Chandra

History is full of scientists far from the orthodoxy of their time, but the fact that their reputation in the scientific community suffered does not necessarily call into question the rigor of their thinking. Dissidence in a hypocritical world where the flag of freedom of thought is hoisted but is virtually controlled by one way thought, is frowned upon. The truth is that much of the progress in scientific knowledge has come from "bold" who have dared to think beyond the limits that gripped their colleagues in each era. From Aristarchus to Kepler, passing through Copernicus or Galileo, without the challenge they posed to the "status quo" of their time, our conception of the Universe would not be the same. The very same Einstein appealed to the power of the imagination as the engine of scientific progress. What today may seem like nonsense to us, perhaps tomorrow we will find a fit for it in the cosmos. He himself was not imaginative enough at the outset to break with secular thinking about the immutability of the Universe (which is why he established the idea of the cosmological constant), or to accept the seemingly chaotic quantum randomness. There are precisely these fields today, quantum physics and cosmology, that are the most challenging and risky in terms of scientific rectitude. Science, without imagination or intuition, circumscribed only and exclusively to phenomenological observation, would need a million years for each small advance. Creativity is not only an artistic virtue, it is also a scientific one. By the way, next month will be the 21st anniversary of the death of another illustrious outsider of science, our friend Fred Hoyle.

Light object out of focus. Pay attention to @Craney and consult Stellarium before taking pictures, it's the best way to know what you're shooting at...

I have serious doubts that it is Jupiter. The supposed intuited bands appear to be vertical, if the photo is not rotated the bands should appear horizontal. There is no trace of minimally diffused light from any of the Galileans... I don't know, it's weird, our partner gives such ambiguous information and the resolution quality is so poor that it could be anything.

If we except Venus, which rises above the horizon shortly before the Sun...

@Louis D With that configuration you could take astrophotos even in the middle of a hurricane! 🤯

You're right @Louis D, I expressed myself wrong, obviously there are mounts that support scopes like that refractor, and even heavier and longer, but it's what you say, the stuffing costs much more than the chicken as we say around here. I was referring to the budget that our colleague has, according to himself, about €1,500. In my opinion, an AR150 needs at least a strong and stable mount type EQ6, CGEM or similar, with loose load capacity for that tube and all the possible accessories that he can put on it, and 2" steel tripod legs. The declared load capacity of the mount of the advertising photo (an EXOS-2) is 13 kg, it does not specify if for visual or astrophoto, but, whatever it is, I think it is very tight for the AR150... Experience tells me that the load capacities that the manufacturers or distribuitors declare are too "optimistic", but hey, that's a personal opinion... Planetary and in many cases lunar observation are generally done at high magnifications, so stability is even more a priority. Mounts that I have refered about (all of them computerized) already "eat" at least more than 90% of his budget. Of course, the ones you show in your photos go much further, but they are configurations designed for imaging, which need a plus stability. He should probably install an extender column, due to the length of the tube, otherwise it will "suffer" in the observation near the zenith, that will be about €100 more... So, exceded budget. Anyway, I repeat, Bresser's publicity photo shows the OTA on an EXOS-2 computerized at a reasonable price around our companion's budget, but in my opinion this configuration does not guarantee quality observation at high magnification, I say for visual, of course it is completely unsuitable for astrophoto. Maybe he could look in the second-hand market for more solid mounts at a more reasonable price, yes.

A fruitful date with the Moon... The images have great merit considering their low altitude... The views of the ED and APO refractors on the Moon are second to none, a delight, which they perhaps lose in resolution and detail due to the smaller aberture, they gain in contrast and sharpness... Congratulations @Víctor Boesen!

Excellent! The Moon is always grateful, a magnificent test bench...

Simply amazing shots! Excellent quality of details!

I think it's a great shot! I guess that if you reduce the exposure it will improve the contrast and stabilize the image. You have to keep testing, but considering the resources, it's very good. Congratulations!

I am a lover of refractor sights and have been weighing the pros and cons of this scope for some time, which is a wet dream for refractor lovers. In my case, I would value it more for deep sky because of its brightness and contrast, 6" net aperture, without obstructions. I think that in lunar and planetary observation a Mak or an ED will give you better satisfaction. I am, like many, the owner of a SW 100ED and I assure you that the sharpness and contrast of the details of this scope will hardly be equaled in the Bresser 6" despite its 2" larger aperture, simply because you have to consider that CA not only adds color halos in the discs but it blurs the outlines of the details, with the loss of sharpness and contrast that this entails, and that is something that filters do not fix. And the quality of the views you get with a 100ED of the Moon at more than 200x (no problem) would astound you. I admit an AR150 is a sweet treat, but I certainly think it's a very heavy, high-torque beast that's hard to control with any mount on the market today.

