Ags

The advantage of printing on demand is you minimise upfront costs, and you don't carry inventory. The printing quality is very professional, with plenty of options. I have experience of Lulu and Amazon printing services - Lulu has better print quality and many more print options (why not make a calendar?) but Amazon has the better marketplace of course.

I have noticed that many refractor owners seem to become refractor collectors, having a range of scopes in various focal lengths and ratios. I can't imagine going to those extremes, but whenever I look at my lovely little Zenithstar 66, I think about getting another one. A 100 mm ED doublet would be nice. But then I would need to keep the ZS66 for travel, so maybe an F6 ED80 would maximise aperture while retaining travel capability? But that's a compromise, and astronomy is NOT the art of compromise (you only have to look at the ELT to see that). So assuming I go for 100 mm option, is the Altair Ascent really that good? Price is no way to judge a scope, but it is a lot cheaper than a Tak, and there has to be a reason?

Are you sure 😀 there seems to be one in your photo?

Looking very nice indeed!

Are you using a USB 3.0 port? And do you have enough fast storage space?

After last night's session I was left craving a little aperture so I set up the C6 tonight and repeated a few of the doubles, using a widefield eyepiece giving 75x. Polaris - very easy to resolve this in the C6 compared to the borderline impossible in the ZS66. The C6 is well collimated now and the star shapes are OK (but still a little SCT-messy). Gamma Ari was impressive but I would say no more so than in the ZS66. For brighter doubles, aperture does not have much of an advantage, and the neater stars of the little refractor can win out over the brute force of the C6. Struve 872 was much brighter and enjoyable with the C6; the faint companion was now easy in the larger scope. 26 Aurigae was very difficult last night in the ZS66, but easy in the C6. M36 was a very impressive sight tonight. The mount I am using (AZT6 travel mount) seems to work better with the C6 than the ZS66, which is surprising given how much bigger and more narrowfield the C6 is. The sky background was much lighter tonight, both in the finder scope and in the C6, and this detracted a bit from the view of M36. If course I was using a larger exit pupil tonight (2 mm vs 1 mm last night) so that didn't help, maybe next time out I will try my 13.4 mm widefield eyepiece. EDIT: Went out again for Orion. The nebula was stupendous with mysterious whisps and whorls visible. Strangely the ZS66 showed M43 more clearly last night. Tried to split Rigel without success, perhaps more magnification is needed. Tried Alnitak too, I did not split it (I didn't push the magnification) but it did seem elongaed in the right direction at 75x magnification. Moved on to Lambda Ori (the hunter's head) and was a lovely split with a brilliant primary with a bright little point nearby. Finished with Castor, easy split needs more magnification! Hoping to pick up a zoom in the new year.

@John Just wondering as I don't think I understand your point, wouldn't a UHC filter bring out the lime green in basically anything? I know mine would, thats why I never use it - too many green stars! Specifically for spotting dim stars in the trapezium, will anyone produce a minus-UHC filter? Now THAT would be a specialized filter!

Has anyone mention the ST80 yet? Doesn't matter when it was made, it's still a classic.

I had a leisurely session with several pauses for white clouds to blow over. Between the clouds the sky was Bortle 7-8 tonight, so quite good by my standards. I started with a Gamma Arietis, a lovely pair of fierce white stars, nicely separated by my 66mm scope at 60x magnification. I switched to star clusters starting with M37. The many twinkling stars are a favorite of mine in other scopes, but the 66mm doesn't have enough aperture to show it well. M36 is sparser but with much brighter members, and put on a better show. I briefly changed to a widefield eyepiece for the Pleiades. Back to doubles with Struve 872 near Theta Aurigae. A fairly close, fainter pair - another one for more aperture. I must resist the urge to shop! 11/12 Cam was next - it features on the cover of my book so I was keen to see it, but it was too far away from brighter signposts so it eluded me. 26 Aurigae is quite unbalanced, and I would say the 8.0 magnitude companion was at about the limiting magnitude for me tonight. Thinking about faint companions, i took a brief excursion to Ursa Minor to have another go at Polaris. I think I got it this time, an occasional twinkle at the right position angle. Finished off with Castor, 2.2" separation but clearly split at 60x. Not the best view as it was over houses that were emanating florid thermals. Scope is still out, hoping for a shot at some doubles in Orion later. EDIT: I did manage the Orion nebula and four Trapezium stars, but then got definitively clouded out.

It is an art to satisfy myself that X or Y is a good purchase based on reviews and actual use of the thing when I get it! As long as I can remain persuaded I am happy!

Personally, I think stargazers tend to be highly critical of their telescopes and eyepieces, rather than being easily persuaded of their merits by the price tag or brand name. I don't buy the top end stuff, but by buying the best I can I am really buying peace of mind that I am getting the best view I can.

Which year? 😁

To be clear, I would only use the zoom for high mags only, either barlowed to split doubles in my frac, or at its native focal length in the SCT for planetary.

You should have sold him a Seben Big Boss at a "special price".

I think we can call that a "brag and go" telescope!

Like working in a bookshop and someone comes in asking for 1.5 meters of books with red spines - for their interior decor!

I think I am going to try a Hyperflex 7.2-21.5 zoome next year to see if zooms suit me. If it does, I may or may not upgrade to the Baader. Also looking forward to the first reviews on the APM 75 degree zoom.

I think if something behaves consistently, you can describe it with maths. If it doesn't behave consistently, you can't describe it.

As I suspected, the "Unidentified Fuzzy Object" was (appropriately) the ET Cluster, NGC 457. There are a few clusters around there and with a cloud blowing about wasn't sure at first. But it's two bright eyes are a giveaway. Sketching it was a challenge as I have lost my red light torch. Fortunately the regular torch's batteries are nearly flat! Tried Polaris again with my 66mm scope. No luck even using a barlowed 6.7 mm. The Double Cluster looked mighty fine in my new 9 mm NLV and especially the 12 mm NLV. Fuzzy cloud started encroaching but had time to take in Almach with the NLV 9 mm - very strong color tonight, a clear orange/blue pairing. I think getting the magnification exactly right brings the components close enough together to give a color contrast effect. But I find if I look to long at a double, the color drains away??? There should be clear patches later, so hopefully I can get out to chase down my favorite clusters - M36, M37 and M38 and the doubles around them.

I saw... a UFO (unidentified fuzzy object). I made a sketch of it an am identifying it now.

I can attest to many nights of confusion with a goto pointed nowhere in particular, and me not having a clue if the light pollution was masking the target, or the scope was being pointed in the wrong place. These days I only use my goto for tracking for photography. If you learn a bit of the sky each time you go out, at least you will KNOW where you are pointing and will be able to definitely answer whether the object could be seen or not that night.

A warm jumper and deck chairs in the garden would work better 😀

That picture sums up why we all do astronomy.

Astronomy may be a science, but looking through an eyepiece is an art! To be honest, one would surely expect the XWs to beat the Baader Zoom at every individual focal length. What I take from Bill Paolini's review is not the absolute performance of the Zoom versus the XWs, but that the Zoom apparently provides a pleasant and unobjectionable view, solidly "good enough" for regular use. If I want top drawer performance, I have my collection of SLVs and NLVs, and if I want wide-field I have some perfectly serviceable ultrawides. The zoom would step in when I want the ability to change magnification and exit pupil frequently. The convenience means I am more likely to be using the optimal magnification, which can counterbalance a small lack in pure optical performance.

Thanks for that, it's an interesting read.