First light report - SkyWatcher 300P Flextube in Diamond Black (MKII?)

[rusirius]

The decision

Purchasing your first telescope is always a difficult choice as you have no experience to shape your choice and you have to rely instead on the experiences of others thought forums such as SGL. This however was not my first telescope. I had already purchased and used a good all rounder – an 8in SCT as my first scope. After some 18 months of using the Meade LX90 dawned the realisation that although it was indeed a good all rounder, it did not seem to actually excel at anything. Don't get me wrong! The LX90 is an excellent scope, yet the moon and planets looked better when viewed through a 4in refractor and the combination of the HEQ5 Pro mount and the refractor was far better suited to astrophotography than the Alt/Az mounted LX90 and over time ended up being my astrophotography platform of choice.

My main interest however is the visual observation of Deep Sky objects. To get the best views of Deep Sky objects one requires the largest mirror one can afford, preferably 16in or above. This out of necessity means a Dobsonian mounted Newtonian reflector, but since primarily due to space constraints I could not keep both the SCT and the new Dobsonian. This quest toward a larger aperture would also mean trading off the GOTO. I have found through experience that finding one's own way around the night sky can be more rewarding than using a GOTO and this might just be enough in compensation.

Since a Newtonian of this size would inevitably be a 'fast' scope, a couple of high quality eyepieces might need to be acquired to make the most of it. Research seemed to indicate that there was really no substitute for a Nagler and a Panoptic might be a good second choice. The wide field of view afforded by these eyepieces would certainly be an advantage when finding and manually tracking objects using an unguided scope.

Having considered the options, I eventually scaled down to the 12in. I could afford a 16in, but since I have neither a garage (yet) nor space in a shed, the a LightBridge monster would almost certainly give me a storage headache and the trusses would need setting up every time it was used. I was also not convinced that a damp garage is the most suitable of storage places for an expensive telescope. Having finally settled on a 12in scope and having read the review on SGL, the Sky-Watcher Flextube 300P seemed to be an attractive choice.

The only uncertainty was, given my moderately light polluted environment, how much more will I get out of a 12in Newtonian than an 8in SCT? Was it really worth the swap? I asked the question on SGL and the majority of the answers suggested that there would likely be an improvement. Under dark skies, certainly the difference would be quite marked, but perhaps under moderately light polluted ones perhaps less so. Another interesting aspect to this was that the use of filters ought to impact the brightness of the object under observation less than it otherwise might do with a smaller mirror.

In the meantime, a used 16mm Nagler T2 appeared on the used equipment market and seemed an ideal medium magnification eyepiece choice for a 12in f5 Newtonian. For high magnification I still had my Orthoscopics. Consequently the Dobsonian mounted 300P was ordered and the Nagler successfully obtained.

The arrival

The telescope arrived first on Tuesday 08/10/2008 afternoon in two boxes. There were a couple of dents in both of them (package 1 and 2) which initially raised concern, but on checking the contents, everything seemed to be in order.

On opening the boxes, we found a small user manual, but the assembly instructions appeared to be missing. After a brief search on the Sky-Watcher website I downloaded the required instructions in PDF format and reviewed them in preparation for assembly. They seemed to be written and illustrated clearly enough but did have some broken English in places.

Putting it together

The following day, Wednesday 09/10/2008 in the afternoon, I started assembling the telescope. I unpacked the box containing the parts for the base and upon ascertaining that all pieces were present and correct, I began to construct the base. The assembly itself was relatively straightforward and took a little over 1 hour. Most of the required tools were provided, including hex keys, a cross-head screwdriver and a couple of spanners. The latter were required to secure the bolt connecting the two circular base plates and bearing assembly.

Prior to installing the azimuth bearing I applied a little lithium grease which seemed to make it run smoother. It has been suggested that Teflon bearings are considered superior are 'buttery smooth'. I had thought that I might need to replace the flat steel roller bearing with a Teflon pad, but the scope does seem to turn smoothly enough on the supplied bearing. Whether and by how much this smoothness will deteriorate with wear and tear remains to be seen.

