Posts Made By: gregg bernstein

Hello all. I was hoping to get some last minute advice. I have asked several questions lately about purchasing Nagler or Pentax eyepieces. I have a new Meade 12" LX 200 GPS UHTC. I am not a total beginner, but I have been out of the hobby for many years. I also do not have the opportunity to go to many star parties to compare scopes and eyepieces, although I have gone to a couple in the last few months. With my schedule (I am a trial attorney), I view when I can get the chance, which is not all that often. And, there ar no local telescope shops. As such, I rely heavily upon these groups and written reviews.

I have the Meade eyepiece set, which I have put up for sale. I only have used (most of) the eyepieces a few times, but they are really good eyepieces, it seems. I had a limited chance to compare them to a Televue Plossl and Radian. The Radian was better, but the Meade was not too far off.

I know eyepiece differences are often nuanced, but I was very dissappointed recetly when I purchased a UO HD Orthoscpic 18mm. I felt it was equal or slightly inferior to the Meade Super Plossls of comparable focal length.

I have read so many positive things about the Nagler and Pentax eyepieces, but I read similar positive reviews on the UO ortho eyepieces (i.e., narrow fov and limited eye relief, but contrast and sharpness approaching a Radian).

I simply may have to buy a Nagler and try it (I have decided upon a Nagler as opposed to the Pentax), but is the Nagler that much sharper and "contrasty" than a Meade Super Plossl or is it basically as sharp and perhaps slightly less contrasty (given the extra lense elements), but sharp over the much larger fov and that is what you are paying for? Essentially equivalence in sharpness and clarity, but over a much wider fov and the "porthole effect"?

Or is the image seen in a Nagler a better image, not simply placed within a wider fov?

I guess I do not want to be dissappointed again. I was thinking of geting the 22 Nagler, which would give me about 138x and perhaps a 17 Nagler which would give me about 179x (the 18 UO HD ortho at slightly less power did not give a great image). And, I also thought about a 35 Panoptic.

You all have been very helpful and I appreciate the time reading this post and any assistance you can provide.

Gregg D. Bernstein
Augusta, Maine

Hello all. I sold my Meade Super Plossls that I purchased with the Meade 12 LX200 I recently purchased. I bought a 22mm Nagler. I was a bit uncertain about selling the Meades. They were nice eyepieces. I only have had one opportunity to try the Nagler, but it was totally worth it. Really quite amazing. The Meades were like Toyotas or Hondas--very good quality, better than Fords and Chevys, but the Nagler is like a fine luxury auto. It was great to look at Saturn.

I would like to get another Nagler. I was looking for some advice. The 22mm Nagler gives me 138x. I was thinking of a 17mm Nagler (179x) or a 16mm Nagler (190x). Is the 17mm Nagler a big enough jump in power that it is worth it? The 16mm? I also was thinking of skipping this middle range and getting a 14mm Meade UWA or 13mm Nagler. These would provide higher powers and probably less "usability" here in central Maine. I had tried a UO ortho 18mm and sent it back. I felt it was equal or lesser to the Meade Super Plossls of 15mm and 20mm.

I would appreciate any suggestions, especially in terms of how often I will be able to use powers approaching 200x or more.

I also thought of a 15mm Panoptic as a compromise.

I do general viewing. I would like to be able to use my eyepieces on deep sky stuff and the planets.

Finally, I was thinking of getting a high powered plossl or UO ortho to check collimation. Is this a good idea?

Thanx.

Gregg
Augusta, Maine

I have a new Meade 12 LX200 GPS UHTC and would like to make sure my collimation is as good as it can get. How useful are reticle eyepieces for this purpose? I was thinking of the Celestron reticle (12mm orthoscopic) eyepiece. It has several measuring scales in the eyepiece, including a bullseye scale. It is $155, so its not too expensive, but is it worth it? Any one who has used it for this purpose? The advertisements on many of the various vendor's websites list many uses for it, but do not include collimation as one.

Any comments are much appreciated.

