Ships and Stars

Thanks Mark, I'll drop him a line, the name rings a bell? Just out with the Apollos again and great views of M42 (moon is hiding at the mo or is still right on the horizon). They definitely have good optics! I want to dig out my monopod, they are not quite heavy enough for me to absolutely require a tripod, but still a bit too heavy for relaxed hand-held viewing. They are growing on me. I like the build quality and find once I've set IPD and focus, I shouldn't mess with it and just enjoy the views.

Hi Dave, thanks, yes a beer vs champagne sort of comparison! The Helios are almost twice as heavy, 2.58kg vs 1.4kg for the Celestrons, (84% heavier actually) with a leap in build quality. The biggest problem for me is eye-relief because it works out to just 8mm usable on the Apollos with the recessed eyepiece lenses vs 19.5mm on the Cometrons, but I specifically wanted binoculars that take filters. I can just take my glasses off for nebula views, but then they become kind of a one trick pony. To me, the point of owning binoculars in this mag range (12-15x) is to use them handheld, even if only for short periods, otherwise if I need a tripod or p-mount, I'd be looking for another pair of 25x100s or ideally, APMs etc with interchangeable 1.25" EPs - budget willing! Because they are so light, I've only ever used the Cometrons hand-held, even for extended periods. The tripod adapter that came with them never came out if the bag until I did terrestrial tests with the CC/Apollos. The other night, I caught M42 when the moon was just above the horizon and was in a belt of cloud around 6:30pm, so it was quite dark. I split the four main Trapezium stars into two groups (not four stars) with the Celestrons handheld, but couldn't manage it with the Helios due to the weight, not the mag, and continuous fiddling with the individual focus adjustment. Laying on a camping mat, I was able to comfortably hold the 15x70s very still and gain slightly more detail with M36 over the Celestrons, but there wasn't much in it. I'm keeping the Apollos for now, they are very well built (I mean they are seriously solid) and certainly have high optical quality. Like I mentioned in my earlier post, I'd like to build up some time with them under dark conditions with filters to see if they grow on me, but they won't replace the Cometrons which are like flying. The Apollos are in excellent condition and will be perfect someday for a user who wants filters and doesn't wear eyeglasses when viewing, or uses a tripod but doesn't want something like 25x100s. Does anyone know of a good quality pair of binoculars that take filters, but still offer great eye relief for glasses? Is that sort of asking for the impossible I guess? I looked at the Lightquest and APMs, but nothing stood out other than the giant binos with threaded 1.25" EPs (someday). Anyway, hoping to get the Apollos out with filters under a new moon soon and see what I can detect...who knows, I still might fall in love yet...

Definitely! The worse thing would be to establish such a campground/retreat and then have an industrial estate spring up next door... A tricky one without an absolute fortune on tap. Development grants for Highlands and Islands tourism are (or were) fairly plentiful. Ah well, nice to dream for now...

I thought there were certainly a lot more folks in similar or even worse situations. So far I've been relatively pleased with the EHO for keeping the three operational lights at bay. They are very close to our windows however. When all the lights are on, it's probably the equivalent of a Bortle 7 or 8 here because of the intensity, just a complete write-off. On those beautiful, rare nights when everything is turned off, I've faintly observed the Flame Nebula through a 300p under so-so seeing, and we are on the edge of a not insignificant population centre. The biggest problem with the flood lights here is the close proximity, they are right on top of us, averaging 15m away. My current Plan B in life is to open a year-round dark-sky campground on the west coast of Scotland that also caters for kayakers, stand-up paddle boarding, nature-watching and so forth. Someday perhaps! (Heavily discounted deals for SGL members of course)

Thank you, even if I wasn't into stargazing it would be an issue with our bedroom windows and it's already impossible to see outside the windows at night with the glare before the current three lights are extinguished. I can't image 14 of them. Fingers crossed for a happy resolution. In regards to Ivor's post, there does seem to be more press coverage concerning loss of night skies and light pollution, which in turn has given it more political teeth, so hopefully things will improve on that front. All a matter of balance.

Not yet, I'll see if they actually put up all the lights or if they've decided to change that plan and not tell me, the usual course of action. Plus they haven't clarified if they will be on motion sensor or timer, but I'm not holding my breath. The Env Health Office did convince them to turn the three new 'existing' ones off at a reasonable time, but I generally have steam coming out my ears until they do go off. A couple of small downward-facing night lights in conjunction with larger ones on a motion sensor would be ok, but 14,000 lumen worth of unshielded light it absurd for the area it's lighting up. The local train station literally has less lighting and we are maybe 1/20th the area.

