Mandy D

Thank you, @knobby, glad you like it.

Sorry to disappoint, but this shot was definitely with a tripod! I began with 100 ASA film in a 35 mm camera many years ago.

The Moon and Mars close together in the sky in a single exposure. (Mars is top right of photo)

The Moon photographed last Friday night with Nikon D800 and 300 mm prime lens. Single frame, no stacking. For some reason the images would not produce a good stack, despite none being below 90% of the image quality of this one.

I found the best way to achieve focus was to point the lens at something, get it focussed as well as possible, then move the camera backwards and forwards until focus is near perfect. Or, alternatively, photograph something that is moving as it passes through the point of focus. Just keep shooting and one image will be reasonably sharp. Of course, all of this only works for stuff that is fairly close to the camera. With no aperture adjustment possible, the depth of field is almost non-existant. What surprise me is how poor this lens is on the Moon, even when the D800 indicates perfect focus has been achieved. Yet, for closer work it will focus quite sharply.

@DaveL59 Image of Moon with 800 mm Samyang mirror lens. This has just had some simple processing in GIMP to sharpen and adjust contrast. I could not get a good stack from my images. As you can see the quality is far from perfect.

True. But, then, Samyang don't actually manufacture this lens from what I understand. It's a re-badging exersize. A bit like Fiat/Peugeot/Citroen/Toyota in the car world. I've just taken my 800 mm outside and photographed the Moon. My D800 has focus indication for manual lenses and it was a total pig to get the focus dot to light. Focussing is so sensitive that you only have to touch the lens! I'll tag you when I post photos from it.

These mirror lenses all came out of the same factory and were badged up under various names including Samyang and Rokinon. Quality control was not good, so sometimes you would get an excellent one, whilst others might be terrible. They are occasionally discussed in the photography world. They need to cool for a fair while and focussing is very sensitive. I use mine as a travel scope. @DaveL59I have the 800mm f/8 which is large on diameter and not much longer than my Nikon 135 f/2 lens but only half the weight. They also have significant back-focus as they are designed for use with T adaptors to most SLR cameras. I have used an extension tube with mine to clear my tripod and can still focus to infinity and beyond!

Nice. Crazy, but nice! I've thought about it, but no chance I'll do it. 😀

80 mm x 2" Spacer Baader Hyperion 17 mm Eyepiece 2 x 50 mm M90 Spacers for my RC6 M43-T2 Adapter

If M12 starts to screw in, then it is almost certainly 1/2 inch UNC which has 13 turns per inch thread. M12 is 1.75 mm pitch. The UNC thread is 12.7 mm with 1.95 mm pitch. You can normally get about 1.5 to 2 turns of M12 screw into that imperial thread before it binds.

I ordered the 17mm last Thursday and it was delivered this Monday. Not too bad, really.

Have you considered a fixed pier for the garden? It would seem to eliminate all of the problems you mention. Then, you just need something portable for those rare occasions when you take equipment into the field. Perhaps the EQ5 could work for that, even if it is not ideal, because you would not be doing it often.

This should work: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adapters/baader-clicklock-1-25inch-or-t2-to-2inch-expansion-adapter.html It seems a bit expensive, but you will then have the facility to use 2" eyepieces with your scope and the quality is usually better. It will also act as a short extension which you may need with a barlow. There are probably cheaper alternatives out there, but at least you know what you are looking for, now.

Mine is on an RC6 and with 100 mm of spacers (all it came with) and I have to use all the spacers, rack the focusser fully out and add about another 65 mm to get focus. I'm told this is due to not using a diagonal, but I wanted to keep everything in one line. I'm now curious about focal extenders because mine appears to need the same as my Barlow! I have the extensions I need, now, so I'll test all of this as soon as I can

I'm having problems with a Barlow at the moment and have started another thread asking questions. All I know at the moment is that I need another 75 mm or so of back-focus on my RC6 to get anything distant into focus with a 2x Barlow. If you fit a 25 mm eyepiece in the Barlow, then rack the focusser out as far as you can it will not focus. Pull the Barlow and eyepiece further out of the focusser taking care to maintain alignment and eventually you wil achieve focus. It appears that Barlows need to be further away from the objective or main mirror than an eyepiece without one. I am struggling to find information on the web and getting answers in forums that explain it all. This also seems to apply equally to focal extenders. I have ordered some more extensions for my RC6, which should fix this.

I suffer from visual migraines and all this new street lighting is a major problem for me. Don't even get me started on cyclists with their uber-bright strobe lights! Vehicle lights, too, are a problem as so many use pulse-width modulation to control the brightness (always too bright!) and I can see the high frequency flicker in my peripheral vision which makes me feel violently sick and can trigger a migraine. Anyone seen the new LED "cats eyes"? These, too, flicker like crazy and I have to get off any road that has them just as soon as possible. The government says that adequate consultation was carried out prior to implementation of all these ridiculous new lighting rules, i.e. they spoke to the epileptic society who said it was OK for their members with the proposed flash rates! Nobody ever spoke to the migraine society as far as I can ascertain. Road safety has clearly gone down since the implementation of these new types of lighting. Like you, I cannot understand street lighting schemes that give alternating patches of uber-bright light and pitch blackness - "Now you see me, now you don't" A bit like a cyclist with a flashing rear light. Now where did he go? Oh, there he is again! </RANT MODE=OFF>

Is a "free-energy" or "over-unity" machine possible? No! Physics does not allow you to get what is not there. Like you say, trust the physics.

