Posts Made By: Greg Nowell

Yes Herb, thanks for years of running a good, tight ship.

Do we get to know who the new Astromart management is? Did I miss some kind of announcement?

thanks
Greg N

If you are into portability the Titan is one big mutha mount, I really don't think the CGE Pro is as heavy. If I had to bet on which one would best survive a run-in with a Mack truck, I'd say the Titan. The Titan tripod is also heavy. Probably as solid as you could want. But once you've got it assembled--just the tripod--it's hard to lift and put somewhere else.

I'll leave PE and that stuff to others.

But I will give you this advice, heed it above all else: Keep the system you have until you've worked in with the Titan or CGE Pro for six months and are thoroughly familiar with them and have resolved any issues. Then sell it if you must. But I have found that when I have a good reliable mount it's a mistake to sell it. So I've got a Super Polaris and a G11 even though most of my observing is on the AP.

As for the AP: there is one class which is competitive in your price category, the AP QMD series. These are the APs of the 1990s and they are push-to rather than go-to.

I use the G11 with my refractor and at least right now I am glad that it is there, it has been such a peach in terms of dependability. Ditto with the 900QMD, but you know, I had to send that to AP a couple of times for upgrades and what not, and there I was with the G11. I'm glad I had it and still do use it.

regards
Greg N

This next picture demonstrates the same problem more vividly.

Obviously, when you load a GEM you put the counterweights on before you put the OTA on. You do this so the whole thing doesn't immediately capsize. You can see from the pic that this mount is in an unstable position and it's really the fact that the sharp points are jammed into the grass that this thing is holding.

NOW, the kicker is, when you slide that C14 in from the back, you are PUSHING in the weakest direction: from behind one leg into the middle of the other two!

Bad idea! Fortunately my friend Pete was there to catch the whole thing as it started to tip over....

I'm not a genius. I learn from experience.

Berlebach subsequently developed a SUPERB Losmandy style adapter so this version, which required that the mount be placed in the wrong direction, never got sold. These beautiful tripods are now sold by Teton telescopes.

In any case most tripods give you the option of setting up backwards, and that's probably a bad thing. What worries me about 360 degree rotational options is that they invite GEM owners to forget that the stability of the mount changes radically with the placement of the counterweights vis-a-vis the tripod/pier legs.

I'd like to say that I'm a smart guy and I would REMEMBER not to use my 360 degree adjustment to put the weights between the tripod legs but I worry about that as a point in fact. I've done some incredibly dumb things during setup, because I was in a hurry and got sloppy.

Greg N

Some of the most awe inspiring pics I've seen of the heavens have been done with both lines.

I don't think there's a wrong choice here. One may require you to process a bit this way, the other that way. I would suggest you consider technical aspects such as total weight in relation to mount capacity, field of view, benefits of an extra 10mm aperture, and so on. I'm not sure color correction is going to be a decisive intervening variable.

For the simple reason that you're doing comparisons among some of the finest refractors available in the world.

You make me feel kinda bad, ya know. My "waiting for AP" scope is a cheapo FS128. What a bummer....

Greg N

You must really be a refractor guy if you think of a c8 as a large aperture!!! Especially on the reflector group.

It is true that a mount which can carry a four inch refractor can also carry a c8, so if you like GEMs, as I do, and like aperture, you're going to have a hard time avoiding an SCT.

But after years in this hobby I think of my C14 as mid-size. Too many dob guys out there with more light gathering. But a well made c8 is a very serviceable instrument, and I think lots of folks out there with expensive 2,3, 4 inch refractors could afford and would profit from adding a c8 to their inventory. Used they can be picked up for less than an Ethos, and since the mount will carry them it is possible to use one OTA for a while and then slide the other one on. Or to mount them together.

We had a discussion on CN about the 9.25 and FS128 and the three or four people there agreed that it was a toss up, both good at what they do. But an FS128 handily beats a c8 as an overall scope, but at about 6x the price. If you're using achromats and four inch or smaller refractors, then the c8 is going to be a revelation.

Greg N

For the heck of it I'm also posting a pic of the entire OTA/mount into which I will put an OMI mirror because the original one was pretty awful.

regards
Greg N

I have spent fairly long periods with each eyepiece because a club member has the Pan 41 and I have the XW40. I've compared them in a C14 and in an f/6.5 102mm refractor. I think I may also have compared them in the FS128 as well.

I'm really a Pentax nut and prefer Pentax XWs to just about anything Televue has to offer.

HOWEVER, the Pan 41 is a bit different. The Pan 41 is the Televue eyepiece "for people who like XWs".

I consider it equivalent to the XW40 in every respect. Neither one nor the other has an edge. They are both stupendous. Fields of view are identical, magnification nearly so.

The XW line has 96% light transmission at green-yellow. I don't know about Televues, there is precious little data and much of that is old and from only one source, but I think they were around 90% but that was like, 18 years ago.

There's a reason why it doesn't matter. You don't go hunting for super faint objects at your lowest power, which is what either eyepiece will be. I can't tell you how many times I've been unable to see something in my 102mm f6.5 at 17x (the XW40) only to have it appear at 60x or 100x. My refractor rides on top of the C14 so often I check to see at what power the object becomes visible in the smaller instrument (if at all).

So get whichever one you like factoring in cost, weight, and brand loyalty.

Greg N

Anthony Ayiomamitis said:

Dear group,

Cat and mouse games last night with the partially-clouded skies and where I managed to capture NGC 752 in Andromeda. This particular cluster is very old for an open cluster (1.6 billion years-old) and spans 50' in apparent diameter. It is wel-populated and provides for a most impressive field of view.

For a result based on two hours total exposure time, please see http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-DSO-NGC-0752.htm ... the image is hyperlinked and which leads to an even more impressive higher resolution version.

Anthony.

I think I can speak for all of us when I say what high esteem I/we have for your work, which we've seen in magazines as well as the net. But I have to say the diffraction spikes don't do it for me. A lower magnification picture (to allow the cluster to appear concentrated) without spikes would be more up my alley. Roland goes to all that work to make pinpoint stars without false color and there we go with spikes with false color in 'em.

Anyhow, it's a question of style, there are other people doing good work who make different choices, I don't begrudge you your preferences. But if you take comments from the public, I would say that, as a general rule, I like my spikes from instruments that have to make spikes, and I value the images that refractors can make without them.

I think a few people have expressed this view before so I'll close there, and say again, that I like your work and when I see your name attached to a pic I take a good long look at it because I know there is real craftsmanship and artistry.

regards
Greg N

...I see there's a coolpix 4500 for a good price here on the 'mart, maybe I should pick that up?

...I don't seem to mind having technology that's five years out of date, as long as it works.

Greg

meaning?