Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

The New AP Stowaway is Coming Along

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1228 replies to this topic

#1151 Moondust

Moondust

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 558
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2006
  • Loc: The Show Me State

Posted 21 January 2019 - 10:55 AM

 

I have to say that using the set screws really made a difference. Yes the look, but also you no longer hesitate to find the right screw to loosen. You don't have to look or feel if it is the big one or the small one.

 

George

It would be nice if they made the tops both squared (or triangled) in addition to the round thumb screws so you could feel the difference in the dark. I may go the route of the coned set screws as you did but not at the expense of damaging anything black anodized if it is visible. Is it only if I remove the adapter that I will see the damage where the cone shape of the set screw hits? If so why wouldnt the soft point set screws be better?


Edited by Moondust, 21 January 2019 - 11:03 AM.

 

#1152 George9

George9

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1524
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2004

Posted 21 January 2019 - 11:54 AM

Nothing will be visible at all. Just a nearly microscopic nick in the anodizing in the V-channel that the focuser grabs. A tiny silver dot that will never be seen in use. Even with the originals, you can tell something was tightened on it. So I think just chalk it up to expected use.

 

Remember when you normally attach a feathertouch focuser to a scope, you use flat set screws to hold it in place, and they leave a mark on the focuser V-channel. It's just how it works.

 

I did get used to having the two sets of thumb screws and thought it was just fine, but now that I have the set screws, I actually noticed a difference.

 

George


 

#1153 Jon555

Jon555

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 51
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2018

Posted 21 January 2019 - 12:21 PM

Has anyone tried their Stowaway with some of the fast and wide-angle eyepieces and can report how it went (as they are mostly not cheap), I mean things like:
Explore Scientific 5.5mm
Ethos 8mm, 4.7mm and 3.7mm

...or anything similar?

 

I'm still waiting for a cloud-free night, got teased last night but the clouds came over faster than i could get out the door... :-)
(Went with the 35mm Panoptic to have a nice wide field and maybe see through gaps in the cloud.)

 

Thanks in advance!
 


Edited by Jon555, 21 January 2019 - 12:21 PM.

 

#1154 Moondust

Moondust

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 558
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2006
  • Loc: The Show Me State

Posted 21 January 2019 - 12:31 PM

Nothing will be visible at all. Just a nearly microscopic nick in the anodizing in the V-channel that the focuser grabs. A tiny silver dot that will never be seen in use. Even with the originals, you can tell something was tightened on it. So I think just chalk it up to expected use.

 

Remember when you normally attach a feathertouch focuser to a scope, you use flat set screws to hold it in place, and they leave a mark on the focuser V-channel. It's just how it works.

 

I did get used to having the two sets of thumb screws and thought it was just fine, but now that I have the set screws, I actually noticed a difference.

 

George

Thanks George, I just ordered the 3 allen cone point set screws from Bolt Depot. I am using an 1.25" Tele-vue Everbrite with the adapter so its not such a huge deal in grabbing the wrong thumb screws to release an eyepeice since there is just one screw on the adapter and it is long and thin, but I like the clean uncluttered look much better.


 

#1155 Jeff Gardner

Jeff Gardner

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 238
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2011

Posted 21 January 2019 - 03:11 PM

Thanks George, I just ordered the 3 allen cone point set screws from Bolt Depot. I am using an 1.25" Tele-vue Everbrite with the adapter so its not such a huge deal in grabbing the wrong thumb screws to release an eyepeice since there is just one screw on the adapter and it is long and thin, but I like the clean uncluttered look much better.

I can see that there would be less confusion if you are only using a 1.25” diagonal. I use a 2” AP Maxbrite diagonal with my Stowaway so the 2 sets of thumb screws are a bit of a distraction when installing, removing, or rotating the diagonal. No a big deal, but I feel the set screws provide an elegant alternative. 


 

#1156 Moondust

Moondust

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 558
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2006
  • Loc: The Show Me State

Posted 21 January 2019 - 03:37 PM

I can see that there would be less confusion if you are only using a 1.25” diagonal. I use a 2” AP Maxbrite diagonal with my Stowaway so the 2 sets of thumb screws are a bit of a distraction when installing, removing, or rotating the diagonal. No a big deal, but I feel the set screws provide an elegant alternative. 

It does give it a cleaner look. I am not into imaging either so the set screws will stay put once installed but I will keep the original 3 thumb screws in a plastic sleeve with the rest of the Stowaway paper work just in case I ever sold the scope, but I don't intend on making that mistake again. Chances of getting another Stowaway are zero and none! 


Edited by Moondust, 21 January 2019 - 03:49 PM.

