Posts Made By: Bob Young

I've got two Right Angle 8x50 Antares Finders; one is erect image, the other isn't. Both display significant spherical aberration but I can easily live with it. The erect image version is dimmer by about a half-magnitude (just a guess) but much nicer to use.

The way I understand it you first focus for a clear cross-hair image with the e.p. diopter ring. You then focus for a clear target image by moving the e.p. up and down in the diagonal's draw tube and tightening the thumbscrew when in focus. Because of the spher. aberration, focus at edge of field is reached at a different point than at center field. Both finders reach center-field focus with the e.p. about 5mm from being bottomed in the tube.

I remember briefly trying a 20mm plossl in the normal, non-erect finder in place of the cross-hair e.p. I recall it reached focus about the same location...image was no better or worse. Makes Matt Sherman's recommendation for getting rid of cross-hairs an easy thing to try...which I think I will next time out.

Both finders are mounted in Losmandy 65mm(?) finder rings...An EXCELLENT setup. Screws are non-marring plastic; return to zero after remove & replace (from dovetail) near perfect. One is mounted on a C9.25 using the Losmandy dovetail, the other uses the TVFAB plastic dovetail base and is mounted on my TV102's tube ring. Thought I was crazy to spend the extra money for the Losmandy rings; but they're well worth it.

These appear to be good utilitarian finders. I'm quite happy with them in spite of their optical flaws.
Bob Young

Over the long run of owning an item, has anyone noticed how satisfied they are with items purchased below the asking price vs. items purchased for the asking price? I've noticed that things I've purchased below the asking price end up becoming a problem at some point in the future...and it's usually got nothing to do with the condition of the item when purchased. When I pay the full asking price; the item always works long and well for me...until I wear it out.

Not talking about misrepresentation on the part of the seller here; the discussion is limited to undamaged items received in an "as represented" condition. It even applies to new stuff. I think this is more metaphysical or theological than anything else...some kind of unwritten law.

Thought I'd broken out of this cycle a couple of years ago with a used muzzleloader purchased for well below what the seller was asking. It shot heavy loads like a ray-gun. Then in a moment of distraction I failed to fully seat a bullet and ruined the barrel...my fault entirely. Even though the manufacturer provided a free barrel; it was quite a hassle getting that gun working again. Now it's a good shooter but not what it was before. This is just one example of many.

This has become such a feature in my buying & selling experiences that I refuse to try to haggle with a seller. If I don't think his asking price is fair; I won't make an offer. The only exception to this for me is cars & pickup trucks where I've had good luck by offering a fixed amount above invoice.

Anybody else notice this; or is it just me? I beg your pardons if this seems silly or off topic.
Bob Young

Paul:
I have an EARLY ETX125 with plastic mount and horrendous backlash in the drive train. However optically it is top notch. It easily handles 200X, I've used over twice that for double stars. With good conditions, up to 380X is useable on the planets (5mm TAK LE) with little image degradation...though typically I stay below 300X.

I also have a TV102. Side-by-side on DSO's I much prefer the ETX. It begins to show some detail on faint fuzzies and globulars while the Televue simply shows that they are there. For example, the ETX begins to resolve M13 with an image that looks like a scattering of diamonds lying on a swatch of white silk. The TV102 just shows the 'white silk'. I actually bought the TV102 to replace the ETX; but, after comparing the two, kept the ETX.

The refractor is a little better on double stars, yielding a cleaner image that allows easier detection of faint, close companions; but once I return to the ETX I can see the companion in it too...it's just not as apparent. Of course for wide-field views, there's no contest...the Televue wins every time. The long ETX focal length simply will not permit the wide True FOV the short f.l. refractor provides.

Two things made the ETX 'work' for me:
1)forget about Autostar; it's more hassle than it's worth. Goto accuracy never amounted to much anyway. Use the simple hand control paddle that comes with the scope instead and starhop to your targets with the help of a 1X red-dot finder.
2)Take the money you saved on Autostar, add it to the $ you were going to spend on the #884 'deluxe field tripod' and get the #887 'advanced field tripod' instead. The #887 tripod comes with a very sturdy wedge. Both tripod and wedge were originally designed for an 8" SCT. Even my early ETX is pretty solid when mounted on the #887. I keep mine set up on the wedge and simply carry the complete unit outside when I want to observe.

The hand paddle lets me activate the RA drive at sidereal rate so, with a rough polar alignment, tracking is good to go for visual use. Of course you can mount the ETX Alt-AZ on the #887 tripod for even more rigidity, but then you won't have tracking.

Even with its faults, my ETX sees much more use than my GM8 mounted Televue. Besides being more convenient, there's no question, in my mind, that the ETX shows me more. I've never looked through a Pronto, but with the difference in aperture, I'd be very surprised if the ETX didn't blow it away.

Hope this helps.
Bob Young

Jake,
I've got to vote with Pat and Rick. If you're going to make changes, go up in aperture, not down. One of my first experiences with globulars was a side-by-side comparison of a new TV102 and my old ETX125 on M13. The ETX's image was much more interesting than the Televue's; it was beginning to resolve the cluster in a serious way. The Televue didn't come close. Apparently central obstruction doesn't mean squat on globulars; aperture rules.

For a real eyeful of globular I now use a C9.25; it really shines. But I'm sure a C11 or a 12" LX200 would do even better. If you can't compare before you buy, try to hang onto the C8 for awhile after you get your new scope. Side-by-side comparisons on the objects you favor under your own peculiar viewing circumstances can tell you a lot. As a beginner, it told me the TV102 was a step backward on DSO's and helped me put all the refractor hype in proper perspective.
Bob Young

Tim,
It might be your equipment. I got quite negative on barlows when all I used them with was a 3" refractor, a 4" refractor and an ETX125 (I have a Celestron Ultima). The image seemed to take a significant brightness hit...and appeared to lose contrast as well. Never saw any chromatic problems though. Got so I used the barlow only for splitting doubles.

Finally got around to trying it with my C9.25 and had no problem with it. If there was a loss of brightness or contrast, it wasn't noticeable.

I'm relying on memory however. Due to lousy weather in central NY, I haven't had a decent observing session since October. Hope to get a clear night before the planets disappear.
Bob Young

Ditto for Central NY. If you move here, sell the scopes and buy a boat. And I thought Indiana was bad.
Bob Young

Earth may be entering a Venusian phase. All future expenditures on Astro-gear have been suspended until weather patterns change...or Al Nagler invents a refractor/e.p. that sees through clouds; whichever happens first.
Bob

I've got both
and wish I didn't.
Televue's too small,
the Celestron isn't.
Bob

Yeah Ron, Except for the red & blue fringing, that's about all I'm seeing.
Equipment:
TV102
TV Big Barlow
22mm Panoptic
15mm Ultrascopic
12mm UO Ortho
Image started falling apart when I went to a 9mm UO Ortho

ETX125
20mm Plossl
18mm Ultima
15mm Ultrascopic

Side-by-side, the Televue was a little sharper. Filters didn't help much, but a moon filter seemed to do best.

Location: Central NY at about 11PM
Bob

Bought a new TV102 two years ago to replace my ETX125. Made the mistake of keeping the ETX around until I could observe with them side-by-side. Was happy with the Televue until I aimed them both at M13. That one look convinced me the ETX, despite its mechanical faults, wasn't going to be replaced by anything with 4" aperture. Actually I've still got them both. It's hard to part with anything as well made as the TV102; but it sure was an expensive way to learn that APOs aren't magic. To this day, when I see a newbie being "straight talked" by an APO True-Believer on FORUMS, my hackles go up. Been there...
Bob Young