My first report

[turboscrew]

I edited the date @turboscrew for posterity's sake...

Thanks! My time window for editing was already gone.

[notFritzArgelander]

Where to heck did I got that Jun 19th? Should have been Apr 19th, of course.

You are observing in the future, where impressive! This is a very nice first report Turboscrew, you hit it running. It also gives us a perspective on what it takes to observe in Finland. Well done!

I agree with nFA, 26mm is too long for your scope, and Erfle design of SWAN EP is poor match for a fast newt. I would suggest to look for 82 deg 14 to 20mm EP.

Well, there was another reason for getting that eyepiece - the polar alignment.
The bright star there is supposed to be Polaris, and the center should be the pole.

By all means use it for the alignment. But I think that a shorter fl ocular of different design will be a much more useful bit of observing kit. You'll be surprised pleasantly at how well a shorter highly corrected design will perform.

[Makuser]

Hello turboscrew. A very nice and complete first observing report from you. Sorry to read about the declination axis drive freezing up on you and hope that you get this resolved soon. Thanks for taking the time to put your well written report up on here for us to enjoy turboscrew, and congratulations on winning the TSS VROD Award today.

[turboscrew]

You are observing in the future, where impressive! This is a very nice first report Turboscrew, you hit it running. It also gives us a perspective on what it takes to observe in Finland. Well done!

I agree with nFA, 26mm is too long for your scope, and Erfle design of SWAN EP is poor match for a fast newt. I would suggest to look for 82 deg 14 to 20mm EP.

Well, there was another reason for getting that eyepiece - the polar alignment.
The bright star there is supposed to be Polaris, and the center should be the pole.

By all means use it for the alignment. But I think that a shorter fl ocular of different design will be a much more useful bit of observing kit. You'll be surprised pleasantly at how well a shorter highly corrected design will perform.

Do you have a good suggestion? I'm still not familiar with the designs, and who makes what.
Maybe, just maybe, I get to use the Allen key trick to have some kind of idea of my pupil size.
The sky is not really very dark here, and especially not anymore, until the next autumn.

[notFritzArgelander]

Well, there was another reason for getting that eyepiece - the polar alignment.
The bright star there is supposed to be Polaris, and the center should be the pole.

By all means use it for the alignment. But I think that a shorter fl ocular of different design will be a much more useful bit of observing kit. You'll be surprised pleasantly at how well a shorter highly corrected design will perform.

Do you have a good suggestion? I'm still not familiar with the designs, and who makes what.
Maybe, just maybe, I get to use the Allen key trick to have some kind of idea of my pupil size.
The sky is not really very dark here, and especially not anymore, until the next autumn.

Most observers like the 82-84 degree AFOV eyepieces like the TV Naglers and the Explore Scientific clones of Naglers. When I had my f4 Newt I used a coma corrector with the eyepiece so the expense of that needs to be considered, if your fussy about coma. However after running through two complete sets of T4 and T6 Naglers (of which I only liked the 17mm type 4) I settled on the 68 degree AFOV TV Panoptics.

Folks seem to like the 18mm ES 82 degree AFOV (~300 USD) or its counterpart the TV Nagler t4 17mm (~400 USD) or 22mm (~460 USD).

I find the distortions of the FOV in the 80+ degree eyepieces to be too much to tolerate. That's why I settled on a smaller AFOV and the Panoptics of which the 19 and 24mm are my workhorses for finding galaxies. (~250 and ~320 USD).

Will you be happy with the 80+? Likely. If you can, try before you buy.

[Greenman]

Nice report you sure covered the sky. I feel for you on the frustration technical glitches give you - hopefully it is only minor. One thing I noticed it happened after you had been away from the scope, was it tracking at that time? Just a random thought, could an issue have occurred while you were away. Congrats on the VROD.

[NGC 1365]

Nice report, easy to follow along with and congratulations on the VROD.

[turboscrew]

By all means use it for the alignment. But I think that a shorter fl ocular of different design will be a much more useful bit of observing kit. You'll be surprised pleasantly at how well a shorter highly corrected design will perform.