Upon completing the assembly of the base, I found that there were two screws left over! I carefully checked the assembly instructions and the base unit but I could not find any screws missing from the assembled unit. The base seemed sturdy and very rigid so I can only assume that they are spares.

Upon unpacking the OTA assembly, I found the expected assembly instructions wedged between a large foam insert and the box! The OTA itself was wrapped in a thin foam sheet and enclosed in a polythene bag. It was supported in the box by 3 foam inserts at the ends of the tube and in the centre.

The OTA was placed onto the altitude bearings and the connecting handles were attached. Prior to installing the tensioner handle, the bearing was removed, greased and the handle re-assembled. The finder was then attached to the OTA and the assembly was now complete.

The finder itself is identical to the one supplied on the Sky-Watcher Evostar 120 refractor, except that the livery matches the Diamond Black of the OTA rather than the metallic blue of the refractor. The single support ring is about two and a half inches wide and has only two adjusting screws and one spring loaded piston that clicks into place when it engages with a slight grove on the finder barrel set at one end. The finder barrel has a rubber ring which fits snuggly into the opposite end of the ring. This arrangement works surprisingly well and seems quicker and easier to adjust that the six screw/two ring arrangement on my SCT.

I released the catches and raised the upper part of the tube on its trusses. The assembly slid up easily and stopped with a re-assuring click once it reached the top. The ..wing.. nuts were then tightened to lock it into place.

In Steve's Flextube thread in the Sponsor zone it was mentioned that Sky-Watcher only supplied only one cover (see http://stargazerslounge.com/index.php/topic,24899.0.html) with the original Flextube 300P, however the Black Diamond version scope I received was supplied with two covers. One was attached to the lower tube protecting the primary mirror. The second was attached to the top portion and covered the secondary assembly. However, when the tube is collapsed, there is still a significant gap which could still allow the ingress of dust. I've temporarily covered the scope with a black bin bag, but a longer term solution will be required. Steve also mentioned that he removed the rubber bushes that separate the two sections. I haven't attempted this yet. Before I do, can anyone tell me whether this voids the warranty?

Collimation

The next step was to collimate the scope. We already had a Sky-Watcher collimating eyepiece, but this is really only a 'poor man's cheshire'. Nevertheless, a first look through pinhole and everything appeared to look centred just like the manual shows with the 3 mirror clips visible as expected.

To assist with collimation, I had also purchased a Baader Laser Collimator. I had read about ensuring that the laser itself is collimated properly, but on reading the instructions I found that this was not recommended:

Do not attempt to loosen the headless set-screws, which center the laser within the metal body of the Laser ColliTM. Most likely you will not be able to recover precise adjustment without extensive auxiliary equipment. The set screws are marked with an indicator to show whenever any of the six screws was reoriented by the user.

Please understand that precise adjustment is about the most time consuming work during the production of the Laser ColliTM. Factory realignment is expensive and involves two times freight charges. So better not to tamper with the adjustment, it.s at it.s best already.

In any case, the uneven shape of the collimator body is such that it is very difficult to ensure with any accuracy that it is laying flat and due to a protrusion to one side of the body, rotating it between a couple of large books or blocks of wood to check that the beam is centred is not possible. In chapter 8, The Home made Astronomer of the book book Star Ware, 4^th edition by Phil Harrington, there are instructions for making a home made laser collimator collimation rig using a block of wood and large nails. I haven't tried this yet so I can't confirm that the laser is perfectly aligned so for now I'm trusting the Baader factory configuration.

The first step in the collimation procedure according to the Baader Laser Colli manual was to remove the primary mirror cell and draw a circle on the primary mirror:

Mark the geometrical center of your primary mirror. Remember the important requirement that the laser beam touches the primary mirror centrally - exactly in the middle of your center mark.

