View Full Version : Planning to buy a first telescope?
We often have questions about what telescope an aspiring amateur astronomer should buy. The "correct" answer can be elusive and is highly dependent on a lot of variables, including the expectations of the questioner, budget, storage capacity, available transport, etc. Rather than type all this advice over and over, I'd like to offer this post in the hopes that it can be made "sticky" so others can add to it, and it can remain near the top of the astronomy forum.
Before you spend a dime, find a local amateur astronomy club, and see if you can attend meetings as a guest. Get there early and mingle. Let the members know that you are interested in pursuing astronomy, and that you are open for suggestions about what kind of gear might be appropriate for you. You can get valuable guidance that way. Next, arrange to attend the club's next star-party. Often they are open to the public as an outreach effort. Again, show up early. This is valuable for you in many ways. You will get to see what kind of transport requirements are involved in owning and operating a range of telescopes and mounts. You will also get insight into the simplicity/complexity of setting up various types of gear. Also, you'll get to observe through a variety of instruments so you can get an idea of their strengths and weaknesses. Observing will also help dispel high expectations brought on by agressive marketing by telescope vendors. The nice color images of nebulae in the ads are a come-on. You'll see varying shades of (mostly) greenish-gray at best. You can see colors in stars and planets through modest amateur scopes, but not in galaxies or nebulae. The pretty pictures in the ads are made by skilled astrophotographers. Your eyes cannot integrate photons over long periods of time like cameras can, so you will not see colors in dim objects.
Another great advantage to hooking up with local amateurs is that lots of observers are gear-hounds, and they may have scopes in their closets that are gathering dust while they use their newer gear. You could get a great deal on a used telescope, and best of all, you'll get to try it out before you buy it.
Now, do you really need a telescope? Even a modest instrument can bring you a lot of enjoyment. If you buy a nice pair of binoculars and a decent set of charts, you can see a lot of objects, and learn your way around the night sky. My advice is to get a pair of no-frills binoculars from a high-end optics company. While you won't get the options available on their pricy models, you'll get binoculars made with the know-how and quality-control of the high-end company, so the quality of their basic instruments is often impressive. It's a bit of a cliche, but 7x50 binoculars (7 power with 50mm objectives) are great for general use. They are with me during every observing session and are the go-to instrument for quick peeks.
If you still decide that you do need a telescope, what are your options? The best bang for the buck comes in the form of alt-azimuth mounted Newtonian telescopes. You can get pretty impressive aperture for reasonable money. Newtonians on German equatorial mounts are no better optically in general, but cost more because of the extra expense of producing a mount that can be polar-aligned and driven to compensate for the rotation of the Earth without field rotation. Another choice, though generally more expensive still is one of a wide range of catadioptric telescopes. These are relatively compact telescopes with folded light-paths. These can be made fairly portable (compared to Newtonians of similar aperture) but are generally slower (longer focal lengths) which give images that are not as bright as those of the (usually) faster Newtonians. At the higher-cost end of the field are the refractors. Not the cheap department-store refractors, but high-quality instruments often made with exotic high-dispersion lens materials. Such refractors can deliver very high-contrast views in part because there are no central obstructions in the light path, unlike the Newtonians with their diagonal mirrors or catadioptrics with their central secondary mirrors. Each type of telescope has strengths and weaknesses.
Next, learn a bit about optics, if you can. Many inexpensive Newtonian telescopes hit a price/aperture price point by compromising on mirror quality. This means that you will be paying for spherically-figured primary mirrors and not the more difficult-to-figure parabolic mirrors. Google on "spherical abberation" to see why you might want to consider paying a bit more for better optics.
