Sonmalul

I always feared that if I say here I want to buy a very specific brand and type of scope I would be ridiculed over the roof. But truth ne told, we keep pur scopes mostly indoors and they become part of our furniture in some way. I enjoy looking at things even when they are not used for their intended purpose, just to admire the craftmanship.

That would make it a Bugatti Mowron :)

Big Red is a thing of beauty and mounted on that wooden tripod it looks like it is going to last a lifetime...and your children's lifetime also :)

I like to play tricks on my eyes with binoculars to see if my eyes can reach focus when the instrument in marginaly out of focus. They struggle a bit, it feels like havy lifting done by my eye's lens but I was amazed how off can the focus be and the eye still be able to adapt, albeit after a bit of "flex". This range of natural focus (for me at least) is quite large and i do my focusing by choosing the mechanical middle between the in/out of focus points where my eyes cannot compensate at all. So back-forth back-forth...something like divide et impera for the focuser tube 😋 Differences in depth of field have not been too striking to my eyes through telescopes as they are in an f2 photo lens for example. I feel like we have two focusing systems: our hands on the focuser knobs and our eyes which do the fine tuning for us. So focus in focus :)

This is indeed the only reason I could think of as a reason to manufacturing many lengths of the same aperture frac. Other than that, magnification and exit pupil are just complementary mathematical relations. Like horsepower, torque and rpm.

Then why do they still produce scopes in the f10+ range alongside their identical aperture and mechanics, faster brothers? what's the catch? Seems to me that progress in the refractor world look like going from something lile this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Houghton_Typ_620.73.451_-_Johannes_Hevelius%2C_Machinae_coelestis%2C_1673.jpg to stuff like this https://cdn2.skiesunlimited.com/images/D/09947_Orion_alt04.jpg 😜

There is something that makes me think practicality. We can all agree that a long focal length scope is better suited for planetary use than its short length brother which would be best suited for dso viewing or guiding/photo. We can take those two (refractors) as an example: 90/900 and his brother, a 90/500 (and we will be using Plossl EPs) Exit pupil is an important factor in viewing comfort. Exit pupils are dependent on the scope's focal length, the EP's fl and the main lens diameter. For example, to acheive 100x in the 90/500 we will need a 5mm eyepiece and to acheive the same mag in the 90/900 we will need a 9mm eyepiece. The exit pupils of both scopes in those configurations will be 90/100=0.9mm The theoretical magnification limit for both scopes lies at about 180x. It is true that to reach this 180x you will need a 5mm EP in the 90/900 and a "2.8"mm EP in the 90/500 and those will probably make for an eyelash brushing eye relief... But looking at exit pupils up to 100x, those scopes do not seem to complement one another, but rather replace each other. So, ignoring abberations, and not taking into account eye relief so much, wouldn't the faster scope be almost as practical and easy on the eyes for high-ish magnifications as the slower, heavier, harder to mount in the wind scope? just my evening neurons buzzing...

Wow. That would have been a nice piece. Too bad I am so far away and..it's been sold allready. what eyepiece(s) should I get? I used this to simulate the views: https://www.stelvision.com/en/telescope-simulator/visu.php?D=80&F=640&FD=8&type_choix=manu&f_1=26&f_2=15&f_3=10&f_4=6.5&f_5=5&champ_nom=52&champ_alt=&cibles=lune&simu_personnalisee=Simulate I also have a cheap H20 and a SR4 EP. Please don't laugh at me... 🤓

Thank you very much for your time and answer. That is why I have in the first place chosen the f8 over the f5.5 But you see, here is where firsthand(eye) experience comes in handy. I was leaning towards the 90mm because they say it has multi coated lens vs only MgF2 on the 80mm and I thought it would make a night and day difference...hopefully. I will follow your advice and buy (Again) the 80/640 if you say the coatings are not that important for my usage....hoping it will be better.

After much searching online and dozens of phonecalls, it seems the fates are against me. The Bresser 90/900 will be available only from the 1st of of september in my country. The 102/600's situation is the same. I am now left with 80/640 and the 90/500 to choose from. Both are available at once. The 80 is MgFl coated and the 90 is "multi coated". Please help me choose something so I can enjoy a bit of this, (warm period) this year. I would also choose some 15 and 6 mm Plossls for those scopes... I must confess I feel guilty. I haven't contributed with anything to this forum and all i do is ask questions. But I really want to be able to look at something this year...so thank you very much for your kind words everyone.

