grjsk

The ballhead came with the tripod. The internal dimensions of the case are: 17.5 x 20.5 x 8 cm. Its about 300 grams. I haven’t noticed any vignetting, but I haven’t really been looking for it either. In any other setup I would have prefered a mirror diagonal, but in these short sessions standing up, I enjoy a having the image match the naked eye experience.

In portrait mode and with the tension/clutches fully loosened, it shouldn’t be any stiction with a ball head. As long as you balance it properly you can move it around very smoothly with two fingers. I have the arca swiss plate permanently attached to the dovetail bar, so that I don’t have to spend time balancing the setup. A ballhead is also small and light, another bonus in these ultra-light setups. Mine is 300 grams or so, and should not have any issues with your scope.

I am an avid listener, but I haven't gotten to that episode yet. I'll give it a listen!

It took a while, but I wrote a bit about my experince here:

Badhex made a thread back in September 2022 named “Another ultra-light travel kit project”. That title sums up the thread nicely. In November 2022 I wrote this comment: “I have no real need for a ultra light setup, but your project is very intriguing!”. Fast forward a few months, and suddenly I own a similar setup myself. In the months following my comment, the evenings tended to be cloudy, and the mornings clear. Unfortunately, I never have time to observe in the morning. The only window is a 10-15 minute period between dropping my daughter of to the kindergarten and catching the train to work. I brought binoculars a few times, but I really don’t care for handheld, and since the moon and planets are the most obvious targets, binos aren’t really up for the task. So with the project of Badhex at the back of my mind, I ended up getting my own ultra light setup as well! My needs where quite simple: · A setup small enough that it would fit in the backpack I use for work · Ready to use in 1 min · Could be used to scan the skies wide field but also observe the moon and planets To be able to fit a tripod in my backpack, it had to be shorter than 50cm, preferably closer to 45cm. I was hoping the keep it under 1,5 kg as well. It was also necessary that it was high enough that I could observe standing. A tripod this small needs a small scope and light eyepieces. I ended up with the following: TS-Optics 50mm f4 ED refractor Leofoto LX-254CT tripod with the XB-32 ballhead Stellalyra 1,25 inch erect prism diagonal Tele Vue Panoptic 24mm eyepiece Tele Vue Nagler 3-6mm Zoom eyepiece Lowepro Hard Case CS 80 (22x24x10 cm) The scope weights 670 gram and can fit in the palm of your hand. The tripod is 44,5 cm long with the ballhead attached, but still becomes 137 cm high. I already had the erect prism, and it is a fine choice since it makes scanning that skies a bit more intuitive (saving a bit of time), and since I wont go any higher than 67x magnification anyway, the performance issues compared to a ordinary mirror diagonal is not very large. I also already had the Nagler zoom, and it was an obvious choice. Light, small, and giving me 33x to 67x. That is a small range of course, but more than enough for my needs. I also prefer not to push the exit pupil too much, and 67x gives me an exit pupil of 0,75. Since the scope is f4, it helps that it Nagler is well corrected. For wide field I had several options. Something like a 25mm Plossl could do the job, but I feared it would be rather lackluster off-axis. Something like the Stellalyra/APM 24mm could work, but its 330 g. So I chose the Panoptic 24mm instead. Regarded as the most well corrected 24mm in its class, and also the lightest. I’ve testet it a few mornings now, and it’s been very positive. The focuser feels smooth and functional. It handles my eyepieces without issue. The tripod and ball head is also more than sturdy enough for my usage. In portrait mode with clutches loosend, the scope balances nicely, making it a joy to operate. The 24mm is heavier than the Nagler but no re-balancing is required when switching which of course is very nice considering 10-15 min sessions. The first session was actually quite memorable. I was out at 06.20 the 09th of October, and it was still quite dark. The moon was up, so I started there. The 24mm gives me a 7,74 degrees field of view, so all I had to do to find the moon was to point in its general direction. I quickly swapped for the Nagler Zoom, and it gave me a crisp view at 67x. A bit of CA, but it had a very blue hue, so I suspect some of it was because of the atmosphere. I was surprised how much details could be seen at only 66x. I started around Mare Humorum and the Gassendi impact. Hints of the central peaks could also be seen. I followed the terminator north, passed the Kepler and Aristarchus crater, and ended at the Sinus Iridium. Very enjoyable. I then went for Venus, but it was not much to look at, so I went for Jupiter instead. Surprisingly well defined, with two clear belts, darkening caps and four moons showing. Time was ticking, so I switched to the 24mm, and went for Orion. It was the first view of it this season, and it was marvelous! The whole belt could easily fit, and I spent a few minutes scanning the whole constellation at low magnification. Overall, I am very satisfied. The setup gave me exactly what I was hoping for: a tiny setup I can use for 10-15 minutes in the mornings, and give me both wide field (8x) and closeup (67x) views of the sky. Both the moon and Jupiter was very enjoyable even at only 67x.