I was nervous about doing this but, I found, to my relief, that the mirror already had a small circle printed on it. I therefore inserted the collimator as per the instructions and turned on the laser beam. The beam hit the main mirror just about 1cm outside of the circle. Having found an appropriate hex key (this one was not supplied) I adjusted the secondary mirror so that the laser hit the centre of the circle. That it did so I am sure but as to whether it was with any accuracy was more difficult to gauge as the laser beam seems to dissipate once it crosses the line into the circle leaving a kind of red glowing ring around the outer edge of the marked circle. This made it difficult to determine whether the laser is hitting the exact centre of the circle.

Finally I adjusted the primary, but again, I couldn't be sure of the accuracy as the laser beam returns on itself but then disappears down the central hole of the 'translucent reference pane with etched cross marks' on the collimator. The relatively large size of the hold again makes it difficult to tell whether the beam is dead centre. At least I knew that I had completed the task successfully as per the manual and that was good enough for now.

First light

Before I could use the scope I had to line up the finder. I would have had reservations about the usability of the adjustment controls but for the fact that I had already experienced this arrangement on the Sky-Watcher refractor.

Before I could proceed with aligning the finder I would need to select an eyepiece. Two Plössl eyepieces come supplied with the scope. Upon opening the box marked 25mm, I found that the supplied optic had engraved upon it 26mm! I presumed that that the latter is correct. The other eyepiece was 10mm as expected. Using a distant terrestrial object and the 26mm Plössl, I adjusted the finder until it matched the target in the centre of the eyepiece field of view.

I was now ready for first light.

This came shortly after dinner at around 6.30pm. It was still light. The Sun was setting but with a first quarter moon was clearly visible to the South on what was promising to be a clear night. My wife and 8 year old daughter joined me for the event and we pointed the scope at Luna to observe the craters. The scope moved smoothly in both directions but the front started dropping somewhat. A slight turn on the tension adjustment handle and this was soon corrected. Using the supplied standard 26mm Plössl eyepiece we found a clear sharp view with craters, mountain ranges, the shadows cast by them, and other lunar features clearly visible with detail that easily surpassed both the 4in refractor and the 8in SCT. The only slight complaint was a dark shadowy area hovering like a greyish cloud in the eyepiece which seemed to move with the motion of the eye. Otherwise, the view was impressive.

The supplied 10mm Plössl did not show this same problem and again provided us with a clear detailed sharp view of lunar craters and other features. With the magnification at this level however, it was starting to prove a little tricky to manoeuvre the scope to keep the area under observation in the FOV. No doubt this would improve with experience.

We waited for it to get dark, allowing the scope to cool down. About an hour later at around 7.30pm we were ready for some more viewing.

I pointed the scope at a reasonably bright star to check the collimation. I found that the star image was flared. The scope now had now cooled off for the recommended 1 hour so I visually checked the collimation. I defocussed and observed the diffraction rings and found that the middle was off centre. I tried to correct this manually at first by adjusting the primary mirror but only managed to make things even worse! I gave in and made the necessary corrections using the Baader Laser Colli and sure enough, this made a significant improvement and the stars were nearly, but still not quite pinpoint. Was the Baader Laser Colli not accurate enough? Had the scope cooled down enough? These questions ran through my mind, but it was evident that collimation can shift significantly with this scope, whether through moving from a warmer to a cooler environment or through moving the upper section.

I tried to split the doubles in Epsillon Lyrae, but this proved difficult. Maybe this was on account of the collimation, but with a 10mm eyepiece it looked as if I had almost succeeded but the view was too indistinct to tell for sure. A 6mm Ortho eyepiece didn't help either because at this magnification the view started getting noticeably fuzzy.

I tried an easier target, but the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) looked nothing special through either the supplied 26mm or through a Meade 32mm Plössl. I could only see the same fuzzy patch that is usually visible through the 8in SCT or the 4in refractor.

Next we tried another easy target – Jupiter. The supplied 26mm Plössl showed a massive flare covering the entire FOV with purple and yellow fringing being present in abundance around the Planet. The 10mm eyepiece was a little better and showed far less flaring, but a switch to a 9mm orthoscopic practically eliminated it altogether. There was significant air turbulence visible as the type of distortion one sees through warm air rising from a hot tarmac road surface. Despite this, the during moments when the atmospheric distortion cleared for a moment, the amount of detail on the planetary surface was very good. The two dark bands were clear and sharp. A third, much fainter band, that we could not hope to have seen with the smaller scopes was also clearly visible. No red spot though!

