Posts Made By: Mike Swaim

I don't know which Meade plossls you had, but I'll say that in direct comparisons, I've found the orig. Japanese Meade Series 4000 plossls to be the best bang for the buck in the 32mm-12.4mm range. When I started in this hobby I thought I wanted the best plossls I could get, and so I got a collection of TV Plossls. Then, one night, I got to try some Meade Super Plossls and was totally convinced that they were both brighter and offered better eye relief than the comparable TV plossls. So, I sold off all the TV plossls and have been buying Japanese Meade Super Plossls ever since. Currently, I've got them in 32mm, 26mm, 15mm, 12.4mm and soon 9.7mm. Because the Japanese version of these was replaced on the market with the slightly less desireable Chinese or Taiwanese versions, you've got to hunt for the Japanese ones used. That usually means you can get them for around $50/ea. (except for the 32mm, which is usually a bit higher at around $65 or so.) These are in a whole different performance category than the series 3000 and lesser plossls. Technically, the Meade Super Plossls aren't really plossls, but are 4-5 element e.p.s that border on "designer glass" territory.

Mark, you don't mention the focal length of your scope, but a couple of Japanese Super Plossls in 26mm & 15mm & a 2.8x Klee barlow, or perhaps the 26mm & 12.4mm & Orion Shorty Plus 2x barlow would fit my idea of a good starting point (& perhaps ending point!). Personally, I prefer barlowed combinations like that to the UO orthos & their clones. I used to have a few of those, but didn't care for the short eyerelief and narrow FOVs.

IMO, to really substantially improve on the Meade S.P.s one has to get into the designer glass category, which doesn't seem to even start until one is well over your $150 mark.

Mike Swaim

Don, since you have the 20mm WA, I wonder if you could answer some q's. I just responded to an ad for a Meade Research grade erfle in 20mm. I haven't yet heard back whether or not I got it. But, I'm wondering how these earlier erfles stack up against Super Plossls and Russian Intes erfles. Does the 20mm that was apparently a stock e.p. with Meade scopes in the 80's show much ghosting and astigmatism? Are the Meade "research grade" e.p.s really worthy of that title?

Currently, I've got an Intes Micro 21mm erfle, but find that I very seldom use it because it seems to amplify diffraction spikes and has it's own set of ghosting problems.

Thanks,
Mike Swaim

I've had a few contenders for the title of my "most disappointing telescope purchase". After some thought, I'd say that slot is reserved for the JMI Next Gen 6" reflector that I had for a weekend. That scope only has 1 web review that I know of, and yet that review is so glowing, that I was more anxious to try the JMI NGT 6, than I was to try any consumer product that I've been interested in for a looonnng time.

Thoughts of that scope consumed my free time. It was the sole focus of my attention for the period where I awaited it's arrival. When I got it, I was so horrified that the scope never even saw starlight.

That scope was a disappointment on so many levels that it's tough to even recall them all.
1st off -- Despite a phone plea by me for the seller to pack it carefully, it arrived damaged & unusable due to thoughtless packaging and reckless handling.
2nd -- Instead of "like new" it arrived showing heavy usage bordering on abuse, to include a primary mirror coated with years of dust that concealed a pitted primary mirror when canned air was used to gently remove some of the incredible amount of dust. (I'm talking FUZZ, not the usual & expected.)
3rd -- Design ridiculousness -- This scope has small dia. plastic ball end truss struts, & a very insecure attachment method for all of it's many parts. A very rickety, but surprisingly heavy tripod was an extra cost option. Basically, it cannot be properly stabilized to take advantage of the theoretical mirror quality, even if the mirror was in good shape. There is NO way that I'd recommend this design, despite the fact that it once was produced by one of the premier US scope accessory designers at a fairly high cost.
4th -- Probably the most disappointing thing about this scope was that it was sold to me by a retailer that I'd believed to be of highest reputation. He did take the scope back. I'll give him good marks for that. But, he should've never offered this junk forsale & after I shipped it back to him, it took a followup phone call to one of his employees just to get him to eventually credit my account. The weird thing was that when I emailed him about sending the scope back, the guy actually agreed with everything I said about it. I can only wonder why he saw fit to sell it to me in the 1st place.

I wound up losing respect for the retailer, the maker, the designer, the previous owner...... etc.
Pretty much, I'd have to say that an optic that actually causes illusions and good will to be dashed is a pretty disappointing scope. I'm still cautiously optimistic, but that's one example of a true disappointment that I'll not soon forget.
Mike Swaim

2 Best things I ever did for my own backyard astro pursuits:

1. I decided to sit for most, if not all observing, & have adjusted my scope collection to (ahem) reflect that concept. I see LOTS more when I'm relaxed and focused on the views.

2. I convinced my neighbor not to finish hooking up the security light that would've obliterated my southern exposure. This was not an easy feat, as he'd literally already purchased & installed the light, and was on the ladder running the wiring when I called him down. I just asked very nicely, and told him why it was so very important to me not to light up the neighborhood. His wife was a little put out, but the light remains out. Since then he's moved away, and we're awaiting new neighbors. Ugh!

Mike Swaim

I suppose that my request would seem almost pedestrian compared to some, but I'd really like to try a Mag1 12.5" Portaball for a year.

I was origanally thinking 16" Starmaster, but I already know that I really covet one of those. What I don't know about is the Portaball. That looks like it really might be fun for all around use. It's not the biggest or the badest, but that's part of it's allure for me.