 

#1157 George9

George9

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1524
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2004

Posted 21 January 2019 - 04:37 PM

Has anyone tried their Stowaway with some of the fast and wide-angle eyepieces and can report how it went (as they are mostly not cheap), I mean things like:
Explore Scientific 5.5mm
Ethos 8mm, 4.7mm and 3.7mm

...or anything similar?

 

I'm still waiting for a cloud-free night, got teased last night but the clouds came over faster than i could get out the door... :-)
(Went with the 35mm Panoptic to have a nice wide field and maybe see through gaps in the cloud.)

 

Thanks in advance!
 

My 8mm Ethos worked perfectly. High enough power that FC is not really an issue, especially at f/6.65. Were you expecting an issue? Delos 6, 4.5, and 3.5 worked great, too, but they're not that wide.

 

George


 

#1158 jay.i

jay.i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2703
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017
  • Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Posted 21 January 2019 - 04:47 PM

I see Gavster used his 21Ethos with his Stowaway to view the lunar eclipse. Gavin, if you're reading, mind saying a few words? Did you look at any stars or just the moon? The 21E was the eyepiece I most wanted to use with my Borg 90FL, but the field curvature and shallow depth of field were very visible with said eyepiece. That was 112mm shorter focal length though! I'd expect field curvature to be less severe, plus the larger depth of field will reduce the size of defocused stars near the edge of the field. If the 31T5 looks good, it's probably safe to say the 21E looks good too. Of course I wouldn't expect there to be a problem at high magnification with large apparent fields because field curvature isn't really visible at high magnification.


 

#1159 Jon555

Jon555

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 51
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2018

Posted 21 January 2019 - 05:18 PM

My 8mm Ethos worked perfectly. High enough power that FC is not really an issue, especially at f/6.65. Were you expecting an issue? Delos 6, 4.5, and 3.5 worked great, too, but they're not that wide.

 

George

I was hoping someone might have more than one and could compare or mention any issues or a sensible upper limit for Planets (classically 50x/inch). My short eyepieces (below my 7mm Nagler) are old tech narrow field ones like Orthos, and I was debating adding one more to give a better FoV. I wasn't sure at what point it becomes silly. For good seeing you might get close to 200x maybe, or maybe not? (Also even if >180x, say, didn't add more, just making a bigger image of the same resolution can be eye-friendly, if the the subject is bright.) For poorer seeing a lot less. The 5.5mm is interesting as it's 111x on its own and 222x with the Barlow. But would a 3.7mm (165x) on its own be a more sensible upper limit (but pointless with a Barlow)? Or less? Sorry, bit train-of-thought. Also no real idea of the down-sides of all these as have no Ethos or ES eyepieces...


 

#1160 dbehrens02

dbehrens02

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2016

Posted 21 January 2019 - 07:08 PM

Anyone have any Astro ccd photos taken with the new stowaway yet? Please post. Thanks. I still have lousy weather.


 

#1161 George9

George9

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1524
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2004

Posted 21 January 2019 - 10:17 PM

I was hoping someone might have more than one and could compare or mention any issues or a sensible upper limit for Planets (classically 50x/inch). My short eyepieces (below my 7mm Nagler) are old tech narrow field ones like Orthos, and I was debating adding one more to give a better FoV. I wasn't sure at what point it becomes silly. For good seeing you might get close to 200x maybe, or maybe not? (Also even if >180x, say, didn't add more, just making a bigger image of the same resolution can be eye-friendly, if the the subject is bright.) For poorer seeing a lot less. The 5.5mm is interesting as it's 111x on its own and 222x with the Barlow. But would a 3.7mm (165x) on its own be a more sensible upper limit (but pointless with a Barlow)? Or less? Sorry, bit train-of-thought. Also no real idea of the down-sides of all these as have no Ethos or ES eyepieces...


I can say that on a night of good seeing, I appreciated my 3.5mm Delos over my 4.5. I think I tried my 6mm Barlowed 2x and I don’t remember seeing anything more, but maybe I was at the seeing limit. I find 50x per inch is not a bad estimate. With the 3.5 I can see the Airy disk well, so it is not clear how much more I would need to magnify it.

There are enough scopes being produced that someone must have the 3.7mm Ethos to report directly.

George
 

#1162 George9

George9

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1524
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2004

Posted 21 January 2019 - 10:24 PM

I see Gavster used his 21Ethos with his Stowaway to view the lunar eclipse. Gavin, if you're reading, mind saying a few words? Did you look at any stars or just the moon? The 21E was the eyepiece I most wanted to use with my Borg 90FL, but the field curvature and shallow depth of field were very visible with said eyepiece. That was 112mm shorter focal length though! I'd expect field curvature to be less severe, plus the larger depth of field will reduce the size of defocused stars near the edge of the field. If the 31T5 looks good, it's probably safe to say the 21E looks good too. Of course I wouldn't expect there to be a problem at high magnification with large apparent fields because field curvature isn't really visible at high magnification.


