bosun21

Nice capture Reggie. I have never thought about taking a prime image like this (up until now).

I was, but on looking deeper I have decided on the StellaMira 125. It seems that this is the best option for visual!

Have you tried moving it with the HC at the various speeds? Perhaps slippage could occur at slow rates 1-3.

The SM125 is becoming more appealing to me each passing day.

With the 150 Maksutov you shouldn't need any extension pieces to achieve focus due to the large focus travel of the telescope. When setting up for the moon I set the exposure to 15-20ms which is still too much for the capture process itself but is fine for locating and centering the moon on the laptop screen. Once centered I reduce the exposure to 4-8ms depending on how bright and large the moon is. You can also change the gain setting along with the exposure so that you get a good histogram reading and a clear image on screen. This is a good time to focus on the surface details of the moon as good focus is crucial for a sharp image.Once this is achieved you can then start the capture process.

I totally agree with you regarding this. More often it's matching the element types together that proves to be more crucial. There's apparently little difference between the refractive index of FPL53 and FCD100 anyway.

No longer the case it would appear John.

Didn't they used to be FPL53 ? They are now stated as being an equivalent glass type. I mention this as I was considering a SW150ED and noticed this. Needless to say the 150 is just too big and heavy for me 🙄.

The OP jonbossley is a visual observer as per his first light report. He returned the scope due to image shift at high magnification. This apparently can be rectified by adjustment screws on the focuser, although this shouldn't need to be done with a new scope.

This is one of the threads on CN which has several contributors some of whom appear to be very well experienced visual observers. They have used several higher end refractors visually as well. It was from this thread and others that I gleaned the visual performance of the 120/140 Askars was good. Have I been reading this thread through a pair of rose tinted glasses? Thanks. https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/900932-askar-140-apo/

Nothing.

Where did you read this? I have read numerous reviews stating that there's no aberration at > 300x with the triplet Askars. I would like to read this report. I'm about 90% in the SM 125ED camp at the moment in any case.

Thank you for your opinions. I am leaning firmly in the direction of the SM 125ED for several of the reasons already mentioned. I just need to add a pier extension to the shopping list now.

I already have a 10" go to dobsonian which fills that niche.

All good points you mentioned. Cool down time and weight being quite important to a lot of people myself included. Thanks.

Nice images Kostas. I found that nailing sharp focus can be difficult under poor seeing conditions although you have done a good job here. I hope to be back out there the next time clear skies come around.

A nice well focused image 👍.

Why a doublet over a triplet for visual John?

Yes I have been considering the physical aspects of both of them. I have just bought an AZ-EQ6 so the weight isn't a problem with either. My only concern is that I will probably require a pier extension to accommodate the length, and the 140 may prove to be cumbersome in conjunction with this. There is also the Askar 120 in this range to possibly consider. The SM125 has been on my menu for some months now, and indeed since its release. I basically want it for visual and a bit of EAA thrown into the mix. I've been searching for reviews of the Askar as the SM is a better known entity to me regarding performance etc. I will keep digging as I have about another month before I make the purchase. Thanks all.

I am looking at buying myself a new refractor shortly and I can't decide which way to go. The two contenders are the StellaMira 125 doublet with FCD100 and lanthanum glass and the Askar 140 triplet with one ED element (type not disclosed). I have been reading reports from owners of both and both are said to perform very well for visual. The 140 is bino friendly with a 3.5" R&P focuser as opposed to the 2.5" of the SM 125. It's the question of whether the better glass type of the doublet will be better than the supposed better correction of the triplet with one ED element. This being a considerable purchase for me I want to make the best choice possible. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. Thank you.

You can use ASCOM in AZ mode as well as plate solving. I use Sharpcap for plate solving in both EQ and Alt/Az mode.

If you are doing visual you can always flip your AZ-EQ6 into Alt/Az mode. This will keep the eyepiece in a respectable position for observing with your Newtonian.

Welcome to SGL. It looks like it could be a Bird Jones style of Newtonian reflector in which case I would hold off from buying a Barlow lens to increase the magnification. Can you possibly take a photo of the label on the side of the telescope which should have some numbers on it which is the focal length and ratio/ aperture etc. This will let folk know whether it's a a Bird Jones or not. Regarding the teeth on one of the drives being non existent there's always the 3D printer solution.

Believe me they are more difficult than Newtonians. The RC is even more difficult than the CC due to the distance between the primary and secondary mirror being crucial and not easy to measure.

Another 👍 for the Baader Morpheus range of eyepieces with the addition of the 24mm and 30mm UFF(Stella Lyra, APM etc). All great eyepieces with a comfortable eye relief and respectable FOV.