Stu

I think you are confusing a synthetically grown crystal with synthetic Fluorite FPL-53 which is a glass not a crystal.

Canon as far as I'm aware. Why the devil icon?

Certainly not the opposite. My understanding is that for doublets, using Fluorite makes a difference to the colour correction and contrast. It is certainly my experience from using my Tak that it performs better than previous scopes I've had so I'm happy with what I've got. For triplets I don't think it makes as much difference. None of this is to say that FPL-53 ED scopes are bad, they are not. The 100ED is still an excellent scope.

Synthetic being the operative word... Fluorite crystal does not scatter any light so a laser does not show when it passes through the Fluorite element. Not the same with FPL53 glass. https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/331900-fpl-53-green-laser-test/

Is that where you 'hope' the target is in view?

Exit pupil is the measure I was referring to. With, say, an f12 Mak, a 32mm Plossl gives a 2.6mm EP and a 40mm gives 3.3mm. The same exit pupil should give the same brightness regardless of the scope, the difference being the magnification achieveable with varying aperture. For example, an 80mm f5 frac and a 300mm f5 Dob will both give 6mm exit pupils with a 30mm eyepiece, resulting in the same image brightness, but the mag with the 80mm will be x13.3 and with the 300mm it will be x50.

No wonder it was late. Even so, how did he get it back so quickly?

I've said previously (hopefully not in this thread! ) that the 40mm probably only makes sense in a Mak or SCT with a 1.25" visual back in order to get maximum exit pupil for narrowband filters.

I reckon the FC-100 (sorry, I'll put 50p in the swear box ) has been a bit of a game changer John. It's such a good visual scope, and relatively affordable, I think it has raised Tak's profile outside imaging quite a lot. Back to Vixen... had two of these, very nice

Some of my Vixen Atlux on its original mount, with SkySensor 2000PC. As already mentioned, a very capable controller even by today's standards.

In some ways surprising, you would perhaps expect the newer design and coatings of the Delite to win out, but the Panoptics are excellent eyepieces....

Eyepieces do make a difference, and cost does not have to be a key decision criteria. I have a mix of BGOs which are relatively inexpensive, a TV Panoptic and 3 to 6 Nag Zoom. The BGOs give as sharp an image as anything out there but with narrow field of view and limited eye relief. As well as the QC, materials and build quality, you pay for the R&D necessary to develop wide and ultra wide afov designs with good eye relief. Other manufacturers copy these designs and so don't incur the same costs. Looking at those review scores, the GSO appears to have some internal reflections which I don't like, and also inconsistencies across the range so you need to chose the right one. I would agree that the TV 11mm is a lovely sharp eyepiece, and looking at the scores you can see they have been designed to be consistent across the range. We have no idea as to the criteria used to make these judgements, which threshold objects were used to see the differences, or how a beginner observer judged contrast and transmission. That said, if I were starting out in the hobby now, I would most likely invest in a 200p dob and BST eyepieces based on the reviews out there. I don't go with recommending buying Televues for beginners as I don't think you necessarily appreciate the differences, nor for use in entry scopes. I do believe they offer optical quality and consistency, plus build quality and QA that are worth paying for, although current prices are extremely high for various reasons, X Rate fluctuations etc. I have used and enjoyed ES 100 degree and 82 degree eyepieces, but would also relish having back the 21mm ethos and 31mm Nag that I used to have, plus my Docter 12.5mm which was right up there with the best I've used. It does make a difference.

I would expect Continuum plus Ha to equal black! Continuum is green, Ha red.

The Televue Plossl benefit is much more likely to be seen in better edge performance at f4, so perhaps not surprising that a Mak or even at f6 the differences are subtle. http://www.televue.com/engine/TV3b_page.asp?id=51&Tab=_back Don't forget the 40mm which has reduced afov at around 43 degree. The 32mm and 40mm eye relief can get too long, particularly if barlowed, which will perhaps be why Mak the Night has the Eyeguard extender fitted to his. These are expensive but very effective at helping eye placement and reducing glare. I have had to use two of them together on a 40mm to get enough extension.

Not offensive at all. My point was just that it is a case of accept or return, rather than expecting the retailer to be able to fix it in some way. If they look at it and send it back to you it will still have fundamentally the same issues, although they may ease the tightness of the alt axis.

Knew I had seen this somewhere: https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p7490_Vimech-EQ6-Wedge-for-fast-and-easy-alignment-and-more-stability-for-your-mount.html

I think that is the point, unless you take action to either change the way you do the adjustment (as suggested by Mr Spock) or change the bolts, even once the retailer has checked it and put new (original) bolts in you will still have to be careful. It is just the nature of the design and many people have been where you are now. The instructions say (I believe) that you should adjust with no load, so if you do otherwise there is potential for them to reject a warranty claim I guess? Skywatcher do a lot of things right and a few things wrong. Without spending money on a different mount such as an AZEQ6 or another manufacturer which has a different mechanism, or a modded alt adjustment for the EQ6, then you are limited to what is on offer.

Yes, that's right. Don't expect the movement to be in your face, unless there is a fairly dramatic event, but it is certainly there to be seen.

Simple answer is yes Paul. The delay makes no difference, it is still real time, just delayed.... a bit like a delayed TV broadcast. Certain features such as flares and lift off proms can move surprisingly quickly, within minutes. More often the features are slower moving but certainly fast enough to detect detail changes.

Paul, everything I have read and experienced says go for the Chromosphere version. The surface detail is better and the proms are still excellent. Regarding scopes, I know that there is a certain school of though that the scope 'doesn't matter as much' as with astro, and regarding CA this is true, but it is my belief that cheaper achro scopes tend to have other criteria which can rob you of detail and contrast, such as spherical abberation. I think it is worth using a better quality scope, an ED doublet for instance in order to get the best out of the Quark. You could stay small with say a little 61mm William Optics, or go a little larger to an 80ED but I do think it would be worth it.

Intriguing enough for a google search! http://www.daystarfilters.com/Quark/CameraQuark.shtml I guess if you have a decent 400mm lens, it's a great option for full disk Ha photography.

Thank you @Rainmaker, very interesting report. I certainly think comfort and reduced visibility of floaters are a key benefit. Presumably even when the TOA's brightness is reduced, the resolution benefits are still there? Some high power comparisons of threshold targets such as lunar and planetary features would be really interesting when you get the chance. Personally I have not found binoviewers beneficial on planets but I would think that you will get some lovely results with yours setups. Perhaps a separate thread would be useful?

Heath Robinson would be proud Ken, bet the views are lovely

Shaun, by lemon, I would mean those that simply have too wide a band pass across the whole field and so don't show nearly as much detail. They still fall within spec, and someone inexperienced with Ha might think it was fine. Quarks are great when they are good and reliable. Mine had a tight bandpass and showed great detail, but when operating at it's tightest i.e. at optimum focal ratio, it did show banding across the image. I was always ok with this because the detail visible was amazing. If they have improved QA then that's great, as you say I've have not heard of any complaints recently either so hopefully things have improved. 6 months for a repair is just a little long though surely?

Yes, that's what I would expect. The Quark needs the full intensity of the sun in the Ha frequency which it then filters down to an even tighter bandwidth. The Baader film reduces the intensity of light across the entire spectrum by 99.99 something percent to make it safe, using this with a Quark means there is simply not enough light for the Ha features to be visible. An ERF is what you need if you are above the 80mm aperture.