spaceboy

Hope you get it sorted in a timely manner mate. Although do you not have a LS50 ? to keep you entertained while it's away. I have been tempted by getting a quark several times but their reputation put me off as I'm sure it has so many others. It's a shame as good examples offer up some superb images.

Well I never though I'd be swapping my eyepieces around again after a couple case of ES 82° & 100° eyepieces seeing me good for many years but hey, here is my now downsized and even more budget friendly ep set. At least my wide field M31,36,37,38,44,45, double double, veil, Rosette interests are still covered

My 2p on an ED120:- FWIW I love my ED120. And I mean love It is one of those rare things in life that brings me nothing but happiness when I use it. I guess the enjoyment some ED120 owners express over their scope may come across to others as hype but, me personally as to someone who couldn't hope to own an APO any larger or exotic than a Chinese ED refractor, my enthusiasm for the scope could be said to run rather strong. I have to admit I have never really owned an achromatic refractor over f/9.5 so have never really experienced what a slow well corrected achromat has to offer but for the experience I have had the ED120 more than fulfils my requirements from a 4.75" refractor. If the truth be known I'm not even sure I got one of the best of examples but in my eyes the views are just so aesthetically pleasing, clean, naturally coloured, contrasted, steady and sharp. It doesn't show me DSO's what my 200P does but then I don't expect it to and that's why I have both. I do though feel what DSO's can be resolved in the ED120 offered far better detail than they did in my larger EVO150. Maybe this is better coatings or control of SA in the ED but it seemed pointless keeping the EVO150 despite being more than happy with it previously. It would be worth noting though that I have had far more enjoyable and productive nights out with scopes of 80-120mm aperture than I have with scopes of 150-305mm. Smaller scopes may not have the resolution of larger scopes but under my skies here in the UK a smaller scope seems to cut through seeing often showing me more than what a larger scope will at similar magnifications. There are those great nights where a larger scope really takes your breath but they seem ever increasingly few and far between for myself of recent. Other than the expense involved in owning an ED120 (even if purchased used) I struggle to see what other critique anyone could have towards one when compared to scopes of a similar aperture ?? Maybe it is the cost that some cannot over come given a 7" MAK could be bought for less and offer a significant aperture advantage while still offering sharp stars across the entire FOV. You could even cover your wide field DSO requirements with a 10" dob to go with a 7" MAK for what the cost of a new ED120 would put you back. When it's said like this I can see why there are those who would yearn more for their investment. As for yourself Jules I can't help but read doubt in your OP and indeed posts in other threads for that fact. While I am more than happy with my ED120 I would say if you have any doubt it isn't working for you Jules I'd say let it go. I have absolutely no idea what so ever to what you could replace it with, given the amount of scopes that have already seen your chopping block over the years?? I guess this may also be why John considered your wavering in the hobby and not the ED120 itself. I know you said at SGLXII that your very much into drone flying now so maybe this gives you more enjoyment than the frustrations of astronomy due to weather. We can all sympathise with regards that myself included as I'm still trying to figure out what the hell is causing such poor seeing over Brum. I swear it has to be the jet stream permanently camped out over my back garden?? I have money tied up in my astro kit as we all do and it is hard to have it sat there idle but it makes me happy when I do get out. Would I be at a loss for having an EVO120 instead of the ED120? No! Why? Because I would still have my hand in the hobby and that's all that matters. Do what makes you happy Jules.

Blimey John I can now see why you've been through a few mounts with the TMB. I assume they are x2 5.3KG CW's ? Some way down the CW bar as well. I assume they are like the AR127L fraks with a thick wall aluminium tube making them heavier than you'd think ??? Looks a great set up John and like how you went with the black HEQ5 to match the Berlebach. I find it's possible to use high mag ortho with an AZ mount but there are times I can't be with out an EQ mount. The 130mm on sturdy HEQ5 will sure will make splitting those super tight doubles on nights of good seeing a pleasure.

I can't find signatures ?? in fact I can't even find mine. Someone told me I had one but I don't know where it is

Look forward to seeing your images Charl. With the amount of clear days you get you'll be like SGL's version of GONG

Little and large

That's a cracking collection you got there but I can't help but beg the question why ?? For the best part there is only 20 mm aperture difference between most the fraks and the OTA sizes are very similar also

You can do a lot to reinforce those ally tripods. I filled one with concrete mix packing it all in tight with a rod and left in the summer shade to dry out. Makes a world of difference but needless to say it looses all the benefits of light weight aluminum. Because most of the fittings on the ally tripods are plastic your never going to beat replacing it with a stainless or wooden tripod but its worth considering as a cheap fix until you have funds for an upgrade.

Am I glad I went with squishing instead of plucking with my last EP case purchase. Highly recommend it to anyone trying to keep things neat while saving a fortune on buying pick'n'pluck. I went from this a nurture of previously squished foam and a quick flip over and you can't see a single join from where my old collection sat and all the foam is still nice and snug around my eyepieces. Granted I had do a bit of plucking this time on the larger items but I'm definitely a squishier not a stripper in future.

