Franklin

Lol. I got that tip off you John. I was surprised at just how much more detail was visible!

Run Stellarium, plug in your location then fast forward the clock till your object transits, then pause it. Not an online calculator but will do the job.

Also, even though the gas giants are pretty low at the moment, in moments of good seeing by far the most detailed views I have had are at twilight. As soon as the sky begins to darken the glare washes out finer detail. Try locating them not long after sunset, if you find them you will be surprised.

I'll second the Neodymium. Good all round contrast enhancer. An #80A blue can help with the glare too.

The filters I have are all 2" ones, I used to have some of the smaller 1.25" type but they are so fiddly to remove in the dark and also having to change them more often when swapping eyepieces. The ones I have are Baader Neodymium, ES ND 0,9, Castel UHC and a WO VR-1 minus violet (scope is a 127mm f9.4 achro). Stacking is primarily with the VR-1 on brighter solar system objects. (Neodymuim & Minus Violet) Just wondered if there's any advantage/disadvantage to the placement of filters further away from the eyepiece and in what order? I can put filters in the nose of the diagonal (2" Burgess CED-1) and/or in the 2"-1.25" adaptor. Also when just using one filter, is it beneficial to place it closer or further from the eyepiece? Thanks.

Still thinking about this. Can't say I know much about optical theory but a 2" filter placed ahead of the diagonal will intercept the light path at a wider part of the optical plane so the light that is being filtered will pass through a greater area of the filter. As opposed to a 1.25" filter threaded into the eyepiece where the light cone is just about to reach focus and subsequently much smaller and more concentrated. From this it seems pointless to place a 2" filter just before a 1.25" eyepiece as I will only be utilizing the middle part of the filter. Does this make sense or have I lost my marbles?

It's true what people say about the HEQ5 being an absolute must for imaging and they are more than likely correct. Better bearings, better gears and higher precision overall. That's why they cost more. However, I have seen many excellent images posted around the web that have been captured using modest equipment such as the EQ3/2 and EQ5 setups. I read that a useful formula for mount weight capacity regarding imaging is to look at the mounts carrying capacity and then use 50% of that. So a mount claiming to carry 10kg for visual should only be used for imaging if your imaging rig weighs no more than 5kg.

Hi Rob, yes I think I am at the limit. My scope with all the kit on weighs in at 7.5kg which is bang on limit for the GP2 spec, although the EQ5/CG5/Mons2 which are all clones of the Vixen are given specs much higher than this. The CG5 tripod/mount was originally supplied by Celestron with 10kg worth of weights and a 6" frac on board. That seems a tad over the top. A 4" frac would be an ideal weight/size for my set up, although I used to have a SW120mm f8.3 that weighed around 5.5kg and it handled that well. With the 127mm @7.5kg I tend not to extend the tripod at all, hence the pillar, it seems very stable. The small vibrations I do get are probably due to the boom arm effect of the long 1200mm tube, but for visual at sensible mags, it is usable.

Yes, my setup looks exactly like your pic. No, I wasn't buttering you up, Led Zep are God! If you can find the file that would be great, I will pm you my address and pay you postage and a pint! Sound!

That's exactly what I'm on about. Can you 3D print one for me, I'll pay you. ps. Led Zep are God.

The tripod with the 2" tube legs is very solid and the whole setup is very heavy which is good. It probably weighs about 20-25kg all in. That is manageable for me.

Thanks John. Yes as long as the tripod bolt is tightened right up it appears to be stable. I'm probably just being over fussy! But I just wondered that as my tripod is older, it's from an old CG5 mount, the azimuth pin might be a different/smaller size than what should just plug into the base of the extension.

I have a question to ask all those who use the 16" extension pillar. Firstly my setup is for visual only, my scope is a 5" achromatic with a focal length of 1200mm, hence the extension. My mount is a Vixen GP2 which attaches to the top of the pillar via an adaptor with a ball bearing on the fixing screw, to enable azimuth movement of the mount head for polar alignment. The head and adaptor are then fixed to the top of the pillar via 3 bolts. Everything is fine with that. Its the fixing of the lower end of the pillar onto the tripod base that concerns me. I have the 2" steel tubed field tripod which has an azimuth pin bolted to the top plate. The lower end adaptor supplied with the extension has a square hole cut out of it to fit over the azimuth pin when bolting the whole thing together. This hole is a good deal larger than the azimuth pin so there is potential for movement. Is there anything available from the manufactures such as some kind of metal sleeve adaptor that would slip over the azimuth pin and fill out the gap thus preventing any movement or a replacement azimuth pin that is larger or will I have to just make something myself? Has anyone else had problems with this and if so how did you sort it? Thanks.

I'm new to "nebula filters". Just got a UHC, not much use yet, but I did have a quick look at the Ring and Dumbbell planetary nebulae with it and there was noticeable improvement. The background sky was darkened making the objects appear more defined. From what I've been reading an OIII would work even better. On my xmas list.

Got to get one of them. Lol.

Hi Louis, yes that is what I thought and I think it was probably Vixen who started that trend. I think finder shoe on the focuser at 11 o'clock is ok on small scopes with lightweight finders but I think as soon as you get a larger finder the 11 o'clock position tends to put the scope out of balance, especially when pointed near the zenith. I've never used them personally. Have always fixed a new bracket on the tube at 12 o'clock in parallel with the dec axis to keep the balance.

Got the 2"Castell UHC and am very happy with it. Just need to get a Cloud dispersion filter next!

I would like to know who is responsible for the design of the quick release dovetail finder shoe? Why didn't they design it so that the finder bracket slides in from the top instead of the bottom. So if the thumb screw does become loose your finder doesn't slide out and fall to it's impending doom. This is exactly what happened to me and it was a nearly new RACI Skywatcher 9x50 @ £70 ouch! Still working though thanks to some good old superglue but not a happy camper. Could always convert to a guide scope I suppose.

Lol. Yes that is correct. Derr!

Hi there, Astroboot.com has a large selection of slo-mo cables at the moment at very reasonable prices.

Hi Tippon, yeah I got one that would fit, its off a vixen GP2 mount and is longer than the one in the picture. This ones 260mm long. I have no use for it so if you want it I could send it to you for the cost of small parcel postage. (£3.10) Don't know how to go about that on the forum? I guess you would have to PM me your address etc.

Baader Contrast Booster or William Optics VR-1 minus violet filters help with CA in achro's. Cheaper option is a #8 light yellow wratten filter. Helps in my 127mmf9.4 frac.

Any advice on filter stacking? Are there any rules on the best position and order in the light path. Most filters are threaded on both sides for stacking but what about either side of a diagonal? Any benefits doing that? Cut down internal reflections etc. Been experimenting and can't say I see much difference but I have read reference to this on CN. Thanks.

I've got numerous spare slo mo controls. Post a pic of yours and if I got one that will fit its yours for postage.

Hi GKA, those images are brilliant considering the equipment used. The tracking is excellent for an EQ5 setup. Once you get your knew ED glass up and running you'll be amazed at what you can capture. Nice one!