Thanks Tony , do you think an Ha filter would clean up the blue for imaging ?
Brian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by casstony
I think Nettie is commenting from an imaging perspective Brian, where the Blue shows up more readily.
I get negligible CA on the Moon's limb visually - was looking at the moon between clouds before and could see the main craterlets in Plato at 100x - haven't had good conditions to properly try out the lens.
I have had my 127ED for some time now - one of the first batch that got one from Northgroup. yeah the focuser was crud - changed that for a moonlight motorised one - almost doubled the price of the scope but i love it. Its had a hard life but with a field flattener it was performing quite well. its given me lots of memories, processing nightmares and now is performing as a solar scope with a baader solar wedge. Bang for bucks - sure thing. When i eventually get good at it i may buy a tak, until then it will be my long suffering workhorse. I have heaps of other scopes but none match the versatility of this one.
It's cloudy tonight so I didn't get a chance to try out the fringe killer.
Here is an example of the blue I'm getting around Saturn.
And a pic of the image tidied up.
I also imaged the Moon last night and got nary any fringing at all.
Go figure.
Anyway, I usually use my 10"Newt for Planetary away so it's a moot point really.
Well jjjnettie an image speaks a 1000 words...your scope is spot on and a damn nice image to boot! There is no fringing!
Well done...I am envious...I have so much on my plate I'd love to be emulating you. You have really progressed over the years and a big thumbs upfrom me.
It's cloudy tonight so I didn't get a chance to try out the fringe killer.
Here is an example of the blue I'm getting around Saturn.
And a pic of the image tidied up.
I also imaged the Moon last night and got nary any fringing at all.
Go figure.
Anyway, I usually use my 10"Newt for Planetary away so it's a moot point really.
Nice imaging jjj, seems like overall the scope is excellent value for $1200
and especially for visual use there seems to be little competition at that price point. It would be hard to justify paying triple or quadruple the amount unless one's income was based on the difference.
Thanks Tony , do you think an Ha filter would clean up the blue for imaging ?
Brian.
I have very little experience with imaging Brian, but isolating any color will obviously get rid of other colors. The 127ed performs best in red so sharpest images should come from using a good quality red filter, theoretically.
Your Istar will have been supplied with a test certificate performed at it's best corrected wavelength; if that's around the 650nm of Ha then that filter should give the sharpest image through your scope.
I'm not sure why many of the Chinese scopes are tuned to red rather than the middle of the visual spectrum (ie. green).
Here is an example of the blue I'm getting around Saturn.
And a pic of the image tidied up.
I also imaged the Moon last night and got nary any fringing at all.
Go figure.
Maybe the difference in magnification shows the blue more readily on Saturn?
Comparing a 7 grands tak with a 1200 NG ED is just so absurd!
Are tak owners felt threaten by a humble NG?
Hope all these needless comparison will stop.
I was going to mention this some time back, but thought it pointless, and probably still is.
At the time I bought my lemon NG127, I was also offered a Vixen FL102S. The Vixen was $1500, with new Moonlite focuser, Losmandy D rail and included the original focuser too. The NG127 offered only the Moonlite focuser, robofocus and some Televue adapters for the odd size focuser. That was $2200.
I bought the NG127, thinking the aperture would compensate. OH, how VERY wrong I was, and VERY VERY quickly re-organised to purchase the Vixen FL102S, which was not only cheaper, but LIGHT YEARS ahead in every single way, especially INCREIBLE optics (base standard FL102S were Strehl 0.995. I have since had this one reported - seeing it is an AD-VIX branded one, which is INTERNAL JAPANESE MARKET / Hand select only - at Strehl 0.998).
So, I am VERY at liberty to compare a Vixen Fl102S to the NG127.
There are obviously good and bad samples. In light of VTI's list of disclaimers I would suggest anyone ordering the scope think about what standard they expect the scope to meet and ask if VTI can supply that standard.
Personally I can tolerate scratches in the paint, dust and parts needing adjustment, but the objective and coatings shouldn't have any significant faults. Coma certainly shouldn't be in their list of disclaimers since it results from decentering of the lens elements.
If you can get a decent one $1300 isn't bad value for a 5" near-apo refractor with accessories.
Comparing a 7 grands tak with a 1200 NG ED is just so absurd!
Are tak owners felt threaten by a humble NG?
Hope all these needless comparison will stop.
There was mention of "comparisons with a Tak" on the VTI site. But is anyone actually seriously comparing them to a Tak? I think most owners would be more realistic than that. As a $1299 scope, if it works as described, it is good. I think the concern is more if someone ends up with one of the "bad ones" in the batch. Then I suppose rather than wasting $1299 on a bad example, or having to spend even more $$$ fixing the defects, or spending $$$ on a scope that will never be up to scratch like the others, then, sure perhaps spending more money from the start on something else may be a preferred option. But, you need hindsight, a crystal ball, or be a very careful buyer to do that.
