Deadlake

1 minute ago, Kon said:

I have the Astro Essentials Variable Polarising Moon Filter and it does a pretty good job on the moon. I like the fact i can change the amount of light passing.

I have those too, in fact compared with other filters relatively inexpensive. Not had any others to compare with.

yes, the Baader are on the list.

22 minutes ago, jetstream said:

I use dimming either through a larger f ratio (reduced exit pupil at a mag seeing will support) or better yet my f7.5 frac with a binoviewer. Low power, small aperture and or a small exit pupil. Works for me.

I modify the amount o polarisation of the filter. Allows details to pop out, rather than hidden under glare.

A binoviewer is on my list, not cheap going on these forums...

3 minutes ago, jetstream said:

The Baader single polarizer is the only one that does much (for me).

BUT...😀

I do have a technique. Interested?

ok, you've got me. 

1 minute ago, jetstream said:

@Deadlake BUT... 😀

A mandatory, must have planetary lunar filter is the Baader single polarizer...forget the rest. My best seeing is right at dusk and some of my very best views of Jupiter and the moon has been with this filter. I do get better views in darkness at times but this filter opens up many opportunities.

Forget the rest...IMHO Including the Baader NEO.

Interesting for the moon I have a polarising one, change the amount by rotating it. I'll look at the Baader ones.

Any filter suggestions for Jupiter?

For cooling it's the air in the gaps between the lens which acts an insulator, hence air space triplet will take longer than an oil spaced cell to accumulate.

AP state for oil triplets don't go below -25 oC as this can cause issues. @jetstream knows more on this subject. 

LZOS (and I think Tak, Stellarvue in newest models) use steel based cells as it has better thermal properties for a lens cell, you don't want the cell to pinch the lens.

Oil based triplets will cool faster then air based ones, but you need to be careful in the temperature range.

@Tyson M mentioned a good plan is to store the APO in a case when bringing them in so they have time to accumulate to indoors, instead of a temperature shock.

 

Looking up, according to Starman:
 

The TeleVue BandMate II filters are current since 2018.  Their older Band Mate filters were wider in bandwidth and discontinued several years ago.

TeleVue BandMate II filters are made by Astronomik, but, as you note, the TV Nebustar (their UHC filter) passes no red, while the Astronomik does have an output in the red at the H-α wavelength.

The DGM NPB (their UHC filter) passes a very broad swath of wavelengths in the red, so stars appear red.  

@jetstream is it worth paying the extra for no red with Televue?

2 minutes ago, garryblueboy said:

 

The TMB 130ss lens was a Japan lens then moved and made in Taiwan Thomas said this before he died but wouldn’t say who made it due to the competition in the market place 

I’m going on what a dealer told me, however working out fact on the internet is always hard....

I've ordered one of these:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/filter-wheels/manual-5-position-filter-wheel.html

I'll also get a 2" version as well.

My thoughts are the 1.25" filters will be for planets, whereas 2" will be for nebulae etc. I did look at the Baader UFC (slides) as well but add £36 per filter, plus the slide holder of £45. When a 5 filter wheel is around £60-70. Only issue might be back focus, will see where I get to with the 1.25" wheel first and report back.

I really will not mix planet/DSO viewing and the cost of slide outs (possible dew issues) is a lot more.

OIII looks interesting, looking at prices as a lot of products are creeping up in price.

21 minutes ago, johninderby said:

Maytag used to be the very best available. My mum had one for 25 years with not a single fault or repair needed. Unfortunately that brand isn’t what it used to be. 

Great handles??? 😀

PS: I'm wondering if @JeremyS is going to beat me to this punchline...

6 minutes ago, jetstream said:

This can be a problem too IMHO- off topic but we bought an expensive Maytag washing machine years ago because of their reputation-it lasted a year before the pump seal etc went. no problem right?!! Huge warranty for a long time. The repair man told me it would be $600.00 out of my pocket.I called Maytag and yes it had a great warranty! But! I was told to read the fine print...the pump seal etc was excluded. The repair man told me it was a common failure.

We now own Bosch- 6 yrs old and going strong.

Yeah, these days using price as a consideration of quality needs to be closely examined.IMHO.

I have Bosch too, very good. Only issue is the brushes going and not having time to replace them or get someone in due to the pandemic. I should of specified telescopes being built in the same factory in this case.

Presume Maytag and Bosch are not, but a lot of telescopes are.

7 minutes ago, John said:

And feedback from owners / users on forums ?

Sometimes you need to "read between the lines" but I've found that you can build up a reasonable picture if you read (critically) feedback.

 

 

 

Yes, skywatcher 120ED for instance. Lots of praise and good test results.

8 minutes ago, jetstream said:

APMs reputation might also have been used as a selling feature for their doublet ED scopes... if some of the discussions on these particular scopes were true then APM's reputation might not have been enhanced.

I suspect APM's reputation from LZOS has been used here, but in someway I'm not sure APM FPL51/53 scopes are any better then Skywatcher etc, given the price and manufacture.

As an aside for instance most diagonals are made by United Optics or GSO (Baader being the exception). However all the diagonals have different specs, from the same production line if you test them you will see different quality.

At the end just left with price to tell us if any good all other things being equal. 

33 minutes ago, jetstream said:

It is best to be educated when buying optics, very good info Deadlake-I didn't know this. Btw I personally dislike "clones" ....not saying the SS is, but I think you know what I mean.

It was designed by Thomas Black, I would not call it a clone.

For telescopes I cannot think of any cloning, with the exception of Sharp Star copying Tak in the astrograph mirrored market.

However most of the cloning is the copying of Vixen and Tak mounts, thats for sure. You get what you pay for. Skywatcher and Optron are now going off on their own trajectory however...

