|
Post by davy on Feb 24, 2019 22:13:11 GMT
Been pretty quiet astronomy wise, I know a lot of folk are struggling with the weather,, no different here .. Few clothes hanger tripods here as well, novelty coat stand. But been swithering on what way to turn,, been looking at a few bits of equipment.. CNC router to make sgian dubh handles,, but how many sgian dubhs do I need lol. ( Scottish knife sock for kilt wearing)
So been looking at a new scope Skywatcher ed72,, but weather still not clear enough to get a decent run at things,, seen a friend on Facebook got shot if his big truss dob and is heading down the star adventurer and ed72 route ,, because it's more portable for him.
So been looking at lenses for dslr for weeks now,, fast lenses are flying off the shelves just now,, 20 year old fd canon fit still command £100 +.. kept getting beat on bids so opted to go a bit slower ,, up at f5.6 but I've picked up two fd canon fit lenses,, 70-200 and a sigma 400mm these will give me a few options on the star adventurer and azgti mounts,, Just weather permitting now
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Feb 25, 2019 5:02:42 GMT
I've been reading great reviews about the little Skywatcher 72ED davy. Most people said they carry it about, with a little collapsible fold-up tripod, in a their backpacks!
|
|
|
Post by vondragonnoggin on Feb 25, 2019 5:43:24 GMT
Just checked out the SW72ed.
Looks nice!
I have an AT72ed and it is used quite a bit and very capable for small size. I think I like the SW focal ratio better. Nice they offer a .85 reducer/flattener for it too. F/4.9 with reducer.
Good price too.
I’ll be interested to read your take on it if you get it.
|
|
elpajare
Member
Posts: 438
home town/country: Girona-Spain
time zone gmt +/-: 1
|
Post by elpajare on Feb 25, 2019 7:45:22 GMT
Personally I prefer mirror telescopes, you have to calibrate them frequently but they do not have chromatic aberration like simple refractors and the price is much lower.
I have thrown away two refractors for these problems. It seems that the type of glass used in the lenses is the most important and I think that this SKW model does not have the best. The Abbe number is the factor to take into account to compare glasses.
In my opinion if you want to spend money on a refractor that is with FPL 53 glass at least with an Abbe number of 94.96. To save on this is to buy twice (or more ....: D)
|
|
|
Post by vondragonnoggin on Feb 25, 2019 8:09:12 GMT
Personally I prefer mirror telescopes, you have to calibrate them frequently but they do not have chromatic aberration like simple refractors and the price is much lower. I have thrown away two refractors for these problems. It seems that the type of glass used in the lenses is the most important and I think that this SKW model does not have the best. The Abbe number is the factor to take into account to compare glasses. In my opinion if you want to spend money on a refractor that is with FPL 53 glass at least with an Abbe number of 94.96. To save on this is to buy twice (or more ....: D) I guess it would depend on how you use them also. In my case, I use them with my Night Vision eyepieces and filter in narrowband Ha 7nm or 3nm, or longpass 610nm or 640nm filters. No sense worrying about RGB perfectly focused together when you completely cutout the GB part. Many have visually eliminated most chromatic aberration using a 495nm longpass filter. The result gives a yellow hue to stars, but it does effectively block unfocused colors to a good degree in an achromat. A Semi-APO Baader filter also eliminates about 50% of chromatic aberration in achromats and returns the color to normal again instead of the yellow stars the Baader Fringe Killer gets by itself. The little SW72ed is not an achromat so should be even less of an issue with CA and use of filtering than those particular filters with an achromat. They are, as they say, a no fuss solution to wide field targets and do pretty well visually as long as you’re not planning on critically viewing or imaging planets or lunar. For their price, they make a very convenient solution with little weight and sharp images. I suppose it is up to each individuals taste in how critically they want to view with video astronomy or visually if they don’t have a camera attached on some nights. A 72mm telescope for me is not a critical planetary viewing telescope anyway, though I do crank magnification up at times and look at Jupiter or Saturn and definitely on the moon. I would think it more critical for AstroPhotography rather than Video Astronomy., but I’m out of my league in guessing what is desired for Video Astronomy since I have very little experience with that other than reading what other people are doing.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Feb 25, 2019 8:52:22 GMT
Personally I prefer mirror telescopes, you have to calibrate them frequently but they do not have chromatic aberration like simple refractors and the price is much lower. I have thrown away two refractors for these problems. It seems that the type of glass used in the lenses is the most important and I think that this SKW model does not have the best. The Abbe number is the factor to take into account to compare glasses. In my opinion if you want to spend money on a refractor that is with FPL 53 glass at least with an Abbe number of 94.96. To save on this is to buy twice (or more ....: D) Isn't it interesting how peoples equipment preferences differ. I have the exact opposite results to Carlos. I have better results with Refractors over Reflectors. Even my Achromats. I have 12 different Telescopes to play around with, and several camera lenses, one being a $3,500 professional Movie Camera lens (was used in the filming of the movie 'Tootsie'). I have Achromats, ED's, Newtonians, and a Schmidt Newt Astrograph. Out of all, so far, the 80ED, 120mm f5 Achromat, and 150 f5 Achromat are my favourites. Doing Video Astronomy I am not worried about a bit of CA or violet fringing. I have most of it under control. But if I was to ever return to Astrophotography I would certainly stick with the ED scopes and the Schmidt-Newt Astrograph, and give the Achromats a holiday I only use my reflectors for Visual. I also prefer not to have star spikes introduced by Newts in my photos
|
|
elpajare
Member
Posts: 438
home town/country: Girona-Spain
time zone gmt +/-: 1
|
Post by elpajare on Feb 25, 2019 9:41:56 GMT
I forgot to say that my opinion is only for Videoastronomy, and more especially for the weak and small objects that are the majority in my northern sky, about 90%.
