Thanks shredder...simply, Lunar imaging isn't my forte, nor is the pre-requisite processing of it!
I've probably only ever taken a dozen & a half Lunar images over the last dozen years...& the "full disk" through the sub-scope was processed in planetary mode because I ran out of memory using Lunar/Solar mode...reminds me a bit of my own memory!
But I appreciate your compliments!
We also ob.d a few star clusters & even imaged M42 before the Moon rose on the 2nd night with a reasonably black sky - that's something else I have to work out how to process most effectively from the type of data gathered!
Another nice little view was that of Uranus...a tiny, very pale blue, sharp disk in a black fov, very satisfying!
I want to use the barlow next session...too tired after we got home yesterday to set it up even though it was supposed to be a decent night...very tired & I think age is showing a bit but the temperatures in the low 40°'s C range isn't filling us with energy - seems another aspect of ageing is being not so enamoured with the heat!
Being honest I'm still torn a bit between aspects of these scopes as completely original entities or making some modifications that would clearly improve their performance...I think the first element of that dilemma is to make sure I restore/refurbish each scope so that it is as original as possible, but with this particular scope either make the sort of modification to the focuser I suggested a bit earlier, or else fabricate a "swap-over" focuser that I'd try to have look as if it is retaining some of the aesthetic uniformity of the instrument's overall character whilst improving the performance...
That way I could revert it to full originality at anytime should I wish...
The mount is part of this situation - I think the original with its 4 separate c/weights, wooden tripod legs, etc is a real beauty...but "heck!" when it rides on the EQ6 I can just about lean on the scope & get no shakes or deviations...employ "go to" even if I wanted to. (never use it normally )
That's sort of saying that in practical use it's a no-brainer what mount to use tbh...even though set up in my studio to say to anyone "come & have a look at this" or just for personal eye-candy, the totally-original appearance cannot be surpassed!
As I said, I could convert the focuser to have 3 Teflon guide tracks at 120° intervals & all you would see would be a few more little grubscrews flush with the crinkle-black focuser finish...but one element of the design that surprised me, & perhaps Bob touched upon about "Seems to me that D-K aimed to keep the cost down, but chose some of the better elements around at that time" is the lack of a collimatible objective cell - all the other aspects of its quality would suggest to me that this would've been an essential - but clearly it wasn't!
Now for just about all intents & purposes I could counter that with a collimatible focuser assembly...& zero image shift & being able to collimate would just about put the "S" into "schmik!"
Excuse the ramblings, probably something most classic scope owners etc aren't worried by in the least & I fully-understand that...but it does me...& these ramblings help me articulate/clarify my own thoughts...hopefully it at least interests a few other folks!
At present if I followed this path I envisage the preceding would necessitate a coupling ring at the end of the ota to secure the focuser to - instead of the direct(fixed) mounting of it to the tube proper...with another 3 grubscrews to provide tilt/collimation adjustments to the original (improved) focuser - probably the best option...
At any rate, besides being an inveterate tinkerer I'm also a happy vintage Japanese scope addict now...although in the long run I see the Dai Ichi Kogaku & the Royal Astro 4" f10 Newt being my real "keepers" amongst this lot, with the RA being as absolutely kosher as I can make it...
Edited by Kokatha man, 05 January 2018 - 09:34 PM.