Posts Made By: William Rose

Hi Freddy,
Just some personal notes about the CR-150HD I owned. Both of these have been stated by others (Tim, Chas, etc.) I'm just confirming their posts with my experience.
First, the CG-5 mount is marginal at best for this scope. I replaced the aluminum mount with a Vixen Wood mount. That and vibration pads help but still don't make the set-up even close to adequate for astrophotography. About a 1 second vibration damping time. Putting the Vixen mount on a portable stand helps a great deal with raising the eyepiece when viewing anywhere near zenith. It allows you to shorten the legs for stiffness and brings the EP up about 4" or 5" so you only have to get on your knees instead of stomach at true zenith.
I tried several of the Minus V filters with my CR-150HD and found the MV-20 seemed to work the best for a single filter. The Baader Fringe Killer stacked with the Contrast Boost worked very well also so you might try the new Baader Contrast Boost/Fringe Killer filter which is supposed to be the two combined. Just remember a Minus Violet filter does not improve the view by maintaining information. It works by eliminating the ultra violet i.e. deletes information.
There's also a company that makes an adapter that corrects for the different points of focus for various colors but it costs about $600.00 new.

In general I'd agree with the idea of getting a 6" MAK or good 8" SCT to take to Star Parties. You can find them on AstroMart quite reasonably, they're stable and reliable, and both are easy to transport and set up. I used to take an 8" SCT but now take a C9.25" which is a bit more to lug but still very transportable. The idea of a Meade ED/APO is good also but probably a bit more expensive.

Hope you find something that fits your needs. Mahalo, Bill

Freddy WILLEMS said:

Aloha
I do not know where to begin..
I have a Meade 14" LX 200 UHTC GPS telescope which is quite heavy to move around.. It now sits on a permanent pier on my roof and it's a great scope.
I just want to go to star parties and cannot take that 14" with me so I'm planning to buy a 2nd scope to move around with, and I since my budget is limited, I was thinking about the Celestron C6R with the CG5 mount, sturdy for viewing and some astrophotography....But since the achromatic refractors all have somekind of false color, is there a filter you can buy that can be screwed on the front lens to minimize this color problem with refractors ??
I really do want an apo-chromatic refractor but can not afford it .. Thanks for emailing me some suggestions.
Freddy

I have used a Radio Shack 3 to 6VDC power supply (P/N 273-1666) on my CG-5 for a couple years. It's the kind that you select the voltage and plugs in the wall. 800 Ma rated but I tested it and found it'll deliver a full amp for several seconds. I also has the small interchangeable tips so you can set the polarity however you want. I paid $14.95
Simple an easy solution (KISS)
Clear Skies, Bill WD0FLX

Hi Dan,
Personally I like the suggestions to burn your eyelashes off or try Duct tape! Maybe Super Glue them to your eye brow?
Just Kidding.

Seriously, decades ago when I was young and had long eyelashes I wondered it the eyelash oil affected the viewing. This was about the time many different multi-coatings were coming out and they were being discussed in detail. I took a pair of matched eyepieces and let one get reasonably well coated with lash oil. Then we took great care NOT to get any oil on the other. 3 of us tried this over a 2 night period at a Star Party. Although not a scientific survey, at the end of 2 nights of viewing we decided the lash oil did effect the Planetary viewing. We all agreed it seemed to have little effect on Lunar viewing (We were using Slow, f/15 scopes then) and I don't remember any of us commenting on scatter. We were split on DSO viewing.
So I guess the answer to your question IMHO is yes it can very well affect your viewing.

That said, I used to cut my eyelashes short to prevent the problem (like John Cassella) until I learned the technique of slowly Closing my eye intentionally which carefully allows the eyelashes to bend/flex and not sweep across the eyepiece. This is easier with a volcanio top as mentioned. The quick, rapid motion of a blink causes my eyelash to swipe the eye lens. A slow careful closing and opening does not when you get the hang of it.
Then again, if your eyelashes are long, use an eyelash curler and that helps. (seriously)
Now a days I find I tend to just slightly rock back, blink, and rock forward without even thinking about it.
This all assumes you're comfortable using an EP with a very short eye relief. Sometimes just having something that close to your eye can bother people.

