Deadlake

Will you be keeping your C9.25?

Very nice scope. Interested in how you find aclimination cpmared with the C11 you have. To get APO like views thermal currents need to be minimised, apparently insulation on an SCT does not cut it, so the open tube of the Mewlon is best and no mirror flop. Also how do you find BV usage, focus range makes this a little harder then the C11.

How stable are you finding the carbon tripod?

Here are two scopes side by side on an AZ100 with the altitude adjuster attached right hand side as advised. I would suggest getting the adjuster, both scopes above are using a 10 mm UFF EP, F6 versus F 6.25. After 10 minutes of adjustment both where aligned with each other. Used a target across a green outside during daytime. It would be to much fiddling to do with quite a few scopes so pick your pair…

I bought a baradv a couple of months ago, but only recently have made use of it for planetary usage with either BV or mono viewing. The Barlow is attached ahead of the diagonal with an extender to gain focus. Magnification will be around x3.5 turning a F6 I have into F21 I suspect from initial usage that it makes the 10 mm UFF I have perform very well giving very high contrast on the moon. Saturn is a little too low to draw any conclusions. Would I sell my TOE's or HR's. I need more usage to draw any conclusions, however it does make for a long stack. Using with a APM zoom would be very good for moon viewing and away around this. Also work in progress is use with a BV, however I suspect that will increase contrast as well. For cheaper alternatives the APM Coma Correcting 2.7x Barlow, around £150 new is meant to be good and only beaten by the Baader Zeiss or FCC Barlows. I have the Baradv as it's more accommodating for BV usage.

FPL53 is better, the main difference between brands will be: Lens fabrication Melt variability Usually as far as lens fabrication you get was you pay for, more time to produce a smoother higher Strehl lens. However melt variability means the fabricator tales this into account and adjusts the lens accordingly. I do not know your budget but TS has some Japanese made FPL53 APO’s which are very close or similar to AP/LZOS quality when placed on an optical bench, but better value. Same time I’d expect lens quality to be consistent due to Japanese manufacturers but at present it is an unknown quantity.

Mark you could replace the feather touch with the manufacture's version. I do realise this would be slumming it... 😀 Also my LZOS has some custom OOUK rings made for it, which weight 250 grams, more weight saved. I've used a vixen dove tail to further save weight, so around 1 kg removed in total.

I thought this too, I'd expected it to be around $3000 so around £3000?

Zoom or TOE's for BV usage, maybe you could report back? I'd like a zoom to fill in just the range provided by the APM Zoom, so I'll keep my eye open on reports.

Options with a 130/f6: afocal TV 67 mm afocal TV 67 mm, with Riccardi reducer (0.7) The reducer option does give a brighter image no doubt on that with a reduction of image scale. I've not tried the reducer option in prime only mode, which would give an effective speed of f4.2. Could be interesting. The afocal solution are around f 2 for reference. The other issue with the reducer is the back focus is around 82 mm resulting in a short optical path. The AP tele compressor has a back focus of 150 mm which gives more room in the optical path and maybe the prime mode might work. It should be noted that the TV EP 55 mm has a focal plane of -26 mm from the bottom of the EP, which make using a compressors in afocal mode easier and prime mode impossible in with the Riccardi. Which do I prefer, I like the brighter image with. compressor however image scale is a little off for a lot of the showcase objects, I need to get a C11 or Dob to have enough light bright enough image) and the image scale required.

Prime is with no EP, afocal with an EP. Back to the subject great photos. I know @GavStar tells me the C11 is close to a 16” SkyVision Dob in use. I’ve used Gavins C11 and it is very good. What is the focal ratio of the 15”? In afocal with a compressor the C11 with run at an effective speed of f3. I think it comes down to ease of use, the C11 is a little more portable then the dob and requires less collimation. For me I can reuse a AZ100 for all my scopes and don’t need to get a second set of digital circles. Did you use any filters at all?

Try it out, in stock: https://astrograph.net/epages/www_astrograph_net.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=%2FShops%2Fwww_astrograph_net%2FProducts%2FAPMZOOM&fbclid=IwAR0hCCrGBY73NCUbRwDdkDRjtNc34clbBZx3_PA3cELTfuqzpXgIZnfJbjk

If the bar has a 10 mm thread on it you can attach directly to the pan handle bracket.

Not sure of model, but you can see it used here: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/800124-rowan-az100-motor-drive-system-in-beta-testing/?p=11907147 Might need an ADM saddle as well....

ADM make one that will attach as in your picture to the dovetail.

I'd like the bar to be horizontal with the scope. The pan handle has a 10 mm thread, the trick is the bracket needs deeper to move the bar away from the scope. Just need to find a bar with a 10 mm thread size on the end to it and away you would go. Quite a few balance bars with a 10 mm thread on TS.

It needs a 1 kg weight at the front. However I'd like the weight attached to the AZ100 not the dovetail as setup is easier. Hence the follow up to Stu's solution above. This is a request from some users on CN as well, not just me who wants to repurpose the pan handle.

The saddle will collide with the FT3545 focuser, remember the focuser can be rotated. The scope can go back a couple more cm's using a Losmandy rail, but it's not going to help. Adding a BV or for a rich field scope a APM 20 XWA + a 2" BBHS diagonal all add's up. So no it cannot go back any more, or the saddle moved forward to help. Note with this load: The balance point is here. If the dovetail was moved back it will obstruct the focuser. I have considered swapping the FT3545 for an APM 2.7" focuser, however the issue is that with a BV or 2" diagonal with an APM XWA 20 mm or TV 55 mm Plossl will not find focus....

The issue I would have with the above is the scopes I have are mounted as far back as they can go. More weights needed on the front to balance I actually asked Derek if it was possible for the handle + bracket to be mounted on the front. If the handle was left as a balance style bar then weights could be added on. Having the weights below the scope would also help...

The question is how well do TOE's perform compared with HR's.... I was getting some great views last night using a HR 2.4 and 3.4 mm. By the time I got the TOE 4mm out the moon was behind the house, so no luck there...

Is tracking going to be here for summer I wonder....

The M12 bolt needs to be the right length, no universal standard. The bottom of the half-pillars have some room to tap some holes which if they match with the T-Pod can be connected via M8 bolts. It's quite solid, however I'd like it really solid...

I have the T-Pod 110. I think it's high enough, however for more clearance you could get a Rowan half-pillar that you would also need with the BB as well. I'm hoping that @Dek Rowan Astro will drill out the base of the half-pillar for it to connect to the top plate of the T-Pod directly, this will make for a really solid connection.

Until the APM has been compared with the Leica or Baader, it's whatever. I'll just wait until the review, possible to pick some up second hand as quite a few ordered based on the CN hysteria around the APM zoom. As far as the FOV spec I must admit why it was not part of the spec, surely Markus could send them all back as what's been produced is not as the order...... However the Leica is €755 vs the APM €360.

How many scopes are you planning mount? If it's the same pair then it's just set it up once.