I do have to agree with the comments that there isn't currently much that can be done. I'm facing the imminent installation of fourteen new unshielded 1,000 lumen dome LED flood lights (yes, 14,000 lumen) along the rear of a business facing our house. They will literally be pointed at our house and the sky above from less than 20m away. The current plan is for them to stay on all night, except three that are already installed without notice - I convinced the health office to get them to turn those off early evening. I was notified a year ago of this by local planning and immediately filed a detailed objection citing Env Health Regs, Statutory Nuisance, light intrusion, etc, proper type and placement of lights, etc but was flatly ignored. I've already spoke to the Env Health Officer, but he can only put a word in for me. The electrician said he would install one and see what I thought, but that means they've already bought and plan on using them. People don't get it. We will have to move, or get a solicitor, fight it, and still probably end up moving...

Great news, hope this effort actually achieves something. As others say, light pollution is the easiest type of pollution to reduce. There's still a long way to go based on my local experience. Unshielded, high lumen LEDs that stay on all night are the new standard here unfortunately. Following on, there's apparently a spaceport that's going to be built on the west coast of North Uist at Scolpaig, which by all accounts I can find, is bang in the middle of the darkest sky spot left in the UK... Don't suppose they can turn the lights out when not launching rockets??

Cloud moving in now. Will try again in early morning if I wake up early enough. No clear overall winner between the two. Despite the windy conditions, managed to just split the Trapezium into two groups of stars with the Cometrons, but Apollos were moving around too much without a tripod for a definite split and couldn't seem to get a nice sharp focus going back and forth between the individual eyepiece adjustment...my 25x100s were the same, just back and forth constant focus adjustment. The Apollos did reveal slightly more of the Pinwheel Cluster M36, but it was very, very slight indeed. The 15x70s are ok laying on a camping mat to look straight up, but they are substantially heavier than the 12x70s. OK, that's it for me and the binoculars for now...

Yes I've just measured the Celestron objective at bang on 70mm with a digital caliper. The Apollos objective lens actually measured 73mm across, but there is an internal ring or baffle immediately behind it which is about 1.5mm thick which means we're back to 70mm (taking into account usable diameter). So that makes sense that any difference would be in the prisms, think the sales literature mentions larger prisms. I'm doing this in a rush, bit hectic at home currently. Will need a relaxed night under dark skies with a tripod to really see where things stand. Quick look at M42 didn't show much difference between either pair, the main thing I can tell so far is just the increased mag of 15x over the 12x which helps split the Trapezium, but then I need a tripod to really see what I'm looking at now due to increased weight and mag, especially as I increase altitude and view objects higher up. The moon is brighter through the Apollos, but then again, it's a larger disc of light. Good detail through both, but a clear edge here to the 15x70s... Everything has been compared hand-held so far.

I'd read that, seem to recall 62mm. There is an obvious difference in aperture on the business end, haven't precisely measured it yet, but the Apollos are noticeably larger. Perhaps 12x62s vs 15x70s is closer! The Cometrons are holding their own so far...

Thanks Michael. Getting dark here now so hoping for a few initial tests before it clouds over. They are some solid binoculars!

Welcome, there are some good places in FL. If you get a chance nip over to Cedar Key area, very dark skies that way (according to friend, not been personally but light pollution map does show really dark areas there) Another spot up on the panhandle, can't think of it at the moment. Otherwise enjoy the clear skies and relative warmth wherever you are.

Thanks again Mark, Rosette was on the list but had overlooked the Monkey Head - will do some investigation on Stellarium for both. Looking forward to getting out again, though everyone is aware of the 'breezy conditions' . Quite clear here at the moment...

Thanks Mark! The Cometrons have certainly seen some use but have held up surprisingly well and cost next to nothing second-hand. Hoping with filters under dark conditions the Apollos really come into their own. First impression is a big difference in weight, they weren't messing around when they built the Apollos!

I've been very happy with my Celestron Cometron 12x70s, despite the often so-so reviews. However, I'd like the option of using 1.25" filters at my dark sky spots and a bit more magnification, plus wanted to see how much of an improvement proper high-end binos would offer in terms of sharpness and overall quality, eye-relief, etc over the cheap and cheerful Celestron range. After reading several reviews praising the Helios Apollo HR 15x70s, I took the plunge when a nice pair recently came up second-hand. I'll write up my impressions soon, trying both pairs out on terrestrial targets today so waiting for some stars (supposed to be a bit clear here early this evening, actually). More to follow...

The dark cigar is striking simply due to the sheer absence of any stars in contrast to its immediate surroundings. That's more interesting to me than the Cocoon itself I suppose. The other ones you mention are intriguing, will definitely add any to the list I can manage. How do you use filters on your binoculars? One UHC and one OIII, or one Hb and no filter on the other side? Great post by the way!

