Second Time Around

That looks interesting, Mick!  Not as comfortable for sleeping as a fishing bedchair and no adjustable legs for uneven ground.  OTOH it's much smaller and lighter than a fishing bedchair.  Does it fold to go in a car boot?

I very much doubt whether they'll be enough adjustment in the legs for astronomy.  However, there are models with adjustable backrests.

As Dave said, Fox is an upmarket brand.  But they're almost certainly made in China the same as their less expensive competition.  In my experience, the quality is very similar.  However, where Fox are often better is in design for items like bivvies (tents).  With chairs though there's little difference.  Decathlon is better value for money as they cut out the middleman and you're not paying "carp tax".

There are also some camping chairs that fold up like walking sticks.  Depending on your car, these may fit into your boot better.  I have one that has arms plus a high back and used to use it for astronomy until I bought a zero gravity chair.  Like Peter, I used to slump down in mine.

Thanks Mark, I did consider it.  However, it seems to be made of the brittle plastic I found wasn't as strong and didn't always collapse fully.

As a long time angler I've used a lot of these chairs, including ones with adjustable backrests.  I much prefer those with armrests.

However, for astronomy I find a zero gravity chair to be  better, although mine doesn't have armrests.

1 hour ago, Tangoringo said:

Thanks for the recommendation Mike. Have just found a copy of the two volume edition. Fascinating to see how things have changed in the century since its printing.

 

I had those almost permanently out of my local library in my teens!

Here's the August data.  I thought I'd missed the 31st August forecasts but had misfiled them.  Phew!

As you can see below many of the forecasts were less accurate this month.  This was especially so with the BBC, who recorded by far the least accurate forecasts since I started, frequently being overly optimistic.  In the last third of the month I recorded no clear nights at all, even when there was plenty of sunshine by day and further inland it was mainly clear.

Wow! That first one in particular is stunning!

Svbony 7-21mm zooms should work well at f/21 and cost only about £50 each.  They certainly punch above their weight.  They're also very slim and light so especially suitable for binoviewers.

16 hours ago, great_bear said:

You really *must* report this - as UPS have a very good reputation which I’m sure they want to keep!

Agreed.  Already in hand and diaried for after the Bank Holiday.

On 14/08/2022 at 16:06, Second Time Around said:

Having done some business consultancy work for a courier company I can certainly both sympathise and empathise!  I too witnessed some totally unacceptable practices.

My experience there, plus in my own businesses, has led me to believe that there's an enormous difference from depot to depot within the same company.  This is especially so if the depots are franchised.

Additionally, there's a similar enormous difference between the delivery drivers.  This was apparent when staff moved on, and is also something I've witnessed as a consumer.  For instance, we've had good and bad drivers from Evri (or Hermes as they used to be known).  Luckily, all our local UPS drivers (so far!) have been great.

 

It looks like we have a new UPS driver, who certainly isn't great!

They've just thrown a package over a 5ft gate onto our brick patio!  What's more it's clearly marked with a picture of a wine glass, and wording in English and German saying "glass" and "optical lenses"!

What makes it worse is that it's a replacement for a Baader Maxbright ll binoviewer that I'd returned under warranty and which couldn't be repaired.  Unfortunately, Baader had no more in stock and I've had to wait over 18 months for this replacement to arrive.  

It was very well-packed so hopefully it won't have been knocked out of collimation.  Especially, as they're now out of stock again!

Grrr!

19 minutes ago, Zeta Reticulan said:

I've been looking at the pictures of that Astro Essentials shorty. I'm pretty convinced it isn't GSO. The element resembles my comparatively recently purchased Orion 2x 'Shorty'. I have no idea where Orion source from now. I also have the GSO short Barlow. The Orion has a filter thread, and the Astro Essentials appears to have one. I thought my 2x Orion was a tad sharper than my GSO. I'm really tempted to buy the Astro Essentials now to see if the elements are the same lol. 

Thanks for that!  

I'd be interested in what you find.

I agree that this zoom (also sold by Svbony at a lower price) is really excellent value for money.  OK, it's nowhere near as good as my Baader, but that costs about 4x more!