£50k on the scope and how many tens of thousands on a mount. Must be awesome to have money

Welcome to the the ED120 club Jules. I'm sure many of us never thought this day would come but I'm sure all of us are glad it has mate. I hope it lives up to expectations and it gives you many years of celestial memories.

This is a nice set indeed and plenty immersive glass idea for folk who wear glasses I bet.

Sorry Dave my mistake you are correct. For some reason I thought the first Parcorr was a known as a "Televue coma corrector" and not as a parcorr. I believe they also did other versions, one for photographic and a 3" version ??? Parcorr Type 1 version 1, like a traditional CC requiring spacing Type 1 version 2, with turnable top Type 1 version 3, turnable top and second locking screw to eliminate any risk of slop AND finally the Parcorr Type 2 version 1, with tweaks and better optics

I'll be very interested to hear your views on it John. Did you jot down any notes on the 24mm Maxvision when you had one? Again I'd be interested to know how you feel they compare.

At £133 that's a steal then for the Paracorr 1 type 2 although if it is the one from phonefan-uk then it is the parcorr I. As for how the ES82 faired I couldn't tell you as I've so far only had chance to properly try the ES100, which I would say were greatly improved in my f/4.7 scope. That said I do feel the ES100 perform better than the ES82s anyway. The problem you will find is you have no idea what the ideal setting is as your doing it by eye while trying to maintain an even sharp focus at the same time. There are settings lists available for some ES eyepieces on Cloudy nights forum but again my assumption is that again this is through visually comparisons by individuals and not on any "factory recommendation". List or no list the scales on the parcorr are hardly as detailed as the ES HR and there would still be an element of guestimation require to hit the ideal spot between markers. It has been noted on CN that some ES eyepieces will not completely coma correct with in the range of the paracorr but this is debateable as some ES eyepieces are known to have aberrations of their own and it may simply be astigmatism and not coma. The limited experience I have had shows a distinct improvement but it is in no means perfect so do not expect miracles. ES eyepieces are at the end of the day only a mid range eyepiece. Very good eyepieces but not as well corrected as premium brands like TV, pentax and the like.

I have yet had time to properly make notes on setting for my ES eyepieces. What I did do and found to work was to set up the paracorr in the same way as the ES HR CC but obviously using the centre mark on the paracorr as apposed to the 13mm mark on the ES HR CC This allows me to find the correct focus for the paracorr then I simply turn the top to clean up each eyepiece. As long as the focuser draw tube is marked for reference then fine tuning can then be done at the focuser. It is worth noting though that there doesn't always seem to be enough adjustment for all eyepieces. This was more so with my more budget eyepieces so it may just be a case of eyepiece aberrations coming in to play and not the room for adjustment on the paracorr. Then again you also have to consider these were design with televue eyepieces in mind so it would be totally understandable if not every ep on the market worked in it. A small modification I made was to put 3 slithers of Teflon tape in the body to eliminate any play when using larger 100° eyepieces. It takes a few goes to get the width of the tape just right so that it takes out any slack while still allowing for free movement of the tuneable top, but once done it works surprisingly well. TV later addressed any possibility of this happening with the paracorr I type II version, not to be confused with the paracorr II which also has optical improvements.

Clear skies maybe

As this thread goes on it is astonishing to see how peoples collections have evolved over the years. I'm starting to think I've got something wrong with me. Other than the recent addition of a 3-6 nagler zoom (should never have sold the last one) I can't say I have felt the need to add or swap out my collection. I'm sure that box will soon be brimming once you get the bino bug Shane.

I wouldn't worry too much about it Steve. These are mass produced mounts and cast parts are never as accurate as machined ones. You could get the bubble to fit perfectly and find the bubble holder in the mount is off. It's like the setting circles on EQ mounts. They put them on the mount but the scales on them are so small they are practically useless. Similar with the bubble. They put them on the mount and while to some degree they offer a reference they are so small they can't be considered all that accurate anyway. I think there is actually a proper bubble level you can buy for accurate levelling that attaches under the mount and hangs out the side. I thought FLO did them but can't find them on their site ?? As others have said though polar alignment is more important but again polar scopes in budget mounts are not as accurate as people think and imagers only use them to get rough PA then drift align.

Still got plenty of quality glass in your collection though Stu

I know a lot of people get on well with RA finders and it is a necessity for some due to back problems so I'm sure an improvement on the SW 9x50 RACI will prove useful to many. Personally I had a RACI finder some years ago and really struggled to get to grips with it. I would line up on an object with my telrad and the swap over to the RA finder. If the object wasn't in the fov I would have to go straight back to the telrad and so forth. With the straight through finder I would do the same with the telrad but if the object wasn't in the fov of the straight through finder I could easily keep one eye on the sky and one on the finder view and concentrate on the area the telrad had just put me in until something became obvious. With the RA finder I would try this only to find I had strayed some way away from the original patch of sky.

At least they look wrapped up warm for the night ahead

I have often wondered why SW don't sell at least the larger MAK's with tube rings but it actually doesn't look that bad on an AZ mount. Do you find you have any problems with balancing or the diagonal fouling the focuser knob ??