Mr Spock

I used to have the ubiquitous 60mm refractor in my teens. It didn't stop the wonder, only fueled it. Plus it was very good for double stars.

Strange how some people find things more difficult than others. I'd rate E & F as very easy in the C9.25. I used to pick them up in the 140 Mak too. This is with poor suburban skies.

Terrific image!

5 hours ago, markclaire50 said:

Thank you for your comments. So, if you had to choose 7"mak over the 9.25" sct for planetary and double stars, which would you go for? I'm aware of aperture is king rule. If both were in your garage or wherever you keep scopes, which one would you reach for, if the planets were out? Or you wanted to have a go at e f stars in trap or the pup? 

For planets I'd go for the C9.25 - it's what it's made for, especially imaging. Look up Damian Peach's images taken with a C9.25. Maybe he has used ideal seeing conditions but it still shows what the scope is made of.

If I was doing doubles only, probably a 180 Mak. The tighter stars and better contrast would make the difference.

I've not used a 180 Mak, only a 140. That couldn't see the pup but the C9.25 shows it easily - e and f in the trap are easy too, as they were in the 250 Newt.

I went from a 10" Newt to a C9.25. There are differences; the Newt had more contrast but the C9.25 is more easy to handle, collimates better and is easier to push to higher magnification.

While not having the tight stars of a frac or a Mak, the C9.25 splits really close doubles easily. Something like an 0.7" double is a wide split.

If you think they take long to cool down then you are keeping them in the wrong place!

Hi Bryan, welcome to SGL

Hi, welcome to SGL

Nice to hear you have a good one ? That packaging is shocking though 

Every time I look at those CFF scopes my wallet wilts...

Looks interesting. Price isn't too bad either. Could be an ideal solution for planetary observers, though it would be nice to have an f20 option.

A hood is something you wear. Cars wear bonnets... ?

All I need for now

Nooo! My wallet canna take any more!

9 hours ago, paulastro said:

The person who is truly happy  with their telescope(s) choice will not feel the need to constantly justify it, and cares nothing for what other people think, and don't lay awake at night worrying about that not everyone wants to use the same telescope that they use.  They will be far too busy observing, when it's clear.

The happiest bunnies are the quiet bunnies who just get on with it

Indeed. I feel there's also a lot of wishful thinking going on here. 100mm is 100mm no matter what spin you put on it. You canna change the laws of physics as an erudite colleague once said

Exacly what I said above.

The reality here is Skywatcher have said this bolt is made from soft steel for a reason. It's so the bolt thread strips rather than the mount thread which is more difficult to fix/replace. Bolts are bending because people are not following the manufacturer's instructions. Those of us who do follow the instructions don't have a problem. I've had huge amounts of kit on mine and the bolt is fine.

I should add, even with new or better bolts, you should not be using brute force to make adjustments!

I think for the money that wedge takes the EQ6 to the next level.

I tell you what I do with my HEQ6. I adjust it when fully loaded. What I do is unwind the locking bolt put my weight on the counterweight bar; now there is no weight on the adjustment bolt I wind that in until it's over compensated; I then take weight off the bar and unwind the adjustment bolt until it's just above where I want it to be; I then wind in the locking bolt which when tightened moves the mount the last fraction of a millimetre until the axis is aligned.

I've had my HEQ6 since they first came out and have had no problems with the adjustment bolt.

16 minutes ago, Craig2017 said:

hi iv just been reading the posts. can anyone help me please. my scope says d-200  f1200 so what would the f rating be? im mean is it f8 f6 or so on.  

Your scope is f6 - 1200 / 200 = 6

I have a pair of Chinon Countryman 7x35. I've had them since the '70s and were quite expensive at the time. They are still better than a lot of the newer binoculars and give a really nice wide field of view.

It's already been mentioned once in this thread, but, none of the images submitted here are eligible for entry. Please read the rules!

Depends on the target for me too. In the C9.25 I generally have: x235 on Jupiter, x294 on the moon and Mars, x392 on doubles.

Since I've had this scope Saturn has never been high enough to get more than x107 

Sunday night looks clear so the Variable Star workshop is looking good. Everyone welcome  You'll get guidance first hand on observing variables using the scope I use.
The morning session covers all the practical and science stuff. Do you know how many types of variables there are? Variables help us understand the science of stellar evolution from birth to grave  There'll be practical stuff like how to read variable star charts; how to record observations; making magnitude estimates; understanding Julian dates and all the other wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff!

Mankini... That't the most disturbing thing I've heard in a long time 

Cats rule the world. We are their amusing play-things