Hope that helps. Clear Skies, Bill

Hi James,
There've been a lot of good suggestions. I have a C9.25, couple 4" APOs, & FC-60E among other things so I can tell you the UO 40mm MK80 is a great choice as are the 27mm Pan, 20mm Nagler, and getting something with a Medium Power in Wide Angle.
I can also tell you the absolute best advice you've received is to get out with the eyepieces and start viewing. That's the only way you'll truly know which direction to head. Ask your friend/mentor if you can borrow an eyepiece once in a while. Go out and view for extended periods. Spend at least 15+ minutes observing the same object. You'll be surprised at what you start noticing.
As some on this forum can tell you, I have many of the best eyepieces made including some custom manufactured for commercial use (money no object). I can also honestly tell you that the ones I use the most, under all conditions and applications, would probably surprise everyone! How do you find out which are "The Ones"? By using them.
Best of luck in your endeavors. Take care and Clear Skies, Bill

James Witt said:

Greetings,

I am not sure where to start or exactly what sort of information would be helpful, so here it goes. I retired about 4 years ago and I'm 56. My "seeing" conditions are most often pretty good ... I would assume ... when compared to a city like Phoenix Arizona. Most of my viewing will be “out of the city” in Pine Arizona, with a Latitude of 34.39 N, Longitude: 111.46 W and "my" elevation is 5,650. I also should mention that I am a complete novice. I hope to acquire your knowledge about my current eyepieces and advise on purchasing additional quality eyepieces for visual viewing with my C-9.25 (and other scopes). I am very interested in DSO and especially Lunar. I started out with an Orion ST-80 and still have it. I also have an FSQ-106N (not here yet), FS-60C and a G-11 (not GOTO) mount. I have a Type I Hutech Rebel, an ATIK ATK-1HS II, a ST-4 and a WO SCT 2 speed focuser. Of course I plan on getting into astrophotography soon and have dabbled a touch already. I currently own a powermate 2.5x, a 32mm TV Plossl, 8mm TV Radian and a 18mm TV Radian. Any suggestions and explanations would be very much appreciated.

I should mention that I did search the archives and did quite a bit of reading but I am still a bit confused.

-JW:

I know what you mean! I was looking for something with a little longer Focal Length than my 41 Pan and hopefully easier to handle. The TV 55 Plossl is nice but then I found this 60mm that's perfect - er, ah, well Almost perfect. I tell myself it's ergonomically easier to handle! Besides the 41 Pan does make a great counterweight for this one!!

Clear Skies, Bill

Chuck Burton said:

Has anyone directly compared the subject eyepieces? Should I try to find an older 11 or go for the new Type 6? TIA for any advice! - Chuck

Hi Chuck,
I have both eyepieces. As indicated by others, the earlier version has a little more light throughput but less contrast. I have indirectly compared several of the original T1 versions to the newer T6 and Generally find the original T1s have slightly more light transmission. That said, the detail is good, they're sharp and crisp, but when reviewing notes and comparing sketches I've noticed I consistently show more contrast and 'definition' through the T6s. There are exceptions and it depends on the object being viewed.
On brighter planetary objects and lunar images, the T1s appear to provide slightly less detail and definitely have lower contrast. I'll let Pete, Floyd, and the others debate the reasons. These are just some things I've noticed correlating my EP comparison testing notes. To some extent it also seems to depend on the optics used. An example is the original 4.8mm versus the smooth side 4.8mm versus the newer 5mm T6. In my BT-125 HFT telebinos the original 4.8mm (w/ring - See picture) appears to provide the best viewing in all but Lunar observing. On the other hand, using the NP-127, the 5mm T6 seems to provide better overall viewing most of the time. Except for the 4.8mm & 5mm I haven't done an intentional direct comparison of the other T1s vs T6s. The comments are just things I've noticed and made a note in the margin that some day I should go back and do direct comparisons between the original 7mm, 9mm, 11mm, and 20mm Naglers versus the current manufacture.
Hope this helps. Clear Skies, Bill

