Tiny Clanger

No idea about the stool, but I really do want one of those tiny 'Rodin's thinker' elephants in the ad. , would be a great pet and able to help with watering the window boxes and washing the car too ...

My post was a mathematical example of how focal ratio and exit pupil are related, no more than that.

The AZ5 has slo mo controls, with those long handles (often referred to as 'cables') which can be used (or not, as you choose) to extend them for easy reaching around the tube of a 'scope. The AZ3 doesn't have slo mo. For a high magnification use (like viewing the Moon or planets at 200x when conditions allow) the slo mo is something I want , to smoothly keep a planet in view with a bit of twiddling. For lower power viewing, DSOs etc, I'm happy to do without slo mo, , and use my heritage dob on its base , or a wide field refractor on a simple alt/az. The bigger aperture 'scope will be better for faint objects, it collects more light. The mount with slo mo will be better for high magnification on closer stuff , most of which will be brighter anyway, so the smaller aperture will be OK ... So no easy answers there I'm afraid ! The tripod under the head may be a factor to take into consideration as well, I've not used any astro specific tripods, so can't give an informed opinion from experience, but I think I've read that the AZ3 comes on a sturdy steel tripod, while the AZ5 may be bundled with a lightweight tripod. Lightweight is not good in this context, you want as hefty and rigid a base as possible to avoid wobbles. Always willing to add to the confusion Heather

Ah, and there's me wondering if I should try to sell you my 6mm BCO 🤣 🙂 * Seriously though , mid range second hand eyepieces come up on here regularly as folk upgrade, BSTs go for around £35, which is not a great amount of money to risk, and not expensive or wildly difficult to post safely either. About half of the eyepieces I own are second hand bargains from SGL members, some are major hits, some are misses, but as long as you stick to quality makes with a good reputation , you can always sell the 'misses' on for someone else to see if they like it. The mak is not picky on eyepieces, so you should have no problem with even wide FOV low mag eps as long as you stick with decent makes. If you don't mind biding your time , second hand from people you trust and know care for their kit is a really good way to build a decent set of eyepieces (and diagonals, and mounts, and filters and .. what else have I bought ? ah yes, finders ... 🙂 ) A lot of personal preference , combination with 'scope factors , and individual's quirks of vision does seem to come into play. I simply don't like using zoom eps, I have tried, and it probably doesn't help that as a long time photographer, I'm prejudiced in favour of the simplicity and lack of optical compromise of single fixed focal length camera lenses. Heather * I'm joking , not a sales pitch , honest. The little 6mm BCO has a place with the plossls in my portable/loanable, reserve set . At the moment ...

It's all to do with exit pupil, f5 scope with 5mm eyepiece, = 1mm exit pupil, probably no danger of floaters spoiling the view. f15 scope, same 5mm ep, exit pupil = 0.33 mm, floaters galore 😞 I start to find floaters unpleasantly intrusive on bright targets at 0.5m exit pupil https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/693848-eye-floaters-and-eyepiece-type/ Heather

I've genuinely seen no ghosting or internal reflections in my 8mm BST, which is my principal ep in the 127 mak for planets and the Moon, or my 12mm BST. I've used it plenty of times for white light solar too, and if any reflections or ghosting were going to show I'd imagine that would be the time. Never owned or used a 5mm BST, though, too small an ext pupil in the mak for me. I've directly compared the 6mm BCO by swapping back & forth against a £30 6mm TMB clone, looking at lunar detail in the mak at 250x , and I prefer the TMB. That's what my eyes tell me, in my set-up. Maybe my BCO is a lemon that slipped through QC unnoticed ,maybe your unsatisfactory BST was ?

