The60mmKid

1 minute ago, Flame Nebula said:

Absolutely spot on. In terms of my preferences, visually I'm drawn to doubles and planets. Of course this might expand with time. For dso AP obviously, these will include more fuzzies 🙂

That's great, especially since many scopes will provide enjoyable, albeit different, views of doubles and planets. Speaking for myself, it took me a while to figure out what it is that I like and want in telescopes. I love my 60mm refractor because they views of certain objects it provides are so sharp and beautiful. Its lack of aperture doesn't bother me at all because I know the function of aperture and I know I don't need it for that type of observing.

But when I'd want to find fainter open clusters from darker skies, I loved a 10" f/4 dob that I owned. It took forever to thermally acclimate with its full-thickness mirror, but that didn't bother me at all because aperture and FOV (not sharpness) were the important variables for that type of observing.

The "aperture wins" argument doesn't impress me. The important part is knowing what aperture does to the image... its function. And knowing what sharpness does to the image... And contrast... And so on. This takes experimentation over time.

My advice (which may not be worth anything since I'm some random internet person!) is not to get a massive scope that may pose a struggle to use and to sell. I recommend trying out small/medium scopes of various optical designs and attributes first. Then, you'll get to know what you want and can pick the scope of your dreams.

aperture, sharpness, contrast, correction for various aberrations, portability, ease of thermal acclimation, ease of mounting, cost, personal brand preferences, optical design, personal optical design preferences, ergonomic preferences... and a few others, I'm sure.

These are the variables. Different people privilege different ones, different scopes are weaker and stronger in different ones, and different observing/imaging goals make different ones more or less important. That's why the "which do you recommend" threads can elicit various, contrasting opinions (which is fine, of course). In my opinion, what's most useful is trying one's best to figure out which variables matter to them and choosing accordingly.

I've owned a C6 and an Intes-Micro Mak-Cass concurrently. The C6 was an excellent performer and surpassed the Intes-Micro (which was also an excellent performer) in planetary, lunar, and DSO performance. It also allowed for a wider FOV and was a pleasure to use with binoviewers. They were basically the same size, but that extra inch of aperture on the C6 made a real difference at the eyepiece.

I think the C6 is an underappreciated telescope. So small and easy to mount, yet quite capable and versatile. On nights of decent seeing, the planetary performance of the C6 bested my Takahashi FC-100DC. (I assume this may be my last post before I'm banned for flagrant heresy.)

Just now, John said:

Thanks but the image is not mine (I don't image). I'll see if I can find who did though and let you know 🙂

I would imagine that imaging close double stars is a fairly specialised business and pretty tricky !

I see. No worries: I didn't mean to give you work to do 🙂 I like it because it's what one would see at the eyepiece. I've often wished I had a way to capture the view of doubles. I'm also not an imager, and I haven't been satisfied with my attempts at sketching.

That's very cool! Can I ask what you used to take the picture? I like it very much.

6 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

Has anyone got a AP-Z and a AZ75, any comparison at all.

How  does the AP-Z handle a 2" diagonal and a heavy EP?

I've owned the AZ75, and I own the APZ.

The AZ75 is a more solidly built mount that will hold a heavier/larger OTA. It doesn't have slow-mo controls. I think it would be happy with a typical 5" refractor, 8" SCT, etc.

The APZ is a lighter but still finely built mount with slow-mo controls. Mine works well with a light 6" mak-newt and heavy 2" eyepieces, and I'd be comfortable using it with a light 5" refractor or typical 4" refractor and a binoviewer.

Both mounts are excellent!

8 minutes ago, John said:

And of course for some of the year, the interesting planets will not be well placed for observing so you need to find something else to look at 

Such as astronomy forums 🙃

Why don't you dress more warmly, Stu? I'm noticing a pattern emerging with the shorts and Crocs. We don't want to lose any mods.

6 hours ago, Flame Nebula said:

Hi, I'm not sure about the seeing in my area, if I'm being honest. The scope would likely be stored indoors if an sct or the garage if a newt. I'm aware of cool down issues. I think that if I'd heard more favourable comments about the C9.25 with respect to visual observation, I would be going for it. I'm interested in visual observation but would like to do planetary AP too. 

