The60mmKid

PS - Really.

A major consideration with the Mewlon is thermal acclimation. I would pay close attention to that (especially during the winter) since a lack of thermal acclimation can be mistaken for poor seeing or collimation. Here's some essential reading: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/530068-seeing-vs-thermals/ I'd bet money that that's the main culprit behind your hairy stars. The solution is to keep the scope in a cool place before you use it and put it outside with the eyepiece opening pointing up after sunset for a couple of hours. The baffle, and not just the mirror, in the Mewlon traps heat, so positioning it in that way may help with acclimation. I share this based on plenty of first-hand experience with a 180C. When that Mewlon is acclimated and the seeing is good, the views will blow your socks off.

Has anyone used a Baader Steeltrack focuser with their FC-76 or other Tak?

I've read your review several times over the years with great interest. (I'm a fan of your reviews, in general!) I'm curious whether you still feel the same on the following point or whether your perspective has changed any since writing the review: "While I have been unable to convince myself that the scope actually sharpened up performance on the planets and double stars, from the already impressive base FC-76, the last residual false colour seen on the most challenging of objects is eliminated, and the truly flat field, even to my accommodative eyes, means large open clusters and the Moon really do impress... Even though the CQ module is “only” £301, which is cheap for Takahashi, I am not sure I would recommend purchasing the module if it is only for use with the FC-76 DCU as I did not see enough additional benefit to really justify the expense." The way I read your comments is, "The extender does improve things, but not significantly enough for me to recommend it." Your assessment, along with Roger Vine's (which is more explicitly in favor of the extender) are ones I keep mulling over.

Should be WWE, Stu. You'll anger the wrestlers... and the conservationists. That's a dangerous game to play.

I admire your courage.

Really?! A couple of years ago, I tested out my Mewlon 180 on a Super Polaris. My mind immediately plays Elton John when I think about how well that worked... "It seems to me you lived your life like a candle in the wind...!" But I was using a pretty light tripod.

Sort of like waiting for the clouds over Britain to clear...

They're M8!

If you decide to show us your partner's legs, show her this thread after. Then update us on whether she's still your partner or whether it's just you and Berlebach.

I actually feel a bit bad about underutilizing my AP/APZ. The alt-az APZ is perfect for the 6" mak-newt that will soon be my only telescopes. But after I sell off my smaller telescopes, I'll have no use for the AP in EQ mode 😞 I've considered selling it off and buying another comparable alt-az, but I don't know of any! Small and light, well-made, robust, and with slow-mo controls... A unicorn of the mount world 🦄

Another worthy APZ upgrade: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/325409930148 I like these inexpensive M8 knobs better than the "official" Vixen ones, and it's so nice to be able to adjust the tension easily.

Beautiful. FC-76?

Nice job, Mike. Looking forward to seeing additional festoons in your sketches, now.

Hi Alan 😊 Yes: It's a Ceravolo HD-145 (6" f/6) mak-newt 🦁

This was an enjoyable read. Thanks! Good to keep in mind that a 6" f/8 newt designed for visual observing would probably have a ~20% CO. Those don't give up much (if any) contrast to refractors. If we changed that variable, I think all of the points you mentioned would be either "tie," or a "win" for the newt 😊 I enjoy the unbridled enthusiasm that some of the refractor fans express for their instruments. But, at the eyepiece, I've never seen a smaller refractor (whether APO or long-focus achro) outperform a larger reflector as long as the latter: - has good optics, - is collimated, - is thermally acclimated, - and isn't being pushed to do things that the seeing won't realistically allow for the given aperture. This won't help me win any popularity contests, but my suspicion is that those who are stunned by refractor superiority have ignored one of more of those points!

The second picture seems to show that one may use a Newtonian as a giant bong. Try that with a refractor. Another point for the Newt.

You might be sparing yourself a headache! I've owned a few 60mm refractors of this ilk. When they work, they're fun. But some of them had lenses that, over time (I assume), became astigmatic and, thus, the telescopes weren't good for much. Is there a shop return policy in case you don't get one of the good ones? Also, it's worth noting that it'll require an adapter to use 1.25" accessories. Those are obtainable on eBay.

Well, I do like Lovecraft!

Some of my favorite dreams are undoubtedly influenced by stargazing. Here's one from a few years ago that I wrote down: I dreamt that I was flying above Earth’s atmosphere, looking into space. As I flew, countless galaxies and nebulae passed through my field of vision. In my dream, I felt a deep, wordless recognition that I am part of life’s limitless beauty. Have others had astronomy/stargazing dreams?

One idea is to ask for a brief phone call if one has any doubt.

I thought there is a minimum post count before one is able to post to the classifieds?! Why, then, did I post all manner of inane fluff before I was able to list my first for-sale ad? For the record: it wasn't post farming... I'm still posting inane fluff.

And different binoviewers perform differently in this regard. I couldn't use dual short-FL eyepieces in a Binotron because the compression ring eyepiece holders wouldn't allow for sufficiently precise alignment. That causes merging problems. But I'm able to with a Baader Maxbright because the clicklock eyepiece holders make it easier to fully seat and precisely align both eyepieces. So, I'm able to use shorter-FL eyepieces (e.g., 5mm) without merging problems, as long as I take care to seat them fully.

The unique beauty of the brass refractor is that you don't have to look through it for it to blind you. 😊

My guess is that they package the Mak with an erecting diagonal because people also use Maks as spotting scopes to observe nature. To add to what's already been suggested, I recommend looking into other factors that could be impacting the planetary performance of the scope. The diagonal may be the issue, but it's also quite possible that what's getting in the way of satisfying planetary views are seeing (i.e.,, atmospheric turbulence) and/or thermal acclimation of the telescope. Seeing is always a factor, and thermal acclimation is an often overlooked consideration. The good news is that we can learn to identify good seeing (and, thus, observe planets under those favorable conditions), and small Maks aren't too tricky to thermally acclimate. (It's also worth noting that small telescopes can provide enjoyable planetary views, but cannot provide as much detail as larger telescopes because resolution is related to aperture... So, experience with various instruments over time helps us learn what we can and can't expect from any given telescope.) My suggestion would be to try a star diagonal that's intended for astronomy (per the suggestions above) but to also take into account the other factors that may be impacting the views (seeing, thermals, collimation, etc.). We're able to get to most our of our equipment when we consider all of these together. And it's great to hear that you've been enjoying your Mak 🙂 They can be great telescopes!