As stated, it's very small and light, even compared to other Svbony models, so it'll not unbalance lightweight scopes or overload lightweight mounts.  I thought it might therefore also be useful in binoviewers. I need to test it further at night now that my binoviewers have just come back from repair, but will almost certainly be keeping mine for outreach anyway.

One bonus is that if you remove the rubber eyecup (it's stuck down) and add an O ring a Dioptrx astigmatism corrector can be added.

It's clear that there a multiplicity of views on this subject!  For instance, there are 2 schools of thought about buying binoculars before a telescope.  I side with those who say don't spend money on binoculars to begin with but put the funds towards a telescope.  Almost no beginner binoculars will show things like the rings of Saturn - possibly the biggest wow in the heavens and almost sure to get newcomers hooked.  Buying binoculars can come later.  In any event most beginners already own binoculars of some sort or can borrow some.  Of course, if the idea is to use binoculars in the daytime as well the advice might de different.

I think it's also clear now that there's no one best scope for the beginner.  In other words it depends.......

But on what?  Ed Anderson in another similar topic elsewhere posted what I think is the best answer I've seen.  Ed pointed out we need to know quite a bit about the user.  For instance, the advice would probably be different for someone who's got to carry a scope up and down several flights of stairs compared with someone who can just roll a telescope out of their garage.

As Ed said,

"We focus too much on the equipment and not enough on the person.............

The best first telescope is not about the telescope, it is about the person who is going to use the telescope.  If we fail to ask about the user, their experience, their situation, we fail to offer them good advice............

Focus on the user, not the equipment. Once you know something about the person, then you can make intelligent recommendations about equipment."

There's another recent thread on monitors at https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/398008-new-monitor-time/#comment-4272712

Here's one of the posts I made:

Rtings has a huge number of in-depth monitor reviews.  These are totally independent and not biased by accepting ads.

Rather than look at every review, what I found most useful was their tools section that allows you to filter all your requirements to draw up a shortlist.  These also highlight what features are important for the use you'll put the monitor to.

Almost certainly you'll find a combination of the features you're looking for.  Go to https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tools

I see you mentioned a Barlow.

The multiplication factor of a Barlow varies but 2x is most common.  Some of these 2x Barlows can also be used at 1.5x, although it's not always mentioned in the blurb, and it's one of these I'd recommend.  However, retailer Agena Astro states whether this is possible in their specifications.  Go to https://agenaastro.c...-extenders.html  These dual 1.5x/2x Barlows allow the black lens cell to be unscrewed from the body of the Barlow and then screwed into the filter thread at the bottom of an eyepiece to give approx 1.5x.   First Light Optics sell an inexpensive such Barlow under their own label that's almost certainly a rebadged GSO Shorty but priced at only £25.  It also has a T-thread for attaching a dSLR.  Go to https://www.firstlightoptics.com/barlows/astro-essentials-125-2x-barlow-with-t-thread.html

Another tip with most zoom eyepieces is to use the lowest amplification Barlow possible.  This is because most zooms have the widest apparent field of view at the shortest focal length.  For instance, if you want the magnification of a 6mm focal length then using a zoom at 9mm with a 1.5x Barlow will give you a wider field of view than using the zoom at 12mm with a 2x Barlow.

With an 8-24mm zoom such a Barlow would give you magnifications of approx 42-125x without the Barlow, 63-188x with the Barlow used at 1.5x, and 85-250x with the Barlow set at 2x.

It would be rare to find that you'd use more than 250x on a 115mm scope.  In fact, in the UK you wouldn't often be able to use more than 250x anyway, regardless of the aperture of the scope.  This is because we're so often under the jetstream here, which leads to atmospheric turbulence (poor seeing).

Here are some thoughts on the zooms I've used so far:

Hyperflex 9-27mm.

I compared it with my Baader during the day on my shed. Even though the focal lengths are lower, the actual field of view at 27mm is about the same as the Baader 8-24mm at 24mm. Nor was it as sharp as the Baader in my f/6 refractor. I was planning to try it on the sun with my Quark, but there were no sunny days or clear nights before I passed it on to two of my grandkids to use with the 70mm f/10 I bought them for Xmas. Not surprisingly, it was better at f/10.  Not compatible with a Dioptrx astigmatism corrector.

Svbony 7-21mm.

