Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_2.thumb.jpg.72789c04780d7659f5b63ea05534a956.jpg

Recommended Posts

"The AH ortho’ has a 43° FOV which is slightly less than a Plossl but it isn’t a problem on an unmotorised scope to use them. "

Is that the 12.5mm orthoscopic?  It appears to be; very nice.

When using 4mm, 5mm, 6mm, 7mm orthoscopics, and for the planets, motorising the mount helps out a lot, and in waiting for the seeing to improve for that once-in-a-blue-moon, tack-sharp image.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Depends on the plossl.  The Vixen NPLs are great, a real step up from a "supplied with" eyepiece.  They are £39-£49 new.  TV Plossls are supposed to be excellent but they are upwards of £80 new.

I've got the same scope, it's just as easy to track with the slo mo controls without the drive. These are some of my older Celestron Plossls plus a 9mm William Optics SWAN (with threaded Ba

After doing some sums I realised I can achieve 181x with a 5.5mm EP for a 0.5mm exit pupil. So I eschewed the SW 25mm MA for a TeleVue 11mm. Well ... I had to lose one as they don't all fit

Posted Images

1 minute ago, REG78 said:

Was actually thinkn about getn GSO Barlow cus th Barlow I got free isn't too good not really tht clear a view

I'm pretty sure GSO make the Celestron Barlows: http://www.gs-telescope.com/

The Barlow giveaway with the Explorer is rubbish. I used to use a TeleVue 3x Barlow in my Explorer, although it nearly cost the same as scope and mount lol! The Powermate I bought actually did cost more. It was worth it though.

TVPowermate.thumb.jpg.9e534617f35648959e

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, REG78 said:

Was actually thinkn about getn GSO Barlow cus th Barlow I got free isn't too good not really tht clear a view

The included barlow would need replacing, too.  However, if you were barlowing the included 10mm eyepiece, and for a simulated 5mm(180x), then the telescope's aperture-limit and the atmospheric conditions may have been conspiring against you.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Alan64 said:

"The AH ortho’ has a 43° FOV which is slightly less than a Plossl but it isn’t a problem on an unmotorised scope to use them. "

Is that the 12.5mm orthoscopic?  It appears to be; very nice.

When using 4mm, 5mm, 6mm, 7mm orthoscopics, and for the planets, motorising the mount helps out a lot, and in waiting for the seeing to improve for that once-in-a-blue-moon, tack-sharp image.

That's the 18mm AH. I use the 25mm and 12.5mm as bino pairs. I've never thought much of the clockdrive with the 130M. A GOTO would make a difference! I'm getting one soon. I'll make sure to test the ortho's with it lol. My Baader ortho's (18mm bino pair) are 50° in FOV. I honestly don't find the AH ortho's any harder to use with the slo mo controls.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mak the Night said:

That's the 18mm AH. I use the 25mm and 12.5mm as bino pairs. I've never thought much of the clockdrive with the 130M. A GOTO would make a difference! I'm getting one soon. I'll make sure to test the ortho's with it lol. My Baader ortho's (18mm bino pair) are 50° in FOV. I honestly don't find the AH ortho's any harder to use with the slo mo controls.

Do you have focal-lengths shorter than 18mm of the Astro-Hutech line?  I have the BGOs from 5mm to 12.5mm.  I've never felt the need for the 18mm and 25mm orthoscopics, of any brand, as I prefer the wider-field oculars at 12mm and above, although I always went ahead and got the 12.5mm orthoscopic in the past as it's not that far removed from a 9mm.  I can see the use of the 18mm and 25mm orthoscopics in binoviewers however.

Edited by Alan64
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, REG78 said:

Think I'm gona go for th omni plossl was thinkn 9&15mm just to get me started off for th price range aswell

The 15mm plus the Omni or Universal Barlow would be better as it effectively can turn your 15mm into a 7.5mm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the higher and highest magnifications, I use orthoscopics, along with a 6mm Plossl...

planetaries3.jpg.2b2d3d30875aa067cbd2da5

Click on the image for a larger view.

For the low-to-high magnifications, I have the odd assortment...

