Deadlake

I think this model won the shootout joint with the TSA102 as the best 4" scope every by @Doctor D. Lots of scopes tested. But one of my favourite, although heavy it's amazingly sharp.

I agree the Nexus DSC can be so faint it does not disturb adaptation. I was wondering what screen they were discussing that could be used with computer programs that was also faint, I replayed but what brans was never mentioned. To control an AZ100 with a joystick needs the planetarium software in primary focus on a tablet/phone, and even with red screen it's too bright.

Since EP’s are in the thread here is a full set of HR’s, and they are not going anywhere

Genuine question, what advantage does the Vixen GP have over the AZ100 when used for tracking?

The 250 has built in fans if so recall. Dr D made a cool down device for the Mewlonif memory serves.

Put it’s in a sealed plastic box and leave outside to acclimate. There are other tricks, Dr D has a youtube linked above on what to do…

There is a thread on CN around this, just search for Mewlon 250… Its becoming increasingly hard to source a 250, but very tempting…

I'd rather clean the corrector plate than a mirror in this use case.

Mewlons are not meant to good near the coast due too sea salt carried in shore on the wind. Any photos from Damien of C11/4 vs Mewlon 250? Surprised Takahashi have not shipped one to him...

C9.25 is meant to have better contrast then the C11 as a smaller corrector, but not surprised star test is better for the Mewlon. I use the C11 is low power mode, however where it wins is larger image scale then APO's. I suspect the Mewlon is the same when compared to smaller aperture scopes.

How does the Mewlon compare with a C11 planets. Presume you’ve given your C11 time off from spectro duties to compare? I’d expect the Mewlon to be sharper then the C11 as the mirror has a higher MTF, but how sharp compared to your TSA120?

If your scopes are tail heavy then yes, the Y axis adapter makes a large difference....

For you use case of an NVD and I presume you are using a reducer for the C8 to get a little more speed (F7?) then the Y axis adapter is a must have to balance the scope. If you get this then the altitude adjustor (to make a pair of scopes point to the same position) is not of any use. The YAB is so good I have it on an AZ75 and AZ100. See it in action here, the scope with a NVD attached also has a reducer mounted internally to the FT3545 and is tail heavy.

This SQM meter turned up earlier this week, however as usual no clear skies to make a reading…

Thats fine, however I think over companies offer a minimum value (tolerance), instead of offering an actual value.

Short answer yes. I can tell the difference between 4” scopes with a Vixen with a Strehl of 0.96 and an LZOS of 0.98. With stars more focused (tighter) brighter stars. With the moon more contrast on shadow details. With Jupiter, more detail of festoons and belts within the planet. But generally the presentation of the image is sharper. Also the LZOS Is a faster scope, not exactly sure of this myth of slower scope higher contrast comes from, I suspect all down to the MTF of the scope. It’s really that obvious you do not need to be an experienced observer to see the difference, however making use of it is another question.

I did think that, however one scope has a carbon tube but no quoted Strehl tests and the other has an Aluminium tube but a quoted Strehl. I suspect both scopes are made in the same factory however to slightly different specifications which I understand is quite common to confuse the buyers even more. Quite common with APM EP's (different coatings on lens to meet different price points for different vendors all made in the same factory), or so Marcus L and Rupert S tell me...

There is one other option, again a 125 mm double however this has a minimum Strehl or 0.95 in the green. https://astrograph.net/epages/www_astrograph_net.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/www_astrograph_net/Products/AGTEC125F78 I have no ideal of the Stellamira performance measured empirical in any thread.

I think there is a wish that everything is simple however we know that many things are not. In this case the MTF of the scope and not just the aperture needs to be taken into account. The C11 although good, its mirror cannot really compare with the optics of a top tier APO and if the C11's mirror was manufactured to the same tolerance I'm sure it would be a 12K scope. Having said all of that the C11 is a great light bucket, but to get contrast and detail on objects needs a better mirror....

Ok here is one I cannot explain, and maybe a little of topics. I had a 105 mm and C11 mounted side by side. Observing Orion's Nebulae I can make out more nebulosity using the 105 mm then the C11. A 20 mm XWA in the 105 mm and a 30 mm UFF in the C11. The C11 is wrapped. I was surprised....

Shouldn't this post be moved into EAA section?

@josefk I did discuss having a top mount saddle with Derek however impractical as it would collide with the motors on the top of the AZ100. Either an AZ150 is needed, APM AtlZ heavy mount or you could look at a HAZ71 that will easily take the load.

Interested to hear out you get on with e ink tablet. I was hoping maybe an OLED based tablet would be close to simulating the red led screen of the Nexus….

The joystick removes the need to keep the web front end running to control the AZ100 via a wireless gamepad. The remote however does not have a screen. I would of liked the option to select a target and perform two star alignment via the controller. A bit like the Pegasus controller: At the moment the other option is a Nexus, that has the advantage of less screen light as the red led can be made very faint.

If anyone with an interest in the AZ100 has gone to the Practical Astro Show maybe they could tell us about this upcoming AZ100 remote control. Thanks