I tested it on a very low down Saturn, and surprisingly found that on my f/6 refractor it was as good as the Baader on axis. Sharpness fell off somewhat off axis and the field of view was quite a bit smaller. However, trying it on prominences with my Quark it was way behind the Baader, seemingly because of lower contrast. I bought this firstly for outreach rather than risking my Baader zoom. Secondly, it's very small and light, even compared to other Svbony models, so I thought it might therefore be useful in binoviewers. I need to test it further at night when my binoviewers come back from repair, but will almost certainly keep it for the reasons given. Dioptrx compatible with O-ring.

Celestron 8-24mm.

The version I bought was the spotting scope one, so it might be different to the astro model. The first thing I noticed was that it was even less parfocal than my Baader. In fact, none of these 4 zooms are parfocal (no refocusing required when changing power) to my aged eyes, but might be to someone younger. The field of view was also smaller. What disqualified it completely though was that it wasn't threaded for filters or screw in Barlows (the astro model is). I therefore returned it without further testing.  Dioptrx compatible with O-ring.

Baader 8-24mm.

This is much more expensive than those above, and not surprisingly outclassed all of them, both in sharpness/contrast and field of view. It's by far my most used eyepiece, although I also own a selection of quality fixed focal length eyepieces. Dioptrx compatible with O-ring.  The only downside, that's really important only for binoviewing with a Dioptrx, is that unlike most zooms the eyelens rotates when zooming.

APM 7.7-15.4mm Superzoom

I've just got this and been able to use it only briefly.  Easily the sharpest of all, but then it's a lot more expensive.  Constant 66 degree field of view.  Parfocal from about 7.7mm to 12mm for me, probably fully to someone younger.  Dioptrx compatible with adapter.

The Televue version also accepted a Dioptrix I believe.

I can't help from personal experience but I believe it's the same as the Orion Lanthanum zoom.  You'll almost certainly find some reviews for the latter.

23 hours ago, scarp15 said:

I asked my optician if he could measure mine, but he didn't quite seem to understand what I was getting at 🤔, don't think he had the right equipment anyhow and certainly don't that my exit pupil particularly age related is that great.  

There are various ways of measuring your pupil size.  This is what I did.

I got dark-adapted for a few minutes to allow my pupils to dilate (there's no need for longer as full dark adaption is a chemical process).  I then got my wife to take a flash picture whilst I held a ruler just above my eye.  The flash is so fast that your pupil won't react.   Make sure though you haven't got red eye reduction or pre-flash on.

Maximum pupil size tends to decrease with age, although there's a very wide variation.  Unfortunately mine is only 4.5mm at my Bortle 4/ mag 20.87 site - way less than average for my age.

On 27/07/2022 at 17:59, Second Time Around said:

Not had that problem myself on any of the 4 designs (all different) I've bought.  There do seem to be lots of variations from different factories.

Which was your one, Louis, so we can avoid it?

 

When I've time I'll post links to the 3 of the 4 models I can recommend.

I've now had time to do head-to-head tests between 5 various stools, all of which I bought via Amazon.   As a result there's one stand out design.

I can't recommend the tall slim one from ALEVMOON as I found it unstable in the dark, but my badly disabled brother loved it so he's now got it.

The GMWD didn't always fold completely and build quality seemed suspect.

The Booximhome was fine, but rather stiff at first.

The winners though were the first two I bought, the Fiemach and the Ksera.  These seem identical, and I'd buy whichever is cheaper at the time.  They seem more solid than the others, with better materials.  Go to https://www.amazon.co.uk/FIEMACH-Telescopic-Generation-Lightweight-Gardening/dp/B08C9YCMZL  or  
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ksera-Telescoping-Portable-Lightweight-Bathroom/dp/B085ZVBCQN/ref=asc_df_B085ZVBCQN/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=430958518754&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=17349609440630701762&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1006886&hvtargid=pla-919060202041&psc=1&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=101191291438&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=430958518754&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=17349609440630701762&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1006886&hvtargid=pla-919060202041

As for colour, I found that anything with white in it to be best.  The Fiemach and Ksera are available (at least from Amazon UK) in only red, blue and black.  However, you may find similar designs elsewhere - the shape of the telescopic sections is the bit to compare.  They're curved on these models.