To add to your confusion, there is a dizzying array of mounts and automation. It is possible to buy simple alt-azimuth mounted Dobsonians equipped with encoders that can help you find objects. Many German equatorial mounts and fork mounts come equipped with encoders and computers, some loaded with tens of thousands of objects. These "aids" can be very attractive to a newcomer to the field, but in my opinion, it is not worth the money to get trapped into the automation. When the encoders fail, the computers fail or get corrupted, how will the purchaser get service? Pack up a delicate scope, ship it somewhere for service, and hope the manufacturer has a stock of the failed parts and can fix the instrument? I may be anachronistic, but my advice is to buy an optical tube assembly that is suitable for your purposes on a mount that is no more complex nor automated than absolutely required. I have a 6" apochromatic refractor on a German equatorial mount. The mount has electric drives on both the right ascension and declination drives. Top-quality optics on a really basic mount. I don't need automation and computerized slewing to find objects, because I learned my way around the night sky with charts and star-hopping. When someone asks "what's that star?" I have a catalogue of them in my brain - no computer required.
OK, got a telescope? Next, you'll want to consider accessories. Please do not buy an assortment of eyepieces right away. Use your association (hopefully membership) with the astronomy club to figure out what eyepieces work well with your telescope. Most amateurs are pretty stoked about their favorite EPs, and will pop them into the focuser of your 'scope to show you what the buzz is about. If you're a beginner on a budget, please be aware that some well-heeled members may have some exotic EPs that cost more than your entire 'scope, with accessories, so be polite if they are a bit hesitant to hand them all around. I have a well-corrected f:8 refractor and it performs well with Plossels, and I have only one Nagler. People with high-end short focal-length reflectors often gravitate to very expensive exotic EPs to get top performance, negating some of the economic benefit that can come with sticking with big reflectors. Find out what works well with your telescope, and let that experience guide your eyepiece-shopping. Next, you'll need to consider EP focal lengths. You WILL want to buy a Barlow lens to let you use your longer EPs (with better field of view and eye-relief) for high-magnification observing. Before you pick a Barlow, consider what EP focal lengths you might want to use. If you have a 10mm and a 20mm EP, and you buy a 2x Barlow, you'll end up with only one extra unduplicated magnification. Stagger the focal lengths of your (planned) EP upgrades to give you a good spread of magnifications. Remember that you should spend money wisely on a high-quality Barlow, because you'll use that critter more than you think, and it will allow you to get a lot more flexibility out of your rig, if you plan properly. Consider Barlows of 2x, 2.5x, 3x at a minimum and spread-sheet the resultant magnifications with EPs that you might have on your wish-list. You can waste a of money for little effect if you don't plan.
Good luck, no matter how you proceed.
is it ok if questions can be asked in this thread also?
If so I have a couple.
I am looking at an XT10i, and a Orion Skyview pro 120mm refractor. They are both essentially the same price.
I want the light gathering power of the 10inch dob, but I like the portability and the ease of use of the 120mm.
I am at odds with myself here!!!
I'm a big fan of portability. Half the aperature used 4x as much is better than a giant you dread to confront. I like cat's, but that is a personal choice. If you live in the sticks with dark skies and plenty of space, size matters. Erect a comfortable shed, stick a light bucket in there and break out the sky charts. If you do not have this luxury, you will probably be happier with a more portable scope with bells and whistles. The best scope you can buy is one you look forward to using. Turbo offers sound advice that need only be tempered to fit your interests, budget and circumstances.
is it ok if questions can be asked in this thread also?
If so I have a couple.
I am looking at an XT10i, and a Orion Skyview pro 120mm refractor. They are both essentially the same price.
I want the light gathering power of the 10inch dob, but I like the portability and the ease of use of the 120mm.
I am at odds with myself here!!!At your present skill-level, I'd recommend the 10" Dob as long as you don't have transportation issues. From a dark location, you'll be able to see LOTS of faint objects. Combined with a zero-power finder and a decent set of charts, you can get years of enjoyment from that 'scope as you learn to star-hop from object to object. Many galaxies are low-contrast - so much so that you have to use averted vision to even sweep them up. For this reason, you'll be well-served to learn to star-hop, and be aware of what field of view your various EPs can provide. You'll be surprised how many times you're looking at a relatively blank field, thinking you screwed up your pointing, then sweep up that elusive galaxy out of the corner of your eye. Once you have the galaxy centered, you can pop in a Barlow or a shorter f: EP for alternate views. Some faint extended objects can benefit from a bit of extra magnification, once you have located them.
