Stu

Just seen a very nice ISS pass close by the Jupiter and the Moon. It then disappeared into the Earth’s shadow which was cool.

Seeing is not great here. FS-128 out, and the Moon looks good but could be lovely if it settles down. Hadley Rille visible but seeing makes it harder. Illumination on Clavius is nice, unusual. Rupus Recta nicely illuminated and Rima Birt also visible. Loads more of course.

On Jupiter, there is a very dark grey blue spot under the NEB which I assume is the root of a festoon but not sure. Last night I also saw a dark area behind GRS which was not something I had seen previously. Always something to look out for.

Another image from today.

I watched a very bright prom arcing off the Western limb earlier. It was moving in real time, with little blobs of plasma breaking off then disappearing. Amazing.

Excellent addition to the stable Matthew. It’s the total package, performance and light weight, hard to beat. Airline portable too, so you could take it on your travels 👍👍
 

Oh, and you need to stick a Feathertouch on it too 🤣

4 minutes ago, Saganite said:

Here you go Stu....

Snap! Like it 👍

This is a very shakey video through a rather dirty eyepiece but it gives some sort of impression of the live views.

I don’t think this has been done already, but correct me if I’m wrong.

I told you I was going soft…..

Lovely and warm, though you should have seen Mrs Stu’s face 🤣

Well, they’re not great, but perhaps not so bad. These were taken today through The Beast, the 150mm PST Mod. Dirty eyepieces really show up with Ha observing I find. Conditions were not bad, though the seeing was average at best. These just give an idea of what can be seen, and the image scale; the reality is much better of course, more fine detail for starters. There was so much on show, probably twenty filaments of various sizes and some nice prominences. In particular on the right hand limb (as viewed through the scope) there was a huge filament near a lovely prominence, really nice to see in one field of view. Shown in the first image.

These were taken with an MSM mount attached to one of the 40mm plossls on the binoviewer. The eye relief is huge given the x2 Barlow so it was hard to mount the phone far enough away to take in the whole fov. I got close but not quite there.

30 minutes ago, John said:

The lunar features are so sharp tonight, even at very high magnifications for the aperture 😲

The Hyginus rille actually looks like a series of crater chains and I've been tracing another long chain of craters across the lunar surface - the Catena Abulfeda which terminates right alongside the crater of that name. 

The sky transparency does not seem that good so, unless things improve, it's probably not going to be a good DSO night.

The high resolution targets are excellent though 😁

Grand isn’t it John! I’ve got the 128 out again, Moon and Jupiter looking lovely, GRS was good earlier. Treisnecker Rilles are really well defined tonight, not seen them that good for a while.

Hi Ashley,

It looks on the face of it to be a collimation type error BUT, could be a number of things. First thing, how does the collimation look visually? Does a defocused star in the centre of the field of view have concentric rings or are they offset? Before doing anything else, let us know this as it helps to rule things in or out.

1 hour ago, SwiMatt said:

We need explanations of what seems to be an inner joke. EXPLAIN (with Dalek voice)

Tee hee. Let’s just say Jeremy has some unnatural urges when he sees a lovely apo objective, particularly fluorite 😜.

If you search for ‘Lick’ with @JeremyS as the author you will find the evidence. Here is one from 2020, might have been his first public confession, not sure 🤣.

I believe he has been attending counselling but the urge is still strong in this one!

21 minutes ago, Beardy30 said:

 

??

25 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

 Impressive, Stu? Have you had a chance to compare at 3mm? Eg with your NZ 3-6? I had the impression it might lose a little at that end. But I have been amazed at what Ive experienced so far

I tried it at 5mm vs BGO, XW and Nag Zoom, and at 3mm on the Moon vs Vixen 3.4 HR. Putting it simply, I couldn’t see anywhere it was lacking against the others! The seeing was good, but not quite there to allow really close comparison at highest powers but if anything I may have preferred it to the Nag Zoom, and tied or very close with the others. It’s always hard to know what is a difference and what is just small changes in seeing. Mostly it was the seeing.

58 minutes ago, Beardy30 said:

Does anyone have any experience of suing the Celestron NexYZ 3-AXIS Universal Smartphone Adapter fir quick snaps shots and is it a positive addition you would recommend for visual astronomers who do t want to spend or have the hassle of more serious AP? 
 

I would go for the MoveShootMove Allview rather than the NeXYZ. It is all metal, nice and rigid and has fine adjustments which hold their position. It basically resolves any of the issues with the NeXYZ which has some flex and doesn’t hold its position so well. Buy it direct from MSM; it will take a little longer but cheaper than other sources.

https://www.moveshootmove.com/collections/move-shoot-move-rotator/products/3-axis-smartphone-adapter-for-digiscoping-telescope-spotting-scope-adapters

7 minutes ago, GrumpiusMaximus said:

This thread is making me feel funny on the inside.

