Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Seem to show up on the astromart classifieds...almost all the time?
I mean I see this frequently: "I've owned several of these SCs and this one has the best star test, not to mention the least focus shift, of the three I've owned..." Or words to that effect.
So why sell it?
Or, this generic brand name newt, dob or whatever, "has the best star test I've ever seen..."
Er, ah, how many have you seen?
If it seems to good to be true...
OTH, I recall an amateur posting some actual images of his star tests from a C11 and they were pretty good but...
I suppose I'd have to see some posted images with the ad in order to believe it...

Mark Shelton said:

Hi,
I have an old meade 911 filter. on the box it says its a nebula filter. On the filter is is marked meade 911. The filter screws on the back of my LX200.
Does anyone have any information they would like to share about this filter. I can not find much info.

Thanks

Mark Shelton

Mark,
See if there's a letter on it such as an "b" for broadband:
http://www.shopatron.com/products/productdetail/Meade+911B+Nebular+Filter+SCT+Thread/part_number=07524/1323
or an "x" for an o111:
http://www.shopatron.com/products/productdetail/Meade+911X+OIII+Nebular+Filter+SCT+Thread/part_number=07543/1323.0.1.1.57212.0.0.0.0?
or an "n" for narrowband:
http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=63
If there's no letter following the number it may be an o111 such as this one:
http://observersoutlet.com/meade911oxygeniiinebularfilter.aspx
If it's an o111, the field will appear quite dark, as opposed to a broadband filter which will not reduce the starlight nearly as much.

Interferometry results on various mirrors from brand names...
You can draw your own conclusions:
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astro-foren.de%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D6084&sl=auto&tl=en

It appears Highpoint has them in stock according to their info:
http://www.highpointscientific.com/product/CEL-95126/Celestron-CGEM-Computerized-Equatorial-Mount-91526.html

I ordered an Orion 6"RC astrograph on their web special for $299.00 which was listed at the time as "in stock". I felt it was a better deal than the astrotech 6"RC at the same price because it apparently had a better focuser as well as two extension tubes that the astrotech vendor charged approximately $65.00 more for and a few other items to boot.
My order confirmation listed a ship date of July 28th but today I get this email:
We appreciate your interest in our products and we do not like
disappointing you. We are writing to let you know that the item referenced
below has unfortunately been discontinued and we have canceled it from
your order. Please accept our apology for any inconvenience this may
cause. If you have any questions, or concerns you may call our toll-free
Customer Service number, 800-676-1343. Or, you may e-mail us at
[e-mail address removed].

Description of product Qty Price

6" F/9 Ritchey-Chretien OTA 1 2.99.95


Sincerely,
Orion Telescopes & Binoculars
Customer Service Department
Er, ah Orion: Next time try checking your own stock before you list an item as being "in stock" and yes you did disappoint me by failing to ship what I ordered...

So what's the story on the IOptron EQ45 mounts?
Any good? Any reviews? I mean real reviews? About all I've seen thus far was the usual and customary cockamamie thread on CN which was so screwed-up you couldn't even tell what mount they were talking about!(It was something about some kind of synta glue variant and driving some guy nuts at IOptron about it.) Figures.
Anybody got one and put it up against Floyd Blue's vaunted tiger mount at LAAS? I mean let's get serious here...

I was quite interested in this review since I bought a new C90 spotting scope awhile ago. I haven't, for various reasons, taken the scope out yet for first light but the review looks promising:
http://www.scopereviews.com/90mmComparo.html
The scope, as Ed Ting notes, feels substantial(although light)in your hands. I bought an inexpensive tripod for it at Walmart but I suspect it will work out just fine.

John Batchler said:

How good are the optics of the NP127 is compare to the tak 130 in planetary globular galaxies nebulas?

I've looked through a tak 130 up at Mt Pinos. It got the job done on planets, double stars, etc. But it didn't knock my socks off as I thought it might. I would expect an NP 127 to be very close in performance to the Tak 130 and there might be sample variation with both models. I actually saw a meade 4" ed apo owned by Jake Jacobson perform extraordinarily well on Jupiter. The contrast on the belts was phenomenal. In Jake's words, it was "crazy" on how well it performed. I'd agree with that...

At least one vendor is selling the Celestron 102mmED below the cost of what many 80mmED scopes go for. The reviews appear to be scant on the internet but the ones I've read are quite positive. It appears Ed Ting threw one up against a Tak 102 and an AP130 and the Celestron held up pretty well:
http://www.scopereviews.com/page1c.html#8
My questions:
1. Overall optical performance: anybody star test one of them?
2. It comes with a vixen style dovetail bar. Would it be compatible with a CG5 go to mount or would another dovetail be required?
3. Would the CG5 go to mount be enough to handle this scope:
http://www.astronomics.com/main/product.asp/catalog_name/Astronomics/category_name/SUDHCRDFMJ4L8JCTGS591LJ9R0/product_id/C102EDOTA
4. Would the scope work well for CCD imaging purposes?
5. Any comments on the focuser?

I was able to perform a preliminary test under dark skies of my C90 mak, the model being:
http://www.adorama.com/CNC90N.html
First, under daylight conditions, the views were initially so so. I felt I'd probably getter better views of MT Pinos pine cones atop of trees with a pair of good binoculars. I tried different eyepieces and some views appeared a bit better with orthoscopic ones but overall, I thought the scope might be out of collimation or suffering from some other defect. Then, I thought I might try and see if I could remove the erect image diagonal supplied with the scope and place the eyepiece directly in the holder and it worked, The scope has plenty of focus travel, more than I expected and the views improved dramatically. It appears these erect image diagonals are of poor quality or I just happened to get a bad one.
I tried the scope on a cheap Walmart-purchased tripod. Jon Issacs was right: big mistake.
It was an exercise in frustration but I can tell you the scope was well-collimated out of the box. I had a concern about this because Ed Ting had a sample that was somewhat out of collimation and these scopes can not be user-collimated. I felt the focuser did fine, with little image shift. I placed my Zhumell zoom eyepiece in the scope and cranked it up to 8mm and Saturn looked splendid! Nice cloud band feature and good contrast. I've seen an example of an excellent questar at Pinos many years ago(and also a not so great one more recently as well) and the C90 wasn't up to the former on Saturn, but nevertheless quite acceptable.
Overall, a heck of a deal, jump on it if you want one of these....