Going back to Lyra, I attempted to find the Ring Nebula. Without a GOTO and with significant moonlight coming from a first quarter moon, this proved something of a challenge but what surprised me was, that I spotted it in the finder! I've never been able to do that previously with the Meade 8x50 finder on the LX90. Once found, a look through the 26mm Plössl showed it up very clearly. Switching to the 9mm Ortho, the Ring was still clearly and distinct, but I could not see any significant detail. What is interesting here is that the 300P afforded much brighter and more comfortable viewing than the 8in SCT. An OIII filter noticeably increased contrast, but did not impact brightness nearly as much as it would have on the LX90, through which the planetary nebula can be quite faint and difficult to view.

A couple of days later my very first Nagler arrived. I had to wait until the weekend for a clear night, but the 16mm T2 eyepiece did not dissapoint. In fact, I found this made an excellent companion to the 300P giving sharp views across the entire FOV. In most cases, once I had located an object within the findescope, I would then find it within the FOV of the Nagler eyepiece. The wide FOV allowed me to see the whole lunar disk at once in incredible detail. The eyepiece and scope combination also provided good views of the Ring Nebula and the Double Cluster despite the foreground being washed out by an almost full moon. The effect of viewing a cluster of stars through a pin-sharp 80 degree apparent FOV is nothing short of amazing and on a clear dark night would no doubt be spectacular.

Revisiting Epsilon Lyrae I believe that I managed to split the doubles (just) with the Nagler and definitely with a 9mm ortho. The SCT required the 12mm ortho eyepiece (x167) to do this well, but in good seeing conditions it could just about manage with the 18mm (x111). By comparison, the Nagler on the 300P represents a magnification of x94 so it is likely that the greater resolution of the larger mirror played its part. The 9mm Ortho on the 300P represents a comparable magnification of x167 to the the 12mm ortho on the SCT but I wouldn't judge the image as clearer or better. A direct side-by-side comparison might provide a better indication.

General observations

The obvious visual impact is one of greater detail, particularly on the moon and planets. Although binaries still proved rather difficult to split, this might be down to inaccurate collimation and until I am sure that I can get this as accurate as is humanly possible, it is difficult to be sure just how much collimation error contributed to the problem.

Deep sky objects seem brighter and more clearly visible although there seems to be little discernible difference when viewing diffuse galaxies like Andromeda.

I experienced some problems with stray light hitting the secondary mirror and the rear of eyepiece but I suspect that this could easily be resolved with and appropriate shroud.

The scope is heavy and I can't carry it on my own unless I separate the OTA from the base. The base just fits onto the back seat of my family saloon car, but owing to the unfortunate rather narrow design of the rear opening on the Vectra will not go into the boot. At least I could transport it to a local dark or star party but would find it too bulky to take on longer trips where more than a couple nights overnight stay might be required.

Due to the lack of tracking, a reflector on a Dobsonian mount is generally unsuitable for astrophotography, but even just for casual lunar photography, I found that the image in a t-adaptor mounted SLR camera could not be brought into focus. I had to resort to removing the eyepiece holder adaptor entirely and holding the camera body against the focuser. This did actually allow me to get a decent and detailed photo of Luna but is far from ideal. Extending the focal length with a Barlow might solve this problem, but one would almost certainly not get the entire lunar disk within the frame of the SLR.

So is it better than an 8in SCT?

If visual astronomy is your key interest, then yes, most definitely. The scope is less forgiving with collimation error than the f10 SCT but provides more detailed and brighter views and is less affected by the darkening effect of filters. Another couple of points to note are that the image does not drift to the left or the right while focussing like it does in an SCT and I don't seem to get nearly as much wobble. The sacrifice of the GOTO needn't be a problem if one has a good star chart, a planetarium program or already has reasonable knowledge of the night sky. It needn't be a disadvantage to a beginner either, provided that one is prepared to learn navigating around the sky manually by star hopping. Setting realistic goals coupled with plenty of patience is a distinct advantage that can lead to a rewarding experience.

