Jupiter spot - Hubble image
Here's a July 23 Hubble image of the impact spot. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/23/ Back here on Earth, I tried for the scar on July 28 2:38MDT with a 125mm Meade ETX. WinJOBS software was used to predict where the spot should be. Seeing was too poor from the valley floor so I made no detection. Decided it would take more aperature and a higher elevation to see the thing - perhaps in a moment of still air - a'la Joe's great pic It has been reported that the spot is evolving into a wider bi-lobbed shape - which appears consistent with the July 23 Hubble pic above. - Clear skies, Kurt
I started observing Jupiter's impact scar about 3:45 AM and ended at 4:10 AM (July 30, MDT). I was using an 8" Celestron Ultima SCT at 160x and 236X. At first the scar was faint and barely visible at 160X. Seeing improved markedly after a few minutes and the scar was easily visible. I watched it transit approximately as scheduled (I didn't try to time it). I was surprised how visible it was compared to the last time, but then I was using a smaller scope under poorer seeing. I assume it is now harder to see, all things being equal, than it was on July 23. I noticed a fairly significant improvement in detail when I switched from a 1.25" - 13 mm Meade Super Wide to a 1.25" - 13mm Nagler Type 6. Even though the Nagler had more glass the image was clearly sharper and the scar more readily observed. The Nagler was probably superior due to better optics and coatings. Previously I had not considered Naglers' to be planetary eyepieces.
Good report, Don, thanks. If you have a good orthoscopic, I'd be interested in your impressions of resolution when compared to the Nagler. Dick Suiter, in his book "Star Testing Astronomical Telescopes", demonstrated with spot diagrams that the Naglers are a tad soft in the center. I'm at work now so I can't cite the chapter and page. Those simulations were probably done using the original Nagler design; it's been years now since the book was published. But my own admittedly infrequent comparisons bore that out. The FOV of the orthos was only half that of the Nagler, but I always felt I could see finer detail with the Abbe Ortho than the Nagler, stated ep focal lengths never differing by no more than a mm. I also wondered why Tele Vue would sell a different line of eyepieces (Panoptics, IIRC) as "Tack Sharp", but of narrower FOV than the Nagler, if the Naglers were diffraction limited- which Suiter claims they're not. On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> wrote:
I started observing Jupiter's impact scar about 3:45 AM and ended at 4:10 AM (July 30, MDT). I was using an 8" Celestron Ultima SCT at 160x and 236X. At first the scar was faint and barely visible at 160X. Seeing improved markedly after a few minutes and the scar was easily visible. I watched it transit approximately as scheduled (I didn't try to time it). I was surprised how visible it was compared to the last time, but then I was using a smaller scope under poorer seeing. I assume it is now harder to see, all things being equal, than it was on July 23.
I noticed a fairly significant improvement in detail when I switched from a 1.25" - 13 mm Meade Super Wide to a 1.25" - 13mm Nagler Type 6. Even though the Nagler had more glass the image was clearly sharper and the scar more readily observed. The Nagler was probably superior due to better optics and coatings. Previously I had not considered Naglers' to be planetary eyepieces.
Chuck, When I get a chance I will compare the Nagler to my 13 mm Plossl, unfortunately I don't have any Orthos in that focal length. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:04 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Jupiter Impact Scar Good report, Don, thanks. If you have a good orthoscopic, I'd be interested in your impressions of resolution when compared to the Nagler. Dick Suiter, in his book "Star Testing Astronomical Telescopes", demonstrated with spot diagrams that the Naglers are a tad soft in the center. I'm at work now so I can't cite the chapter and page. Those simulations were probably done using the original Nagler design; it's been years now since the book was published. But my own admittedly infrequent comparisons bore that out. The FOV of the orthos was only half that of the Nagler, but I always felt I could see finer detail with the Abbe Ortho than the Nagler, stated ep focal lengths never differing by no more than a mm. I also wondered why Tele Vue would sell a different line of eyepieces (Panoptics, IIRC) as "Tack Sharp", but of narrower FOV than the Nagler, if the Naglers were diffraction limited- which Suiter claims they're not. On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> wrote:
I started observing Jupiter's impact scar about 3:45 AM and ended at 4:10 AM (July 30, MDT). I was using an 8" Celestron Ultima SCT at 160x and 236X. At first the scar was faint and barely visible at 160X. Seeing improved markedly after a few minutes and the scar was easily visible. I watched it transit approximately as scheduled (I didn't try to time it). I was surprised how visible it was compared to the last time, but then I was using a smaller scope under poorer seeing. I assume it is now harder to see, all things being equal, than it was on July 23.