You didn’t eat one of the little blighters did you? I know they are small and delicious but…… 😜

Just in to warm up a bit, lovely views of the Moon and Jupiter tonight in the 4”. I’ve been using, dare I say, @Zermelo’s SvBony 3-8mm zoom 😜. What a cracking eyepiece it is! Will post up separately, but suffice to say it held its own against all comers, possibly more than held it’s own! My order is in, so Paul can have his back very soon 😁

1 minute ago, Elp said:

I've always wondered what a Borg 90FL will be like, as it's great aperture and light weight, and uses Canon fluorite glass I think. But the photographic images I've seen show blue or magenta star glow so I don't think it's that well corrected. If it works, this would be my goal scope, but my Z61 does so well at near everything (I've used it visual, AP, planets (small but some detail visible), white light solar, ha solar and it's excelled at everything), I'd be curious how it'd compare to more premium scopes.

The 90FL is f5.6 which is pretty fast. Even with premium optics there is a limit to correction including for field curvature etc. It is a factor for all short focal length doublets.

48 minutes ago, SwiMatt said:

Do you think however that given the same sky conditions a 70-80 apo is a better choice than an ST80 or similar achros, considering the higher price tag?

Absolutely yes! An Apo just opens up a whole new world in crispness, double stars and planetary that the ST80, good though it is at the price just can’t match. I have an ST80 and know the difference, in fact I did a post on what I called a very unfair fight with my Tak FC-76DCU here. Results would be nearly as good with a 72mm fpl-53 apo although the Tak is f7.5 vs f6 for the 72mms normally.

As Badhex says too, build quality, focuser all so much better and that’s also part of what makes these little scopes a joy to own and use.

1 hour ago, SwiMatt said:

I do enjoy hearing about Takahashis and other marvels, but for that kind of scope I would need to renounce other plans I have in life (or get a mortgage), so it's definitely not in the cards as my second telescope. It's up there among the best, and my wallet isn't big enough... nice to dream though

It's amazing to see the love that people have for small refractors. This is going to be a tough choice for sure. All in all, the quality and pleasure of use of small apos make it feel like the way to go.

And please keep discussimg, I just got the popcorn out

Yep, definitely doesn’t need to be a Tak, in fact shouldn’t be a Tak, plenty of these small apos with decent glass will do the trick for way less money.

As I think you’ve realised, the big decision is whether to go 60/70mm or 100. Personally I wouldn’t go as low as 60mm as I think there are real benefits to a little more aperture. 72mm is a bit of a sweet spot, still very portable in a way that even some 80mm aren’t, but very capable. This is the one I had from TS, although if buying from Europe you need to check out duties etc; I believe they ship them with everything paid but do check.

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p8866_TS-Optics-Doublet-SD-Apo-72-mm-f-6---FPL53---Lanthanum-Glass-Objective.html

FLO do an 80mm f6.25 but that is 3kg vs 2.2kg for the TS. I think Altair probably do a similar 72mm spec too.

They do:

https://www.altairastro.com/altair-72-edf-refractor-dual-speed-rp-focuser-optical-test-report-451-p.asp

If going 100mm, I reckon the Starfield is hard to beat. Not had one, but the spec is great and the reviews equally good.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/starfield-telescopes/starfield-102mm-f7-ed-doublet-refractor.html

Hard decision to make! Portability and widefield vs full 4” performance and a bit less portable. You decide! 🤣🤣

50 minutes ago, RobertI said:

Another plus point for the Askar is that it has a detachable section which allows the OTA to be shortened - this should allow you to get some delicious low power views with a binoviewer - if I were in the market for a 4” this would be top of my list I think.

Hadn’t noticed the removable section, great feature and likely makes it airline portable. Weight is relative high still but it’s still doable. Not too many 4” scopes that are 👍

Light the blue touch paper and retire… 🤣

I’m sure this will be a lively debate 😁

I’ve had more apo scopes under 4” than I care to remember, Televue, Tak, Vixen, Stellarvue, TS and William Optics, over ten of the little blighters 😜

For me, there is just something about the aesthetics of the view in a small apo which is very beautiful. Small aperture scopes show larger airy disks than larger apertures, and this makes them easier to see at lower mags and in poorer seeing. Put simply, a star that might look a spikey mess in a large scope may well look like a beautiful bullseye on velvet in a small apo. So that’s the first thing; do aesthetics and pure enjoyment of the view motivate you vs say splitting the tightest double possible?

Second thing is widefield views. With a four or more degree field of view, you get an almost binocular type perspective on objects like the Pleiades, but with none (or far fewer) of the aberrations which come with most binoculars. With a dark sky and an OIII filter you can fit the whole of the Veil of North America into the field of view, two of my favourite targets.