Although the initial outlay for a Newtonian reflector may be less than a comparable SCT with GOTO, it should also be borne in mind that the SCT is far more forgiving with eyepieces than a fast Newtonian. Consequently, the cost of upgrading eyepieces may need to be factored in. Plössls eyepieces definately show their shortcommings, while good Orthoscopics still perform well. A good quality wide field eyepiece though does offer a definite advantage when locating objects and keeping them in the field of view, especially in the absence of tracking. The supplied standard eyepieces work reasonably well, but their limitations become apparent fairly quickly so I suspect that for many they will prove to be a prime candidate for an early upgrade.

While writing this first light report, I haven't yet had the time to set up the 300P alongside my 8in SCT in order to get a direct comparison. I have only drawn on my experience of its previous use. However, if and when time permits, I will endeavour to do a more detailed side by side comparison of the Sky-Watcher Flextube 300P with the Meade 8in LX90 SCT.

[glennbech]

Thanks for the very detailed report. I'm living under a medium light polluted skies and have been thinking of the same scope. I already own an 8" Newtonian and my concern is that the extra inches will not make any real difference under most conditions.

I read with special interest what you said about splitting e-lyrae.

" a 10mm eyepiece it looked as if I had almost succeeded but the view was too indistinct to tell for sure. A 6mm Ortho eyepiece didn't help either because at this magnification the view started getting noticeably fuzzy."

I've experienced to split the double double with my 3.5" APO, and NOT with the 8"... I guess size doesn't always matter .-)

[rusirius]

Perhaps I should also add that I can easily and clearly split the doubles in Epsillon Lyrae with the Sky-Watcher Evostar 120 refractor and a medium power eyepiece. Could be seeing or collimation of the Newt. I'm still not sure. But it is does seem that refractors are better at splitting doubles!

[themos]

My nonflex 300P shows the full moon disk, almost edge-to-edge, in a Nagler 12mm T2. I'm encouraged that you managed to focus an SLR camera, I can't. Which model did you use?

[themos]

oh, and that 16mm of yours must be perfect for the Double Cluster!

[MartinB]

Thanks for the report. I have had a 300mm Skyliner for some time now and collimate with baader laser. It is a very handy tool and give accurate collimation in a couple of minutes. Yes the beam does diffuse when it is in the centre circle and it disappears when the reflection off the primary comes back central. This helps to spot that the collimation is ok when fumbling at the bottom of the scope. I have tried tweaking the primary so that the little circle at the centre of the collimator is evenly illuminated but the mirror shifts a little when you lock the mirror anyway so there are always going to be limits to accuracy.

In practice, comparing the collimator against star testing is good. I have tested up to mags of x600. I am more than happy to rely on it.

The big difference I have noticed compared with an NS8 is the ability to go to higher mags without the target getting too dim. As you say, it handles light pollution filters much better than an 8" scope.

Globular clusters are wonderful!

[rusirius]

I'm encouraged that you managed to focus an SLR camera, I can't. Which model did you use?

I use a Canon 350D. As I said though, I had to take the eyepiece adaptor off completely (it comes supplied with both a 1.25in and 2in adapter ring rather than a 2in ring + 1.25in adapter insert) and offer the camera body up to the empty focusser tube. Its not too difficult to hold in place as it seems to sit flush with it, but its certainly not ideal and operating the shutter button at the same time as keeping the scope steady with moon in view is a bit fiddly.

oh, and that 16mm of yours must be perfect for the Double Cluster!

Its great, and just gets both of the elements in, but I will probably be much better equipped to comment once I have had the opportunity to use it on a really dark moonlight-free night.

