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.

This is good news, because your book is excellent. Of all the double star resources I have experience with, your has the best layout imo. I just love the fact that you have a map on one page, and a handfull of doubles on the other. Especially for quick grab-and-go session, without any planning. I am planning to download the pdf as well, and make small A5 printouts with the map on one side, and the list of doubles on the other, for quick and easy access with my ultra portable setup. I advice all double stars fans to at least take a look at the (free!) pdf. Well done!

Hmm, what happened? Suddenly, out of nowhere, this tiny thing showed up. I blame this thread 100%.

As a fellow norwegian: kikkertspesialisten.no is overpriced. And have a very limited amount of equipment. Even when factoring in costums and transport, other foreign stores usally are cheaper. If you want to support local business that's fine, but my prefered options are 1) firstlightoptics.com, and 2) teleskop-express.de. Both are excellent sites, with good costumer service. FirstLightOptics (FLO) is pretty much always the cheapest of the two, while teleskop-express.de usually have a wider variety of equipment.

Clouds came of course. And the forecast for the next 7-10 days is also horrible. This has been a rather poor season so far. 1 (!) session in 2 months...

Yeah, the Borg 90 seems like the obvious dream scope among lightweight and compact refractors, but I have never really seriously considered it because of the cost. If anything, my findings has actually made me want it less, even though it would solve my two biggest problems with the LP90, color and weight: the small increase in aperture simply isnt worth it to me at the moment. And it would’nt beat the 72mm on color anyway. there is a slight chance for clear skies tonight, perhaps I’ll try the LP90 with the Celestron prism.

I have a C6 SCT that occupies the same "role" as your 6" Newt. The difference is of course that the small C6 sits well on the same mount/tripod as the smaller refractors.

Yes, I have read your reports, so I was surprised as well. The atmosphere, the eyepiece or the diagonal could of course have been contributing factors, but those would also have impacted the 72mm. I have not yet been able to take the scopes out together a second time. I do have a cheap Celestron prism, so I might give it a go. But again, I might be able to deal with the color in some way, but that would not change the fact that I do not feel the extra 18mm gave me a whole lot more. We'll see. I have double-checked: I do have the same version of the scope as you. The 66mm: is it fpl-51 as well?

I got the 90/500 mm Long Perng SD Apo November 11th. For more than a month there were clouds every single night. Just before Christmas the clouds lifted, so I got to try it out. I purchased it to replace my 72/432 mm TS-Optics doublet. I was hoping the Long Perng would be the biggest scope my az-gti and carbon fiber tripod could carry within my tolerance for vibrations, and therefore render my 72mm obsolete. I took them both out this evening to compare them. The 90mm has more aperture, is faster (f5,5 vs f6), has worse glass (fpl-51 vs fpl 53) and is about 1,1 kg heavier. I was hoping that the added amount of aperture would make sure it could go a little deeper, without the CA increasing too much. I compared the two scopes on a range of targets that are of interest to me. I used a Skywatcher dielectric star diagonal, a 32mm Celestron Plossl and the Tele Vue 3-6mm zoom on both scopes. I conducted a simple star-test on both scopes, and they both seemed well collimated. Jupiter: The 90mm showed slightly more details on the main bands. They were a tad more refined. There was however a bit more CA. In-focus the amount was negligible, but it was obvious out of focus. I was surprised how narrow the “focus window” was. Even a slight touch on the focuser brought out the colors, even though the image still looked in focus. The 72mm showed no color in focus, and even out of focus I struggled to see it. Overall, the 90mm won the Jupiter-test. Mars: After the positive experience on Jupiter, I had high hopes for Mars. Unfortunately, CA was overwhelming. I was really surprised how much difference there were between the two scopes. The 72mm only showed color out of focus and remained color-free in focus. That was not the case with the 90mm, that showed color all the time. I could not see any more details with the 90mm. The 72mm wins on Mars. The Moon: I could not see any big difference here. The atmospheric conditions seemed to matter more than the extra 18mm. There was more color around the edges with the 90mm, but it did not really bother me. But since that was the only real difference I could see; I’ll give the victory to the 72mm. Open clusters in Orion (CR69, CR70, NGC1980, NGC1981): The 90mm showed a little bit more. The faintest stars were a liiiiittle bit easier to spot, and the brighter ones stood out a little bit more. But the difference was very small. Had I not been going back and forth between them; I am not sure I would have spotted the difference. Still, a 90mm win. Double stars (Sigma Ori, Meissa, Castor, Polaris) This is the real test. Double stars are my preferred objects. Since I was already in Orion, I started with Sigma Ori and Meissa. The results were about the same as with the open clusters; the 90mm showed a smidge more. Barely noticeable to my eyes. But on Castor and Polaris a small amount of CA was creeping in when I passed the 120-130x range. The 72mm was color free. Not many years ago when I started out in this hobby, I was using a 70/500 achromat. It had a bit of color, but it did not really bother me. Now, after having lived with the virtually color free 72mm, suddenly it bothered me a lot. The 90mm could also take magnification a little better, as was expected. But again, not a massive difference. Overall, I preferred the 72mm. Other differences: The 90mm is 1,1 kg heavier. The difference was noticeably. Dampening times where still less than a second, but that felt like a lot since dampening time on the 72mm is close to instant. Also, the glossy black tube on the 90mm felt a lot colder than the rugged white 72mm (-10 degrees Celsius outside). Conclusion: I was hoping to do several comparisons over the next months, but I do not think I need it. The 72mm is the keeper. The extra 18mm gave a slight boost to the 90mm, but the added color and weight is bigger drawbacks to me. Especially since it was visible already at 120x on Polaris. Color on the planets I could probably have filtered away, but I prefer double stars and open clusters without any filters. The added weight was also a bigger drawback than I envisioned. I try not to be disappointed with the Long Perng. It was perhaps wishful thinking that an extra 18mm would matter a lot to me. Doing the math, and readying on the forums, I assumed the difference would be bigger. Several years ago, I compared the 72mm with a 102mm, and the differences were not great. But I was unexperienced, and I have many nights under the stars since then. I assumed that a better trained eye would be more sensitive to a slight aperture increase. But 18mm is still only 18mm. And I have been spoiled owning the 72mm. It is really a fantastic little scope. I have forgotten how CA looks like, that is how good it is. There is a lot of subjectivity in this hobby. I am sure there are people out there that would prefer the benefits of the 90mm. But I do not think I am one of them.

SCT

Great looking scope. Fingers crossed for first light already tomorrow.