I found little or no field curvature in my 31 Nagler5 but more field curvature in my 21 Ethos. Nothing terrible but I noticed it. See Dec 6 post in this thread. I would still happily use my 21.

George
 

#1163 Gavster

Gavster

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 630
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014

Posted 22 January 2019 - 03:01 AM

I see Gavster used his 21Ethos with his Stowaway to view the lunar eclipse. Gavin, if you're reading, mind saying a few words? Did you look at any stars or just the moon? The 21E was the eyepiece I most wanted to use with my Borg 90FL, but the field curvature and shallow depth of field were very visible with said eyepiece. That was 112mm shorter focal length though! I'd expect field curvature to be less severe, plus the larger depth of field will reduce the size of defocused stars near the edge of the field. If the 31T5 looks good, it's probably safe to say the 21E looks good too. Of course I wouldn't expect there to be a problem at high magnification with large apparent fields because field curvature isn't really visible at high magnification.

Jay, I see George has given you his experience with the Ethos 21mm. Yesterday I was just focused on the moon since there were lots of clouds around, in fact my session only lasted 30 mins or so. 

In this thread attached I commented that I couldn’t see any significant field curvature in the Stowaway or the Baader Travel Companion. I do think it’s a personal thing and some people’s eyes notice it more than others.

 https://www.cloudyni...stowaway/page-2


 

#1164 nicknacknock

nicknacknock

    A man of many qualities, even if they are mostly bad ones

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 12487
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Nicosia, Cyprus

Posted 22 January 2019 - 03:13 AM

Gavster, It could also be the difference in apparent FOV 82° Vs 100° could be playing its part.


 

#1165 George9

George9

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1524
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2004

Posted 22 January 2019 - 09:22 AM

I found little or no field curvature in my 31 Nagler5 but more field curvature in my 21 Ethos. Nothing terrible but I noticed it. See Dec 6 post in this thread. I would still happily use my 21.

George

Just to be clear, I did not notice the FC until I started specifically testing for it. I am not talking about field curvature that you notice while observing and dislike. I will check again next time I have the scope out. And yes, I am sure the 100 degree field is part of it.

 

George


 

#1166 jay.i

jay.i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2703
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017
  • Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Posted 22 January 2019 - 10:18 AM

Gavster, It could also be the difference in apparent FOV 82° Vs 100° could be playing its part.

Wouldn't a larger true field show more curvature though? I would expect to see more curvature toward the edges of the 31T5, even if the AFOV is only 67% the size of the 21E, since the lower magnification would still provide a larger TFOV.


 

#1167 nicknacknock

nicknacknock

    A man of many qualities, even if they are mostly bad ones

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 12487
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Nicosia, Cyprus

Posted 22 January 2019 - 10:23 AM

No, TFOV is also dependent on scope. AFOV is purely eyepiece dependent. I think this post by Don is quite enlightening.


 

#1168 jay.i

jay.i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2703
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017
  • Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Posted 22 January 2019 - 10:42 AM

No, TFOV is also dependent on scope. AFOV is purely eyepiece dependent. I think this post by Don is quite enlightening.

Well yes of course, but a 31T5 presents a larger TFOV than a 21E in ANY scope.

 

If a 31T5 displays less FC than a 21E, then what causes FC to be apparent in eyepieces? What are the conditions for it? I thought when you're more zoomed out, you can see it easily, and when you're zoomed in, you can't see it, because you're magnifying a curve which looks flatter and flatter the closer you get to it.

 

Then there is the whole debate about eyepieces correcting for FC, but Jon Isaacs swears his 31T5 and 21E are flat to the edges in his NP-101 (which has a flat field thanks to the Petzval design), so if neither of them are adding/removing any curvature, I would expect the lower magnification and higher TFOV to show more FC.

 

At 92mm/612mm, the 31T5 produces a 4.15deg TFOV at 19.74x, while the 21E produces a 3.43deg TFOV at 29.14x.


Edited by jay.i, 22 January 2019 - 10:45 AM.

 

#1169 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 7931
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Netherlands, Europe

Posted 22 January 2019 - 11:05 AM

For one thing, the higher magnification in the Ethos 21 makes defocused stars, if any, more obvious than the significantly lower magnification of the 31 Nagler in the same scope.

