Image of the day

Captured by
Craig Bobchin

Coathanger CR 399

About Astromart

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Posts Made By: Jim Nelson

July 27, 2004 07:08 PM Forum: Eyepieces

Short eye relief and eyelashes

Posted By Jim Nelson
Your Radian has spoiled you. Orthos actually have pretty decent eye relief for an older design, but when you get down less than about 10mm focal length, you are indeed in eyelash-land (depending on your lashes). It's better than a similar Plossl, though.


I use only barlowed eyepieces with longer focal lengths (and thus better eye relief) or eyepieces designed for long eye relief. That way I'm actually willing to look through the eyepiece for an extended time, which is more important for seeing things, in my experience, than that last extra bit of contrast.

July 28, 2004 08:33 PM Forum: Eyepieces

2.3mm Eyepiece: Celestron X-CEL vs Orion Lanthanum

Posted By Jim Nelson
The Orion is Japanese made (by Vixen). The Vixen lanthanums are quite good (I used to own one, and was pretty happy with it) but I haven't done a comparison with the X-Cel or any of the similar series of eyepieces that have come out lately.

August 18, 2004 05:29 AM Forum: Eyepieces

Perfect 10-11mm

Posted By Jim Nelson
I miss my Konigs, despite their lousy eye relief.

Personally I don't think you can beat the Nagler Type6's for all-around performance at medium to high powers, although that's a costly bino option. I can't imagine you being unhappy with a pair of the 11mm type 6s. They are generally reviewed very well for planetary use, give nice wide fields for deep sky, have better eye relief than your Konigs, and fit in a binoviewer. If you were looking *solely* for planetary use, or needed extra-long eye relief, or had some other special requirement, you might look elsewhere, but those type 6's really do it all pretty darn well.

August 25, 2004 07:37 PM Forum: Equipment Talk

WorldView Wide-Angle Binoculars (Orion)

Posted By Jim Nelson
12x50s are probably way too much for hand-holding; you'd definitely want to prop them for use, and this may not be too handy for general use. Even 10x50s are on the high side for some people. I've been considering getting some 7x or 8x binos to replace my 10x50s for this reason. Most people seem to disagree with me on that point.

If you're not too picky and want something for general use, too, the Worldviews are probably fine, although it never hurts to go better quality (except on your checking account). I use a low-end pair of Meade binos that cost less than $100, and have been perfectly pleased with them for general and astro use.

The only problem with cheap binos is that they may not be precisely collimated, which is a big problem with astronomical viewing. However, Orion is very good about returns.

September 10, 2004 04:36 PM Forum: Deep Sky Observing

The Veil at Last! Sort of...

Posted By Jim Nelson
You know, I've seen the Veil before, but just last night I saw it in binoculars for the first time myself. And, I sh** you not, with 8x42s. I almost couldn't believe it, so I pointed my finder precisely at the same star field (couldn't see the Veil in my 50mm finder, though), looked in the eyepiece, and there it was, arcing through the eyepiece.

It does indeed look like a distant, oddly shaped, OC in binos. Part of the issue in seeing the Veil for the first time is knowing what to look for. I only found it in my scope after first being shown it in someone else's scope - once I knew more or less what to look for, it was suprisingly easy. As long as the skies are dark and clear, at least. I never expected to see it in 42mm binos, though. (although I have seen it in my 50mm finder once while holding a nebula filter in front of the eyepiece).

Isn't it strange how something can be so difficult to find sometimes, but under the right conditions you can see it with hand-held binoculars?

September 21, 2004 06:39 PM Forum: Equipment Talk

Tripods for Binos

Posted By Jim Nelson
You want cheap? S&T had a letter a year or two back about using a long handled tool with a swivel head as a "unipod". It holds the binoculars up and steady while you hold them on top of the swivel head. You form the other two legs of the tripod. Best to keep the strap around your neck, just in case.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, have you seen those "Swiffers"? They're built on the right principle, but are too short and light. Go to a hardware store and you'll find something.

September 22, 2004 05:25 PM Forum: Deep Sky Observing

Tips for the Horse Head

Posted By Jim Nelson
Well, m78 ain't the horsehead, so that's the first step!

M78 isn't too impressive, but it's not hard in a 6-inch if the skies are moderately dark. It's smallish and pretty much looks like a bit of haze around 2 or 3 stars. One could sweep over it at low power and miss it in less than pristine skies.

The horsehead is a tougher nut to crack. I haven't done it, not that I'm likely to have any luck in a 6-incher. 8 is probably the absolute minimum from what I've read, and pristine skies are necessary to find the small notch against the low-surface brightness background nebula. H-beta filters apparently help a lot.

September 23, 2004 03:23 AM Forum: Equipment Talk

Minimum aperture for globulars and galaxies?

Posted By Jim Nelson
This is far too personal and subjective (what's a "satisfying" view?) for any consensus to be reached. But with my 6-inch scope, I can partially resolve a suprising number of globulars, and the brightest showpiece globulars are quite lovely. 4 inches is too little, in my experience, for "satisfying" views. So, for globs I'd say around 6 inches is minimum.

Galaxies, in general, need greater aperture for anything remotely "impressive", but as I've increased my observing skills, I've found a suprising amount of satisfaction in observing galaxies with my 6 inch scope. Still, if galaxies are a primary interest, an 8 or 10 inch scope is going to be preferred.

October 4, 2004 03:33 AM Forum: Solar System Observing

Dark Areas on he Moon

Posted By Jim Nelson
The darker the mare surface, the newer it is. The scale of those areas are pretty big, so I don't think those are from "volcanos" in the terrestrial sense, although they would be (relatively) recent lava flows. There are small patches of dark mare material surrounding pits that do seem to be volcanic in a relatively familiar sense; I've tracked a couple of these down recently.

BTW: I highly recommend checking out Wood's "The Modern Moon", which has lots of information on what it is you're seeing in eyepiece.

October 7, 2004 09:04 PM Forum: Equipment Talk

Resolving nearby galaxies

Posted By Jim Nelson
Nearby galaxies, including M31, have had individual stars resolved in them for decades, actually. Burnham's Celestial Handbook, from the '70's, has lots of pictures (taken with professional equipment) of local group galaxies showing individual stars. Cepheid variable stars have been identified in M31, for example.

Funding Member

Sponsors


View all sponsors

Search