I noticed a fairly significant improvement in detail when I switched from a 1.25" - 13 mm Meade Super Wide to a 1.25" - 13mm Nagler Type 6. Even though the Nagler had more glass the image was clearly sharper and the scar more readily observed. The Nagler was probably superior due to better optics and coatings. Previously I had not considered Naglers' to be planetary eyepieces.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Thanks Don. Is it a Tele Vue Plossl? I'm thinking the Nagler will probably outperform it for sharpness unless it's a TV. Let us know what shakes out. On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> wrote:
Chuck,
When I get a chance I will compare the Nagler to my 13 mm Plossl, unfortunately I don't have any Orthos in that focal length.
I remember doing a side-by-side comparison a few years ago with Debbie's 15" Obsession on a Halloween night with exceptional seeing of Jupiter, where we were able to crank up the magnification. From Nagler to Plossel (TV) to Orthoscopic, each was a slight improvement over the previous eyepiece. That was my subjective experience anyway. The ortho, despite the narrow field (Mark Dakins used to say it's like looking through a soda straw!), did have a slightly sharper image than the plossl, and both were better than the Nagler, for cleanest planetary imaging anyway. But of course you have to start with good seeing (and it was fabulous that particular night). --- On Thu, 7/30/09, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Jupiter Impact Scar To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 9:44 PM Thanks Don. Is it a Tele Vue Plossl? I'm thinking the Nagler will probably outperform it for sharpness unless it's a TV. Let us know what shakes out.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> wrote:
Chuck,
When I get a chance I will compare the Nagler to my 13 mm Plossl, unfortunately I don't have any Orthos in that focal length.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Naglers are not for everyone and or every object, they excel when a wide field is wanted. They do not offer too much advantage with the 32" Grim for instance. I have a 6"f5 refractor and a Nagler offers excellent views. It is always impressive to see the Veil and N. American in a wide view.
I remember doing a side-by-side comparison a few years ago with Debbie's 15" Obsession on a Halloween night with exceptional seeing of Jupiter, where we were able to crank up the magnification. From Nagler to Plossel (TV) to Orthoscopic, each was a slight improvement over the previous eyepiece. That was my subjective experience anyway. The ortho, despite the narrow field (Mark Dakins used to say it's like looking through a soda straw!), did have a slightly sharper image than the plossl, and both were better than the Nagler, for cleanest planetary imaging anyway. But of course you have to start with good seeing (and it was fabulous that particular night).
--- On Thu, 7/30/09, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Jupiter Impact Scar To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 9:44 PM Thanks Don. Is it a Tele Vue Plossl? I'm thinking the Nagler will probably outperform it for sharpness unless it's a TV. Let us know what shakes out.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> wrote:
Chuck,
When I get a chance I will compare the Nagler to my 13 mm Plossl, unfortunately I don't have any Orthos in that focal length.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
How do PanOptics compare? Spencer Ball 3690 E. Ft Union Blvd # 101 Salt Lake City, Utah 84121 (801) 453-2000 ----- Original Message ----- From: <erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 2:13 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Jupiter Impact Scar
Naglers are not for everyone and or every object, they excel when a wide field is wanted. They do not offer too much advantage with the 32" Grim for instance. I have a 6"f5 refractor and a Nagler offers excellent views. It is always impressive to see the Veil and N. American in a wide view.