 

My personal time tested favorites in this range are the 31T5 Nagler and the 20T2 Nagler. Both create a feeling of awe when I use them in my scopes. And keep me away from FC thoughts wink.gif


 

#1170 jay.i

jay.i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2703
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017
  • Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Posted 22 January 2019 - 11:14 AM

For one thing, the higher magnification in the Ethos 21 makes defocused stars, if any, more obvious than the significantly lower magnification of the 31 Nagler in the same scope.

 

My personal time tested favorites in this range are the 31T5 Nagler and the 20T2 Nagler. Both create a feeling of awe when I use them in my scopes. And keep me away from FC thoughts wink.gif

Hey....... that actually makes sense....! Thanks Erik!

 

My 21E still blows my mind when I use it for terrestrial spotting. It just fills your entire vision, and then some. It's amazing!!


 

#1171 Moondust

Moondust

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 558
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2006
  • Loc: The Show Me State

Posted 24 January 2019 - 02:37 PM

Well my set screws arrived from Bolt Depot ( thanks for the tip both Jeff and George) and so I removed the 3 supplied large thumb screws and installed the three 90 degree cone tip allen set screws which went in smoothly and fit perfectly. I took a photo for all of you to see here. I really like how uncluttered and clean looking the focuser looks now as to compared to before. I see Roland on the AP users group is even recommending these for those not doing imaging. One other remark on the Stowaway package not mentioned by myself or anyone before. I thought it was very intuitive for AP to install a safety bolt on the Vixen dovetail bar. Usually a company leaves this precaution up to the owner. I nearly lost one of my scopes when it suddenly slid off the dovetail adapter on a freezing cold night in the dark. Luckily I had the quick reaction to catch it before it hit the ground. Since then I have installed safety bolts on all my dovetails. AP has surely prevented someones Stowaway from this catastrophe by this foresight. My next purchase for the scope will be a Vixen 3.4 HR eyepiece and maybe even a Vixen 2.4 HR for double stars and for those nights of exceptional seeing. On the wider end I have my sights on either a 19 or 24mm Panoptic. I am really looking forward to Spring and warmer weather so I can get out under the stars without freezing my butt off or feeling like I am putting stress on the scope.

 

 

focuser4.jpg

 


Edited by Moondust, 24 January 2019 - 06:33 PM.

 

#1172 jay.i

jay.i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2703
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017
  • Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Posted 24 January 2019 - 03:19 PM

If anyone with a Baader MkV or Zeiss binoviewer (the white one that the MkV is modeled after) has a Stowaway, or gets one, I'd love to know if it can reach focus without a GPC using a T2 prism diagonal. My guess is probably not, but I have to ask! I think Roland did have a pair of MkVs in the prototype at NEAF, but I don't know if he had a GPC threaded into the diagonal.


Edited by jay.i, 24 January 2019 - 03:20 PM.

 

#1173 Paul G

Paul G

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8509
  • Joined: 08 May 2003
  • Loc: Freedonia

Posted 24 January 2019 - 04:27 PM

If anyone with a Baader MkV or Zeiss binoviewer (the white one that the MkV is modeled after) has a Stowaway, or gets one, I'd love to know if it can reach focus without a GPC using a T2 prism diagonal. My guess is probably not, but I have to ask! I think Roland did have a pair of MkVs in the prototype at NEAF, but I don't know if he had a GPC threaded into the diagonal.

I have the MkV with the .25 GPC installed and the original prism diagonal that came with the bv, will try a few eyepieces in it this weekend if the weather cooperates.


 

#1174 jay.i

jay.i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2703
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017
  • Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Posted 24 January 2019 - 05:26 PM

I have the MkV with the .25 GPC installed and the original prism diagonal that came with the bv, will try a few eyepieces in it this weekend if the weather cooperates.

Awesome!! You da man Paul. Did you mean to type 1.25(x) or .25, as in 0.25(x)? Ideally I would love to get the maximum TFOV possible by using no GPC, but the tube may not be short enough for that; I suspect cameras couldn't reach focus even with the 3.5" focuser drawtube if the OTA tube was short enough for no-GPC binoviewing.

 

I think the diagonal that comes with the Baader MkV is the Baader/Zeiss BBHS T2 prism with 34mm clear aperture, same one I've got. If it's different let me know. Thanks again sir.


 

#1175 Gavster

Gavster

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 630
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014

Posted 25 January 2019 - 08:30 AM

If anyone with a Baader MkV or Zeiss binoviewer (the white one that the MkV is modeled after) has a Stowaway, or gets one, I'd love to know if it can reach focus without a GPC using a T2 prism diagonal. My guess is probably not, but I have to ask! I think Roland did have a pair of MkVs in the prototype at NEAF, but I don't know if he had a GPC threaded into the diagonal.

Jay, I have a Baader Markv and both a t2 prism and t2 mirror. I will

have a test with my 24mm pans in due course.


 


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics