Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_terminator_challenge_winners.thumb.jpg.6becf44442bc7105be59da91b2bee295.jpg

DeejayP999

Members
  • Content Count

    77
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18 Good

About DeejayP999

  • Rank
    Nebula

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Sutton, Surrey
  1. Hi, I go travel by motorbike to France and Spain and thinking of buying this scope. I see you don´t use a finderscope, does that work fine?

    \\ Wim

  2. I've had a few of these scopes and I still rate them for grab and go. I'm no fan of the EQ2 mount, these work better on the AZ3 in my opinion, but I've seen some of my best views of the planets with these scopes. Mine works well with a Baader Fringe Killer and an old style Celestron Ultima 7.5mm. I've seen the Cassini division, shadow transits of Jupiter etc with this set up.
  3. Ordered from Telescope House on Thursday night (so really Friday morning) and delivered on Monday. I really can't fault that service.
  4. Well, my Revelation 8” f/6 “Premium Dobsonian” arrived today and I thought I jot down a few thoughts from the unboxing. First that struck me was the size of the thing – OK no great shakes to all you 12”+ Dob owners, but to me it appears massive. The second thing is the quality of the construction: It's good, very good. The base is the usual particle board, and none the worse for that, but has a large diameter roller bearing for the azimuth movement, in place of the usual teflon pads, resulting in a very smooth action. Likewise, the altitude bearings/tension adjusters are CNC machined from solid aluminium. Very impressive and they appear to be of superb quality. Likewise the dual speed Crayford focuser. The bundled accessories aren't to be sniffed at either: A 2” 30mm GSO “Superview” eyepiece and a 9mm GSO Plossl. They even include a 35mm focuser extender. Overall, the build quality appears to be several notches above the usual for a scope in this price range. Following assembly, a quick play with the Cheshire Eyepiece showed that the scope was pretty much collimated out of the box – a quick tweak of the primary and it was spot on. I even dragged it outside for a quick look at some nearby trees. A very nice, bright image even at 120x – but I guess that's the benefit of aperture. Doing this, I was quite impressed with the bundled 2” eyepiece: A nice, wide field that was sharp across most of the field, only going soft at the very edge. Using it, I could individual veins in the leaves of a tree about 200 yards away. I'm very satisfied so far, let's hope it's as good under the night sky!
  5. THanks for the advice everyone. Revelation 8" f/6 Dob ordered. Apologies for the clouds!
  6. Many thanks for the input - looks like the 8" is the favourite. I've also just noticed that the 8" comes with a Crayford focuser instead of the standard R&P on the 6". That swings it even more in favour of the 8" for me. However the Revelation (GSO) 8" f6 comes with a dual speed Crayford and a roller bearing mount for similar money. But how good are the GSO mirrors vs Skywatcher? I've read mixed reviews about the GSO - but I've never seen anything negative written about the Skywatcher's optics. Hmmm...
  7. Hello everyone. I recently sold my SkyWatcher 150PL (on the EQ 3-2 mount) and am looking to replace it with a Dob. My use is purely visual, Lunar & Planetary and I was very satisfied with the planetary views put up by the 150PL (but not so keen on the mount). I'm now considering the 150PL on a Dob mount or, possibly, the 200p. I like the 200p because it's, well... Bigger! However, I do wonder if the longer focal length and relatively smaller central obstruction of the 6" makes it more suitable for my use (especially with more basic eyepieces). Decisions, decisions...
  8. This^^. I've owned quite a few TV eyepieces and, while they're undoubtedly high quality, I've never seen a huge difference probably because I've always owned slow(ish) scopes.
  9. Sorry, but as a purely visual observer, can someone explain why is a fast scope better for imaging? Many thanks.
  10. I conclude that I find CA less bothersome than Diffraction Spikes and Coma. Maybe I just prefer 'fracs, CA and all. That said, apart from Apos, I've always gone for long focal length scopes.
  11. Agreed. Some of my best views of the planets were had with an old style Celestron Ultima 7.5mm (also sold as the Orion Ultrascopic and Anteres Elite “Super Plossls”). In fact, I liked it so much that I've just bought another.
  12. I'm glad to see that there are so many TAL fans. Personally, I think that a 4" (ish) refractor hits a Lunar & Planetary sweet spot. In a similar vein, I've just bought another Evostar 90 as a grab 'n go. Unbeatable at the price point. So I guess you could put that down as my favourite!
  13. I'd say not. In the UK, I find that 150x is about the max I can use with any scope due to the seeing - and it's more like 125x most of the time. Unless you observe from a very good, dark sky site the higher mags will only be useful on nights of exceptional seeing. So if you want a minimalist eyepiece collection for cost, or other, reasons then I wouldn't bother with high mag eyepieces that will only be usable on a handful of nights in the year.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.