A Maxvision Mak 150 is on my mind to complement my SW100ED, but the lack of verified information and references holds me back, since although the offer is good, the investment is great. In addition, what Louis D comments is also to be taken into account...

One of the advantages of the larger aberture is that there are more mask options. In the case of the TS125 it can become 115 or 100, as it suits us... Perhaps in planetary observation it is appropriate to convert it to a 100 and take advantage of the observation at high power colour free (we would be at F/9.7), while for DSO we remove the mask and enjoy its greater luminosity. Even accepting that it is more than very risky to affirm that the chromatic correction of the doublet is somewhat better than that of the triplet, in my opinion it is a little more versatile than its companion triplet.

The three tubes proposed are of high quality, although the Tak always play in 'another league', but an aperture of 6" will always exceed one of 4", even in more light captured and in a somewhat higher theoretical resolution, as michael.h.f.wilkinson said

I agree, both should have excellent color correction, but we often take for granted that triplets always guarantee better corrections than doublets, and from what I have read from experienced observers this is not always the case. Entering the old debate about low dispersion lenses is not the case, but an FPL-53 offers considerably less dispersion than an FPL-51, but it is true that the "apo" quality is usually given to triplets, not doublets. For my affirmation I am based on data published in another forum, where the color lines of the TS115 and the TS125 were compared. The comparison is not entirely accurate because the same lengths are not being measured, nor at the same pupillary point, but by extrapolation it might appear that the correction for the doublet is somewhat better than that for the triplet. But I could be wrong.

I have no real experience with any of the three apochromatics. At first glance these are three very similar instruments, medium focal length and multipurpose (visual/images), but judging by the cost and the proven optical quality of the brand, the first of them (the Taka), an F/8 doublet with a fluorite lens, should be the best for image quality. At less than half its cost, the two TS are located. The TS 115 is an F/7 triplet with Ohara's FPL-51 and lanthanum crystal in two of its three elements (the composition of the third glass is not specified). The TS 125 at F/7.8 is a doublet with FPL-53 and lanthanum. Both have a good 2.5" R&P focuser with 360º of rotation. In this sense, the Takahashi's 2" R&P focuser is simpler, I'd say it doesn't rotate and is not double speed. The high cost of the FC100DZ (about 3,200 euros) can put many observers off. TS alternative is not bad, as their products have a good build. In this case, I would lean towards the F/7.8 doublet, due to its larger aperture and, I presume, due to its better chromatic correction. https://takahashi-europe.com/catalog/refractors/doublets/fc-100dz/fc-100dz // http://www.mystarrynights.at/tst/TS 125-975 APO/

The clouds are also leaving... and then it is time! Good luck and clear skies.

I imagine that by now your wife has been enjoying her gift for years. I do not finally know which tube was chosen. A 6" reflector tube is the decent minimum to get started seriously in astronomical observation. Personally, I would lean towards the long tube of Bresser, which is talked about well in forums like CN or reviews like this: https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/reviews/telescopes/bresser-messier-n150/. On the other hand, an F/8 is much less sensitive to decollimation than an F/5, and with its long focal length of 1200mm it allows the use of medium-quality and not so short focal lengths eyepieces without losing image quality. It is true that if its use is going to be mainly for the AP, the long tube is not indicated, since the maximum FOV will always be smaller, and the images will require more exposure. However, if the main use is visual, not only in refractors but also in reflectors, a longer focal length will always give better image quality, which in my opinion more than compensates (especially in planetary observation) what can get lost in field width.

Something tells me that the skies of Sardegna must be wonderful... Enjoy them and welcome to SGL!

Convinced that "up there" you will discover wonders as amazing as those that are under the sea surface... Otherwise, I find it difficult to combine at the same time these two hobbies 😉 ... Welcome!

Welcome!, from a "veteran beginner", re-engaged in this world decades later... Step by step, take it easy and carry on. You will find here very good references and advices, a very good place to learn.

Thank you very much for your replies, I will consider your advice, I am still in the process of setting decisions about my configuration best suited to my purposes and possibilities...

I am considering getting one of these mounts... How about the vibrations for visual in moderate and high magnification with a 7.9 kg Bresser AR 127l / 1200. Has anyone experience with this configuration or similar? Provide stability enough with a steeled tripod 1.75" despite considerable focal length?