Posts Made By: Larry Thaxton

Todd Gross has two or three reviewed ( #19 and #58) and Ed Ting has the FC-76. At one time I owned the scope reviewed on Ed Ting's site and it was fabulous. Cloudy nights also has a review.

http://www.newxspotters.bizland.com/todd/weatherman/scope.htm#Nineteen

http://www.scopereviews.com/page1e.html#3

http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=741

My vote is the larger achro if of excellent quality. I have owned several 4" APOs including a Showa F/10 and a Takahashi FC 100 Tak. During the same time period I had a Meade 127 ED and on several nights had it next to one or another 4" scope. The Meade had an excellent lens ( I should never have let it go!) and easily trounced any 4" APO it sat next to. Planetary detail was easier to pull out and the image was substantially brighter. For a while I had a 6" D&G F/15 which yielded a bit more detail than the 5" F/9 ED though there was a bit of color. I find that everyone has a different sense of what makes a good planetary scope. For me it is a 5" or larger refractor or an 8" or larger reflector. I have also owned 6" APOs including an AP 6" F/12 Superplanetary and a Takahashi FS-152. Each step up in aperture yields finer planetary detail and better deep sky performance - if the seeing cooperates.

The D&G 8" is a great scope- you will love it!

Larry

My Vixen 125mm binoscope- two 5" RFTs in one!

Larry

Take a look at this website under "machine screws", they should have it:

http://www.mcmaster.com/

It is a 10.5mm GALOC orthoscopic eyepiece that was sold in the 60's and 70's by many sources. I have both the 10.5mm, 16.3 and a barlow. All are excellent performers.

I do not think that it was part of any scope package but I have it listed for sale from Cave Optical (just under $20 as I recall) and Telescopics. The Galoc line included a 7mm ortho, 10.5 ortho, 16.3mm widefield, 28mm ortho and a barlow. I also ran across a 4mm Galoc a few yeas ago. In the 60s I bought a 16.3mm from Cave and absolutely loved it. So much so that I now have two and plan to keep at least one for as long as I am observing.

If yours is in good shape optically, I predict that the images will be very impressive. I have tried many modern top-end eyepieces and while optical coatings have improved, the optical quality of the Galoc is a match for anything.

Hi David,

Great post! Any number of people may tell you that the exit pupil did this or that to your scope's aperture or your dark adapted eye's pupil. But who cares- the sheer joy of scanning around at low power is its own reward. I often find myself caught up too much in the equipment and forgetting the wonder of simply looking!

I went through pretty much the same inquiry about really being able to see something in galaxies. I have used scopes from 3" to 28" under very good skies though my "home" viewing location is in Long Beach, CA which is pretty much Los Angeles as far as light pollution. Most of my viewing here is lunar and planetary though there are a few nights a year when DSOs, at least the brighter DSOs, are worth a shot visually. On those nights I set up a 12.5" Portaball. Even under these conditions, I can see a whole lot more in M13 say through the 12.5" than I can in a 6" APO. The 12.5" also beats the 6" APO on planetary detail but only on nights of excellent seeing.

Since you will need to travel to a truly dark location for deep sky, consider a scope that is easy to pack into your vehicle. I will bet money that what you will find once you get there is that a 10" or larger DOB will show much more on DSOs than your 120mm. It really is all about light gathering with excellent optics. I can easily see spiral structure in M51 in my 12.5" at dark sky locations. And one night I had my old 10" Portaball next to a 12.5" Starmaster. We turned both scopes on various DSO for comparison and I ended up seeing just enough difference to bring me to sell the 10" and order the 12.5" Portaball. It is my favorite scope by far!

You will hear this a lot, but get out to a dark location where other amateurs gather and look through their large DOBs. Since your scope will be right there under the same conditions, you will see the difference for yourself and can decide if it is worth the money you'd be spending.

I absolutely agree that learning to see is critical. I have been involved in amateur astronomhy for several decades and figure I have learned to see prety well. And while I love my 6" Takahashi and can see amazing detail with it, on DSOs the 12.5" Portaball is my choice.

Hi Freddy,

I owned a Meade 127 ED and the optics were absolutely excellent. Extremely sharp and only a small amount of false color on the brightest stars and Venus. Otherwise, it was a wonderful scope.

Meade had some issues with the lens cell and ultimately offered a newer cell with three screws for centering the lens elements in addition to the normal collimation screws. That cured many of the problems folks complained about.

A lot of folks are negative about Meade ED scopes. Many of those have never owned one. I have had two- the 127 ED and the 178ED. I have also owned six Takahashi APOs including my current FS-152, an Astro-Physic 6" F/12 Superplanetary, a TEC 140 and various 4" APOs including a wonderful Showa 4" F/10 Fluorite. I compared the Meades side-by-side with various APOs and found- as did others present- that they ran quite well in such fast company.

I may have some of the obseving notes comparing the 127 ED to an excellent MN-76 I owned. And I know I still have the notes on the Meade 178ED and AP 6" and I think my 8" F/12 D&G as well. If you are interested, e-mail me at this address and I will send them to you:

[email protected]

A 127ED and 650 mount is a very nice combo and often show up for $2000 plus or minus a bit. I can tell you from experience that a good example of the 127ED Meade shows a lot more planetary detail than any 4" APO I have ever used.