Posts Made By: Larry Janowicz

Wow...10:00 EST...the new Sky and Telescope has probably arrived for many. And not one post yet about the Tal review.
This is not at all right.
Larry

Our club uses one of these in our loaner stable. I purchased the instrument ( used) and found it to perform just about the way I expected a 90mm f/11 achro would. Mechanically there were no problems. I tested it with the stock diagonal in place and used a Vixen 80mm f/11 as a comparison.
The only thing that mystified me about this scope is that it seemed to always take a bit longer than the Vixen to adapt to ambient temperature. I could never determine a reason for this since the construction of the two scopes (Vixen/Meade) was just about the same.
Larry

Swiss Army Scope:
It refracts and reflects in various sizes. Converts into a GEM, fork, or Dob. Apodizes and masks. Measures seeing. Suggests correct eyepiece for any combination with ultimate "thread killer" capabilities. Best of all, it includes a little toothpick too!
I think Orion will have 'em this fall.
Larry

I usually scan the forums about once per week and it finally hit me hard tonight:
"What's the best eyepiece for a "XXXX" ?

Perhaps a reminder:
I frequently see recommendations made on these forums but sometimes no reason or explanation to support that recommemndation. One example (among many) might be the simple statement 'get a 2" focuser'. I can understand that recommendation being valid if imaging accessories might be used. I can see that advice being valid if there might be potential or desire to obtain certain premium eyepieces like select focal length Panoptics or Naglers in the future. It also makes ton's of sense if the mechanical quality of the 2" exceeds that of the 1.25" from the vendor. There are other reasons beyond these but the point I'd like to make in this and similar cases is that when advice/recommendations are given is to try to remember to provide the rationale also. This would be quite beneficial in educating beginners whether they were the original poster or, even more importantly, that numberless mass that are just lurkers.
Larry

Some very nice transit photos and a thanks to all those posters!
There was absolutely no way for me to evade an on time appearnce at work today and I was quite concerned that I might miss the entire transit since almost all of it would happen during my morning commute.
I packed my 76mm UO refractor in the trunk hoping that traffic would permit me to get a glimpse of the conclusion on my arrival at work. I was nervously watching the car clock all the way ( which, of course, is always set by use of U.S. Naval Observatory time reports)and for some reason became quite anxious everytime I saw any brake light chains that might signal slowdowns or accidents.
As "insurance" I pulled off the freeway about halfway to work and snuck a quick naked eye view. It took a few moments to adjust from the morning glare but I got my target. I'll bet a big chunk of change some other commuters wondered what that idiot was doing on the berm.
Fortunately I did arrive at work between 3rd and 4th contact. I was able to set the scope in one minute and follow the transit until 4th contact using about 20x. No time to use any other eyepiece other than the ortho I slapped in the scope when I left.
Gee, Why do I feel so good this morning!
Larry

Probably not, Bill.
You mentioned "deep sky" and to me that says a bigger objective. The least expensive way to collect light is via a reflector. You might consider moving into the 8" or 10" mirror size.
If you want a rich field refractor the best bets in your budget range are the Orion (Skywatcher/Synta) 100mm or 120mm shorter focus refrators. These can be a lot fun used for sweeping through star fields or examing clusters. However, neither will see as faint as your current 6"
Why did you specify refractor?
Larry

To get things back on track I decided to post a list of some of my favorite less expensive eyepieces.
The scopes I use change over time and have ranged from 8" f/4.5 and f/6 newts, a few 6" long fl newts, a few SCTs, a few smaller Maks (<= 5"), and both long and short fl refractors. I'm not going into the detail Floyd did. That's work! This is opinion. I'm on a budget so you will not see a Nagler, Pentax, Zeiss, etc. Not that I don't dream but...perhaps in due time.

20mm Meade RG Erfle - A retired classic but can be had used. I use this a lot, even with smaller f ratio scopes.
10.5mm Orion Megavista - Why did they ever stop making this one (and it's 16mm cousin)?? Sharp images, good field, decent eye relief.
8 mm Brandon - The "cool" factor, yes. But I love it for tighter double stars and planets and only bothered slightly by the narrower FOV. Ok, I know, some may consider this a "premium". but I got it for $50.
4 and 6mm WO/TMB Planetary - very good performance at a great price with the bonus of eyerelief that makes me want to retire some older ortho's.
30mm Eudiascopic ( Ultima twin) - I love this paricularly in my shorter fl scopes.
16mm Konig - Gets that maximum field in the moderate range for the minimal money
2.8 Klee barlow - Light and short with some "juice".
Larry ( now dated from the above listing)

Play around with Google,Greg( but make sure you have a lot of spare time).
Search on "Maunder - Pickering" for an interesting start.
There are lots of ways resolution gets measured. Dots have been observed to be different from lines. Contrast is a factor ( e.g. black lines on pure white backround). Blah, blah, blah. You can read a ton of good research and discusssion from photography gurus, neuroscientists, physicians, astronomers, and more.
Bottom line concensus seems to be that the eagle eyed among us can see 2 to 3 arc minutes in the night sky.
The figures you quote are supported by research..but the measurements are not being done in astronomical contexts.
Larry

After catching up with a backload of post reading today my tired brain suggested that it could be quite interesting to emulate the website mentioned in my heading by substituting scopes, mounts and eyepieces for the currency.
I'm taking my meds and going to bed now.
Larry