The going rate for ST80s second hand on here is around £80, and they last seconds at that price before being snapped up . But this is a gift, and to be honest, something second hand really may not be what the OP wants to to present their partner with ... Nope, my vote is still for a visual only, heritage 130 , brand new, 130mm aperture, no CA , no wobbly mount , wide field so easy to find targets, easily wrapped, big cuboid box to stick under the xmas tree (or beside birthday breakfast table ... ) . The heritage could potentially be removed from the tabletop dob mount, and used on a sturdy photo tripod by using an adaptor, which might make it portable in, say a 45l rucsac I guess , or (I think, but am not 100% sure so do check) there may be a threaded hole in the 130 base, allowing the whole shebang to be put on a tripod . All for under £200

Oh, hang on, I thought that was a sw 102 REFRACTOR ... if it's the 102 mak, it's just 2/3 of what they go for ... If you are thinking of the mak, this page has some useful comparisons, and photos taken through it http://www.waloszek.de/astro_sw_mak102_e.php

£80 for a 102mm ? Have his hand off if he's offering, , that's half what they have been going for recently ! 🙂

I'd agree with the 72 ED as a possible useful later step into photography, but note that it is not only £300 for the 'scope only (no mount or tripod) but doesn't come with a diagonal , or finder, or eyepieces ... probably another £100 ( at least) to add those ...

Wise decision, Heritage 130 then, and (staying within budget) a copy of 'Turn Left at Orion' for about £20 and the universe awaits* 🙂 https://www.firstlightoptics.com/heritage/skywatcher-heritage-130p-flextube.html If you want to read loads of info about what folk have seen with this 'scope, or what modifications and tweaks can be done to it, there's a vast thread about it under the name of one of the US editions of it as the 'OneSky' here https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/463109-onesky-newtonian-astronomers-without-borders/ Quite a lot of information on the slightly bigger 150 heritage (which I own and love ) you can find on here applies just as much to the 130. Heather *clouds permitting

Good info, but (because I have one on my FLO wishlist) I note the BCO's are at the moment a rather less barginaceous £59 ! At £10 more than a BST (which is a far more substantial eyepiece, with more FOV and eye relief and a sensible twist up eyecup) the BCOs seem rather less of a great buy than they used to ! Heather

I agree with David's simultaneous posting and penn'orth 🙂 And I absolutely agree about the last paragraph, use a proper retailer, ask them questions before buying, they know their stuff .And surprisingly perhaps, they are often cheaper than , e .g . , Amazon

Hi Stephen, welcome , and do make a post in the 'welcome' section to make a general hello. As an ex pro photographer myself I understand the way you are thinking, but would you expect to get any sort of decent, fixed focus lens for £100 - £200 ? Let alone a good lens plus the vital decent tripod and head needed to support and smoothly pan something you want to give you a view of maybe 200 x magnification . I'm not trying to put you off, honest, but any telescope and tripod you can get for £200 is just not going to do what you want . I think the closest you could come to an acceptable 'scope at that price would be a heritage 130, https://www.firstlightoptics.com/heritage/skywatcher-heritage-130p-flextube.html which would show you plenty of astronomical wonders but not be rucsac portable or particularly useful for photography (as in you could, but it won't be easy ) If you already own decent tripods , you could mount one of these https://www.firstlightoptics.com/startravel/skywatcher-startravel-80-ota.html to any standard 1/4" tripod head screw using one of these adaptors https://www.firstlightoptics.com/dovetails-saddles-clamps/baader-vixen-style-dovetail-clamp.html which would be relatively portable, and give OK wide field views , but comes with a delightful violet rind of chromatic aberration around bright targets , because it is an achromatic refractor . So, again, not ideal for photography. For further information do a search on here for the term 'st80' (short tube 80mm) in the search box top right. The ST80 is a fun wide field, cheap 'scope , loads of similar ones by various manufacturers, all 80mm aperture , and 400mm focal length (f5 in photographic terms) You can buy them on mounts for around £200, but those mounts are cheap, wobbly, and will not pack down as small as a photo tripod. Maksutovs ( usually abbreviated to maks) are similar to the catadioptric lenses which had a brief popularity in the . what, 1980s? so might seem a viable proposition, but the only one in your budget would be the 102mm (just the 'scope, no mount etc https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/skywatcher-skymax-102-ota.html ) and while it is a dinky little thing, and could fit (with an adaptor) on a DSLR , it has a focal length of 1300mm , and aperture of 102mm, so is f12 . Imagine a camera lens at 1300mm, how hard it would be to keep it still , aim it accurately , find a tiny target in the sky ? For something genuinely portable , with decent quality instruments available well within your price range, I'd suggest some 10/50 binoculars and a monopod / ball or trigger head are the logical choices. Heather

Now you're just adding to their confusion 🙂 ... our American readers spell metre 'meter'

Totally coincidentally, I noticed these on the FLO new arrivals page a week or so ago https://www.firstlightoptics.com/misc/asterion-nt-active-cooler-for-sky-watcher-newtonian-telescopes.html while described as a cooling fan , they might be better thought of as an equalising fan ! Dew point can be a very local thing, just a few paces away can make a difference because of airflow , changes in elevation , vegetation etc , if the setup is not fixed, it might be worth while OP experimenting with different locations. Heather

Yes, at long last we can now buy beer in pints and have road signs in miles .... oh, hang on ...