I'm a rank amateur here and I observe and image using a wide variety of kit that I am lucky to posess. I get half-decent results from all of it. I don't think you will be disappointed with the views in any of the telescopes being recommended. Ease of use is probably the most important point. I love Newtonian reflectors on Dobsonian mounts and own two, both cheap Chinese Skywatchers, a 200P and a 250PX. I think they are both excellent scopes and keep saying that both are easy to carry outside. However, I have a back injury at the moment and find both very difficult to handle, so my trusty Nikon D800 with 300 mm prime lens and 2x teleconverter are the only things I am using at present, oh and my Nikon 135mm prime. I use both Dobs for visual and imaging and they work well on the Moon and planets. Harder to do deep sky, but not impossible with short subs and stacking. I also have an iOptron RC6 which is a Ritchey-Chretien and have been told by some in here that it is not the best for planetary or lunar imaging nor for visual use, but I love it and use it for both. So, even a scope which is sub-optimal for a particular use can be perfectly useable. It is, however, a great little scope for deep sky imaging. However, I'm not going to recommend it. Don't forget that any reflecting telescope (and larger refractors) will need collimating at some point. Some do it every session, others like me do it only when necessary. It looks difficult and I put it off for as long as I possibly could and only attempted it when I bought a used scope that was so badly out it was unusable, but collimating it was very easy and took less than five minutes and I'd never done it before. I've never owned a refractor, but have looked through a few, so can say that they give great views within their aperture limitations. I've yet to use an EQ mount, so will not comment on them here. I do own an AZ mount and I find it very easy to point at the sky and find bright objects and track them, even at quite high magnifications. I also find the Dobsonian mounted Newtonian reflectors easy to point and use, but admit they can be a bit tricky if they are not running smoothly on their bearings. I have considered getting a Skywatcher Skymax. I'd love to get the 180 with it's 2700 mm focal length as it would be great for planetary, but it's pricey and I am not spending that kind of money at present. Look at the smaller ones in that range; the 127T looks like a bargain to me and should deliver great views and could be used with your camera. Here is a link to the range: https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-optical-tube-assemblies/page/1/ Or the 127T on an AZ5 mount and tripod: https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-skymax-127-az5-deluxe-telescope.html Or with wi-fi and goto: https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-skymax-127-az-gti-wifi-telescope.html OK, maybe a shorter focal length for deep-sky, so try these refractors: https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/bresser-messier-ar-102s600-hexafoc-optical-tube-assembly.html https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/bresser-ar102xs460-hex-focus-ed-refractor-ota.html https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-startravel-102t-optical-tube-assembly.html Or with a tripod and mount: https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-startravel-102-az3-telescope.html They are not hugely expensive, but you will need to budget for a tripod and mount. This needs to be sturdy enough and rigid enough to support your telescope and keep it pointed at the object of interest as you already know. You could spend a lot of money on this part and perhaps that is where a big part of the budget should go. I mean, who wants a wibbly wobbly shaky view of Saturn? For a reasonable low cost mount and tripod for a lightweight tube, try this: https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-az3-alt-az-mount.html Have a read of this to find out more about this mount and how to easily improve it: https://www.cloudynights.com/articles/cat/user-reviews/mounts/alt-azimuth/az3-alt-az-mount-r394 Don't forget that FLO also sell most (or all) of these, so do a price comparison with them at: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/

Superb banding detail. Lovely image. As others have said, hard to believe the altitude. Congratulations on a job well done!

@Carbon Brush You have basically summarised my experience with carriers! We have always used 25 mm extruded polystyrene insulation board for packaging materials as it is near on indestructable. On one occasion, we packed a heavy item on a mini pallet, securely bolted down, wrapped it totally in 25 mm insulation board and a double-walled outer corrugated card box. Marked it up Fragile, This Way Up, etc and shipped it. After the carrier totally destroyed it, they sent us their packaging instructions, which we had never had sight of before. This stated that they would not pay out any claim unless the items were packed in a brand new, never before used double-walled corrugated carton and sealed only with Kraft tape!!! No substitutions permitted! When we got the item back, it looked as though it had been dropped from a height of at least four or five feet, upside-down onto a concrete floor and landed on one corner. I visited a DHL depot one time to follow up a complaint and watched the way items were handled, being thrown at the conveyor belt from the backs of trucks and frequently missing, before being picked up and thrown again. Almost nobody in the industry cares. As you say, use a "reputable" carrier and pack everything well. I am honestly surprised at what some SGL members are paying for Royal Mail and Parcelforce special deliveries, when the likes of UPS will ship on a standard (next day) service for little more than half the price. I tend to follow the drivers to their vehicle and watch them carefully place the parcel on the vehicle. Under a watchful eye they are far less likely to play "toss the parcel"!

Bubble wrap does not prevent the tube being crushed if something very heavy is dropped on top of the parcel. I always line boxes with 25 mm extruded polystyrene insulation board. This is usually pink or blue. I've had nothing crushed when packing this way, even when the outer double wall corrugated carton is badly damaged. Don't use expanded polystyrene as it compresses too easily. This stuff is very tough and easy to cut with a stanley knife. You can still wrap the tube in bubble wrap for extra protection, but the polystyrene will prevent it being easily crushed. https://polyfoamxps.co.uk/products/polyfoam-floorboard-standard/

I read your title as if Elon Musk had flown you there! 😁 Nice Mars images, considering the conditions last night. I was surprised how well the Moon came out in my photos. Even Jupiter's moons were sharp and that was with quite dense haze. Sometimes, you just have to give it a go and then you end up pleasantly surprised.

So, the M90 extensions between the OTA and the focuser will be stiffer than anything after this, thus reducing sag, plus no vignetting as the light cone has a smaller cone angle before it passes through the Barlow or focal extender. Also, with a Barlow, this arrangement will leave it's magnification factor unchanged: Is that correct?

Thank you for this. Most interesting. Let's hope that future improvements in examination methods reveal yet more from such palimpsests.