Thanks 

Mark 

If you're in an area with variable seeing, as many of us are in the UK, and the scope will need to thermally acclimate each time you use it, then I'd recommend the 4" refractor for the reasons others have shared.

An SCT can be an excellent visual observing instrument, and the C9.25 is highly regarded as such. But a couple of the reason many observers in the UK prefer refractors are the seeing conditions (a smaller telescope with fine optics is less stymied than a larger telescope from reaching its full resolving potential under poor-average seeing) and the refractor's ability to thermally acclimate far more quickly than other telescope designs. Both of these factors are crucial yet often underestimated.

It's also worth considering that a larger SCT or newt will require a beefier mount than a 4" refractor, for visual and especially for imaging. Setting up a heavy mount can become a chore and deterrent over time.

One can do a lot with a 4" refractor. @mikeDnight sketches are incontrovertible evidence! If I lived somewhere with steady temperatures and steady air, I'd certainly favor larger scopes. But here in the UK... 😁

3 hours ago, Flame Nebula said:

Hi Everyone 

I would like to ask what your favourite planetary scope is for visual and imaging? 

I'm torn between a C9.25 and 10" Newtonian, but I'm not even sure these are best choice. I'd love to have the benefit of your experience on planetary observation in uk. 

Thanks 

Mark 

Hi Mark,

How is the seeing where you live, typically? Will your scope be set up outside in a dome, or will you take it outside from your home when you observe?

1 hour ago, dark star said:

Thanks for the reply. I will start saving up!

I don;t really understand how importing things from Europe works now. The TS website says that the price includes 19% V.A.T.  I presume this is  German V.A.T. which would be taken off the price and I would then have to pay 20% UK V.A.T. to the UK Government?

Are there any extra charges like import duties?

 

Yes, I think that's how it would work. They'd deduct the EU VAT, and then you'd get an invoice in the mail from Parcel Force once the item is in customs to pay the 20% UK VAT. They deliver the item once the fees are paid.

It's a minor hassle, but TS is a trustworthy company.

On 29/02/2024 at 07:23, MalcolmM said:

Here's my AP tracking Jupiter. Unfortunately the seeing was not great. Just occasional moments of clarity. 

Malcolm 

Now that's a good looking setup! Beautiful. Makes me miss the old Mewlon... Lovely telescopes.

Maybe this is why so many people are losing things these days. 

Glad to hear that the view is improving.

It's helpful to learn to differentiate thermal issues from poor seeing at the eyepiece because then we know how to address it. If it's a thermal issue, then more/different acclimation is in order. If it's poor seeing, then the Mewlon won't be able to strut its stuff until the air is steadier (but will still provide nice lower-magnification views).

If it's not thermally acclimated, you'll see a distinct plume on a defocused star, and the diffraction pattern will be warped. The final picture in this post shows it: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/812857-so-what-is-it-about-insulating-cats/?p=11776530

If it's poor seeing, the whole defocused star image will be weak and swaying.

Of course, it could be both a thermal issue and poor seeing.

And the Mewlon will always be more susceptible to poor seeing than a refractor. The central obstruction causes the light to be concentrated beyond the first diffraction ring... pushes it outward so that the "target" shape of a defocused star is more diffuse than in a refractor. Since the light is less concentrated, star images sway around more with atmospheric turbulence.

I used to use a 180C with an FC-100DC. On nights of poor to average seeing, the refractor always provided a more satisfying view. But on the nights of good seeing, and when I'd taken care to thoroughly acclimate the Mewlon, the Mewlon would provide views far beyond the capability of the refractor. Some of the views I had through that scope are still so vivid in my mind... Mewlons are lovely scopes.

2 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

The longer you study them the more subtle the detail. Mallas was more of an inspiration to me in a way, because I saw things that I considered to be easily discernable, but that he didn't record. Mind you, his Unitron eyepieces were far removed from what we use today. Steve O'Meara on the other hand, although also using a 4" refractor, makes too much of a big deal about observing from the slopes of a Hawaiian volcano. This has definitely led some to imagine their own more mainland suburban situation is hopeless for Messier hunting, which is simply untrue!

Here are just a few from the suburbs of a misty, often cloud plagued, north of England mill town.

