bosun21

Anyone?

The BCO 10mm is also highly regarded in the US with the large dobsonian crowd. They say that it's one of the best for teasing out the details while viewing difficult faint fuzzies. For planetary i found it a great eyepiece.

The back focus is the distance between the reducer/flattener and the actual camera sensor. It has nothing to do with the focus travel by turning the focuser knob. If you haven't got a reducer in the imaging train then you don't set any back focus. Just attach the camera to the telescope and rack the focus knob in and out until you see the moon in focus or the star becoming as small as possible. To collimate on a star it has to be perfectly centered on the screen/eyepiece and tracked. Polaris is a good choice of star.

Can someone please give me a few pointers on the fitting and centering my Baader Steeltrack focuser? I bought this recently and it's actually used but in excellent condition. I don't have a template for the base which makes it a little more difficult. I want it to replace the single speed focuser on my 250 Flextube go to dobsonian. I have watched a video on YouTube showing the base plate corresponding to the existing holes in the inner portion allowing the outer fixing holes to be marked and drilled. Unfortunately they don't match up in my case. Obviously the positioning is crucial and if anyone can help with some pointers i would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

Hi there 👋, welcome to SGL.

Great little eyepiece Mike. I owned the SL version and found it to provide quality views.

Hi there 👋. Welcome to SGL.

John did you not recently acquire a used 8" SW dob? Or am mistaken. I think I can recall you commenting on the Azimuth stiction mod you carried out. Lovely collection of refractors you have gathered over the years.

This is crucial when doing a star test for collimation. I also use Polaris and centre the star with an illuminated reticle eyepiece then switching to a standard high magnification eyepiece. After each tweak of the collimation I recentre with the reticle eyepiece again. It can become tedious swapping back and forth but it eliminates any errors in star placement.

That's the salesman in you. Well done, and I'm pretty sure that an 80mn achromat didn't even enter your mind 😂.

Ditto.

Are you sure you have replaced the rear element the correct way round? As you said that the front lens has an arrow on its side so that is probably fitted correctly. If the image appears as if it's smeared with vaseline throughout its range of focus then my money is on the lens orientation being wrong.

Yes, the numerous times where I have seen reflector telescopes pointing at the ground still causes me to draw a sigh 😔. I can sort of understand why this happens though, due to the laymans assumption of what a telescope looks like.

I have added this to my to do list of things to observe. Thanks, however I'm a bit more conservative than yourself and will probably throw more aperture at it. Once located I then like to reduce the aperture and ascertain whether it remains visible.

I am beginning to think that I am one of those rare few individuals who actually gets a lot of satisfaction from the smudges in my eyepiece. I draw a lot of motivation and satisfaction from looking up a given target and learning about the details for example the distance, magnitude and the orientation of the galaxy. The orientation helps me draw out some detail knowing beforehand which shape and angle it is relevant to Earth. Of course I love all the usual targets which I find myself revisiting over and over again as the seasons come and go. Low magnification sweeps around productive regions of the sky like the constellation Virgo during galaxy season can be productive, depending on conditions of course.Having recently taken up planetary imaging and to a lesser degree a bit of EAA, I could easily enough replace the eyepiece with the camera and bring the galaxy clearly into view but I love finding a target with my eyepiece beforehand (if possible at all). Maybe I have a masochistic streak in me. Does anyone else appear to have this streak?

Thanks @vlaiv. That's exactly what I thought.

Regarding the mirror quality being 1/6th wave or 1/10th wave lambda I always thought that this has nothing to do with the reflectivity of said mirror. I always thought of the lambda quality would be better for resolving the finer details of an image, ie a 1/10th wave is better than a 1/8th wave. The actual brightness of an image being directly related to the reflectivity of the mirror. Of course eyepieces and other factors will play a part in this. as well as the mirror coatings etc. Am I wrong in these assumptions?

I had a look at the 127 Mak that is bundled with the Astromaster EQ mount and I am unsure how it differs from the standard Celestron and SW models. I did notice that it states fully coated and not multi coated optics and the bundled extras like diagonal etc are poorer quality. Personally I would message Celestron and ask them what the differences are between this OTA and the 127 SLT. Perhaps someone who owns the Astromaster 127 Mak can shed some light on this question.

I owned a 150 and found that an EQ5 is the minimum I would use although the HEQ5 would be better. On the EQ5 pro I added an electric focuser to eliminate focusing vibration.

I use an electric hand warmer for those freezing nights. It's lithium battery powered and has three heat settings. It generally lasts a session easily

Welcome to SGL John.

I think you should check the collimation of your 127 Mak as i routinely observed at 200+ with the one I previously owned. The planets remained sharp.

After polar alignment I select the first star in the alignment process and after the mount stops slewing to its position near the target star I use a red dot finder to move the mount and place it in the eyepiece. Once you centre it then select the second star and it should be in the FOV of your 28mm eyepiece.

He was talking about the 17.5mm Morpheus but I take it will be the same with all eyepieces with a larger FOV.

I love Glenmorangie 18 year old although it's very expensive followed by Glenmorangie itself.