Jupiter and Saturn Small achromatic refractor.

[neil phillips]

 Just for fun and testing purposes. Imaged the gas giants. With small scope. Purchased this 90mm SW Achromatic refractor F10, mainly because i wanted a small solar scope, And a quick grab and go for those visual moments i enjoy with small scopes. I sold all my refractors. When i needed funds. Glad to have another back. I have to say i am very impressed. Its definitely a keeper Thanks goes to Pat who sold it to me. Both captures considerably oversampled F20. then resized to 150% could be forgiven for thinking a much larger scope took them. A sign of a good lens figure.

Edited July 6, 2023 by neil phillips

[John]

That looks like a nice one 🙂

We discussed in another thread the potential for variability in these lower cost achromats and I'm afraid that I have one of the 90mm F/10's that is not so good 🙄

Glad you got a good one 👍

[glafnazur]

I've got one of the old blue tubes and for the price I paid I can't fault it. I use it mainly as a grab and go scope for double stars.

[neil phillips]

4 hours ago, John said:

That looks like a nice one 🙂

We discussed in another thread the potential for variability in these lower cost achromats and I'm afraid that I have one of the 90mm F/10's that is not so good 🙄

Glad you got a good one 👍

Hi John that was quite a relevant thread. Really is a lottery draw isn't it. I knew fairly quickly the figure was quite good after a initial Star test. Both sides of focus seemed quite close. Took me a minute or so to garner there was a small amount of under or over correction (cant remember which side of focus ) But it was minimal. Less than i generally see. Stars also were reasonably clean. I may check the focuser alignment at some point. Unlikely to be bang on. But small gains on that. Now to make another solar filter. It wont compete with my other scopes obviously, But that's missing the point. I didn't buy it for that.  also doesn't give me a hernia setting it up like the big guns. And cools within twenty minuets. More tolerant of seeing ect. And really just a lot of fun. Lunar will be nice when high

 

                                                                                                                                                                                      

Edited July 6, 2023 by neil phillips

[neil phillips]

4 hours ago, glafnazur said:

I've got one of the old blue tubes and for the price I paid I can't fault it. I use it mainly as a grab and go scope for double stars.

Exactly grab and go, quick cooldown. Something I've missed. They can be real bargains agreed

[Gonariu]

4 hours ago, John said:

We discussed in another thread the potential for variability in these lower cost achromats and I'm afraid that I have one of the 90mm F/10's that is not so good 🙄

Could you remind me where is this thread which I would wont read? Thanks.

[neil phillips]

Just now, Gonariu said:

Could you remind me where is this thread which I would wont read? Thanks.

Hi the thread was here

 

[Space Cowboy]

How high was Jupiter Neil? That's quite remarkable for a diddy scope!

[Gonariu]

3 hours ago, neil phillips said:

Hi the thread was here

 

Thanks Neil!

[neil phillips]

17 minutes ago, Space Cowboy said:

How high was Jupiter Neil? That's quite remarkable for a diddy scope!

Exactly what i thought Stuart. Hard to be exact my clocks gone bananas on the lappy. But i can tell it was before the sun came up, But daylight so as a guess i reckon maybe 25 degrees give or take, slightly lower or higher. 

Its interesting on a few fronts. And really just confirms to me something I've debated in the past. Regarding sampling under certain situations. Ideal was around F11.5. I was considerably over that F20 and that doesn't take into account the long ADC extension. The native image correct sampling would have been more difficult to get focus. The size would be tiny. But seriously oversampled and zoomed in to 175% i could start to see small differences of focus about 2 mm in movement really tiny amounts were making big differences in perceived detail. Its highly likely the reason i have done so well. Is breaking all the rules. However uncomfortable that is for our theorist friends. Couple that with the 150" resize. has made a mockery of the little scopes ability. I knew it was a goodun But at that elevation. I was floored. The amount of detail on show. Normally with these kind of things you just see a couple of bands. maybe 3.with little else going on. I can see a collection of white ovals on this lol. Crazy little scope

Edited July 6, 2023 by neil phillips

[Pete Presland]

Good looking images, especially considering the size of the aperture and position of the objects.

[neil phillips]

15 hours ago, Pete Presland said:

Good looking images, especially considering the size of the aperture and position of the objects.

Cheers Pete should encourage others to try with small scopes i hope

[Pete Presland]

4 hours ago, neil phillips said:

Cheers Pete should encourage others to try with small scopes i hope

The equipment should never stop people trying, you just have to be more realistic in your expectations.

Something, i personally do have to keep telling myself at times 🙂 

[neil phillips]

3 hours ago, Pete Presland said:

The equipment should never stop people trying, you just have to be more realistic in your expectations.

Something, i personally do have to keep telling myself at times 🙂 

I find hard to myself that when i get serious about imaging. Hence lugging a 40kg system into the garden a lot. But even then UK skies temper what we often get. But your right it is all about being realistic.