Why risk it - buy a scope that is PROPERLY QC'd in the first place, rather than some mass produced gamble.
I don't mind what anyone else does with their money, but gambling the NG odds is a REAL gamble.
It's obvious no one is going to change anyone's mind here, so if you think you are getting a bargain at $1100, then by all means, go for it. Hopefully, the purchase is good. If it's not, well, sorry, the warnings were there.
I was going to mention this some time back, but thought it pointless, and probably still is.
At the time I bought my lemon NG127, I was also offered a Vixen FL102S. The Vixen was $1500, with new Moonlite focuser, Losmandy D rail and included the original focuser too. The NG127 offered only the Moonlite focuser, robofocus and some Televue adapters for the odd size focuser. That was $2200.
I bought the NG127, thinking the aperture would compensate. OH, how VERY wrong I was, and VERY VERY quickly re-organised to purchase the Vixen FL102S, which was not only cheaper, but LIGHT YEARS ahead in every single way, especially INCREIBLE optics (base standard FL102S were Strehl 0.995. I have since had this one reported - seeing it is an AD-VIX branded one, which is INTERNAL JAPANESE MARKET / Hand select only - at Strehl 0.998).
So, I am VERY at liberty to compare a Vixen Fl102S to the NG127.
Simply, there is NO COMPARISON. NIL.
Can I ask, when making the comparison, and conclude that the FL102S was much better, are you mainly using it for astro- photography, or mainly visual?
Why risk it - buy a scope that is PROPERLY QC'd in the first place, rather than some mass produced gamble.
I don't mind what anyone else does with their money, but gambling the NG odds is a REAL gamble.
It's obvious no one is going to change anyone's mind here, so if you think you are getting a bargain at $1100, then by all means, go for it. Hopefully, the purchase is good. If it's not, well, sorry, the warnings were there.
Um I have the NG version I bought second hand from ma fellow forum member and have posted a few examples. Unfortunately the weather in Melbourne has been less accommodating. Tofollow up. I have zero CA and have had no issues with the focuser or blur. the scope is tack sharp.
Um I have the NG version I bought second hand from ma fellow forum member and have posted a few examples. Unfortunately the weather in Melbourne has been less accommodating. Tofollow up. I have zero CA and have had no issues with the focuser or blur. the scope is tack sharp.
Nickolas,
I wish I had bought that one now. I bought new, but no comment yet.
Tack sharp? Boy were those carefully chosen words. Lucky you did not accidently drop the "c", I think that would have attracted a few posts regarding the comparison with a Tak.
Just get a Tak , even if it is an FS-60c/csv/csb, then work your way up. People would be and are surprised just how competent they are for visual and imaging. I saved for my first Polarex/Unitron achromats which just stood out from the rest back in the 1960’s and are still great to this day. They have given much me much pleasure over the years not only for their mechanical design but their excellent optical qualities as well.
Even grinding my own mirrors around the F6/7 mark proved to be very challenging but the results were worth it, if anybody has looked through a decently made reflector will attest to.
Everything is made to a price (albeit dictated by exchange rates) and it all comes back to what you can afford, what your priorities are and whether you are prepared to buy second hand (pre-owned/pre-loved as some would say).
That is a very bold statement and in fact defies the laws of physics. How did you measure it?
I have an eyeball I could not see any CA
I took photos of high contrasting subjects during the day ie leaves against the sky, zero CA
I looked at the moon zero CA
I looked at jupiter and Saturn zero CA
I did not sit there with a spectrometer and try and analyse it I just used the damned thing and it works, very well.
I do not have a $6000 scope to test it against but it beats the crap out of the c8 SGT and the 10 inch DOB for pinpoint clarity, contrast and eye candy. Subjective? Damned right it is.
Snobbery? Not from this little black duck. Everyone's experience varies obviously, mine has been good. Many others who have this or a similar scope on this forum and many others also see it as a good one. There are a few on here who had bad experiences, such is the nature of the beast, but those who have had the bad experience go on and on and continually crap on it because THEY had bad experiences and it is unfair to those (the majority) who have a good version and don't say much. If you have a good model then it's a great scope, if you blew your grand then return the damned thing as our consumer laws are very strict when it comes to what is being offered.
Thanks Tony , do you think an Ha filter would clean up the blue for imaging ?
of the scope but i love it. Its had a hard life but with a field flattener it was performing quite well. its given me lots of memories, processing nightmares and now is performing as a solar scope with a baader solar wedge. Bang for bucks - sure thing. When i eventually get good at it i may buy a tak, until then it will be my long suffering workhorse. I have heaps of other scopes but none match the versatility of this one.
from me.