The quote I recall, Turbo, was 'I was born with nothing and still have most of it left' :)
Hey,
I want to buy myself a telescope like the XT10i. It will be my first telescope, so can i get some advice please.
And how far can I see with it and so on?
brother time
May27-10, 11:32 AM
I'm a freshman in high school and was thinking of buying a beginner pair of binoculars. Could someone suggest one I might buy?
I'm a freshman in high school and was thinking of buying a beginner pair of binoculars. Could someone suggest one I might buy?Celestron's 10x50s are pretty nice for the price, and they are often on sale at larger dealers. I think I paid less than $30 for mine at Ocean Pacific, and there was a green laser pointer and a red LED chart-light in the bundle. I bought them so I'd have an extra pair of binoculars in my vehicle for quick looks at birds, etc, and I don't want to leave my Nikons in the vehicle.
KalamMekhar
Jul1-10, 07:57 PM
I recommend any Orion binocs. I have had some trouble with Celestron binoculars recently. The insides were not coated, and I would get horrible glare, making them completely useless. The Orions have had some problems with being properly collimated, but their customer service is fantastic, and they will get them sorted out for you in no time.
The Orion Giantview series is probably my favourite. A reasonable price, and plenty of aperture to catch all sorts of faint stars! You can get lost out there with these.
I recommend any Orion binocs. I have had some trouble with Celestron binoculars recently. The insides were not coated, and I would get horrible glare, making them completely useless. The Orions have had some problems with being properly collimated, but their customer service is fantastic, and they will get them sorted out for you in no time.
The Orion Giantview series is probably my favourite. A reasonable price, and plenty of aperture to catch all sorts of faint stars! You can get lost out there with these.Thanks for going GOLD Kalam! I have a pair of 10x50 Celestrons that are pretty good, though my go-to's are an older pair of Nikon 7x50s. Nobody should venture out into the night without a decent pair of binoculars, even if you have a nice 'scope. Mine are always with me.
I have a 6" APO refractor and an 80mm APO finder/guide scope, but I always have the Nikons at hand when I go out to observe. Using both eyes is much more natural to people new to observational astronomy, so decent binoculars and charts can advance their knowledge of the night sky lots faster than GOTO mounts, scopes, etc ever could.
Radrook
Aug20-10, 12:28 AM
Guess this is for those who have a clear sky overhead. As it is the glare and pollution don't let more than a few stars shine through where I'm at.
russ_watters
Aug20-10, 05:02 AM
Where is that? Because I'm near Philadelphia and though the light pollution is pretty bad, a decent telescope will cut through it.
Radrook
Aug21-10, 09:28 PM
Where is that? Because I'm near Philadelphia and though the light pollution is pretty bad, a decent telescope will cut through it.
In the Harrisburg metropolitan area. I wasn't aware that a good telescope can cut through the glare and smog. How does it do that?
George Jones
Aug22-10, 03:51 AM
In the Harrisburg metropolitan area. I wasn't aware that a good telescope can cut through the glare and smog. How does it do that?
City viewing of the Moon, Jupiter, and Saturn is quite good. Viewing of deep sky objects is affected by light pollution, but the size of the telescope can compensate partially. There is a(n) (untrue) myth that large telescopes shouldn't be used in the city because they gather more of the light pollution than smaller scopes. This myth is addressed on page 15 of The Urban Astronomer`s Guide by Rod Mollise,
http://books.google.ca/books?id=Z0mvZk0s_TMC&dq=Urban+Astronomer%27s+Guide:&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=AGj2m_Rosy&sig=tFdJO1HUKHiJGAXSTbI2MkRKcdk&hl=en&ei=_F_tSunNMdPOlAeC86j_BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false.
russ_watters
Aug22-10, 06:44 AM
I'm 24 miles from dead-center in Philadelphia and the population density is pretty high everywhere in SE PA - you can see what I have been able to do from my website. How far are you from Harrisburg?
I don't do much visual observing, so I can't say much about how galaxies look with your eyes through a scope, but the basic principle for photography is this: Light pollution brightens the entire image, including the object you are imaging. So using Photoshop, you can simply subtract this extra brightness from the image. It isn't perfect, but you can do a surprising amount of good photography from near a city.
