Posts Made By: Randy Roy

Walter,

Let me predict one that I believe many will feel that way about in the future--the Coronado PST. I know the conventional wisdom is that technology will continue to bring the prices down, but I still have a hard time believing that anyone can produce a high quality Ha scope for $500.00. As I understand it, the etalons still require a lot of hands on assembly and the mechanical and optical tolerances are very difficult to achieve. I predict either the build quality will drop significantly or the price will slowly rise. I hope I am wrong, but time will tell. If I didn't own one, it would be top on my list of purchases to make.

Randy

Steven,

I have an EM-200 and use the tripod legs with it. I am about to order a Tak portable pier for home use and keep the tripod legs for field use. IMO--a permanent pier definitely has advantages over a tripod for a permanent installation, that being it lends itself better for a rigid permanent attachment to the ground. It is much different comparing portable piers to tripods. I believe tripods, because of their design are generally as stable as portable piers. This, of course, assumes you are comparing a beefy tripod with a beefy portable pier. Tripods generally collapse easier, are more easily stored and transported and usually weigh less than a comparably sized pier. However, a portable pier does make for a nice semi-permanent installation. I have an observing pad where I intend to use my portable pier. It will be nice to use it for imaging and not be as concerned with kicking the tripod legs in the dark. It will also allow, IMO, a bit of a cleaner way to manage various cords an cables.

Of coures this my opinion, but I would say if you have a permanent installation a permanent pier is the best solution. If you have a semi-permanent (almost always use the scope at the same location) a portable pier can make great sense, and if you generally travel to your observing site, the tripod cannot be beat for portability.

Randy

Dmitri,

I've wondered the same thing. I ended up with a Televue 2" adapter(short version) for SCT and the Televue 1.25" low profile 2"-1.25" adapter for that. It is a bit pricey, but pretty elegant solution to the problem.

Randy

I like this guy's style. I normally buy things at full price and then sell them at a loss. I think his way is better!

If these were life-saving medicines, I would have a problem with it personally, but he is selling "toys". I think the market will decide if it is a fair price.

Randy

Was it Herb? I've heard he's been known to buy things at a lower price and then sell them for a higher price!

Randy

Gregg,

The high power end is not the problem with fast newts. I have an F4.3 Starmaster 16 and most good short focal length planetary eps work well with it as does barlowed high quality plossls (especially the Tak LE's). My favorite high power eps are Radians, though.

The problem is the low power, wide field end. Good plossls work ok (with a Paracorr), but Naglers and Panoptics are demonstrably the best eps I've used. I especially like the 22mm and 26mm Naglers. Most important for an F4.5 scope at low power, IMO, is using the Paracorr. Many don't mind seagulls around the edges as long as the on axis image is ok, but I prefer the sharpness you get with the Paracorr.

Since you are into planetary and you are only talking about a medium size scope, have you considered an F6? No Paracorr needed and you can get great views with cheaper eyepieces.

Randy

Well, it wouldn't have to be 80° to be revolutionary. A 60°, but even a 50°zoom of that range, if it were parfocal and did not experience "barreling" such as the Leica, Pentax and Zeiss zooms do would be pretty cool. If it had decent eye relief and an AFOV that was consistent through the range that would be nice and if it provided a flat field, edge to edge that would be spectacular. If you could do this in a package that did not exceed 16-18oz or $500.00, I believe many of us would jump at the chance to buy one.

I also think a 7-18mm Radian Zoom would be fabulous. With that, a 3-6 Nagler zoom and a 31 Nagler, many of us would be set.

Dreaming . . .

Randy

Allen,

My guess is you will find the 55 Plossl to get minimal use with this set-up. You are right about the central obstruction of your dob being a problem at this f.l. (I have an F4.95 w/Parcorr and the 35 Pan is the optimal lowest power ep for me. Also, though is will give you a large FOV, the exit pupil will be so large (i.e., bright background) for your TV101, that you may never use it except for the darkest possible skies and even then I bet you would much prefer the 35 Panoptic for this scope. If you do decide to get the 55 Plossl for the TAK, I would advise you to get the optional barrel extender. It adds practically no weight and will give you a couple of inches of back focus that you will need (you can probably reach focus with the FS128, but your drawtube will be so far back that you will probably have to rebalance the OTA everytime you use it.

You might want to consider the 27 Panoptic over the 24 for your particular setup. It is fairly lightweight and will give an optimal exit pupil for your dob.

I have an FS128, Starmaster 16" F4.95 w/Paracorr and TV76 (F6.3). My most used eyepieces across these three scopes are:

35 and 27 Panoptics
17 Nagler T4
12, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3 Radians

I never use the 55 Plossl and if you have trouble with the short focal length Naglers, you will probably not like the Nagler Zoom which is a tiny bit shorter than the T6s. I love the Nag Zoom, but my eyelashes deposits oil on it every time it is used and that drives me nuts.

Nice set up of scopes. Best wishes,

Randy

Floyd,

I was an early customer of James Grigar. He built me a beautiful pier and I had the first Eliminator tripod. I believe some of my pics are still on his website. He does beautiful work and is a conscientious and all around nice guy as well. I'll bet you will be very happy.

Randy

John,

Assuming you are using a GEM, it is mostly personal preference at the level of quality these eps have. I used to have a complete set of Type 6 Naglers, but finally decided that for my eyes, the Radians are much more comfortable. Now I have a full set of Radians and sold my last T6 on Astromart a few minutes ago. If I were not using tracking mounts for my scopes, I would prefer the T6's (that is why I orginally purchased those). You will hear a lot of opinions regarding optical quality, but my own opinion is that they are about equal in terms of throughput and contrast. The tradeoffs are really AFOV and eye relief and the best test for what you prefer is to actually use them and compare before you buy. It's like one of those William Shatner things:>)

Randy