I agree with your thinking. Both the az-5 and the skymax 127 could easily be keepers, no matter what direction you go with this hobby in the future. Good luck!

FLO is an excellent provider also for Scandinavia. It's my go-to shop. If 500 pounds is a bit more than you where hoping to invest to start with, one of the pronto options, either the refractor or the Skymax 102 is an option: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-watcher-az-pronto.html But now we are down to 90-102mm aperture. Also, while the az-5 (or the az-gti) could stay with you for a long time, and can be used with many different scopes, the pronto head can't really take more than it already carries. So if you get bitten by the bug, you basically need to start over in terms of equipment.

If you want go-to, this is the same scope and tripod, but with the az-gti head in stead of the az5: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/sky-watcher-skymax-127-az-gti.html

Personally, I would simply go for the Skymax 127 package. I doubt the difference between the Skywatcher and the Bresser is all that great. You get everything you need in one package, at a good price. You could always upgrade the tripod at a later date. And hopefully you can afford a stool as well

I would sure love some more information about where to look

One last piece of advice: get a stool! Personally I prefer a Walkstool (a sweedish product!). Sitting down and relaxing is the best advice for enhancing your viewing abilites. It also makes sure you can keep the tripod in a low posititon, making it a lot more sturdy. There are many large, wooden observing chairs out there, but a simple stool gets the job done, and is a lot more portable. Something like this might be what you are looking for: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/sky-watcher-skymax-127-az5-deluxe.html The biggest problem with this setup is the tripod, so being able to keep it low would be a great benefit. A total weight of 8.6 kg is also nice even for extended walks.

Light pollution is pretty bad here, but I have «solved» that problem by focusing on objects that do not require dark skies: the moon, planets and stars. The same objects do not need a big scope to be enjoyed, so a small 72mm refractor is my weapon of choice, even at home. If a C6 or a small refractor is out of the question, a 125-127mm maksutov would be the next suggestion on my list, like others already have mentioned.

Getting the 150PDS into a backpack I would think is doable, but I am guessing you would need the Az4/az5 on a steel tripod for it to be sturdy enough for you. A 1,75 inch steel tripod is about 5 kg, but the bigger problem is its shape. It's fairly long, and the balancing would be pretty bad. I actually tried it in a 60l backpack once, and it was not very comfortable. I would instead have chosen a C6 SCT. It's still 150mm, but it's shorter form makes it easier to pack, and you can get away with a shorter carbon fiber tripod. I use my C6 on the Az-gti or the Az5 on a Leofoto LM 363C tripod from time to time, and it works okay. If you want a reflector, I think a 130PDS or perhaps a 150 Heritage (on a tripod) MIGHT be doable on something else than a steel tripod.

When ever I am primarily observing stars (single, double/multiple or open clusters).

Since most here seems to advocate for the 102mm, let me argue the case for a smaller refractor. There is not a correct answer here, it really depends on your priorities. But I have owned a 72mm, 90mm and 102mm refractor, and I have kept only the 72mm. A 72mm doublet is about 2,2kg. A 102mm is 4,2kg. Not a massive difference, but they require vastly different mounts. My 72 rides on a az-gti with a sturdy carbon fiber triod. The whole thing is a little over 5kg but is still very steady. A 102mm needs at least a az4 or az5 on a steel tripod imo. That’s 7-8 kg. I probably would have preferred it on a Skytee 2 or something similar. Thats 10kg. So we are talking 14kg + in total. That's a significant difference. The 102mm gathers 2x as much light as the 72mm. That sounds like a lot. But a 10mm gathers 2x as much light as a 7mm to. I doubt anyone would see the difference. A 300mm gathers 2x as much light as a 210mm. 90mm difference = significant. 30mm however? Now, I think our eyes, experience, seeing etc plays a big role here. I have read that many on SGL and Cloudy Nights thinks they see A LOT more in a 4 inch vs a 3 inch. That was not my experience comparing my 72mm with the 90mm this winter, and therefore I sold the 90mm. Bottom line: to me the much lighter weight easily beat out the extra mm of aperture. Everything fits onto a small backpack. But if the weight and size difference doesn’t bother you, the 102mm is probably the right call.