Judging a mount by its carryweight is somewhat a false advertisment. There can be heavy things put on a mount that create a small windsail/lever and light things (90/1200) that create a lot of pull on the mount with only a little nudge from either ends of the tube. I have used the AZ nano. The mount/tripod I can assure you it can hold 6-8-10kg with no problem, Vertical load!! I rested part on my weight on it for this exact purpose. Twist it and there is your wobble. The problem lies in the joints. Te nano has some flex points: the plastic fork style mounts between the legs and the flathead, the retaining lockrings for extending the legs, the legs rotating a bit... The mount head on its own is very solid. It's all metal with some plastic clading. I wrote in a previous post that if it fits a Bosch surveyor tripod, that will be the ideal mount for me. Bosch Bt160 https://rthde.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/bosch-bt160_.jpg?w=630 Also, the 90/900, as well as the 80/640 and 90/1200 comes with a plastic elastic clamshell mount. This clamshell does not only flex but the only locking nut can be slid of the clamshell with relative ease even when tightened down. Make it too tight and the clamshell flexes and it popa out on its own :/

SpaceCadet, indeed my mind is set on the 90/900. Seems you can read minds I am also a bit put off by one consultant at a major online astronomy shop who said it IS good for my wants and needs but if my area has winds (at it does a lot) and if I can afford the 102/600, get that. I like it, amd I am willing to slend the extra money for peace of mind that it would not wobble. Of what use is a nice tube if it wobbbbbles? My only concern is if it will be able to provide enough magnifications...to use on Venus, for example... I plan on using 26, 12.5 and 7.3 mm Skywatcher "shuper" Plossls.

The choices for me, have boiled down to those: 80/640 again (although i am quite cautious about buying it again from this (only) dealer because mine had a problem and they had another one "resealed" in stock) Maybe they got a lemon lot. 165 Eur 90/900 long fl and I think a good overall package for the money. Fear of it dancing with the winds. 230 Eur 102/600 scared of the short fl not (only) because of CA. Highest price but nice tube rings and focuser. 350 Eur All are on AZ nano. Please help me and spend my money so I can blame you

To continue the princess talk: neah...I need a longer one! That's what she said anyways :P :))) Jokes apart it is indeed a beautiful scope, but I really want a frac (it will be used only sporadicaly) and I really want it in white...and you know...well... a Takahashi is a Bit above my paygrade :P

Helium thank you for your opinion and experience. Much appreciated! I am also expecting Some CA in the 600 but I hope I don't get the "light tails" I got in the 80/640. Any idea what those might have been?(my first red photo) Also, by any chance, do you have any experience with 102/600? CA, I can live with it as long as is does not degrade the sharpness of the focused image too much. But what other optical annoyances can one expect from a 102/600 and not from a 90/900? Thank you!

I think I forgot to mention one important thing: I will be using Plossls, multi coated ones, and I don't intend in acheiving magnifications bigger than 100x. So for the 90/900 my EPs would be: 26, 17, 12 for the 102/600 would be: 26, 15, 10 or 8 If the 102/600 is able to provide decent views without much CA or other abberations, I am willing to spend the extra money; if not, I will buy the 90/900 in hope that its longer fl would correct those abberations and I am willing to give away the focuser for the better views. Have a great night everybody!

Fearing I will sound like a spoiled princess, i'm gonna say that looks are also important for me. Fracs really have a warm spot in my heart. Speaking of budget...I must make some currency conversions but it is somewhere around the 300 USD/EUR/GBP mark. The choice for me has somewhat boiled down to those two: a 90/900 Bresser or a 102/600 Bresser, both on that AZ nano mount (wich I am thinking of beefing up by changing the tripod). My mind ping pongs between their pros and cons as follows: 90: + side: Decent aperture for my leisure sporadic viewing of ships, Moon and Venus/Saturn. (~6400 mm^2 area) - side: Focuser that is not...well...as sturdy (looking) as the 102's Hexafoc. (Maaaaaybe someday I will want to attach my Canon EOS to it just for variation and fun) and the tube clamp is...well...I feared my former 80/640 will pop out of it :/ 102: + side: Hexafoc, metal interconected tube clamps, larger aperture ~8200 mm^2 area, shorter tube will resonate less in the same wind as the longer one - side: 100+Eur more expensive and my 2 fears: the fear that I am going to acheive enough magnification only with tiny "pinhole imagers" (i.e. 4/6mm Plossl) and the fear that the views are going to be a christmas tree of happy fringing around Venus, the moon or any ship on a lighter background... I bought the 80/640 thinking it would give me best of many (small) worlds but I gave it back for the problems posted in my picture in the initial post :( I would open heartedly choose the more expensive 102/600 (and admire that focuse also :) ) but I don't want to be disappointed and wish I was sensible and chise the 90/900. The 102/600 is 2x the price of the 80/640 :/ Sorry, again, for the log post. It' just how my mind seems to translate thoughts into letters :D thank you all again!