Gregg D. Bernstein
Augusta, Maine

Hi All:

I have a Meade 12 LX200. I purchased a 13mm Nagler giving 234x for planetary viewing and perhaps some higher magnification for deep sky stuff. I think I may have chosen the wrong eyepiece--giving more value to the largest fov rather than clarity, though the Nagler is quite nice.

Perhaps I should have purchased a 14mm Radian? I know both of these eyepieces are premium, but would the Radian be the better choice (or perhpas a Vixen or Orion Lanthanum Wide)? I still want at least a decent fov, but the Radian may be better suited to the viewing I will do. I know the TMB momos are out there and I am not really looking for those. I tried a UO Ortho and was dissapointed. I had Meade Super Plossls and they were fairly nice, but I like the Televues (I have 22mm and 13mm Naglers).

At 234x and above does the Nagler fov rsally help or will most of what I would view at those powers be in a Radian fov? And be a bit sharper?

Thanx for any help.

Gregg
Augusta, Maine

I posted this message in a yahoo group and received very helpful information. Any additional advice would be greatly appreciated.
____________
Hello all. I was hoping to get some purchasing advice for a case for my Meade 12 LX200 GPS. I am choosing between a Scopeguard and a JMI hard case. The JMI case was just updated to allow for use of the Peterson Get-a-Grip handles and it also comes with large 10 inch wheels.

I have read several comments about both cases and had some questions answered by each company. Scopeguard was very responsive. JMI eventually responded. Customer service likely is not as much an issue for a case as compared to the scope, but I thought it was interesting.

I guess for me the concerns are long term durability and scope safety. I have not seen either case. I understand the JMI case is lighter and not as heavy duty, but is sleeker and easier to carry around, expecially with large handles and the new larger wheels. Plus, I will not be using the case for shipping. The Scopeguard case looks as though it is of extremely high quality, but is bulkier.

I generally view alone and often on grass or dirt roads. I also am concerned about flexure in the JMI case when, alone, taking it in and out of an SUV or up and down a few sets of stairs by either carrying the case or rolling it slowly.

Has anyone had experience with either of these cases. I
received a quote of $709 for the Scopeguard (with 4 inch wheels and shipping) and the JMI case is $549 and shipping is free until the end of March. I am partial to the Scopeguard. The Scopeguard uses the Meade foam that came with the scope, whereas the JMI uses thinner and harder foam. The JMI case also has been described as very snug and
sometimes needing to bend to fit the 12 inch scope.

The owner of Scopeguard was very responsive and the company has a reputation for very high quality. JMI has been around for a while, though, and I have read good things about the case.

Any help is appreciated.

Gregg D. Bernstein
Augusta, Maine

Hello:

I posted the post below in the Obsession group on Yahoo, but it might be more appropriate in a general discussion group. I received some very helpful responses and would appreciate any further assistance. Thank you in advance.


I am soon approaching the "purchase point" for a scope in the
20" to 25" range. I have narrowed my choices to Obsession, NighSky,
and Teeter. I have done so much research that I am coming to a point
of diminishing returns. I also have reviewed the Obsession video.
I did have a few final questions that I was hoping Obsession owners
could address. I would be greatly appreciateive of any help. I also
will be visiting an Obsession 20" owner in a few weeks who was kind
enough to invite me to take a look through his scope.

Just for background, I am a serious observer, though, virtually
all of my experience has been with large scts (12, 14, and 16). I am
not particularly mechanically inclined, not a dummy, but not very
good at it and I do not have time to learn. My knowledge of optical
theory is minimal. I just really enjoy observing. Visual only.

My concerns and questions regarding Obsession are:

1. Sling v. removable cell: can the mirror really be left in
the scope for transport by van over bumpy, though not too bad,
roads? Is the mirror held securely especially when viewing low in
the sky? Is the mirror held correctly to avoid or minimize
astigmatism? Does collimation hold throughout the night?