The physical laws are immutable, each object needs an ideal camera / telescope combination.
what kind of objects are your favorites, Ken?
And what is you favorite combination?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Feb 25, 2019 10:51:12 GMT
I forgot to say that my opinion is only for Videoastronomy, and more especially for the weak and small objects that are the majority in my northern sky, about 90%. The physical laws are immutable, each object needs an ideal camera / telescope combination. what kind of objects are your favorites, Ken? And what is you favorite combination? True Carlos, different objects require different scope/camera combinations. My favourite objects are verrrrrrrrrrrrrry distant verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry faint Galaxy clusters. To capture them I use my ED80 and my Canon 350d DSLR. Apparently the 10" Schmidt-Newt Astrograph is far better at it but I've never tried it with my DSLR. I must do that one day if I ever get back into Astrophotography. My favorite combination is the ED80 and DSLR, but for Video Astronomy (for closer objects like Nebs and large closer galaxies) I like the ED80 and the IMX224. Second would be my 6" f5 Achro and IMX224. I am starting to really like the IMX178, but its drawback is that it is far slower.
|
|
|
Post by davy on Feb 25, 2019 10:56:00 GMT
I've been reading great reviews about the little Skywatcher 72ED davy. Most people said they carry it about, with a little collapsible fold-up tripod, in a their backpacks! That would be the idea for it.. travel in car,,
|
|
|
Post by davy on Feb 25, 2019 11:05:21 GMT
Personally I prefer mirror telescopes, you have to calibrate them frequently but they do not have chromatic aberration like simple refractors and the price is much lower. I have thrown away two refractors for these problems. It seems that the type of glass used in the lenses is the most important and I think that this SKW model does not have the best. The Abbe number is the factor to take into account to compare glasses. In my opinion if you want to spend money on a refractor that is with FPL 53 glass at least with an Abbe number of 94.96. To save on this is to buy twice (or more ....: D) I have a skywatcher explorer 200pds and give great views of the moon,, I bought it when I thought my partner was allowing me to put a roll off roof observatory in her back garden,, 😣 that got kicked into touch,,, so main scope is now the skywatcher evostar ed80 with upgraded focuser and 0.85 focal reducer and I can't fault it,, brilliant scope and even better with new focuser, another £130 on price if scope but great investment. The ed72 has the new glass that is still top secret ..lol.. so have no doubt it will be more than adequate for my needs
|
|
elpajare
Member
Posts: 438
home town/country: Girona-Spain
time zone gmt +/-: 1
|
Post by elpajare on Feb 25, 2019 16:48:54 GMT
haha, yes, it's a big secret that nobody wants to reveal. I was a few days until I found a clue, the glass they use in this telescope is a very appropriate FPL53. This tube costs in Astroshop (Europe) 324 euros + postage. Without customs taxes for European Union coutries.
Is this model?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 0:53:23 GMT
Davy Do you have both the ED80 and the ED72 ? What about the SW evoguide 50 ? How would that go using it as a wide field imaging scope for travel?
Ken, I agree about the 178. I really like it on the hyperstar and look forward to trying it out on the rasa. I havent used the Ed 80 much but I intend changing that. I dont know what to do about the lx 90's. They are my visual scopes. Cant bring myself to selling them.
cheers Paul
|
|
elpajare
Member
Posts: 438
home town/country: Girona-Spain
time zone gmt +/-: 1
|
Post by elpajare on Feb 27, 2019 9:45:08 GMT
True Carlos, different objects require different scope/camera combinations. My favourite objects are verrrrrrrrrrrrrry distant verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry faint Galaxy clusters. To capture them I use my ED80 and my Canon 350d DSLR. Apparently the 10" Schmidt-Newt Astrograph is far better at it but I've never tried it with my DSLR. I must do that one day if I ever get back into Astrophotography. My favorite combination is the ED80 and DSLR, but for Video Astronomy (for closer objects like Nebs and large closer galaxies) I like the ED80 and the IMX224. Second would be my 6" f5 Achro and IMX224. I am starting to really like the IMX178, but its drawback is that it is far slower. Try the Rising Cam IMX294 and you'll fall in love with it, combines well whit everything.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Feb 28, 2019 3:34:03 GMT
True Carlos, different objects require different scope/camera combinations. My favourite objects are verrrrrrrrrrrrrry distant verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry faint Galaxy clusters. To capture them I use my ED80 and my Canon 350d DSLR. Apparently the 10" Schmidt-Newt Astrograph is far better at it but I've never tried it with my DSLR. I must do that one day if I ever get back into Astrophotography. My favorite combination is the ED80 and DSLR, but for Video Astronomy (for closer objects like Nebs and large closer galaxies) I like the ED80 and the IMX224. Second would be my 6" f5 Achro and IMX224. I am starting to really like the IMX178, but its drawback is that it is far slower. Try the Rising Cam IMX294 and you'll fall in love with it, combines well whit everything. Thanks Carlos but I don't have a spare thousand dollars sitting around That camera costs $1,031.10 es.aliexpress.com/store/product/USB3-0-SONY-imx294-4-3-inch-Sensor-10-3MP-1000s-exposure-Deep-Sky-Astronomical-Telescope/1918400_32918018747.html?spm=a219c.12010615.8148356.1.261418f1QkDPK8
|
|