Thank you, R. I have indeed thought about a mak but I always loved the way a frac looks. Also I am a bit turned down by their preceived (by me at least) mechanical complexity- moving a mirror in order to acheive focus and at the same time keeping it perfectly square to another mirror Maybe my fear is comparable to the aversity to the injection engine felt by some die hard carburettor grease monkeys I am verry attracted to fracs... It's just something about them that makes me happy to see them in the house. Also, if someone has ANY experience with mounting the Bresser 102/1000 on the AZ Nano, please, do chime in. I have been looking for this answer for months with no result. I used the AZ nano with the 80/640. The mount head is not flimsy at all!! The weak link in the whole package is the way the legs extend (no secondary bushings inside the larger tubes) and the way they are attached to the tripod head (plastic fork style mounts). I think about mounting AZ nano's head to a Bosch sturdy field tripod. I always wanted the 102/1000 but my frugality will not let me spend on the mount as much as i spent on the tube. So, if I can work my magic with the 102/1000 on the Nano, it would be great, if not, I am confined to chiosing between 80/640 (again) of the 90/900. Doesn't anybody else think (from my blurry pic) that something was sriously off with the acope I bought? Reading my post I realize I write a lot! I will try to fix this in the future, I promise!

Hello there. Lurker creating account...so new here but old here :) After much reading I decided to ask the fine eyes of sgl for their oppinion in order to buy a scope wich will make my eyes and spul happy. To spare you from reading my (oberving) life story, I'll post my question now. I am in a bit of o dilema. Or may I say, a trilema. I must make a choice between: https://www.bresser.de/en/Astronomy/Messier-AR-80-640-AZ-NANO-Telescope.html https://www.bresser.de/en/Astronomy/Telescopes/BRESSER-Messier-AR-90-900-NANO-AZ-Telescope.html https://www.bresser.de/en/Astronomy/Telescopes/BRESSER-Messier-AR-102-600-NANO-AZ-Telescope.html I know there are other options such as 90/500 or 90/1250 or 102/1350 etc but my one big problem here is the wind and it would be a shame to buy something that dances with the gusts, wouldn't it? I have been using for many years now a what you might call a dept store frac, a .965 60/700 and a very(76/300) small dob mounted newt. They were primarily used for land observations (with some acrobatics for the newt), watching things 1-2 km away...as well as ships maybe 6-8 nm away. They were also used for short and pleasing viewing of the Moon, Venus, Saturn and the Pleiades. So my ideal scope must have a simple and pleasing to the eye AZ mount, it must be good for land observations and some jooyful rides to the Moon and back to Venus, Saturn and a bit of easy to spot stars I had the 80/640 and used it for a few days The views were better than through my scopes but it had a big problem : right before focus and (to a smaller extent) in focus, bright stars and distant bright city lights had a cone of unfocusable glare, only on the left! (attached you will find a phone snap of the the effect on two distant, close together,red industrial lights to give you an idea) The dealer was not much help in diagnosing the problem so I returned the scope hoping I got the (only) lemon and the next one will not be "broken" . To conclude: 80/640: I was pleased with the looks l and the build of the 80/640 Al tube and it performed good for my needs with the supplied 26mm Plossl and some 12 and 6mm "shuper" GSO plossls I also bought. But it had a plastic focuser and a ready-to-pop-out plastic tube clamp wich seemed to remind me too much of the .965 90/900: I fancy the 90/900 in hope of little CA but I am afraid of it dancing in the wind...and also the focuser is also plastic. 102/600: I like the Hexafoc on the 102/600. Way overkill for my needs but i part of the pleasure for me is also the looks and feel of it. Anyone with hands on experience with it? Have read a lot...also the interferometry tests and all... Would the CA be so bad as to make my amateur Moon and Venus gazings a pain? This is the one(102/600) I am most inclined to purchase. I also feel ripped off because the 102/1000 costs exactly the same as the 102/600... Having confessed all that I feel a stone lifted of my soul. Thank you all!