Posts Made By: John Theodossy

Joe,
Checkout the archives and posts at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital_astro/
Lots of info in the files section as well.
Good luck and have fun
John

I have tried this using a 1st generation night vision monocular. I got a model on e*** that had a c-mount lens on the objective end. I used a c-t mount adaptor (from Orion telescope) to put the monocular in the diagonal in place of a standard eyepiece. I was rather disappointed at the result. While it did increase the depth magnitude of stars visible, it was rather usless for DSO. It is possible the model of night vision monocular I have is inadequate for the task. However, my impression was that the absolute gain increased a fair amount (thus seeing dimmer stars) but the overall signal to noise did NOT change enough (if at all) to increase the contrast of DSO against the brightened background sky.

Another variable in my attempt is that I have suburban skyglow with which to contend. This may be, at least in part, why my background sky became so bright with the above set-up. I will test the rig out again next time I am at a dark site, but I am not optomistic.

I think the I3 Colins eyepiece referenced in the above post is actually a 3rd generation night vision device, but I am not 100% sure on that. If you have success let us all know.

John

Went through the same decision process about 6 months ago and eventually went with the Meade. Also, agree with Ed that would definitely spend the extra $150 for the UHTC. In the end I concluded that their was not a right or wrong decision so the difference really came down to personal preferences. You may get a lot of "one better than the other" remarks from the zealots in each camp, but I would suggest you review the features of each and see which seems to suit your particular desires.

For me it came down to:
1. Preferred the Autostar computer. I was already very familiar with the Autostar and its functions. I also liked the ability to upgrade the firmware relatively easily with web downloads.
2. Liked the microfocuser feature, although some folks do not like the Meade implementation.
3. Liked having manual slo-mo controls. (not an option on the Nexstar).
4. Liked the idea of 2 axis PPEC, although I have not used this at all, and may never. Implementation of this feature by Meade has had some problems.

What I think I missed out on:
1. Nexstar was a little cheaper (when comparing to the Meade with UHTC).
2. Carbon-fiber tube. (lighter weight and better thermal properties).
3. I thought the Celestron was cosmetically more pleasing (i.e. cooler looking).

Consider checking out the Yahoo sites for both scopes and seeing what the chatter is on each.

Goodluck

John

Yu,

I think it looks awesome. I am awaiting delivery of a SAC8 camera and will be very happy if I can get images that look like this. By the way, I have greatly admired your images of Jupiter as well. Keep posting.

John

Went through the same thing some months ago. Back and forth, like this better on Meade, like that thing better on Celestron. So it ended up kinda like religion, I went with the comfortable and familiar; the Meade LX200GPS UHTC mostly because I already had a Meade(ETX)and really liked the Autostar. Have NO regrets. Happy with the scope, with my dealer, happy with Meade customer service (only used for a couple of simple questions, no real problems). I would probably say the same thing about the Celestron if I had gone that way.

In short, my opinion is that they are different but equivalent overall. Slight edge on some things one way and edge to the other on other things. Figure out from all the opinions out there and the yahoo groups what the issues and strengths are for each and figure out which factors are most important to you and your plans for the scope. Make your decision and don't look back.

If you end up unhappy you can always sell on Astromart and try the other way.

Good luck
John

There is no question that size matters and I would always go for the 2L over the 20oz. The increased thrist quenching ability of the larger volume can't be beat on a hot day even by the best tasting 20oz.

Hi John,
Agree with everything stated above. I just got one of the new William Optics 2" diagonal to replace the stock Meade diagonal that came with the 8"LX200GPS and did note an increased brightness to the images in the 1 1/4 eyepieces. I assume this is due to a quality improvement in the WO over the stock Meade, but you already have a high end diagonal so doubt you'll see any increased brightness over the TV Everbright.

I also noted improvement in image sharpness at the edges of the eyepiece FOV. This may also be just a quality improvement in WO over the stock Meade. But there was a post awhile back that stated something to the effect that the center of the mirror is better configured than the edges which may contribute to an improved image. Don't know if this is true or not.

I am getting ready to get one of the BW Optik 30mm 80 to try out, which was one of the motivations for getting the diagonal in the first place.

John

Hi Kegan,
I went for a SAC8 which I have been using now for about a month. It is a great device particularly for the price. It is VERY sensitive, described by one guy as a "photon trap". It does have the limitation of being only an 8-bit imaging device, but some of this limitation can be overcome using various techniques to expand the total depth of the final image. It is "based" on a video camera backbone originally developed by a guy named Jon Grove from QCAUIG which makes it respond somewhat differently than the more traditional imagers. There is a lot of discussion on both cameras in the SAC yahoo group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SACimaging/).
Its worth checking out the posts over there for more detailed information.

I do not have a SAC7b so my "knowledge" is all second hand. It is a one shot color imager geared more toward imaging planets and the brighter DSOs. The SAC8 is a much more sensitive B&W imager geared toward DSO imaging.

A few websites that may be worth a look if you are interested in these devices are:
for SAC8:

http://home.earthlink.net/~celstark/
http://www.cloudnet.com/~tjtasto/astroimage.htm
http://geocities.com/myastrostuff/
The geocities website is my own, which I try to update regularly.

SAC7b
http://www.angelfire.com/space2/tgtan/
These are probably the best SAC7b images around.

So I guess what I'm saying in the end is I don't think one is better, but they different devices geared toward different targets.

Hope this is helpful

John

Hi George,
See my reply to you in the equipment forum.

John
http://www.geocities.com/myastrostuff/

There is a great program from Ron Wodaski called ccdcalc. There is a freeware version as well as the full version that comes with the purchase of his book.
Check the website for more information.
http://www.newastro.com

John