2 minutes ago, jetstream said:

I really don't know much about these scopes. I like known things.....like when it says LZOS on the cell or that Canon makes Tak lenses (common consensus anyway).

Do you know this for a certainty?

Let's say it came up while discussing buying a LZOS scope and would it also work with NV. I thought Jeff's scope was LZOS when its not.

40 minutes ago, jetstream said:

The reason I mention this is two fold- obviously the current/historical connection between Ludes and LZOS but also that Markus Ludes most likely knows the source of the TMB SS lenses.

Maybe someone interested could contact him and ask?

I'm not a gambler but I'd put a lot of money on that he knows...

TMB 130 F7. This is one of the earliest Chinese made scopes from United Optics that was made for Thomas Back. Unless there are other TMB 130 F7 out there...
Thomas was partners with Markus at APM for the ‘TMB Apo’s using LZOS lenses, but TMB branded Chinese scopes are not related. They were a separate business that started and eventually closed after Thomas died. 

Jeff Morgan has one, he had some great NV pictures. LZOS are better and more expensive, the TMB is better value for sure.

On 08/02/2021 at 09:11, Surfer Chris said:

Thankyou again for your responses over the weekend.

Going to see what eyepieces I can find in stock today. 

Deadlake - just re-reading your comments above regarding maybe requiring a different mount for the 100DC at high powers. I guess this was part of the difficulty I was having between the choice of 76DCU & 100DC originally. I wondered if, in reality I would not be able to take advantage of the 'really high powers' that the 100DC can potentially offer on the lightweight Scopetech mount (I have heard 200x plus is fairly common). And therefore it may have been better to stick to the smaller 76DCU where I might be able to utilise the full possibilities of the scope in my desired mounting arrangement.

Presumably, even if the mount doesn't work well with the super high powers, I guess generally I will see a significant improvement going with the 100DC over the 76DCU for the 'average' powers? I am guessing if I went with the 76DCU I would typically be observing in the range of up to 150x max, and with the 100DC maybe up to 200x max? And for a given magnification (e.g. 100x), I am hoping the 100DC will give a crisper and brighter image with more resolution. So FC100-DC still a better choice even for the lower 'typical' magnifications. I hope that my understanding is correct!!!

On another matter, I was thinking of mounting a Tak Clamp directly onto the Scopetech Zero Mount (apparently you can do this). So I wouldn't have a dovetail bar and keep the weight down a little more. This would mean that I would be using the Takahashi Clamp to de-mount the scope and for adjusting balance etc. Do you think this is a bad idea? Would I be better to get a dovetail bar for balance adjustment? In this case I would then probably get and ADM clamp rather than using a single screw to hold the scope...I don't like the idea of a single screw point holding up such an expensive item.

I wouldn't be put off by this, if you have one scope a 100 mm refractor is the one to have for many reasons. I have a ADM mount and extended vixen dovetail now, I can give it another go when the moon next comes up. Not been using the ScoepTech as much due to having a new SXP2 mount to use.

When I was mentioned high magnification I meant 300-400x, around 200x will be fine.  

5 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

I also use an AZ EQ 6 is AZ mode. I just need 2 alignment stars which can be anywhere in the sky, not necessarily Polaris

SXP2 needs to be aligned near Polaris (which polar align App does) and then two star align is good enough.





 

5 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

Or just use an altaz mount that you don’t need to align with Polaris 😊

Yes, however the star book makes going over the moon vibration free at the EP great, unlike my Scopetech. Also tracking Jupiter, very easy.
 An AZ100 with motors is the answer, however the star book is such a great controller.

On 07/02/2021 at 21:41, Stu said:

I think the app is designed to allow you to accurately polar align, by telling exactly where to position Polaris in the polar scope, not how to find Polaris in the first place. Us visual observers don’t really need to be that accurate so it’s probably not that relevant. However, I don’t see a big deal about using an app to make life a bit easier, you don’t need to keep looking at the phone after it is done so it won’t affect dark adaptation.

You place your phone in the puck, then using daytime align you can move the mount so it's aligned as close to Polaris as possible using a direction indicator in the App. Useful if your neighbours tree is in the way! 

Star hop looks interesting as no interference from metal of mount with phones gyroscopes/compass etc.

I suspect that @JeremySand @mikeDnight can see thru solid matter as so never needed any gadgets to help them... 😄
 

8 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Thing is he needs them to see what he wants to see. A 1.25" OIII will work with the 25mm but with a small TFOV.

Not sure what to say!

It’s an engineering problem....

11 minutes ago, jetstream said:

My 2 truss dobs came with filter slides, that also function as focuser baffles. I leave them in the scopes, 2 each. The fracs have them screwed into the 42mm LVW when needed.Sure be nice to have a wheel system for the fracs.

Filter slides/wheels are almost a must IMHO.

Wheels work with 1.25” filters, unless you go for electric versions. Slides seem a better way to go..

@jetstream do you use a filter wheel, or a holder for the filters. It’s a faff screwing/unscrewing them to the EPs.

11 minutes ago, Peter Drew said:

Despite the mew in Mewlon, it's not a CAT it's a Dall-Kirkham Cassegrain.     😀

Actually meant reflector, but failed at multitasking. C11 would also do...

6 minutes ago, John said:

If I did not already have a TMB/LZOS 130mm I would have been onto that one 😀

I have got away with two 4 inch refractors but I suspect my other half will not see why two 5.1 inchers are "essential"

Don’t you need a 130 mm wide field scope as well? I’m running the argument thru my head I need a CAT (Mewlon) to complement my wide field scopes.....