@@3dfxvoodoocards6 true thanks for that. I know many years ago in the late 90s. I did try these restaurant antivibration pads. But after a while, it just was more trouble to use them for me I find looking at the deep sky, objects and low power like galaxies and nebula really no trouble at all anyway
The lower tripod may be not comfortable for your back when observing for longer time. You should try it out at home for like half an hour to figure out whether bending down is or isn't too much of a deal. Doing regular stretching exercises may help too, though :-)
@@janomacko5764 thank you for recommendation I think with the original one I don’t raise it too much because the reflecting telescope focusses on the top I think normally I raise it about 10 inches or 12 inches so on this lower tripod, I might have to raise it 18 to 20 inches which I think is still enough I like to already be prepared. It’s already all packed in the suitcase. I think I’m just gonna have to see how it goes. Thanks for your comments
@@VuLTuReTR this will be my fourth time now in two years and so far I never had a problem and actually Cabo Saint Lucas what I heard is the Beverly Hills of Mexico As everybody from California, it’s so easy just to go directly south I felt very safe there even driving at night or walking around It’s a very high class area and most of them they know exactly what it is when they see it Most of them, of course couldn’t afford something like this, which isn’t even that expensive back home I’m not saying anything bad about Cuba. A lot of people go there as it’s even cheaper than Mexico, but I had a friend go missing from there never was found. That’s all I’ll say about that. Thanks for watching the video
Hi joe. Well I had a thought that the skywatcher star travel 120mm f/5 refractor would probably be an alternative if you wanted to not worry about miscolimation issues and still portable for travel. The star travel OTA is 6.5lbs and its 21.7 inches in length fully compressed. And bonus its focal length is only 600mm so a bit wider FOV than your hertitage 150, weights less, light gathering should be very similar for a 4.7 inch refractor; but a bit longer (5 inches) is the only downside, oh and costs maybe double the Hertitage. What do you think? Well something to consider if you ever come across one to buy.
@@Astroturf100 actually I used to own before the 102 short tube I did have the 120 mm short tube as well. I never compared it to a 6 inch Naton in theory should be close. I don’t have that one now though unless maybe I can borrow one and do some testing and see. One of the subscribers and members maybe you’ve seen them Albert has 120 mm F8 version maybe in the summer I can borrow it for a weekend and compare both of them at the zone two and see how close it comes to the heritage as far as like gathering power even though it’s a little bit longer it’s still the same size as you’re saying that could be a good test
@ yeah I like your idea too. I do have a feeling that the heritage would collect a little bit more light or be a little bit more bright but it’s good to actually test in mature so I’ll do that in the summer when I can actually look at deep sky objects, not right now when I’m back in the city and I can only do like Jupiter and Saturn and a few things like that I probably would be harder to tell. Thanks for the idea.
@@Vic-pz5oh OK I understand. Yeah some places December might be the most busy time and my job. That’s the low time. Summertime is where it’s really busy.
Interesting.
@@AmatureAstronomer thank you for watching
For more stability and less vibrations you could also use some rubber foot pads under the tripod.
@@3dfxvoodoocards6 true thanks for that. I know many years ago in the late 90s. I did try these restaurant antivibration pads.
But after a while, it just was more trouble to use them for me
I find looking at the deep sky, objects and low power like galaxies and nebula really no trouble at all anyway
The lower tripod may be not comfortable for your back when observing for longer time. You should try it out at home for like half an hour to figure out whether bending down is or isn't too much of a deal. Doing regular stretching exercises may help too, though :-)
@@janomacko5764 thank you for recommendation I think with the original one I don’t raise it too much because the reflecting telescope focusses on the top
I think normally I raise it about 10 inches or 12 inches so on this lower tripod, I might have to raise it 18 to 20 inches which I think is still enough
I like to already be prepared. It’s already all packed in the suitcase. I think I’m just gonna have to see how it goes.
Thanks for your comments
I don't know about Mexico but be careful when you go Cuba! they treated me like a spy when I went there with my mighty mak 90 😅
@@VuLTuReTR this will be my fourth time now in two years and so far I never had a problem and actually Cabo Saint Lucas what I heard is the Beverly Hills of Mexico
As everybody from California, it’s so easy just to go directly south
I felt very safe there even driving at night or walking around
It’s a very high class area and most of them they know exactly what it is when they see it
Most of them, of course couldn’t afford something like this, which isn’t even that expensive back home
I’m not saying anything bad about Cuba. A lot of people go there as it’s even cheaper than Mexico, but I had a friend go missing from there never was found. That’s all I’ll say about that.
Thanks for watching the video
Hi joe. Well I had a thought that the skywatcher star travel 120mm f/5 refractor would probably be an alternative if you wanted to not worry about miscolimation issues and still portable for travel. The star travel OTA is 6.5lbs and its 21.7 inches in length fully compressed.
And bonus its focal length is only 600mm so a bit wider FOV than your hertitage 150, weights less, light gathering should be very similar for a 4.7 inch refractor; but a bit longer (5 inches) is the only downside, oh and costs maybe double the Hertitage. What do you think?
Well something to consider if you ever come across one to buy.
@@Astroturf100 actually I used to own before the 102 short tube I did have the 120 mm short tube as well. I never compared it to a 6 inch Naton in theory should be close. I don’t have that one now though unless maybe I can borrow one and do some testing and see.
One of the subscribers and members maybe you’ve seen them Albert has 120 mm F8 version maybe in the summer I can borrow it for a weekend and compare both of them at the zone two and see how close it comes to the heritage as far as like gathering power even though it’s a little bit longer it’s still the same size as you’re saying that could be a good test
@@JoeJaguar This would be a great comparision video.
@ yeah I like your idea too. I do have a feeling that the heritage would collect a little bit more light or be a little bit more bright but it’s good to actually test in mature so I’ll do that in the summer when I can actually look at deep sky objects, not right now when I’m back in the city and I can only do like Jupiter and Saturn and a few things like that I probably would be harder to tell. Thanks for the idea.
You could open a travel agency for amateur astronomers traveling to dark sky sites.
@@tsulasbigadventures the last thing I need is another job that’s what I’m trying to finish right now lol thanks for watching
Lucky yous.im not allowed off in December.retail all santas fault
@@Vic-pz5oh OK I understand. Yeah some places December might be the most busy time and my job. That’s the low time. Summertime is where it’s really busy.