I remember doing a side-by-side comparison a few years ago with Debbie's 15" Obsession on a Halloween night with exceptional seeing of Jupiter, where we were able to crank up the magnification. From Nagler to Plossel (TV) to Orthoscopic, each was a slight improvement over the previous eyepiece. That was my subjective experience anyway. The ortho, despite the narrow field (Mark Dakins used to say it's like looking through a soda straw!), did have a slightly sharper image than the plossl, and both were better than the Nagler, for cleanest planetary imaging anyway. But of course you have to start with good seeing (and it was fabulous that particular night).
--- On Thu, 7/30/09, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Jupiter Impact Scar To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 9:44 PM Thanks Don. Is it a Tele Vue Plossl? I'm thinking the Nagler will probably outperform it for sharpness unless it's a TV. Let us know what shakes out.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> wrote:
Chuck,
When I get a chance I will compare the Nagler to my 13 mm Plossl, unfortunately I don't have any Orthos in that focal length.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 0.0.0/0 - Release Date: <unknown> 12:00 AM
Spence, I don't believe that PanOptics were on the market when Richard "Dick" Suiter wrote his book and ran his simulations. I have no personal experience with PanOptics. My eyepiece case does contain a few low-power, 2" eyepieces with 80+ degree fields, but I do not use any Tele Vue products. The ones I have borrowed and used haven't wowed me enough to justify the cost. I suppose if I had a six-figure income, that attitude would possibly change. I'd love to read someone's side-by-side comparison of PanOptics with Abbe' Otrhos, under perfect skies. On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Spencer Ball <spencer@spencerball.com>wrote:
How do PanOptics compare?
Thanx, Chuck. Spencer Ball 3690 E. Ft Union Blvd # 101 Salt Lake City, Utah 84121 (801) 453-2000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Hards" <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 2:56 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Jupiter Impact Scar
Spence, I don't believe that PanOptics were on the market when Richard "Dick" Suiter wrote his book and ran his simulations. I have no personal experience with PanOptics.
My eyepiece case does contain a few low-power, 2" eyepieces with 80+ degree fields, but I do not use any Tele Vue products. The ones I have borrowed and used haven't wowed me enough to justify the cost. I suppose if I had a six-figure income, that attitude would possibly change.
I'd love to read someone's side-by-side comparison of PanOptics with Abbe' Otrhos, under perfect skies.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Spencer Ball <spencer@spencerball.com>wrote:
How do PanOptics compare?
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
-- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 0.0.0/0 - Release Date: <unknown> 12:00 AM
I have a 35mm Panoptic that I bought from Mark Dakins for a great price (when he purchased the 31 Nagler!). It's a wonderful eyepiece for wide-field views (the Perseus double-cluster is pretty incredible in this eyepiece with my 16" f/6.25), but I wouldn't even think of using it for planets. I did some side-by-side comparisons with a similar FL Pentax and found the view a little more to my liking in the Panoptic (though Lowell Lyon will disagree with me on that), FWIW. My 22 Nagler is my favorite eyepiece for deep-sky observing with the 16". At 115x (IIRC) in my scope, it's probably sitting in the focuser 90% of a given evening under the stars. And no, I don't have a 6-figure income. It's the one present from my ex that I still cherish... ;) --- On Fri, 7/31/09, Spencer Ball <spencer@spencerball.com> wrote:
From: Spencer Ball <spencer@spencerball.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Jupiter Impact Scar To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Friday, July 31, 2009, 3:00 PM Thanx, Chuck.
Spencer Ball 3690 E. Ft Union Blvd # 101 Salt Lake City, Utah 84121 (801) 453-2000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Hards" <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 2:56 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Jupiter Impact Scar
Spence, I don't believe that PanOptics were on the market when Richard "Dick" Suiter wrote his book and ran his simulations. I have no personal experience with PanOptics.