The ALEVMOON and, although it didn't say so, the GMWD came (appropriately!) with a clip on cushion in black with white stars that show up in the dark.  These also fit the Fiemach and the Ksera.  Alternatively, you could simply paint the seat white.

"Did you mean all but one was bought used there Steve?"

Whoops, yes.  Thanks Dave, I'll correct it.

Having done some business consultancy work for a courier company I can certainly both sympathise and empathise!  I too witnessed some totally unacceptable practices.

My experience there, plus in my own businesses, has led me to believe that there's an enormous difference from depot to depot within the same company.  This is especially so if the depots are franchised.

Additionally, there's a similar enormous difference between the delivery drivers.  This was apparent when staff moved on, and is also something I've witnessed as a consumer.  For instance, we've had good and bad drivers from Evri (or Hermes as they used to be known).  Luckily, all our local UPS drivers (so far!) have been great.

On 03/08/2022 at 13:48, JeremyS said:

Has anyone else experience of the latest 32 mm Canon IS bino models for astronomy?

Roger Vine’s excellent review of the 14x 32 model identified some issues and said the 12 x 36 IS mark III might be better (and cheaper): http://scopeviews.co.uk/Canon14x32.htm

Going with the latest 32mm range, any thoughts about whether the 12x or 14x might be preferable?

 

 

I see that Jeremy has already bought the 12x36s, but for the benefit of other readers in the future I'd add the following:

My own choice was the 12x36s. At 660gms they're hugely lighter than the 10x42's at 1110gms.

Despite my hands not working properly I don't find holding down the IS button a problem - it just falls naturally under a finger.

The main disadvantage is the long minimum focusing distance of 20 feet.  However, for me this isn't a problem as most of my birding etc is over water or open country, and for astronomy of course it's immaterial. Having said that, I may get some ultra-close focusing Pentax Papilo 6.5x21s for dragonflies etc.

I find that 12x magnification is the perfect compromise for my needs. I was tempted to try Canon's new 12x32, but unlike in the US where the price went much lower soon after release, here in the UK they're very much more expensive than the 12x36s that cost me £630.  

Moreover, the 12x36s take a dewshield, the 32mm ones don't because of their shape.

The FOV is a flat 5 degrees but I can see all of it wearing my glasses because there's sufficient eye relief.  I haven't tried the 10x42s, but it may well be that I wouldn't be able to see the wider FOV anyway.  This is because claimed eye relief of many binoculars on the market is often less than the useable eye relief.  

Cloudy Nights member Pinac has done field tests on lots of binoculars including measurements of actual vs claimed eye relief.  Go to his excellent website at https://www.binocular.ch/ 

Here are his results:

8x20 - claimed 13.5mm - measured 13mm

10x30 II - claimed 14mm - measured 15.5mm

12x36 III - claimed 14mm - measured 15.5mm

10x42 - claimed 16mm - measured 12mm

10x32 - claimed 14.5mm - measured 13.5mm

12x32 - claimed 14.5mm - measured 12.5mm

14x32 - claimed 14.5mm - measured 13.5mm

My first choice of courier company for astro items would be UPS.  This is because, last time I checked, UPS were the only courier to cover glass for both loss or damage. However, this is only if booked direct rather than through a third party broker.

What annoys me though is that, whilst I can understand the courier companies not covering damage to glass, it's patently unfair not to exclude loss. After all, if a parcel gets lost that's the company's fault entirely!

I suspect this could be successfully challenged as a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and/or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999.  Unfortunately, it would probably end up in court, which would be expensive unless there was a group action by perhaps Citizen's Advice or the Consumer's Association.

Going back to the original question, don't most of us buy more than one type of telescope before long?  In my case I bought a 10 inch Dob, then soon after a 72mm refractor.

The Dob still gets more use though as it shows very much more, both on solar system and deep sky objects.  However, the refractor has a wider field of view, cools more quickly so is more suitable for short sessions, and is great for h-alpha solar views.

Each is good for different things, so it's not a case of one type being better or worse.

As for new vs used, all but one of my 4 scopes I bought used, and that was only because I wanted a Starsense Explorer to port to all my scopes.

This meant I saved an awful lot, but I was able to do so only because of what I had learnt here on Stargazers Lounge and Cloudy Nights.