56e0a443deb95_deep-skyoculars.jpg.5fe435

...along with the barlows...

barlows.jpg.e708e9a297695dd1680e91fe28b0

Edited by Alan64
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Alan64 said:

Do you have focal-lengths shorter than 18mm of the Astro-Hutech line?  I have the BGOs from 5mm to 12.5mm.  I've never felt the need for the 18mm and 25mm orthoscopics, of any brand, as I prefer the wider-field oculars at 12mm and above, although I always went ahead and got the 12.5mm orthoscopic in the past as it's not that far removed from a 9mm.  I can see the use of the 18mm and 25mm orthoscopics in binoviewers however.

I have one 18mm AH ortho and pairs of 12.5mm and 25mm. I have a pair of 18mm BCO's. The pairs are mainly for the bino, I regularly use the 1.6x & 2x nosepiece Barlows combined with the 12.5mm to 18mm. The 25mm ortho pair aren't generally used with a Barlow. They give me 52x on my Mak which is perfect for M42. They will give me 94x on the SCT I'm getting.

Edited by Mak the Night
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, REG78 said:

Does th end of th Barlow screw onto th omni plossl 

Normally you would place the Omni in the Barlow itself.

56e0abbcd87bb_barlowandfilterEPs.jpg.1fc

Most expensive Barlows and the cheaper Celestron Universal Barlow and some others have detachable elements. When that is threaded into the eyepiece it magnifies by a factor of about 1.6x instead of 2x giving you more options. I make the WO SWAN 9mm a 5.625mm in this way.

LuminosPlusBarlowElement.jpg.57597a546b8

I can do a similar thing with this 10mm Celestron Luminos eyepiece, effectively turning it into a 6.25mm.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, REG78 said:

When doin this is th view still as clear than when you put th EP into th Barlow itself

A lot depends on the quality of the Barlow. I usually use exclusively TeleVue eyepieces and Barlows together, predominantly, as the Barlows have brass compression rings and they will easily connect to themselves and my better quality diagonals which also have compression rings. The smooth barrelled or flared safety undercut types are fine. Unfortunately, the Celestron eyepieces mainly all have old safety undercuts and can't be easily extracted from anything with a compression ring. However, on my 90mm grab'n'go scope I use a lightweight diagonal with no compression ring enabling me to utilise my older lighter eyepieces. I honestly don't think the Celestron Barlows dim the viewing particularly noticeably. They may not be TeleVue standard but they are pretty decent and I find the Omni 'shorty' useful in a little scope.

56e0b6c45f983_CelestronShortyComparison.

These Celestron Barlows have old fashioned draw tube undercuts, there is no problem unless they are pushed into an adaptor or diagonal with a compression ring, then they can often get hung up on extraction.

56e0b6d3960b3_1.2515mm.jpg.d618ccd548835

A TV 15mm Plossl with flared undercut, 15mm Omni with an old undercut and a 15mm Kellner with no undercut.

Matecloseup.jpg.c315ed1edbdd9529d5cb8ff2

Compression ring on my Powermate.

IMG_20151030_190546_zps6ke6mkbl.JPG.333a

This is the Barlow that came with my 130M. The best thing to do with it is throw it away. I think the lenses are plastic. There is absolutely no comparison with the Celestron Barlows and the plastic cheap Sky-Watcher giveaway. TeleVue Barlows are even better than the Celestron Barlows. But you'll pay over a hundred quid for one. The Celestron Barlows are good quality though. As I said, I still use mine in a small portable scope as they are light and short. My TeleVue 2x Barlow is rather heavy and long.

56e0b9e00dd4f_OrionCaseFilterMod.jpg.2f2

Plus it has a compression ring, so extracting the Celestron Plossls from it is often tricky. I find no difference in placing the eyepiece into the Barlow or threading the element on the end, apart from the magnification difference.

Edited by Mak the Night
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, REG78 said:

What's th hole for at th front of reflectors cap 

Nobody knows. It's one of the great mysteries in astronomy. One theory I heard was that it was a standard for Asiatic telescope manufacturers (like Synta) to put these 1.25" caps in the main lens caps as to be able to use them for solar observing during eclipses. Which would be highly dangerous without a sun filter of some description. You should never look directly at the sun with a telescope, or anything for that matter. It may be for ventilation if the scope is in storage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • 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.