[kniclander]

great report - made good reading and I WANT ONE

I can usually split the double double in my 6 inch dob at x150 so it might be a collimation issue. I also find you have to be really really precise with the focus to split it and that even small adjustments to the fpocusser causes the telescope to vibrate so you have to keep on making tiny adjustments and letting the scope settle down and then adjusting again etc etc.

enjoy the new scope

[themos]

offer the camera body up to the empty focusser tube. Its not too difficult to hold in place as it seems to sit flush with it, but its certainly not ideal and operating the shutter button at the same time as keeping the scope steady with moon in view is a bit fiddly.

I tried that and it was still out, by a whisker. I think people have a tendency to collimate by turning screws clockwise and over time this brings the primary further away from the secondary and the focus point gets sucked into the focuser tube.

[rusirius]

I can usually split the double double in my 6 inch dob at x150 so it might be a collimation issue. I also find you have to be really really precise with the focus to split it and that even small adjustments to the fpocusser causes the telescope to vibrate so you have to keep on making tiny adjustments and letting the scope settle down and then adjusting again etc etc.

Agreed. Seeing is of course a factor and as you say, one does have to be quite precise while focusing although the wobble seems less noticeable than with my SCT. I did split it with the 16mm Nagler (just) and also with a 9mm ortho (x167) on Sunday night. At the x150 you quote I would in theory require at least a 10mm eyepice on the 300P, but the 16mm Nagler on this scope gives just x94 so I suspect that the greater resolution provided by the larger mirror that makes the difference. On the 8in SCT I could just about do it on a night with good seeing with an 18mm ortho (x111) but the 12mm (x167) was preferrable. I've updated the report.

[rawhead]

Wow :shock: Fantastic first light report. Thanks for that.

I am quite torn between the 12'' and the 10'' version. I think I'd like to be able to carry it out as one, so the 10'' is currently in pole.

Still be a while before I get the cash together so plenty of time to contemplate the choices. :?

Thanks again.

Cheers

Jon

[Andrew*]

That's one thorough "first light" report. Thanks for taking the time to write all that!

I find it very odd what they say about the collimator. I tested my Baader collimator and it WAS out, so I corrected it and it didn't take "extensive auxiliary equipment"!!

The flaring you speak of - did you check that this wasn't coma? If star wasn't bang in the centre of the supplied plossl (which won't correct the coma very well - as you noticed it's not the best), then you WILL see it flaring whether you're collimated perfectly or not.

Andrew

[rusirius]

That's one thorough "first light" report. Thanks for taking the time to write all that!

I've never done one before and I'm actually writing it for my own notes but maybe I could have abbreviated it a little.

I find it very odd what they say about the collimator. I tested my Baader collimator and it WAS out, so I corrected it and it didn't take "extensive auxiliary equipment"!!

The flaring you speak of - did you check that this wasn't coma? If star wasn't bang in the centre of the supplied plossl (which won't correct the coma very well - as you noticed it's not the best), then you WILL see it flaring whether you're collimated perfectly or not.

Andrew

Thanks for that info. I will definately make that collimator collimating tool that Star Ware describes. I want to be confident that the tool is spot on.

The star I was looking as close to centre as I could make it and certainly well away from the edge of the FOV but I couldn't say it was spot on centre. The star looked a bit like a comet with a very wide tail which I think is the characteristic look of coma.

When I used the scope for the second time on Sunday, collimation seemed stable thoughout the whole observing session but I didn't take the upper section down at any point like I did the first time around. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that's what threw it out.

[FLO]

Steve also mentioned that he removed the rubber bushes that separate the two sections. I haven't attempted this yet. Before I do, can anyone tell me whether this voids the warranty?

You must be thinking of someone else, we haven't altered our 300p Flextube. I'm not sure about the warranty situation, I guess I should play safe and say that it is best that you don't make any modifications until after the warranty has expired. But, I have heard of at least two owners who have removed the bushes without experiencing problems. Personally, I don't find the gap between the two sections to be a problem, we just throw a bin-bag over it when not in use

[Kai]

Steve also mentioned that he removed the rubber bushes that separate the two sections. I haven't attempted this yet. Before I do, can anyone tell me whether this voids the warranty?