Very similar thread started yesterday on the subject of planets in a 127 mak : https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/385829-baader-zoom-or-fixed-fl-ep-for-planets/#comment-4165422

Took me a while to track it down but this is an ST80 thread you may find it useful to read :

Some folk seem to quite like the Meade https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/694230-quick-review-of-the-meade-80mm-ota-adventure-scope/ I have an orion st80 and it's great for wide field grab & go, and for taking away from home. Mine is on a fairly lightweight manfrotto travel tripod, but pretty much any £30 plus photo tripod would do nicely,, While the actual telescopes are very similar , a quick search suggests to me that the sw comes on an az3 mount, while the Meade looks to be in an even more cheap and flimsy photo type tripod, which may account for the price difference. Even if you plan to put it on a sturdier mount, I'd go for the Meade , it's cheaper than just the sw OTA ! Heather

My heaviest eyepiece weighs 383g, and the heritage 150 has zero trouble coping with it, it doesn't show any ill effects from having a t mount and 500g ish DSLR on it either (for which to be in focus, the 'scope needs to be retracted maybe 5cm ) The Baader Classic Orthos have a great reputation for sharpness and clarity , but be aware that their field of view is small, which means that, at higher magnifications, you have to 'nudge' the dob as the planet or lunar feature you are studying crosses the field of view and vanishes off the side. FLO say the BCO's FOV is 'about 50 degrees'. Out of curiosity I bought a second hand 6mm to see what it was like, and have tried it several times, but can't say I'm hugely impressed with the view, those who like the BCO's say it's the 10mm which is exceptionally good though. The BCOs are tiny , light, have weird winged eye cups and probably won't be any good for anyone who observes wearing glasses. On the plus side, you can buy a set which includes 3 Baader orthos, a decent 32mm plossl, , and a barlow which has a good reputation, all for £230 https://www.firstlightoptics.com/baader-planetarium/baader-classic-eyepiece-set-with-turret.html which might be a good starting point to discover what focal lengths you use most. It breaks astro buying rule #2 (#1, never buy a 'scope from a catalogue , electrical store or supermarket special , rule #2, avoid eyepiece kits like the plague ) to buy a kit, but if you think the simplicity of the BCOs is for you, the set works out a far better deal than individual eyepieces . If I started over again from no eyepieces at all, and was thinking of just use in the heritage dob, I think I'd go for the 82 degree OVL Nirvanas ( 16mm, 7mm,4mm) for about £80 each , an Explore Scientific 68 deg, 24mm for £150, and maybe for a high mag 5mm, and filling the 7mm to 16mm gap, a few Explore scientific 62 deg, or CelestronX-cel LX's (also 60 deg,) for around £90 a pop. And I wouldn't be without a simple 32mm plossl for lowest reasonable magnification / finding stuff duty . All pretty academic at the moment, everything but the Celestrons and BCOs are out of stock , so there's plenty of time to think about it !

Interestingly, decimation manages to be both at the same time , decimal ( based on 10 ) and imperial (being I believe a way to 'encourage' the legionaries of Imperial Rome ) 🙂

The clothes peg mod.works for me 🙂 To be able to observe for a longer period, I find it far easier to sit down, not only less strain on the back, but also easier to keep my eye in the right place. Final thought ... you are allowing plenty of cool down time for the 127 aren't you ? Mine lives in a room that has no radiator , but even in the summer the mak still needs at least half an hour to cool down and avoid air dancing around in the tube and adding to any turbulence in the atmosphere. Heather

Who use the information given them by the manufacturer. Telescop-Express in Germany use the same , brand provided information: https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/de/info/p7037_Celestron-NexStar-Evolution-6---portable-6--Schmidt-Cassegrain-GoTo-Telescope.html

Nah, average size 🙂