Fedele

So remain on the doublet. i go for the huge diameter or to te best quality

hi have any of you ever compared them directly? What are the differences in the purely visual planetary use? which guarantees the "wau" or "Ok" effect? the quality of the little one? the diameter of the large? thank you

Jupiter on Skywatcher 120ED, ASI224, UV&IR CUT Forcing a little more the processing (what i don t like to do)..... new particoulars and the disk of the moon transiting

.

really? thanks

120ED is good but not like i want. I have understand this: reflector to be really usefull for DSO but also resolution for imaging , must be more than 25 cm. Visual DSO serius start from there. what a around 20 cm mirros can do, is best made and more often best, from a Lens from 120/150 mm (for like i want to see). 120Ed is good but not like i want. So this is my actual dilemma..... - Protability and quality and Bino with FC100DZ? 3200 euro - more power (?) and resolution (?) with TSA120? 5000 euro - huge power and diameter and quality (???) with APM 140 SD? 3000 euro

Practically i use Mewlon quite only for imaging planets. I prefer to look at the sky through the lenses

On the same morning ( today - 05.06.21), I alternatively used the Skywatcher 120ED (kicked out 10 minutes earlier), the Mewlon 180c (stayed out all night) initially with UV&IR Cut filter, then, with the progress of dawn and early morning light, with Astronomik IR PASS 742 (used only with mewlon). The analysis of the frames carried out by Astrosurface is illustrated. What emerges is what is also found visually. The 120ED offered very still images compared to the Mewlon with Barlow TV2x. obviously the smaller diameter is less affected by the effects of air turbulence. The Mewlon in moments of calm returns an APO level image with a diameter greater than the first obviously, but the images of the refractor are usable all the time. The video analysis graph reveals a very high percentage (well over 50% and we can say almost up to 80% and more) of excellent, good or sufficiently good frames). In the mirror telescope the percentage is considerably reduced, settling on average much below 50%. Wanting to limit ourselves to only really good frames, we should stay on percentages below 10% (my initial imaging experience is leading me to always prefer the fewest possible number of excellent frames to be included in the cauldron of Staking algorithms). This percentage increases with the use of selective filters capable of limiting the effects of seeing, since they select certain bands of the spectrum. Here the percentages up to a more than sufficient level of sharpness are selected with the horizontal slide only

4.56.tif 4.52.tif 4.45.tif ore 4.42.tif ore 4.42.tif

ASI224, UV&IR Cut filter, Televue Barlow 2x we can see also the transit of a moon on the disk

some images of the these first days of the month Mewlon 180c, ASI224 @ f12, Asistudio, astrosurface

01.06.2021 - Matera Mewlon 180c, Baader ASTF180 3.8, Tecnosky UV&IR Cut Asistudio, Astrosurface

03.06.2021 Venere Tra incerta messa a fuoco molto difficile. Mewlon 180c, ASI224, Filtro IR PAss 742

The TS 80 has more backfocus

Yes i have the Mewlon and a 120ED SW (first serie). Its contrast make good also the M42 view. Contrast and high precision of optics play an important rule. i m buying: - a Mak 127 for Moon e planet imaging in holidays (no...the baby Mu can't) - TS refractor Ed FPL3 80 F7 to use it with Daystar Combi Cromo for full disk. I think this will be the grab and go rich field telescopoe. i don t know how indicate is for this work the 80 mm. Other question.... it can rwch focus with a Maxbright II? - i thinking to the Acro 120/600 or best the 150/750 acro, for reach fields primarly, moon at low x, sun. What is the more light 150/750 do you know? for Bino i will cut the tube!! Alternative to all this: FC100 DZ it is hard and i m evaluate if FC100DZ can really do all this.

woth the 80 f7 you can reach focus with a Bino? i have the Maxbright II

Sorry for english Later i will edit

let's see if you share my thoughts. On the one hand I have the choice of the APM 140 SD f7. A lot of diameter but a lot of space. Taking it I would see much more on the deepsky, much more on the moon, I would have a lot of resolution also on the sun and I don't know what visual rendering on the planets (on this I ask you). On the other hand, I would have a perspective to use only at home, which I could not carry around (even if I am sedentary, I only move from home in the summer when I reach my place of holidays by the sea). Notwithstanding that I have to equip myself with a 25/28 cm mirror for planetary imaging with webcam (c9, C11, etc), a 140 and the APM 140, I don't think it could ever excel with a C11 on the DSO view. Another hypothesis is that I also equip myself with a large diameter Dobsonian for the DSO soplo. At this point I see the APM 140 option as the prevailing telescope in the balance. the alternative would be a FC100DZ. This telescope would be light, portable, I would use it a lot more, etc ... Of course there is no comparison between the two diameters, but I think that for large star fields at medium magnification or on deepsky objects, I could use a cheaper achromatic refractor: 150/1200 or better still a 150/750. I would thus have the excellent small telescope of excellent quality and transportable which would allow me to save on the purchase of other small telescopes to transport, and in that case I would have the large diameter refractor for starfields and wide DSOs (even on the sun). this option would allow me to invest in other materials as well. I'm uncertain. Better to focus on the large diameter and APM quality factotum or the second option? thank you

Hi Has anyone of you ever had the experience of switching from an APM 140 SD f7 (or similar) to an FC100DZ (or FS102 and similar)? Can it be considered a complete defeat or a gain in "health"?

With 1986 class Konus Perseo and a 120ED SW

27.05.2021 Mewlon 180c, ASI224 f12 Baader ASTF180 3.8 & different filters: Asistudio, AStroSurface, ImPPG

27.05.2021 Mewlon 180c, ASI224 f12 Baader ASTF180 3.8, baader Calcium K Line Asistudio, ImPPG, AStroSurface. what is in the boudary of disk?? (zoom)

hi what do you think about the TS PHOTOLINE APO 130/915MM F/7 - FPL-53? with its price less than 2000 euro, i have other best alternatives in this badget ed in the 130/140 mm range? i must be used also with MAxbright II with no OCS thanks

I finally replaced the OD 3.8 Artisan filter with a Baader ASTF 180 OD 3.8 filter, in combination with the baader K-Line calcium filter The filter arrived well packaged and tightly pulled, without major creases. Finally I was able to verify how having an astrosolar filter that is too pleated has its effects in contrast. I had read that it was irrelevant. It's not true. the filter makes everything more comfortable and practical. The idea of sticking adhesive felt on the shiny mewlon tube just annoys me. I noticed a good improvement over the handcrafted filter, which still had the advantage of keeping more shadow ion