Posts Made By: Mike Damato

Hi all,

Well, the UO HD ortho line looks awfully similar to both the Antares and Baader orthos. Baader even goes so far as to assert that they have equivalent performance to the Zeiss orthos.

Does anyone know the differences between these lines of orthos, besides the price? Are they from the same factory? Different coatings?

Thanks,

Mike

Hi all,

Once you respond to an ad, is there a time limit on how long you have to leave a rating? I did a transaction that for various reasons took a long time to wrap up and now my account menu is showing "no unused ratings".

Thanks,

Mike

Hi all,

Has anyone got their hands on one of these? I'm looking to upgrade to a nice 4" APO for grab-and-go and this Vixen looks pretty attractive at around $1200. I would expect it to have superior mechanicals and QC compared to the Orion 100mm ED. Does anyone here know if this Vixen has comparable color correction to the Orion, in other words does it use FPL-53?

I'm still on the fence as to whether the best 4" APO option is really to pick up a used TV102 or Tak FS but these Vixen and Orion scopes are so cheap that even new they seem like a good bargain. Any opinions?

Thanks,

Mike

Yes, I have one of their less popular products, the 80mm f/9 AT1011. Everything about it is high-quality - virtually perfect fit and finish, well-baffled, no interior reflections, etc. Since it is still pretty small and highly portable, I think it is a better alternative to the short tube. I haven't directly compared but I'm sure mine has a good deal less chromatic abberation than the f/6 and better planetary detail.

I didn't have any problems that allowed me to "test" their customer service but my phone conversations with Vic suggested that Stellarvue is superior in that regard.

If a small, very high quality achromat is what you want Stellarvue is probably unbeatable. I'll bet their 4" ED and Apo scopes are very good too but there they face alot more competition.

Gripes: Mount is OK for this very light OTA but the motor drive is a little finicky. There is a friction clutch that has to be fiddled with in order to get it to work reliably. Once you get the hang of adjusting it it works fine. Vic or the people on the Yahoo group will provide assistance if needed. Also I don't love the aluminum tripod design. I'll bet it could be worked with but I wound up making myself a wood tripod anyway (fun project, and anytime I use the table saw I feel better about the money I spent on it...).

Mike

Thanks everyone for letting me pester you with so many questions!! Wow, nice to have a forum like this to consult.

Eventually I'll be much less clueless and start answering other people's questions...

Mike

Hi Bill,

Well, I haven't used the DeWalt so I can't compare, but I'm delighted with the Bosch combo unit.

FWIW, I asked about it on a couple of woodworking forums, and the consensus was pretty solidly in favor of the Bosch, with most of the dissenters favoring the Porter Cable. The attraction of the Porter Cable seemed to be mostly about availability of accessories, however.

Are you going to build a router table?

Mike

Hi Bob,

You know, I never thought of it, but I suppose most people don't specify the barrel diameter in eyepiece ads because they assume that potential buyers are familiar enough with eyepiece types to sort of automatically know whether the barrel is 2" or not.

What you can do if you see an EP ad and can't tell what size the barrel is, is look up that EP on the Anacortes webite (or elsewhere if it isn't available there). Usually websites like that are more informative than the classified ads.

Also: more powerful eyepieces, meaning higher magnification / shorter focal lengths, simply don't require 2" barrels. It would be very unusual for a manufacturer to use a 2" barrel size if it weren't necessary. Only fairly low power EP's have any reason to use a 2" barrel.

In other words, the 2" barrel doesn't give the eyepiece a wider field of view, the design of the eyepiece does, and a given design may or may not require the 2" barrel. Does that make sense? If not let me know and I can possibly clarify.

Mike

Hi all,

Well, while we're on the topic, how good are their mirrors anyway? Comparable to Discovery, you think? It seems the mirror prices are sort of comparable. Also there are a few sizes available that are hard to find commercially made otherwise.

By the way, looking at their website, it seems like alot of their business might be industrial and military stuff. Maybe amateur telescopes are a small (and kind of neglected) division of the company.

Mike

Hi all,

Just one reminder about acetone - I've seen a couple of wicked accidents with it due to the heavier than air vapor phenomenon. Under the right conditions acetone vapors behave like a liquid, clinging to low points, forming puddles, traveling along surfaces. Look out for ignition sources!

Mike

Hi Ruslan,

Well, I’m getting into this a bit late, but I’ll throw a hat in, what the heck. I would reinforce the opinions of most people here by also recommending an 8 or 10 inch dob in this case.

Anytime the inquiry is of the form “best all around visual performance available for $X”, where X is not a huge number, the answer is basically always a Newt.

Consider the versatility of such an instrument, say for example a 10” f/6. You can pop in an eyepiece with a field stop that maxes out a 2” focuser – a 40mm Pentax XL comes pretty close – and get 37.5 X with a roughly 1.7 degree TFOV for nice low mag sky sweeping. On the other hand, you have enough aperture to go to 300X planetary / lunar when the urge hits, and conditions cooperate, as well. That is, 300X with a tolerable 0.8mm exit pupil. As an experienced observer you know that when exit pupils get down to the 0.5mm range or less it makes for some observing discomfort. Many people have real difficulty tolerating such small exit pupils because of floaters and dimness.

SCT’s tend to have too large a central obstruction, not to mention spotty optics quality, to really provide nice high mag views. They are wholly unable to reach really wide true fields. I see your point about a 6” Mak – I’m in NJ also, our sky conditions here must be nearly the worst in the world, so there are a fair amount of nights where the aperture advantage of a 10” dob is at least partially nullified – but top quality Maks are still hard to squeeze into your budget with a decent mount, and are even more incapable of low mags / wide TFOV than the SCT’s. Finally, fast achromats are nice for wide fields, but can’t handle the high mags.

The only instruments IMHO that really match the versatility (and exceed the convenience) of medium sized dobs are 6” apochromatic refractors, and those of course are a notch above the $1500 realm. If you can spend the money I think a serious case can be made that the 6” apo is one of the best all around solutions but you’re talking about a lot of dough. (A fine 6” long focus achromat, like a D&G f/15 perhaps – but that makes a mess out of your portability concerns).

Yeah, a medium dob is not so small, but not so large and heavy either, and at least the mount is very simple and doesn’t add much bulk. You can go the DSC’s and poncet platform route, if desired, and still have a considerable portability advantage over a large GEM with counterweights and tripod. All that combined with the dob’s simplicity and ease of use will amount to a keeper scope, in all likelihood.

(Anyway, if you do retire it someday, what’s the difference? You’re an Astromart member!)

Nice job starting an interesting thread!

My $0.02,

Mike