206 replies to this topic

[HouseBuilder328]

UPDATE:   I have ordered an AT102ED with the 2 inch Explore Scientific star diagonal (since that one does better with infrared wavelengths if get I night vision device).  

 

Will use my Celestron Evo mount for now, I checked the clearance with a friend and works well.  

 

Excited to get into the refractor world and I'll report back about the nice wide field views.  I'll keep using my ES eyepieces, widest one I have is the ES 100/24mm.  

 

Hope to double mount both the AT102ED and C9.25 but I don't have the funds yet for an AZ-EQ6 pro or iOPtron.

[GGK]

Yes yes yes!

 

It kinda cracks me up when people talk about celestial targets and start suggesting telescopes based on the Pleaides or M31 as the examples. Those showpieces are such a TINY part of what is up there. I have not done a tally, but I'd venture a guess that MOST Open Clusters and Galaxies are smaller than half a degree in size.

I think the confusion lies in our definition of targets.  I'm one who spends a lot of time using my small refractors and a good amount of that time is with the AT60ED, even though I also have a TV-85 and NP101is.  

 

Best I can tell from my notes over the past 1 to 1-1/2 years, and considering only star-type targets (removing nebula and galaxies), I think I looked for about 134 targets where I wanted at least 1.25^o.   33 of those were in NGC, Mel, Cr, STAR, Kemble, DoDz or other small catalogs. Seven others appeared in SkySafari 7 Pro's asterism list.

 

So, 94 of my targets during that time had no catalog or list designation that I'm aware of and were basically big asterisms that I learned about from various Internet sources, including the binocular forum on CN. 

 

Of those targets, it looks like I had about 50 that needed more than 3^o, and 27 that needed more than 4.5^o TFoV (and still under my max 7.4^o capability).

 

For these large targets, I care mainly about TFoV and exit pupil, not magnification.  I'll typically select the largest refractor that can provide the max TFoV that I want for the night, but sometimes I might select the 60mm for smaller bright-star targets because its smaller exit pupil at the same field size presents a different, but very nice image.

 

In addition to the targets above, I also spent time simply widefield sky scanning, identifying the brighter catalog DSOs and maybe stopping to see how many that I can identify in a single wide view.  

 

It's a completely different story with my SCT.

 

Gary

[Chilihead]

UPDATE:   I have ordered an AT102ED with the 2 inch Explore Scientific star diagonal (since that one does better with infrared wavelengths if get I night vision device).  

 

Will use my Celestron Evo mount for now, I checked the clearance with a friend and works well.  

 

Excited to get into the refractor world and I'll report back about the nice wide field views.  I'll keep using my ES eyepieces, widest one I have is the ES 100/24mm.  

 

Hope to double mount both the AT102ED and C9.25 but I don't have the funds yet for an AZ-EQ6 pro or iOPtron.

Excellent complement to your Evo. Since I got my two refractors, my Edge only gets about 10% (max) of my viewing time.

 

Also, going to order a Quark Chromosphere to use with my refractors in the next month or so.

Edited by Chilihead, 22 February 2023 - 06:16 PM.

[gnowellsct]

Excellent complement to your Evo. Since I got my two refractors, my Edge only gets about 10% (max) of my viewing time.

 

Also, going to order a Quark Chromosphere to use with my refractors in the next month or so.

I think you mean the Quark combo chromosphere?  Lot of fun.  --GN

[gnowellsct]

I think you mean the Quark combo chromosphere?  Lot of fun.  --GN

I would add to my comment: could be a strain on the focuser.  --Greg N

[weis14]

I have a nice pair of Canon IS 10x42, but using them at night, on the sky, I get terrible double vision. And often have to close one eye. So why not use a telescope?

A bit late on the response here, but I have the same issue.  I've never met a pair of binoculars that I can effectively merge the images in.  Basically, my eyes are not collimated.  My eyeglasses correct for this with a thick prism in my right eye, but for some reason that is ineffective when using binoculars, even with my glasses on.  

 

I still like binoculars for quick looks or for finding objects before trying to get them in a scope.  However, when I'm using my 8x42s or my old 10x50s, I'm usually closing my right eye or it is being ignored by my brain.  

 

This is the same reason why I've never jumped into getting binoviewers for my scopes.  Its a lot of expense that I doubt would do much for me.

[Chilihead]

I would add to my comment: could be a strain on the focuser.  --Greg N

The AT72 is designed for astrophotography, I would hope it can handle a Quark.

I've done bird photos with the flattener and a Canon DSLR attached, it had no problems with the weight.