So, for my year's trial, I'd like the 12.5" Mag1 Portaball with Zambuto optics. I don't need the tracking drive or anything fancy, but definitely do need the complete electrical dew mgmt system with all related batteries, controls, doohickies and sundry paraphenalia. If it comes with a hurricane cover option and a snorkel that'd be fine too. The standard rigel quickfinder is good enough for me.

So since that's such a simple request, um... when can I expect it to show up? ;-) Send it to me before MASP in Oct. and I'll get to compare it to lots of other cool toys.

Mike Swaim

Since I've never seen the E division in 6 or 8 inchers, I was curious what various authorities had to write about Encke's division. Some of this may prove interesting to this discussion:

In "Advanced Amatuer Astronomy" by Gerald North, he writes that he's never seen Encke's division (despite years of observing with a range of scopes up to at least 18.25"). He theorizes that the Earth's atmosphere puts a resolution limit on seeing the really fine divisions in the rings. He basically suggests that am. astronomers straining to see the divisions may be tricked by differing ring intensities.

In the Saturn chapter of "Sky Watcher's Handbook", former director of BAA Saturn section, Alan W. Heath writes "Subjective impressions of divisions in the outer ring can be caused when small telescopes are used in poor seeing and the outer ring is not steady, sharp or well seen. Differing brightness in the parts of a ring can also give the impression of a faint division." He suggests a large aperature, really good seeing conditions and a steady image for objectively verifying ring divisions other than Cassini's.

In "The Amateur Astronomer's Handbook", James Muirden suggests that Encke's division has been recorded in a 9 inch scope, but study of the feature requires a much larger aperature. Perhaps of more interest in that section he also discusses how many well noted astronomers such as Herschel and others, completely missed the entire crepe ring until it was discovered by the Bonds at Harvard with a 15 inch scope. That brings him to Herschels dictum: "When an object is once discovered by a superior power, an inferior one will suffice to see it afterwards."

In "The Backyard Astronomer's Guide" by Dickinson and Dyer, the authors claim that the Encke division should properly be called the Keeler gap, for James Edward Keeler, who 1st saw it using the 36 inch refractor at Lick's Observatory. Then in a contradiction appearing on the same page, they state that the gap has been seen by 6 inch refractors, but then go on to state that a minimum of an 8 inch refractor with a very experienced observer is needed to see this feature. They claim that neither of the authors has seen it with the 26 inch Naval refractor at 330x.

So, I don't know if any of that will prove useful to anybody else, but it at least suggests to me that I shouldn't feel too bad for having never seen the E division myself.

Regards,
Mike Swaim

Interesting! I'll have to try that non-dominant eye trick. I sometimes wish my dominant eye wasn't SO dominant. Anyway, I recently added red-dot sights to 2 of my scopes, and like them so much that I'll probably add one to the others. On my smaller scopes, I'm using only the red dot. But on the larger scope I plan to use the red dot (circles, actually), to get me in the right vicinity, and then use the 50mm finder to really hone in on the faint fuzzies as best as possible before finding them in the eyepiece. I'm hoping that this will cut down on some of the progressive eyepiece changeouts that I'm currently doing.

You've found the right forum. Keep posting.
Mike Swaim

Ken, I'm completely, and totally sold on the *older* Japanese made Meade Series 4000 Super Plossls. Specifically, I really, really like the 26mm & 32mm. The 15mm and the 12.4mm aren't bad, either. Though, if you really want a better FOV, but at the expense of some contrast and edge performance, you might want to check out the Univ. Optics Konig II 16mm as an alternative to the 15mm Series 4000.

I started off with a series of Televue Plossls, because I'd been told that they were best. But, after comparing them to the *older* Japanese Meade Series 4000 Super Plossls, I sold off all of the TVs.

There was a Japan made Meade 26mm here on Amart yesterday for $35. I haven't checked today. It's a steal. Usually, those are good bargains in the $50-$60 range.

Mike Swaim

Dang it, Emery. Here I'd totally decided that I didn't need a 1278, and you just had to bring up the whole issue of better contrast. ;-) That's one thing I really miss about my current asian reflectors compared to previous Russian Maks.

Buy 'em all.
Mike Swaim

As Joe pointed out, the Televid is a Leica product. Zeiss makes the Diascope.

I own both the Leica 77mm Televid APO and a 70mm TV Ranger, and have tested both of these against a variety of 60-100mm scopes and spotters including the Pentax that Joe mentioned.

In my opinion, the Leica Televid APO with 20-60x zoom e.p. actually gives clearer, sharper images between 25-40x than the TV Ranger with good quality eyepieces producing similar mags. However, the max available mag. with the Televid is 60x, and there's noticeable image deterioration well before 60x. I'd say the usable range on it is about 20-45x, with powers over 50x getting progressively less enjoyable. The limitation is the eyepiece, not the objective. If fixed power eyepieces were available for it in higher powers, I'm sure that it would compete up to at least 90-100x.

With the TV Ranger, the mag. limitation is really the aperature & objective glass. In theory it should handle at least 140x, and you can find lots of stories on the 'net about people taking their Rangers/Prontos well above that. However, having attempted higher powers with this Ranger with numerous quality eyepieces (including various TVs and UO orthos), I can say that it's really not at it's best above about 80x.

The Pentax spotters are currently the only real choice if you really want a terrestial spotter that can take astro eyepieces. The others are all either astro scopes that can (with some difficulty) be used for terrestial targets, or are terrestrial spotters that don't have suitable eyepieces for higher mags. However, don't expect the Pentax PF-80ED to even come close to competing with the larger TVs (85, 102, 101, etc.) or the Taks or APs.

If you're primarily interested in higher power planetary viewing, I'd suggest not even bothering with anything much under about 100mm, with 150mm being even better.

Mike Swaim