My eyepiece case does contain a few low-power, 2" eyepieces with 80+ degree fields, but I do not use any Tele Vue products. The ones I have borrowed and used haven't wowed me enough to justify the cost. I suppose if I had a six-figure income, that attitude would possibly change.
I'd love to read someone's side-by-side comparison of PanOptics with Abbe' Otrhos, under perfect skies.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Spencer Ball <spencer@spencerball.com>wrote:
How do PanOptics compare?
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
-- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 0.0.0/0 - Release Date: <unknown> 12:00 AM
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
One of my favorites is my 27 mm Panoptic, the light weight of it makes it easier to switch to my 4.5 mm and 7 mm Naglers. Their 55 mm plossl is also a very good wide field eyepiece.
I have a 35mm Panoptic that I bought from Mark Dakins for a great price (when he purchased the 31 Nagler!). It's a wonderful eyepiece for wide-field views (the Perseus double-cluster is pretty incredible in this eyepiece with my 16" f/6.25), but I wouldn't even think of using it for planets. I did some side-by-side comparisons with a similar FL Pentax and found the view a little more to my liking in the Panoptic (though Lowell Lyon will disagree with me on that), FWIW. My 22 Nagler is my favorite eyepiece for deep-sky observing with the 16". At 115x (IIRC) in my scope, it's probably sitting in the focuser 90% of a given evening under the stars. And no, I don't have a 6-figure income. It's the one present from my ex that I still cherish... ;)
--- On Fri, 7/31/09, Spencer Ball <spencer@spencerball.com> wrote:
From: Spencer Ball <spencer@spencerball.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Jupiter Impact Scar To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Friday, July 31, 2009, 3:00 PM Thanx, Chuck. Spencer Ball 3690 E. Ft Union Blvd # 101 Salt Lake City, Utah 84121 (801) 453-2000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Hards" <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 2:56 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Jupiter Impact Scar
Spence, I don't believe that PanOptics were on the market when Richard "Dick" Suiter wrote his book and ran his simulations. I have no personal experience with PanOptics.
My eyepiece case does contain a few low-power, 2" eyepieces with 80+ degree fields, but I do not use any Tele Vue products. The ones I have borrowed and used haven't wowed me enough to justify the cost. I suppose if I had a six-figure income, that attitude would possibly change.
I'd love to read someone's side-by-side comparison of PanOptics with Abbe' Otrhos, under perfect skies.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Spencer Ball <spencer@spencerball.com>wrote:
How do PanOptics compare?
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
-- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 0.0.0/0 - Release Date: <unknown> 12:00 AM
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I'm seeing the tendency to drift off-topic a tad, this question has in the past devolved into a pro/con TV attitude, and of course it isn't. I don't think anyone disputes the fact that Naglers and, let's face it, all TeleVue eyepieces are terrific deep-sky eyepieces. That said, I wouldn't consider any eyeipiece with a double-digit focal length a "planetary" eyepiece, regardless of make or model. It's pointless to bring such focal length eyepieces into the discussion of suitability for resolving tiny, low-contrast features on planetary disks. Unless you have the focal length of the Hooker telescope, I suppose.
