globular

Thanks David. It was an 8" Edge HD SCT F/10.5.

I didn't spot it no - but, I'm ashamed to say, I don't really know the Mars features so didn't know it was there to be found. I've consciously avoided learning what should be there in case it influences me - I want to sketch what I see not what I think should be there. I figured I'd gradually learn through my observations. I would say that, on reflection, I think it was impacting on my perception of that area. I sketched an egg shaped brighter area but sometimes it looked much flatter and more horizontal - I think sometimes Olympus Mons integrated in that splodge and other times not. I chose the 'integrated' view for my sketch because it was like that more often. If I'd known it was there I'd have gone with the 'sometimes not' final sketch instead - which would have been more 'correct'; so may be it would be beneficial to learn the features. <shrug>. I got that effect too - as the clouds rolled in to end my session the brightness dimmed and the darker areas were highlighted more. It was a bit like the effect I got with the Baader ND 0.9 half an hour earlier.

An image posted by @astroman001 from about the same time as another comparison. (Hope you don't mind astroman?) Amazing detail on the image. Makes me happy I'm seeing at least some of the details that are there to see.

Tonight I found more detail showing without filters than with - except perhaps a brief period with an ND 0.9. This is in contrast to two nights ago where I found a variety of coloured filters helped highlight different features. It seems there is no 'one rule fits all' in this game.

Thanks @markse68 I too will be sad to see Mars recede - I'm devoting most of my all to brief clear sessions to it while it's so good. Maybe my bortle 4/5 verses your 8/9 makes a difference when it comes to finer detail? Putting them side by side I think we spotted very similar S hemisphere features. Your technique is better than mine though 😛 - although I think we'll both improve with practise.

Lovely sketch Mark. Very much like what I saw too.

A break in the clouds forecast? Only 48 hours since the last one? Too good to miss so I set up, got the scope cooled and waited. I was rewarded with about an hour of good Mars viewing and another go at sketching. I'm loving the extra detail I see when I sketch. It helps me keep my eye at the eyepiece and really study all the areas of the planet - not just the obvious dark bits.

This eyepiece is on the top of my wishlist - which I've promised myself I won't rush to work my way through as I've only recently joined the astronomy world and surely I can't possibly know what I do or don't need yet, right? Your write-up hasn't made it any easier for me to remain patient, hehe.

The jet stream was absent last night, tonight and forecast for the next new days too. It coincided with a short period of no cloud for me last night and I was as excited then as you sound now. No luck with clouds here tonight though, sadly. edit: well you did sound excited until you deleted the post, haha

Sounds like a good night. Have you heard about the supernova in NGC 514, if you like such things?

haha true... I left it as the view I got in the eyepiece... I think we all know which way up it should be 😉

Thanks Mark. In reality the edges were not as sharp as my sketch - that's what I meant about needed to blend. But there was indeed a lot of detail on display and it seemed to take magnification pretty well too. I even had a few minutes with 500x... but it was better at 300x. I have an 8" Edge SCT. I think it was the conditions more than the scope that made the difference. (Although I'm beginning to think (or do I mean hope) that I have one of the rare rather good ones )

I finally got the green light from the clear outside app for some observing after nearly a month of frustration - set the alarm for 2am and had a great session from 3 until 5. There were the odd clouds but the jet stream was absent and the views of Mars were remarkably stable. At first it seemed there were few surface features presenting themselves - other than a dark band through the middle and a much reduced in size south polar cap. But I stuck with it and with the help of different filters to highlight dark and bright areas I gradually build up a good idea of what was presenting itself. I tried a colour sketch this time.. yellow for the bright areas, brown for the dark and orange for the rest. A rather childish looking end result... I need to develop some blending skills in particular I think... but not a bad rendition of what I saw.

Agreed. Amazingly clumsily I transposed 68.5 (the very number I was correcting) as 86.5 in my calculation. lol.

@vlaiv, I think we now know the secondary obstruction is 68.5 not 58. If you rework the cc8 figures you get ~6289.92. Ratio of brightness between 150ED and cc is 1.14 i.e. not noticeably different. Ratio of brightness between cc and c8 is 0.73 i.e. quite a bit dimmer. So if the mirror is stopped to 7.3” then it looks like the reviewers conclusion on brightness would be about right?

Thanks Stu. I was hoping someone would step in and educate me on this - I've learnt a fair bit on SCTs but not the other designs.

Do you know the back focus to focal length ratio for your scope? If it's large then the extra optical length of the 2" may make your F/9 something like F/9.9 - which you may or may not like.

2.7 degrees and 3.0 degrees with the other two though John!

I know you'll already know - but the light path of the T2 is 38.5mm + length of your eyepiece holder (40mm may be?) while the 2" is 100mm including clicklock - so your focal length will change a bit. Doubt you'll have focussing issues but if some are currently close to max they may struggle.

John, You weren't the first to post the review - it was mentioned, together with the 7.3" debate, back on page 2. You just reignited it! Personally I think this whole thread, even including this latter technical discussion, highlights the interest and excitement that FLOs new offering is generating. If bits are moved elsewhere please post a link so I can find and follow them.

Vlaiv, if you redo the maths with manufacturers 200mm and 60mm with the claimed 7.34" stepped down and solve for the mirror distance you get 406.9mm. This is pretty close to Johninderby's approx. measurement of 410. So doesn't this uphold, rather than discredit, the reviews stepdown claim? I agree that this would not have shown itself to the reviewer as "a much dimmer image"; your earlier maths showing a 0.2 mag difference seems more likely closer to the truth. I suspect his exaggerated dimmer image claim was either caused by some other phenomenon or, more cynically, by wanting to paint a more negative picture in an otherwise quite positive review. Or perhaps it was the only way he could think of bringing up the stepdown point.

Vlaiv pulled that review apart on this thread on page 2

Hi John, Sorry I can't help with your decision (no personal experience) but I am following with interest as I put one on my wish-list a while back following some research. Have you made a decision? I'd be interested to know which way you go and why. And if you are going for it, have you found one at a good price? Best I can find is £360 (new).

Sounds wonderful 👍

Even with a reducer you’re field of view is still very small when pointing at the moon.