the two scopes with forum member Marcus, but the FC-100 was on a driven mount and the NP on a more shaky undriven Alt-Az mount setup. The views were close, a little better seemed the Tak in terms of contrast or faint stars. I want to do this comparison soon again but until then I am looking for opinions and experiences with both scopes. Did anybody of you a side by side comparison, too? The basic differences (Petzval NP, Doublet Fluorite FC) are clear for me so far. I guess the conclusion will be: The NP is the better Widefield Telescope (4,5° with a 31mm Nagler) and capable of high magnifications also but the FC Design has the edge in contrast for visual at high magnifications. cs, Uli
  19. Hi all, I have the same chair and also the smaller version. Versatile, very good quality! Highly recommended. cs, Uli
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.