Sensor. I bought a Giotto rocket blower, £12 I think. Try one on the sensor before you clean it with swabs. I use mine on lenses, eyepieces, everything. Does a great job and saves any unnecessary physical contact with lens/sensor surfaces.

Hi Barry, an OIII filter is perfect for the Veil, that's the best target for an OIII filter in my relatively limited experience. I had a 200p and could just make it out from a 20.7 SQM site, from a 21.5 to 21.9 with the 20" needless to say it was stunning. As people have said above, dark skies. The first time you get a good crack at it, you won't forget it! It's otherworldly under good conditions. Don't forget both E &W parts, they are spread out a little bit. If you can see Pickering's Triangle in between, then you're winning.

I can Google virtually any DSO and instantly find something akin to a Hubble-quality photo on the internet. That's great, I've learned a lot. Researching a star atlas and planning, taking a scope out when conditions are right, waiting for eyes to adjust, hunting it down (goto or not) and finally seeing the real deal, albeit faint and fuzzy, that's where it's at for me. I reckon it's analogous to shooting and developing your own film, or taking a digital snap with a phone. One's easier, one's more rewarding (or frustrating). But please don't chuck out old scopes!! Please!

Excellent Phil! My BNC to RCA adapter arrived today, so all the pieces are there but called away to work. Can't wait to try it out. With my binoviewers, I took the 1.25 adapter and unscrewed it from the 2" collar, ground down the screw heads so they would clear the drawtube, and inverted it. That will allow closer placement (that was for my old 200p, now sold). Didn't think the focal reducer would work with the watec, but ever the optimist. I can drop the trusses on the flextube dob for binoviewer mode, that might work? Can't wait to give the watec a trial. Thanks Phil for the info, constantly learning here!

Probably not a huge difference between them. It's down to many little factors, including elevation, wind and weather, amount of passing cars at night, amount of visible sky as you mention. Higher up is good, less atmosphere, but not if it's so windy the scope won't stay still. Inland, the elevations we are talking about in the UK perhaps won't make a huge difference, but low areas can gather dew/fog easier when it settles in my experience. As well all know, beaches can be very windy too, esp in winter. Having sand and salty air blowing around my gear is not too appealing. Coastal would be better in a protected spot or grassy area inland form the beach itself or up on a cliff or hill over the sea. On the upside, you should have a clear run of dark sky looking out to sea with near-zero light pollution. Hills can create turbulence which affects seeing, coastal or island peaks can be smoother if a steady settled breeze is coming off the water without turbulence, but these things apply more to world-class sites like La Palma or Mauna Kea. Older but excellent article on astronomical seeing by Merle http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1984ESOC...18....3W&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf I like to use Google Maps, then go to street view (if available) to get some sense of the area if I've not been. There might be a shop or farm within 500m or so with floodlights etc, you never know. Some farms have really powerful lights. Worse thing is to arrive somewhere after a long drive, and discover it's nothing like what the map suggested, even Google Earth. That's why I like streetview. Personally, I would lean towards the Welsh site if at some altitude, but check wind conditions first. You'll still have clear views to the south if not blocked in by hills. On the other hand, Cornwall is quite nice too! Again, check the weather and wind, SW England has that 'Cornish drizzle' that sets in quickly. Good luck!

I've owned some 25x100 Celestrons, they were decent for the price but not enough diopter adjustment to reach focus without glasses and the FOV was too restrictive with. I also had some Kasai widobinos which I miss, but needed to free up some money. I'd buy those again, but the hands free goggles and filter holders were too pricey for me. I have some old Bushnell 12x50s but bought some 12x70 Celestron Cometrons on a whim for the princely sum of £30 last year. I know they draw some dismissive reviews, but I absolutely love mine. Full FOV with glasses, sharp to me and easy to focus. Despite murmurs that they are in fact 12x62s, not 70s, they seem to have excellent light-gathering capability. I've really enjoyed them, best £30 I've spent on astronomy. However, they don't take filters and I've been lured by seductive reviews of the Helios Apollo HR 15x70s, so when a nice pair came up second hand...they arrive mid-week. So I'll finally get to see if there really is that much difference! I'd have gone for the lightquest, but filter holders are a must have. The 15 or 22x85 Apollos sound intriguing, but will wait until I hear more feedback on those...

Yes I'd prefer the 910 but bought the 902 for next to nothing so will give it a bash. I'll report back soon, hoping sheer aperture and good conditions will make the 902 perform. Not really into stacking photos, so if it doesn't work I'll save up and go the NV route someday. I do note there seems to be quite a few astronomers using the 902 on the forums over the years, so must be something in it?

Hi Tom! Bet you have some wonderful dark skies there in AZ. I generally go running outside in joy here with my scope when the cloud and rain passes. A big scope in the desert would be bliss, as long as the scorpions stay back!