Do you have a good suggestion? I'm still not familiar with the designs, and who makes what.
Maybe, just maybe, I get to use the Allen key trick to have some kind of idea of my pupil size.
The sky is not really very dark here, and especially not anymore, until the next autumn.

Most observers like the 82-84 degree AFOV eyepieces like the TV Naglers and the Explore Scientific clones of Naglers. When I had my f4 Newt I used a coma corrector with the eyepiece so the expense of that needs to be considered, if your fussy about coma. However after running through two complete sets of T4 and T6 Naglers (of which I only liked the 17mm type 4) I settled on the 68 degree AFOV TV Panoptics.

Folks seem to like the 18mm ES 82 degree AFOV (~300 USD) or its counterpart the TV Nagler t4 17mm (~400 USD) or 22mm (~460 USD).

I find the distortions of the FOV in the 80+ degree eyepieces to be too much to tolerate. That's why I settled on a smaller AFOV and the Panoptics of which the 19 and 24mm are my workhorses for finding galaxies. (~250 and ~320 USD).

Will you be happy with the 80+? Likely. If you can, try before you buy.

Thanks. Got to figure out which one ends to my next shopping list.
But there's no way for me to try before buy. No such shops (that I know of) within, say, 100 km, and I still don't know other stargazers nearby. I haven't managed to reach the people of Tampere Ursa yet.

[notFritzArgelander]

Do you have a good suggestion? I'm still not familiar with the designs, and who makes what.
Maybe, just maybe, I get to use the Allen key trick to have some kind of idea of my pupil size.
The sky is not really very dark here, and especially not anymore, until the next autumn.

Most observers like the 82-84 degree AFOV eyepieces like the TV Naglers and the Explore Scientific clones of Naglers. When I had my f4 Newt I used a coma corrector with the eyepiece so the expense of that needs to be considered, if your fussy about coma. However after running through two complete sets of T4 and T6 Naglers (of which I only liked the 17mm type 4) I settled on the 68 degree AFOV TV Panoptics.

Folks seem to like the 18mm ES 82 degree AFOV (~300 USD) or its counterpart the TV Nagler t4 17mm (~400 USD) or 22mm (~460 USD).

I find the distortions of the FOV in the 80+ degree eyepieces to be too much to tolerate. That's why I settled on a smaller AFOV and the Panoptics of which the 19 and 24mm are my workhorses for finding galaxies. (~250 and ~320 USD).

Will you be happy with the 80+? Likely. If you can, try before you buy.

Thanks. Got to figure out which one ends to my next shopping list.
But there's no way for me to try before buy. No such shops (that I know of) within, say, 100 km, and I still don't know other stargazers nearby. I haven't managed to reach the people of Tampere Ursa yet.

The main difference between the 80 degree and the 70 degree AFOV eyepieces is that the former have more pincushion or angular distortion. A straight line in the field of view becomes curved. If you would only be using the eyepiece at night on DSOs it might not bother you. I am one of the few annoyed to no end by it. The 70s AFOV have it too but it's more moderate. When I stopped using the 80s I also no longer needed the coma corrector to keep the edge of field sharp. Mine is definitely a minority view though.

This is not to say that the Panoptics have no pincushion distortion. I just find the degree of it acceptable to my eyes.

[Bigzmey]

Do you have a good suggestion? I'm still not familiar with the designs, and who makes what.
Maybe, just maybe, I get to use the Allen key trick to have some kind of idea of my pupil size.
The sky is not really very dark here, and especially not anymore, until the next autumn.

Most observers like the 82-84 degree AFOV eyepieces like the TV Naglers and the Explore Scientific clones of Naglers. When I had my f4 Newt I used a coma corrector with the eyepiece so the expense of that needs to be considered, if your fussy about coma. However after running through two complete sets of T4 and T6 Naglers (of which I only liked the 17mm type 4) I settled on the 68 degree AFOV TV Panoptics.

Folks seem to like the 18mm ES 82 degree AFOV (~300 USD) or its counterpart the TV Nagler t4 17mm (~400 USD) or 22mm (~460 USD).