You may surprised to learn that temperature inversions over cities can provide very steady viewing for planetary targets. Some of my steadiest views of Jupiter came from my suburban back yard.
We've never owned a telescope so I know my questions are naieve. We're thinking of getting a Yukon 6-100X100 spotting scope. Would this allow us to see stripes and/or colors on Jupiter? What about rings on Saturn? Thanks!
chemisttree
Sep9-10, 04:19 PM
I would be very skeptical of that. Spotting scopes on a tiny tripod are a recipe for shaky, marginal quality astro views. If it were good enough to be an astronomical telescope, the makers of this spotting scope would certainly brag about that!
Chronos
Sep10-10, 03:13 AM
Anything less than 6" aperature would be disappointing for planetary viewing.
nickthrop101
Oct19-10, 06:31 AM
Can anyone guve any idea of a good model telescope to get?
I've had previous telescopees, but I am now lookign for something that is as good as you can get from the range of £100-£250.
Thanks Guys :-)
Chronos
Oct20-10, 02:21 AM
Some nice newtonians in that price range. I would check out ebay.
Littlejenny
Oct25-10, 10:09 PM
with about 400$, any suggestion for me ? what i should buy, pls me a store or brand in US pls :D
with about 400$, any suggestion for me ? what i should buy, pls me a store or brand in US pls :DAn Orion XT8 is well within your budget. It is an 8" Newtonian on an alt-azimuth (Dobsonian) mount. By staying with a simple, inexpensive mount you get the best optics for your money.
Chronos
Oct27-10, 02:34 AM
I would browse ebay to see what is available. There are some nice cats there in your price range on a regular basis e.g., http://cgi.ebay.com/Meade-8-LX90-Scmidt-Cassegrain-Telescope_W0QQitemZ150510652706QQcategoryZ74929QQc mdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp4340.m8QQ_trkparmsZalgo%3DMW %26its%3DC%26itu%3DUCC%26otn%3D5%26ps%3D63%26clkid %3D4524310907123046014
Littlejenny
Oct27-10, 08:31 PM
An Orion XT8 is well within your budget. It is an 8" Newtonian on an alt-azimuth (Dobsonian) mount. By staying with a simple, inexpensive mount you get the best optics for your money.
thx for that suggestion, hmm, i've searched for it in google, seem to be quite good :D
__________________________
Software Development (http://www.softwareoutsourcing.biz/services/software-development.html)
thx for that suggestion, hmm, i've searched for it in google, seem to be quite good :D
__________________________
Software Development (http://www.softwareoutsourcing.biz/services/software-development.html)It has parabolically-figured primary mirror (not spherically, so you can escape some coma) and has enough aperture to get you into some pretty serious fuzzy-hunting territory. This is a decent scope with reasonable aperture. Buy a nice atlas or set of charts, so you can learn your way around the night sky, and you'll be busy for years.
blitzfu
Nov13-10, 04:17 AM
Binoculars vs Telescopes
Which one would allow me to see farther into space:
A 20x80 Astronomy Binocular or a 60x600 Telescope?
Does an impression of depth with binoculars actually enhance the star-gazing experience?
Sorry for the noob questions, but I'm about to buy my first AB/Telescope and wanted to get some opinions. Any input is appreciated. Thanks.
russ_watters
Nov13-10, 07:27 AM
Welcome to PF.
If seeing "farther" means seeing more distant objects, then a telescope is the answer.
Binoculars vs Telescopes
Which one would allow me to see farther into space:
A 20x80 Astronomy Binocular or a 60x600 Telescope?
Does an impression of depth with binoculars actually enhance the star-gazing experience?
Sorry for the noob questions, but I'm about to buy my first AB/Telescope and wanted to get some opinions. Any input is appreciated. Thanks.Many people find it more natural to view with both eyes instead of just one. That comfort (as opposed to an "impression of depth") drives lots of folks to buy binocular attachments with duplicated eyepieces for their telescopes.