Well Chuck I have to disagree some I just posted a photo where I'm using a 31mm Panoptic to look at M57 ( a 'planet'ary) and the view was quite nice and it appeared to be about dime sized http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=2163 Just for grins,Aloha Rob
I have a 35mm Panoptic that I bought from Mark Dakins for a great price (when he purchased the 31 Nagler!). It's a wonderful eyepiece for wide-field views (the Perseus double-cluster is pretty incredible in this eyepiece with my 16" f/6.25), but I wouldn't even think of using it for planets. I did some side-by-side comparisons with a similar FL Pentax and found the view a little more to my liking in the Panoptic (though Lowell Lyon will disagree with me on that), FWIW. My 22 Nagler is my favorite eyepiece for deep-sky observing with the 16". At 115x (IIRC) in my scope, it's probably sitting in the focuser 90% of a given evening under the stars. And no, I don't have a 6-figure income. It's the one present from my ex that I still cherish... ;) --- On Fri, 7/31/09, Spencer Ball <spencer@spencerball.com> wrote:
From: Spencer Ball <spencer@spencerball.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Jupiter Impact Scar To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Friday, July 31, 2009, 3:00 PM Thanx, Chuck.
Spencer Ball 3690 E. Ft Union Blvd # 101 Salt Lake City, Utah 84121 (801) 453-2000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Hards" <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 2:56 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Jupiter Impact Scar
Spence, I don't believe that PanOptics were on the market when Richard "Dick" Suiter wrote his book and ran his simulations. I have no personal experience with PanOptics.
My eyepiece case does contain a few low-power, 2" eyepieces with 80+ degree fields, but I do not use any Tele Vue products. The ones I have borrowed and used haven't wowed me enough to justify the cost. I suppose if I had a six-figure income, that attitude would possibly change.
I'd love to read someone's side-by-side comparison of PanOptics with Abbe' Otrhos, under perfect skies.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Spencer Ball <spencer@spencerball.com>wrote:
How do PanOptics compare?
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
-- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 0.0.0/0 - Release Date: <unknown> 12:00 AM
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
No one would suggest an ortho for an object as huge as the North American nebula. Planetary targets are very small, and you just don't need a super-wide field to see the planetary disk. Deep-sky objects are what the Naglers (and all super-wide-field eyepieces) excell at. Rich pointed out the seeing factor and he's dead-on. To get perfect imagery, you need perfect seeing. On a night will less than perfect seeing, the Naglers will probably perform just as well as the ortho. In that case, the optics aren't the limiting factor. On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:13 PM, <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
Naglers are not for everyone and or every object, they excel when a wide field is wanted. They do not offer too much advantage with the 32" Grim for instance. I have a 6"f5 refractor and a Nagler offers excellent views. It is always impressive to see the Veil and N. American in a wide view.
It is a Tele Vue Plossl. I have been tied up the last few nights but will try to do a comparison in the next few days. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 9:44 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Jupiter Impact Scar Thanks Don. Is it a Tele Vue Plossl? I'm thinking the Nagler will probably outperform it for sharpness unless it's a TV. Let us know what shakes out. On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> wrote:
Chuck,
When I get a chance I will compare the Nagler to my 13 mm Plossl, unfortunately I don't have any Orthos in that focal length.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Nice report, Don! -- Joe --- On Thu, 7/30/09, Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> wrote: From: Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Jupiter Impact Scar To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 10:46 AM I started observing Jupiter's impact scar about 3:45 AM and ended at 4:10 AM (July 30, MDT). I was using an 8" Celestron Ultima SCT at 160x and 236X. At first the scar was faint and barely visible at 160X. Seeing improved markedly after a few minutes and the scar was easily visible. I watched it transit approximately as scheduled (I didn't try to time it). I was surprised how visible it was compared to the last time, but then I was using a smaller scope under poorer seeing. I assume it is now harder to see, all things being equal, than it was on July 23. I noticed a fairly significant improvement in detail when I switched from a 1.25" - 13 mm Meade Super Wide to a 1.25" - 13mm Nagler Type 6. Even though the Nagler had more glass the image was clearly sharper and the scar more readily observed. The Nagler was probably superior due to better optics and coatings. Previously I had not considered Naglers' to be planetary eyepieces. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
participants (8)
-
Canopus56 -
Chuck Hards -
Don J. Colton -
erikhansen＠TheBlueZone.net -
Joe Bauman -
Richard Tenney -
Rob Ratkowski Photography -
Spencer Ball