I find the distortions of the FOV in the 80+ degree eyepieces to be too much to tolerate. That's why I settled on a smaller AFOV and the Panoptics of which the 19 and 24mm are my workhorses for finding galaxies. (~250 and ~320 USD).

Will you be happy with the 80+? Likely. If you can, try before you buy.

Thanks. Got to figure out which one ends to my next shopping list.
But there's no way for me to try before buy. No such shops (that I know of) within, say, 100 km, and I still don't know other stargazers nearby. I haven't managed to reach the people of Tampere Ursa yet.

Since you already familiar with 70 deg FOV, you could just get a better corrected EP with similar FOV, like ES 68 deg 20mm or 16mm.

[turboscrew]

@notFritzArgelander : I checked that in Europe, Tele vue T4 Nagler 17 mm costs now about 500 €. Nagler T4 22 mm is about 600 €. I guess the new customs policies... And I guess if I ordered from US, it'd become even more expensive, and there would be the bureaucracy with the customs.

@Bigzmey : Familiar with 70°... Don't know about that. Only have used it in one session yet.

I'd like to go with 20 mm or longer just because of the light. I'm afraid that higher magnification makes the targets that much fainter. But I don't really know what my eyes are capable of. I tried that Allen key trick, but didn't find dark enough anywhere. In the outside, you can almost read a newspaper. Inside I tried a dark room an a device with a LED, but didn't find any dark enough place with enough room to place a device with a LED far enough for at least a rough check.
I was in a room upstairs, and it started looking good, but then a neighbour turned on their porch light...

=> I don't know what I want. :veryconfused:

[prowler75]

Great report and congrats on the VROD!

[turboscrew]

@notFritzArgelander : I checked that in Europe, Tele vue T4 Nagler 17 mm costs now about 500 €. Nagler T4 22 mm is about 600 €. I guess the new customs policies... And I guess if I ordered from US, it'd become even more expensive, and there would be the bureaucracy with the customs.

@Bigzmey : Familiar with 70°... Don't know about that. Only have used it in one session yet.

I'd like to go with 20 mm or longer just because of the light. I'm afraid that higher magnification makes the targets that much fainter. But I don't really know what my eyes are capable of. I tried that Allen key trick, but didn't find dark enough anywhere. In the outside, you can almost read a newspaper. Inside I tried a dark room an a device with a LED, but didn't find any dark enough place with enough room to place a device with a LED far enough for at least a rough check.
I was in a room upstairs, and it started looking good, but then a neighbour turned on their porch light...

=> I don't know what I want. :veryconfused:

Maybe a reducer...?

[notFritzArgelander]

......

@Bigzmey : Familiar with 70°... Don't know about that. Only have used it in one session yet.

I'd like to go with 20 mm or longer just because of the light. I'm afraid that higher magnification makes the targets that much fainter. But I don't really know what my eyes are capable of...

=> I don't know what I want. :veryconfused:

This fear of higher magnification making the object fainter is not quite justified. You’re also making the sky background fainter too! To detect a small faint object against the sky you need a magnification that optimizes the contrast between the object and the sky. A smaller object demands higher magnification. When I’m off the phone and back on the computer I’ll post a link that explains the details.

[notFritzArgelander]

......

@Bigzmey : Familiar with 70°... Don't know about that. Only have used it in one session yet.

I'd like to go with 20 mm or longer just because of the light. I'm afraid that higher magnification makes the targets that much fainter. But I don't really know what my eyes are capable of...

=> I don't know what I want. :veryconfused:

This fear of higher magnification making the object fainter is not quite justified. You’re also making the sky background fainter too! To detect a small faint object against the sky you need a magnification that optimizes the contrast between the object and the sky. A smaller object demands higher magnification. When I’m off the phone and back on the computer I’ll post a link that explains the details.

