Ags

I clicked the Like button because SGL has not yet implemented a green Envy emoticon 😀

I was viewing the Sun in Ha today through thin cloud - there was gorgeous detail and great contrast during the clear gaps.

I have seen conspiracy theorists posting images of reflections like these and claiming to have captured Nibiru. In certain circles this counts as peer-reviewed research!

Yumbles!

I do want one of those! It's about the only Tak I'm likely to own 😮 The other Tak diagonal I want is the four-part turret, but that's a lot of money and would i really like it?

I didn't have time for proper imaging so I had quick go with my phone and the Google Camera app (which is much better than the Samsung camera app). I am really pleased I captured Jupiter up top, Nibiru jusk peeking out below the Sun (we're all doomed!) and a Class M planet from Star Trek TOS at bottom 🤣 In the real world, I am pleased I did just manage to pick up a couple of spots, two filaments and some proms to the lower right.

I am betting they pointed it at something photogenic and not something tiny and extremely far away. Or it could be a picture of The. First. Star. Ever.

In my case, the dielectric was a poor example, while the Celestron prism performed well. If you read through my thread, you will see many people speak well of the prism. That's not a criticism of the dielectric - I am sure most perform superbly, and I was just unlucky.

Yes, its the same one.

Actually, I have both an RDF and a 6° RACI finder. But I like to leave nothing to chance 🤣

Your argument is based on Euclidean geometry which Flat Earthers have long since disproved.

It is riduculous to think the Flat Earth rotates. It's the sky that rotates around the flat Earth.

Also, I bought one of those 76mm scopes for my grandchildren - and of course had to test it properly before giving it to them... I quite enjoyed using it!

I think that is good advice. Just to add: you only need to use your glasses if they are correcting astigmatism, and even then you might choose to accept a certain degree of astigmatism and do without the glasses. Long and short sight can be compensated for simply by refocusing.

I tried searching for a good Moon book on a popular shopping site, but all I got was a lot of junk about astrology and crystal magic... I am trying to find a book that makes the Moon interesting. I do try to appreciate the Moon, but often feel it's just a lot of rubble... I don't need detailed maps with thousands of crater labels, I want less labels and more information about the objects. Does such a book exist?

I think it is clear out, but there is a major fire at a recycling dump upwind of me and the air outside smells a bit toxic... My phone has been shrieking this evening with the NL civic alert system.

You can have more money than sense or more scopes than sense.... the choice is yours!

I have this mount and it is my main visual mount. It is outside now with a C6 and a (mandatory, in my opinion) counterweight bar. It doesn't have to be anything expensive, a long M12 bolt with a nut to lock it (you can't screw it all the way in or it will lock the Alt axis). I use the cheap Explore Scientific dob counterweights. They're yellow, but they're cheap.

There are a couple of fantastic filaments on the Sun today as well as some prominent prominences. Hoping for clear skies tonight!

Are you using it for Night Vision?

Looks amazing. If only is was half the price!

I agree - the background is neutral and the stars have a wide but natural and balanced distribution of colors.

Well, I have read that the R/C changes the primary-secondary spacing and this increases spherical aberration. It seems there is a lot written about the R/C and what it does or doesn't do - but not a lot of agreement. Without getting too scientific or name-checking any aberration types, I can only say that the views through the R/C are just plain better than without. It helps that the magnification is lower of course, but the R/C seems to give cleaner images at matching levels of magnification*. I like it. @Don Pensack - 1.4° field of view is more than necessary for most DSOs, but it is not just a matter of framing. A wider field helps with me finding the objects, and given that I use a manual and pretty basic AZ mount, a wider field makes life far easier. Also, aesthetically, the field of view and the quality of stars delivered by the C6 + R/C + ES20/68° are very nice - I think the field flattening of the R/C helps with the widefield eyepiece, and if there is any added SA, it's not visible at 50x power. Having said that, I have tried the R/C for planetary viewing (a couple of years ago) and I recall I had enjoyable views... So it seems to work at high powers too. *Regarding matching magnification, I have the perfect R/C tester eyepieces: my Speers WALER 10 mm and 13.4 mm 82° eyepieces. They come with an extension tube that gives 1.6x zoom - which almost perfectly compensates for the 0.63 unzoom of the R/C. 1.6 x 0.63 = 1.008.

I see - that makes sense.

I can't repeat the experiment without the reducer, as the widest I can get with 1.25" at 1500 mm focal length is 1.0°. However, I'm happy with about 50x power and 1.4° field with the reducer and the ES 20/68°. That should work for my style of DSO hunting and the views are aesthetically pleasing.