Chuck Burton said:

Having covered my high power needs with shorter efl EPs, I'm wondering what "rig" would work best with the C-14 to get the widest possible views on extended deep-sky objects without vignetting and light loss? I've read that the lowest usable power in a C-14 is about 56X. This would require something like a 70mm EP. I suppose there may be a few narrow-field Plossls in this range, but I really don't care for narrow AFOVs when observing wide field objects. What about using a 35 Panoptic and a focal reducer? Would the field illumination suffer as a result? To make a long story short, what would be the maximum TFOV that I could achieve and what eyepieces or combination of eyepiece and reducer, would you recommend to get there? Thanks! - Chuck

Hi Chuck,
Just some general thoughts. First, the 41mm Pan is an excellent eyepiece and provides the widest FOV through a 2" you can obtain (See Al Naglers notes on this on the TV website). I also like the UO 40mm MK80 which is an excellent EP especially for the price.
If you want to go with a longer FL and retain a reasonable FOV I can suggest the 60mm Masuyama and the 65mm Clavé. (I would avoid the 75mm Clavé as it provides a distinct port hole view.) Neither of these are going to provide the wide angle view it sounds like you're looking for though. Without checking, I would guess these eyepieces are relatively narrow, about 52° to 55°. I also like the Vixen K70 but it is a Kellner and has an even narrower FOV.
I also have a Russell 85mm Super-Plossl which is a really fun eyepiece but I doubt it's what you're looking for. See the review/article written about this eyepiece here on AM some months ago. ( http://www.astromart.com/articles/article.asp?article_id=235 )
Bottom line is the Field Stop eventually limits your FOV. There's only so much you can squeeze through without developing aberration. With a 2" eyepiece that limit is about 40mm for the Panoptic/Konig design and ranges up to about 55mm to 65mm for a plossl and similar designs. At least that's my experience. You can find longer focal lengths but they will not provide any wider AFOV.
Hope that helps.
Clear Skies, Bill

Hi Wayne,
I've run across some of the larger screw on caps from large bottles that have come in handy from time to time. The plastic screw threads allows them to be Gently screwed on a lot of things as temporary covers. Can't think of anything that would fit your application right off but look at some of the plastic caps used on jars, etc.
Good Luck! Clear Skies, Bill

Hi David,
I have a pair and use them all the time.
In an honest evaluation & comparison the Cannon Optics are not the best out there but the stabilization more than makes up for that if you're at all unstable - especially for extended viewing. (Several minutes).
Personally I use mine for quick spotting. i.e. if I'm going to move the scope to a target that's a long arc, I use them to "Spot" the object and frame the view in my minds eye. Then when I spin the scope I can use a unity finder (Red Dot, Telrad, Rigel) and usually end with the object within the FOV of a view angle, low power eyepiece. Takes getting used to your scope and knowing the sky but a lot faster than Star Hopping.
IMHO the 10x30 is the best compromise of size, weight, and price for general use from hiking & birding to scanning the night sky. I've owned the 25s and 36s. Both are nice and the 12x36 are a close second to the 10x30s but I sold the others and kept these. Enjoy the binoculars, they're fun and very reasonably priced.
Clear Skies, Bill

Excellent & Fun review, thank you John.
I have several older Rini EPs. I still like to drag out the 38mm and 42mm on occasion. They are marked with little pieces of paper very neatly hand printed with a piece of clear tape over the top. They're actually decent eyepieces, especially considering the price!
I recently needed a 0.5x barlow and found a "New" Rini that fit the need perfectly. Works great, nicely made, and I'm very pleased with it and the "new" Rini line from what I've seen.
You can spend a whole lot of money on finding the "perfect" ocular but the Rini line has always been an excellent low cost selection for the average amateur. Rini and Univ. Optics were a standard I pointed 'average amateur astronomers' to for many years. It's nice to see the Rini linage picked up again. Sometimes it's nice to just go back to having Fun at this hobby.
Thanks again for the great review!
Clear Skies, Bill