Here's the link to Clark's Visual Astronomy of the Night Sky. The linked page has some information about how magnification and aperture affect observability. Higher magnification is often essential. https://clarkvision.com/visastro/index.html

[notFritzArgelander]

@notFritzArgelander : I checked that in Europe, Tele vue T4 Nagler 17 mm costs now about 500 €. Nagler T4 22 mm is about 600 €. I guess the new customs policies... And I guess if I ordered from US, it'd become even more expensive, and there would be the bureaucracy with the customs.

@Bigzmey : Familiar with 70°... Don't know about that. Only have used it in one session yet.

I'd like to go with 20 mm or longer just because of the light. I'm afraid that higher magnification makes the targets that much fainter. But I don't really know what my eyes are capable of. I tried that Allen key trick, but didn't find dark enough anywhere. In the outside, you can almost read a newspaper. Inside I tried a dark room an a device with a LED, but didn't find any dark enough place with enough room to place a device with a LED far enough for at least a rough check.
I was in a room upstairs, and it started looking good, but then a neighbour turned on their porch light...

=> I don't know what I want. :veryconfused:

Maybe a reducer...?

No, definitely not..... You'll be brightening your sky and reducing contrast.

If I were still an owner of an f4 Newt I'd have eyepieces at 8, 12, 16, 20 and maybe 24 or 25mm to make good steps in exit pupil from my maximum down to 2mm for DSOs and galaxies. Higher magnification is the only way to make a contrast between a small object and sky brightness.

[notFritzArgelander]

......

@Bigzmey : Familiar with 70°... Don't know about that. Only have used it in one session yet.

I'd like to go with 20 mm or longer just because of the light. I'm afraid that higher magnification makes the targets that much fainter. But I don't really know what my eyes are capable of...

=> I don't know what I want. :veryconfused:

This fear of higher magnification making the object fainter is not quite justified. You’re also making the sky background fainter too! To detect a small faint object against the sky you need a magnification that optimizes the contrast between the object and the sky. A smaller object demands higher magnification. When I’m off the phone and back on the computer I’ll post a link that explains the details.

Here's the link to Clark's Visual Astronomy of the Night Sky. The linked page has some information about how magnification and aperture affect observability. Higher magnification is often essential. https://clarkvision.com/visastro/index.html

PS An embedded lin in the quoted link to Visual Astronomy of the Deep Sky shows how complicated the physiology of detecting extended faint objects with dark adapted eyes is. The short of the argument is that with night vision an extended object is more easily detectible if the magnification is large enough. The human eye needs the faint object to be larger or it isn't detected. https://clarkvision.com/visastro/omva1/index.html

For extended objects the telescope never "makes it brighter". One has to play with contrast effects for visual detection. I was put onto Clark's book and site by @j.gardavsky it is the simplest explanation of the technology and physiology of visual observing that is realistic. Before, I used much more complicated and cumbersome methods to optimize.

The crucial graph is in Figure 2 where the eye's angular resolution as a function of background brightness is displayed.

[turboscrew]

OK. I have to look into the curve a bit longer to capture the essential. I also found a small reluctance in me to accept that I probably should go for smaller focal length eyepieces. But I seem to be getting over it.

[turboscrew]

Where to heck did I got that Jun 19th? Should have been Apr 19th, of course.

I agree with nFA, 26mm is too long for your scope, and Erfle design of SWAN EP is poor match for a fast newt. I would suggest to look for 82 deg 14 to 20mm EP.

I didn't find the design of my SWAN? So it's Erfle, and Erfles are not good for fast scopes?
That was what I was after long ago when I was asking about eyepiece types.
Naglers would be good?

Do the classifications, like SWA, UWA and XWA give any hint about the structure?

@notFritzArgelander : You mentioned ES clones. Which ones are?
The TV T4 Naglers seem to have 7 elements in 5 groups. ES 82° waterproof 18 mm has 6 elements in 4 groups (and is suspiciously cheap - 195 €).
Of course ES doesn't tell about the structures on their pages. Had to check on a reseller's page.

[turboscrew]

A-ha. The reseller was lying. In the ES catalog it says that in the waterproof 82° series, there are 7 elements in 4 groups.