Then there is portability. A 72mm say is a take it anywhere sort of scope and can be used on a light mount and tripod. I use a ScopeTech zero for anything 4” and below, not available any more but the Sightron from FLO is very similar, possibly better, or there are the AZ4 and 5 which are excellent too, and cheaper. I took a 66mm WO to Tanzania where the skies were just amazing. I confess I was slightly too worried about getting eaten to properly concentrate on the scope but it performed more like an 8” than a 2.5” under Bortle 1 skies.

Of course a scope of that size is never going to be a planetary hero, but you can still see interesting views; GRS and shadow transits are visible in a 60mm apo with patience and good conditions. There is however a big difference in size, portability and capability between 70mm and 100mm. A full 4” apo can show you some spectacular planetary and lunar views (as evidenced by John’s recent sketches) but is less likely to be airline portable and requires a bit more thought to travel around with. Many people are surprised at just how capable a 4” apo is.

So a lot depends on what you want to achieve with it. A 4” scope is a great all rounder, and I’ve had better views with mine than with 5” or 5.5” maks. They are also more versatile in being able to offer wider fields of view as well as high power lunar, planetary and doubles capability.

Dropping down to 70 ish mm ups the portability and loses a fair amount of planetary performance, whilst gaining wider fields. So much depends on what you want to do with it.

I currently have Taks in 60 and 76mm and they give lovely results, but in many ways I miss my old TS 72mm. The 76mm Tak is f7.5 and needs to be split in two to pack down properly, whereas the TS I had was f5.9, and already short enough. With fpl-53 glass it was an excellent scope with a fantastic R&P focuser.

A 72mm sat next to the Mak would complement it very nicely, whereas a 100mm may well compete with it more than you expect.

That’s the end of my rambling, hopefully something relevant in there!

38 minutes ago, John said:

I have just reminded myself of one of my new years resolutions - don't get involved in equipment performance discussions 🙄

As long as we find stuff that we are happy with and the clouds clear occasionally to let us use it, that's what really matters 🙂

It's great that we have some clear skies and that observing reports are rolling in 👍

I agree John! All I was trying to do was communicate what I found to be best on the night, not trying to convince anyone else!

Anyway, @Zermelo has kindly lent me a SvBony zoom so if the skies play ball I can throw that into the mix and see if I get the same result as you. 3mm to 8mm is a great range so if it’s as good as reported it will be a definite addition to the eyepiece case.

29 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

But there’s the thing. You can have three people and three different eyepieces. One will say they prefer A over B, the next will say they prefer B over C, and the other will say they prefer C over A and so on. 
You only have to read some eyepiece threads to see all the different preferences. As long as you are happy with what you have 🙂

To me it’s not about preference. I have Nag Zooms, BGOs, XWs, a Leica Zoom and Zeiss Abbé Barlow to play with at these focal lengths and rate them all. I was switching between them last night and the BGO consistently showed me the F star steadily, whereas the others did not. I don’t prefer the BGO over the others, it just showed me the best view of that object last night. Whether other people would have preferred different eyepieces I don’t know, but with those specifics, the 7mm BGO was the best option.

I’m not trying to cause disagreement, but I do push back against being told something along the lines of ‘oh he likes BGOs so of course he thought they gave the best views’. FOR ME, it did, period. If that isn’t what you were saying, my apologies.

19 minutes ago, John said:

I had a nice set of Astro Hutech HD orthos recently - the 7mm, 6mm, 5mm and 4mm. My plan was to have them for the nights of best seeing, toughest targets etc. After I got the Svbony zoom I compared the views carefully a few times on the moon, Saturn and Jupiter and could not see any differences at all. As the zoom was a more comfortable eyepiece all round, and the orthos quite hard work, I let them go to an ortho collector and he is very happy with them 🙂

The sketches that I posted recently were both done using the Svbony zoom. 

I don’t often use the orthos, but am glad I did on this occasion. I’ll certainly try them more for doubles. I doubt there would be any difference for lunar or planetary to the XW or Leica, but in this instance the difference was clear.

Incase I decide to try a SvBony Zoom, where is the best place to source them?

3 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

I suppose it's what you are comfortable with. Most of the top name eyepieces have excellent performance with nothing much between them technically.

It wasn’t a case of comfort Michael; I was comfortable with either the XW or the BGO but the BGO definitely showed the F star noticeably better last night after repeated swaps. I use binoviewers on Jupiter using 25mm Orthos heavily barlowed which works very well indeed. Took me a while to find the best results but I’m settled on those for planetary, lunar and solar observing.

3 hours ago, John said:

I spent a lot of time using the Svbony 8mm-3mm zoom tonight. From time to time I changed to an XW or Ethos or Nagler zoom but the Svbony zoom seemed to be doing as well as anything else this evening 🙂

Praise indeed John, the SvBony certainly seems to be an excellent bit of kit, might have to try one! I was surprised how much difference the Ortho made vs the XW, glad I hung onto them 👍