2. F/5 v. F/4.5 and use of a paracorr. Here is where my
inexperience really comes in--lack of observing time through large
dobs. I know comfort and preference varies among individuals, but is
a paracorr necessary at F/4.5? Does a paracorr significantly dim the
image, i.e., more glass in the way? Or is this just minimal for
objects just on the edge of visibility? Once on a ladder, does it
matter if you are on the 3rd or 5th step, comfort wise ("heights" is
not an issue). Is the smaller central obstruction really an issue
given the relatively small size of it at either focal ratio?

3. Enhanced coatings. Are scatter or roughening of the
mirror's figure really an issue? If these do occur, is the extra
half dozen percent in brightness worth it?

4. I like how NightSky and Teeter have "electronics packages"
where the jacks, power supply, extra fans, dew control, etc., are all
installed. This "complete package" does not seem to be an option for
Obsession and I will not be drilling into the scope myself. Nor do I
feel like shipping it to a third party vendor. How do I get around
this?

5. Is it significant that the Obsession structure and mirror
come seperately and are not tested as a unit before going to the
customer?

6. Has what appears to be an increased production run by
Obsession lessened quality or introduced mass production
disadvantages?

7. How do Obsessions hold up over the years? I rememebr seeing
a couple of them at the NEAF show two years ago and was a bit
dissapointed by what looked like very visible wear and tear (i.e.,
flocking of the uta peeling off)?

8. Can the mirror be cleaned whiile staying in the scope if the
scope has the ServoCat and ArgoNavis installed?

I think that is it. Any assistance is very much appreciated.
Thank you in advance.

Gregg D. Bernstein
Augusta, Maine

All of you have been very helpful to me with my numerous questions this past year. I appreciate it. I sold my Meade 12" LX200 and am about to buy a large dob in the next day or so: either an Obsession 20" or a NightSky 22" with Argo Navis/Servo Cat.

I just had a final question or issue--last minute jitters, if you will.

I am an experienced observer, though more intermediate than advanced, almost all viewing done with with large scts (8"-16"), but I am not what I (mistakenly?) think of as a typical hobbyist. I do not have a formal physics, mathematical, or engineering background. I just like observing and am self taught.

The move to a large Dob is for visual impact and enjoyment. I want to be wowed and liked the views at the 16" level. I have no plans for photography nor any real desire to do it.

It has not been possible to "do the right thing" and go to various star parties and engage in due diligence, though I have tried. Not many large dobs in central Maine. I did go to Stellafane 2004 and looked at the various dobs between rainshowers.

I have a young family and am a trial attorney with a wacky schedule. I view 1 or 2 times a month.

The Meade 12" LX 200 was a bear to set up. I am 34 and in excellent shape, but the Meade was a bit of a pain, although it was a very nice scope.

I like the NightSky Dob for various reasons (especially Jim Nadeau's helpful responses; Dave Kriege has been really good, as well), especially with the electronics package, which helps to keep the clutter down.

I am prepared for a large dob, a ladder, and the bulk.

I just want to make sure that I am not going crazy. This is an extreme luxury that I will use regularly, but somewhat occasionally. I know that going into this.

Anyone out there who made the jump from a medium/large sct (or small/medium dob) to a very large dob (and maybe with little actual experience before buying the large dob) who is unhappy or felt they made a mistake?

Lastly, any thoughts on 20" v. 22" and enhanced coatings (Obsession) v. standard coatings (NightSky). I do like planetary viewing, but equally enjoy deep sky.

Any other advice, as well, is appreciated.

Gregg D. Bernstein
Augusta, Maine

Thank you all for your help. I received a tremendous amount of support and advice regarding my purchase decision. A number of people contacted me privately and I spoke to a few persons by telephone.

It was a difficult decision. I am glad the decision part is over. I did my best to consider all of the very candid and detailed advice and information you all gave to me about the various dobsonians out there. I also changed my mind a number of times and then again at the last minute.

I do feel bad in a way, though. I spoke or corresponded with the owners of several companies out there and they were all very gracious with their time and information. I felt bad I had to choose.

Hopefully I will be viewing some time this Summer.

Thanx again.

Gregg D. Bernstein
Augusta, Maine

I saw this scope for sale. The seller is offering free shipping. Better hurry. Only $167k. Who knows how long the special will last.

Gregg