You must be thinking of someone else, we haven't altered our 300p Flextube

It was Ade Ashford in his review who took the black plugs off

http://nightskies.net/scopetest/scopes/skywatcher/flextube.html

[rusirius]

Yes thanks both for pointing that out. It was indeed in Ade Ashfords report, but the URL link to it was sent to me by FLO. I tried to modify the report but found that I no longer have the modify option.

Steve, point noted about leaving it until the warranty has expired.

[Doc]

Fantastic detailed report.

I have a 16" Lightbridge and think my collimation is also slightly out hence I also have little comet like stars from time to time.

But mine seems to lessen the longer the scope cools down. So maybe a combination of thermals, collimation and slight coma.

I'm going order a baader collimator as one of my prezzies for xmas, hopefully I can address the matter.

Where mine excells is Lunar detail, clusters, and nebulas. faint galaxies just look like a smear and double stars are splitable but alot easier in my 4" refractor.

But I do have alot of Light pollution to contend with so need to buy some filters.

Basically very similar to your problems. maybe all big dobs are the same.

[MartinB]

Just been out with my 300mm Skyliner and having read this thread I had a look at the double. Seeing was around 6/10 with a gentle breeze blowing. The stars weren't cleanly split with a Pentax 10mm xw but were with a 9mm Baader orthoscopic. A 7mm Pentax xl showed clear black space between the stars. The seeing was running out of steam with a 5mm orthoscopic. The scope was collimated using a Baader laser collimator.

Also had a play with the Baader multipurpose coma corrector. I have this primarily for imaging but got the visual kit as well for use with the dob. Not got the spacing sorted yet, a bit of a rush with the clouds. Some improvement in coma with 30mm Moonfish, 27mm panoptic and 17mm Nagler. Coma was eliminated completely with Pentax 10mm and 7mm EPs. No coma anyway with the orthoscopics. I have since checked up on the spacing and was actually underdoing it. Sorry, hope this isn't a hijack but thought it might be of interest.

[MikeP]

Martin,

Are you feeling OK? Eyepieces, splitting doubles? You may need to see a doctor.

Mike

[themos]

Hm, this kind of tallies with me not being able to split the double(s) with my TV Nagler 12mm and 300P.

[MartinB]

Martin,

Are you feeling OK? Eyepieces, splitting doubles? You may need to see a doctor.

Mike

It's ok Mike, I've taken an aspirin and am feeling better now.

[MikeP]

[Astroscot2]

Having just bought one of these its been good to hear someone Else's opinion and thoughts on the scope. I had the same problem with the instructions for the base, only found them after I had finished construction ;-) . It seems I'm missing the rubber ring from the finger assy, I had to use some masking tape for it to hold securely - ( Steve is it possible to order one of these ? ).

I think regarding collimation the difficulty is going to be the accuracy of these laser collimator's, my own seems to be slightly out and I too see flaring on stars with my own eyepieces - I'm presumed the cause is the poor quality of my eyepieces and the collimation being slightly off, I've still to do a star test .

I was immediately impressed with the views, a week or so ago I was out one clear Sunday night with the Sky & night pocket atlas and found dozens of faint fuzzies with ease and also the Veil Nebula without any LP filer from my own light polluted back yard.

I really like this scope and once I nail the collimation and get some good eyepieces I know I'm going to be very content for a long while.

[MartinB]

The flaring of stars can also be produced by internal reflections and I have a feeling this is a scope that would benefit from flocking.

[kev1204]

Hi,

I bought a 300p flextube a little under a month ago. My previous scope was a Skywatcher 130PM. I have to say the views with the 300P are fantastic and I have no complaints. I collimate mine with a laser collimator everytime I set it up. It does not hold collimation very well, which after reading Ade Ahsford's report was a little disapointing, but I've got pretty good at collimating so no bother there. I replaced the finder scope with a red dot from the 130PM. I found that its easier to use than the finderscope, but I intend to fit both at some point. I've also fitted a cooling fan to the primary mirror just shorten cooling down times.

My only gripe is that I wish carring handles had been fitted to the OTA, as I move mine about in two pieces, but I will get around to doing that myself at some point. Oytherwise I am very pleased!