Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_31.thumb.jpg.b7a41d6a0fa4e315f57ea3e240acf140.jpg

E621Keith

Members
  • Content Count

    3,991
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

368 Excellent

2 Followers

About E621Keith

  • Rank
    White Dwarf

Profile Information

  • Location
    Hampshire, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Like others said, lens pen has a soft brush and a microfibre pad for cleaning optics. While it's a nice gadget, I would not recommend it because it's a dry contact cleaning method. If you need to clean your eyepiece, first try a air blower. If you can't dislodge it, then you should consider wet clean method such as Baader fluid + thick lens tissue. Dry contact cleaning methods, such as dry microfibre cloth and lens pen, are mostly likely to scratch your optics.
  2. +1, get the Pentax XW, Leica ASPH zoom, or one of those Nikon NAVs. To see details in M42, I'd say the following factors are more important than your choice of eyepiece. Dark sky, atmospheric transparency, scope aperture, scope optics quality. If you've got all those sorted, Orthos are the obvious choice for deep sky on a budget. Also have you consider using filters? UHC filters can help bringing out the details too.
  3. As others said, even if you don't consider window glass, the thermal current from the house alone is enough to ruin the view.
  4. I had a Pentax 8-24mm until recently. It was a well built eyepiece. The field was sharp, the colour was neutral and it had less scattering than most sub £100 fixed eyepiece. The background is darker than the Nikon's MCII zoom. The zoom ring was very stiff because of the waterproof sealing. It's not a problem if you used compression ring type eyepiece clamp, but I put a big scratch on the barrel the one time I use it in a diagonal with set screw. From what I read online, it's an upgrade to the Hyperion zoom, but I will not recommend it at the moment. Pentax 8-24mm XL is a 6 element design tha
  5. Very nice set up Olly. Do you know what is missing from that X'mas tree - decoration. It needs some cables and colour filters hanging off it and may be a statue of Sir Patrick Moore to go on the top. Why not go all the way and build a WASP with eight FSQ.
  6. I have a Vixen and a Borg turret. They worked ok with small eyepiece like plossl and ortho. They did't work at all with larger eyepieces like LVW. The Borg uses a friction to clamp the eyepiece, just friction from the rubberised socket, no set screw or compression ring. Plossl and orthos were OK, but I didn't have the nerve to risk any larger eyepieces. The Vixen is nicely built, but it's locked in place using a spring loaded ball bearing. Unfortunately the weight difference between a 13mm LVW mounted on one side and a 5mm LVW mounted on the other was enough to overcome the lock and rotate th
  7. Tom, do you need arcsecond accuracy on printing press gear box? A lot of people quote car gear box as an example of a highly stressed gearbox, but a car can still run even after losing a few millimetres from its gear teeth. An imaging mount's will become pretty much useless if its worm was out by 1/100th of a degree. Is a light weight lube sufficient to ensure the gear teeth will not lose more than a few microns from wear over the life time of the mount?
  8. Dave, I just saw your PM and then saw this thread. I don't think there is a problem with your mount if the movement is only 5mm at the eyepiece end of your 250mm Newt. I doubt the ADM saddle upgrade will solve the problem. First of all, as John mentioned, your dovetail is an Orion dovetail. It works differently to the standard Vixen dovetail. Normally, the Vixen saddle's locking bolt pushes the Vixen dovetail into the base of the saddle and the opposite flange. Unfortunately, Vixen GP's saddle had raised 'Made in Japan' markings on the saddle base which could make flat dovetails unstable. Vixe
  9. Yes, those are 1.25" eyepieces. The 22mm LVW will give you a TFOV of 3.3deg and a magnification of 20x in the FSQ85, which is more than wide enough for most targets. You may want a smaller eyepiece for higher magnification. You only benefit from 2" eyepiece when the field stop diameter is wider than 27mm which is the maximum field stop a 1.25" barrel can support. This is achieved at a focal length of approx. 24mm for a 70deg, 20mm for 80deg and 13mm for 100deg eyepiece. Large field stop is only needed in widefield eyepieces. Since the FSQ is fast astrograph primarily used for imaging, and ra
  10. There are a lot of excellent bird photo from the 300/4. If you need more focal length, there is always the option of using teleconverter.
  11. So is 'full frame' just a fancy name for progressive scan?
  12. Indeed, binoviewing is amazing. It turns ordinary eyepiece into something amazing.
  13. Did you mean Canon 200mm f2 or f1.8? Canon 200 f2.8 costs £600 new from a mainstream dealer. http://www.cliftonca....8L_II_USM_Lens
  14. But I think most people who use a ED80 for birds tend to use it on a stationary set up in a hideout. If you can live with the limited mobility and other limitations (e.g. lack of aperture iris) ED80 may not be a bad idea. However, I would consider a 300 F4 (if you do more birding), or a Borg71FL (if you do more AP). Borg has a number of accessories, such as aperture iris and front focuser, that will allow you to optimise their scope for terrestrial use. The camera moves in relation to the tripod mounting point when you focus a ED80, but a Borg with front mounted focuser or BU1 moves the obje
  15. I think it's either the police can't be bother or the scammer operates abroad and outside our police's jurisdiction.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.