Posts Made By: Michael Fitzgerald

Just for the sake of a new post, I was at Cabella's in Sydney Nebraska today. They had a special in there close out section, Steiner 20x80 bino's. Individual eyepiece focus. I compared them to a store brand center focus 20x80. The Steiner's seemed to be much brighter. I did not see any purple fringing. They seemed very nice. Trouble is they were $725 "if I wanted them today". (The other side of the coin is that I could have had a divorce "If I dared buy them today - or any other day!)Of course I could not try them at night. Regardless, I have a hard time thinking these would be that much better than a Burgess/Apogee 25x100 bino's.

Any comments?

Michael

I have some new bino viewers coming, they were given to me as an unexpected gift. I forget what make they are (that seems the safest way to handle things :-) ). I have a 16" sonotube Discovery and an SV 85mm. The only pair of eyepieces I have are Orion Sirrius 25mm, leftover from previous Orion scope purchases. (They have different colored coatings, but they looked good in my friends XXXXX binoviewers).

Anybody have suggestions on what pairs would be good with my scope? I have Pentax XL's and a narrow IP distance. Since these are not easily available and would probably be too far apart from me, I will not be pairing up on these. The brand is not as important to me as your suggestions for focal length.

Thanks

Michael

I was able to go out today for the first time since September 3rd. I found out I turned on my Sky Commander, so the battery was dead. No problems, I just pulled out my star chart and did fine.

I was able to see M33 off the triangulum pretty easy for a change. Just a small distance from M33, at 119x, I saw something that looked like a planetary nebulae (Starmaster 14.5" f4.5 - Pentax XL 14mm). It was in the same FOV.

My star charts are not real detailed. Can anybody tell me what it might have been.

Thanks in advance.

Michael

I was just out for a few minutes with my binoculars and noticed a bright object (round with a brighter core) in Perseus (I think). It is a comet? I have not been able to do much observing over the last few months and I am a little out of touch with what has been going on.

I gotta get back out and look some more. I will check back later.

Thanks!!

Mike

Don,

When I am pricing things I am going to sell, I just go to 'Search Classifieds'. You can type in the name of the equipment that you want to sell and then search in the appropriate forum. I usually change the search from date to 2 years earlier (just change the 7 in 2007 to a 5). You should get a bunch of folks who sold your item. Throw out the high and low prices and average the rest.

I'm sure others will chime in with their method.

Good Luck.

Mike

I just got this refractor and mount this weekend. It is not portable. It is not pretty (nicks and scuffs on the OTA and the mount). I think it is somewhat unique however and I don't mind the three trips it takes to set up and the three trips to break it down.

The picture shows the 'new' scope side by side with a NP101 on a DM4.

A few words about the achro. I have no idea what it is. It is supposed to be an f10 6". That would give it a focal length of about 1500. The mount was made by William Ball in 1990. It is a pretty clever design. The braces at the bottom of the mount pop off and fit on the pegs in the legs. It makes it pretty easy to carry. It is smooth to operate with the alt axis needing a little work. The metal rings are a little pitted and I would expect it will smooth up more with a little cleaning. Even changing out 2" eyepieces did not result in the scope moving. The old Unitron focuser is actually good. Focusing is smooth. Supposedly, the scope was owned by Dr. Henry E. Paul at one time according to an astronomy professor at Denver University, a prior owner of this scope. That would make the objective lens 50 years old if true. It makes a good story anyway.

It shows less CA than the Celestron 4" and nighthawk I used to own. The extra 2" of aperture really does help in town when it comes to DSO's. It is kind of like owning a 60's Porsche. It doesn't have all the bells and whistles, but it has class!

Mike

Leif,

I have an XT10 and just recently got a Discovery 16". After three and a half weeks I still have not had a lot of opportunity to compare the two scopes because of the weather, but I can give you some intitial impressions. Hope this helps. I observe from a nice light polluted city, not sure of the mag, but at times I can easily read the labels on my eyepieces. Often cannot see all the stars in the big dipper.

Jupiter - 10 - break in south band - probably GRS
16 - obvious GRS - better color and contrast

M82 10 - easy to find, small smudge
16 - double the size of 10 (at same magnification) and much brighter

M51 10 - can see two slightly fuzzy stars
16 - obvious smudges maybe some spiral structure with averted vision - sorry, no bridge

M13 10 - looks good, can see stars to core with averted vision
16 - this one was an OH WOW for me - much brighter, resolves to core with direct vision

M57 10 - hint of ring with averted vision
16 - another OH WOW because obvious ring with hint of color

I hope you see the trend. DSO's are easier to find and show more detail when I do find them. It should be a nice upgrade for you.

Michael

I can give you a half cent opinion. I have the 127 and a Celestron f10 C102HD. I really felt that the Celestron showed a little better color on Jupiter, but I hated the purple. I believe the 127 may have shown the Orion neb and open/globs slightly brighter, but it may have been wishful thinking. I am going to sell the 102 anyway because the 127 is so much easier to move around. I just put it out before dinner so it will be cooled down when I go out to look. I understand the 4in Stellarvue is a better scope than the C102, but I have never seen one. My point is that if the C102 is close, then the Stellarvue may be better than the 127.

I have no idea how to compare these scopes (127/C102)critically however, so I am only reporting what MY eyes can see.

Michael

I may get flamed for this, but I had a plate glass Orion XT10 and now have a 16" soda lime (glass) Discovery. I have a Telrad, a Rigel, and a red dot finder, a straight through finder and a right angle finder (I know you did not ask about finders, but just in case :-) ) . They all work good. I don't have preferences. They give (or gave) me great images and the finder or tube material really had no bearing on what I see. When I first looked at M13 in the 16" I had no thoughts what-so-ever on the material that the tube was made of or if I had found the general area in a Rigel or a Telrad!

You can't make a bad choice - enjoy what ever you pick.

Michael

I sold a C102HD, Orion 127, and a Stellarvue AT1010 and got a Stellarvue 85S APO. My reasons for doing so are multiple and apply only to me, so what I tell you may not have any bearing on what you would have seen. (I have a 16" Discovery sonotube also - I really love that scope.)
I also use my scopes both day and night.

First and formost, my wife is much happier with one scope instead of three! All other reasons pale in comparision:-)

The 85S cools down much quicker than the Mak 127, I often only go out for 30 minutes or so. The Mak needed an hour or more to cool down. The purple in the two acromats really bothered me. I could see it in the daytime and on the planets. The acro's put a purple fringe around birds that just killed details such as eye color and intruded on Jupiter too much for me. The 85S is easier to take for trips and quick outings (as was the Mak and AT1010). I noticed in the day, that the Mak really seemed washed out when compared with the acro's and Apo. I only would notice this on low contrast views such as the trunk of a tree in deep shade or wildlife in the same location. At night about the only time I noticed the loss of contrast was on Jupiter. Colors on Jupiter were a bit more vivid in the acro's and the apo. Otherwise I liked the views best in the Mak and the apo for both day and night. Keep in mind that the achro purple only bothered me on a few things at night. Jupiter, Mars, and Rigel - often couldn't find the companion. It was daytime use that I really objected to the purple.

This is getting too long winded - sorry. Suffice to say that there are several other equally minor reasons why I went with the apo (and having a 16" dob to fall back on doesn't hurt either). The apo seemed to give me the best of all worlds.

Michael