M1 (5" refractor)

M45 and the Merope nebula (4" refractor)

M57 the Ring Nebula (4" refractor)

M27 the Dumbbell Nebula (4" refractor)

M97 the Owl Nebula (4" refractor)

M33 spiral galaxy (4" refractor)

M78 nebula in Orion (4" refractor)

M82 edge on galaxy  (4" refractor)

Mrs the Great Orion Nebula (4" refractor)

M81 face on spiral (4" refractor)

 

 

Totally inspiring.

Tak really ought to send you an endorsement contract.

I don't have an answer to your specific question, but I do recommend Teleskop Service, who sells the same binocular: https://www.teleskop-express.de/en/binoculars-spotting-scopes-microscopes-range-finders-31/binoculars-with-porro-prisms-99/apm-ms-16x70-magnesium-ed-apo-binoculars-with-nitrogen-fill-9356

TS has outstanding customer service and, in my experience, pays for return shipping if the item arrives damaged. I haven't had positive experiences with APM, but I've had consistently excellent experiences with TS.

3 minutes ago, glafnazur said:

2 finder scopes, a moon filter and my mind.

Lost two finder scopes?! Did one go looking for the other and not return??

Lost £170 on the classifieds today.

Please share recommendations for eyepieces that mate especially well with slow telescopes. For example, the 48mm Brandon was absolute magic with my old Mewlon.

2 hours ago, MalcolmM said:

Harry Potter reference? Very clever 🙂 I was actually using Alnitak, purely because I was doing the Orion doubles. Sounds like it's much to low in the sky to be a good judge of collimation. 

Thanks everyone for some brilliant replies and links. I've had this scope for a couple of years, but it seems I still have much to learn. It sounds like I'm maybe still underestimating the cooling time and I'll definitely check out Polaris. @dweller25, you have mentioned active cooling before, I really must look into that!

Malcolm 

A Dog Star reference, actually 😊 But I'm a big fan of Animagus Gary Oldman, too.

Ok, I'll say one more thing, and then I vow to be less asinine for a while.

Maybe the stars looked hairy because Malcolm was looking at SIRIUS 🤣🤣🤣

Just now, Stu said:

I have used a Mewlon 210 for some time, so am well aware of the characteristics. I have already pointed out the need for a centred star and agreed with the need for a cooled scope. I have said that I don’t think the hairy stars are related to collimation but are likely cooling or seeing related. To get the best out of these scopes, the need to be bang on with collimation so that is certainly something well worth doing as David has verified, carefully and with research. I really don’t see what your beef is?

No beef, Stu! I'm a vegetarian! And especially not with you! You're one of my SGL faves!

But it's permissible to make a point with a certain degree of respectful adamance when it feels helpful, no? And maybe also with a certain playfulness? Although I admit that my attempts at humor usually fall flat... Respectful, playful disagreement isn't too beefy, I hope 🤞

In any case, no insult or injury intended. Please PM me if further communication on the matter would help.

Wishing you a good day ❤️

Just now, Stu said:

Well it is Malcolm’s choice, and there are other ways of going about it such as an artificial star. Cooling is a problem we all face, and all deal with when collimating scopes. He has said the collimation looks slightly off, and that can have quite an impact on planetary detail. I don’t think it is the cause of the hairy stars as I said, but do think it is worth looking at, carefully as I’ve said. It is actually not as hard with these scopes as it seems.

Of course it's his choice, but I'll respectfully repeat my opinion that adjusting the collimation isn't the best action to take at this point 👍 I doubt that my opinions are robbing him of free will ☺️

Another point worth mentioning is the inherent coma of the DK design. Stars have to be dead center in the FOV for the diffraction pattern to appear concentric. So, if a star is a little bit off to the side, it may appear as though the collimation is off.

There is a benign learning curve when using a Mewlon after refractors. I think it's most helpful to point out the possible variables first rather than, at this point, suggesting fixing collimation that may not need fixing.

7 hours ago, Stu said:

Why so sad?

Because it would be sad to make changes to the collimation if it isn't actually an issue 😭 That's why I think the thing to do would be to address the thermals and wait for good seeing. That may solve the hairy stars problem. And if the collimation is the problem, adjusting it would still require a thermally acclimated scope and good seeing since a steady defocused star image with a clear diffraction pattern is needed for the job (assuming that's the method of collimation being used). So, in either case, I think it would be a mistake to touch those collimation screws right now.

But wait until you have the thermals sorted and good seeing before adjusting the collimation!