If you buy a telescope, you'll have the opportunity to change eyepieces, so you can use a range of magnifications and get a range of field-of-view. Lots of people think that they will want lots of magnification, and are surprised at how often they use longer (lower-power) eyepieces in order to get a wider field of view.
If you can arrange it, please attend a star-party or two before making your decision. You'll be able to view through a few instruments and get an idea what you can see through them. There is no point in spending money on decent gear before you actually know what you can expect it to do for you.
Chronos
Nov19-10, 09:17 PM
I agree with turbo-1. Balance aperature with portability. A scope too difficult to handle and set up will not be enjoyable.
Chronos
Nov27-10, 06:50 AM
No argument on Questar, not a a good value. Meade and Celestron make better instruments for less $$. I'm somewhat partial to Meade's Schmidt-Newts [great bang for the buck]. On the other hand, the Meade ACF has phenomenal optics, better mount/goto, and is more portable - but, about twice the price per inch of aperature. I'm lazy so I prefer the ACF. Allow me to add, however, any scope over 10" is a royal pain to lug around.
northern lass
Dec5-10, 03:53 AM
I want to buy a telescope for my husband for christmas but as he does a lot of camping I am wondering if the Explorer 130 or Astromaster 130EQ would be too big to transport?
northern lass
Dec5-10, 03:58 AM
I want to buy a telescope for my husband for christmas but as he does a lot of camping I am wondering if the Explorer 130 or Astromaster 130EQ would be too big to transport?
My budget would be max 150 pounds
russ_watters
Dec5-10, 08:15 AM
When you say camping, do you mean hiking or does he park his car near his campsite? I have occasionally taken my rig on the road and it weighs about 70kg. As long as I can park my car within 50m or so of where I'm setting it up, it is fine.
northern lass
Dec7-10, 01:47 AM
it would be camping with a car! do you have any comments on the ones I have looked at, i have found it quite baffling with such a variation in specifications in the budget range 50 - 150 pounds. Any thoughts would be much appreciated
northern lass
Dec10-10, 04:44 AM
I would really appreciate some help, I can't decide between the celestron 130 EG or Skywatcher explorer 130 and is it worth getting a motor, it is for my husband and 6 year old son. Many thanks,Northern Lass
russ_watters
Dec10-10, 05:57 AM
The two scopes you picked look pretty good for a beginner/first scope.
I think it is worth getting a motorized (computerized) scope, though others here will disagree because it alleviates the need to learn the night sky. For your budget, though, the quality of the optics won't be as good as with the two you are looking at now, if you go for a motorized one.
northern lass
Dec10-10, 09:42 AM
thanks russ, do you have any thoughts on one over the other celestron or skywatcher?
thanks russ, do you have any thoughts on one over the other celestron or skywatcher?The mount on the Celestron appears to be a bit sturdier, judging from images of the 'scopes. Flimsy mounts can make telescopes shaky and hard to use. In your price range (especially for a beginner) I would suggest a Dobsonian. They are very solid and sturdy, and the money that you didn't pay for a complex mount goes toward the optics, which is the heart of the telescope. Often, the mirrors of cheaply-made newtonians are figured spherically, which results in distortion of the images (you can look up spherical aberration). Generally, Dobsonians feature parabolic primary mirrors, decent coatings, etc. You don't get a fancy mount, but you end up with better optics at any price-point.
Just a suggestion: Can you give your husband and son a nice card authorizing them to buy a 'scope as their present from you? You could do some research and include information about where and when the nearest astronomy club will be holding their next star-party. It would be great if they could attend one and get to look through a lot of different members' scopes. Then, they would have a better idea what 'scope might be best for them. If they tell the members that they are in the market for a 'scope, they might get a great deal on an instrument that's just collecting dust in a member's closet. I know that surprising them with a brand-new scope would be more exciting, but look at this as an investment.
I know that if you have read this thread through, I sound like a broken record, but for your budget, a Dobsonian is probably the best bang-for-the-buck. The mount is simple and sturdy and easy for a kid to use. The optics will be better than scopes on cheap German equatorial mounts, and those two features alone will add up to a better experience for your son.
Since your husband and son will be relatively new to this, I suggest buying them a cardboard planisphere, so that they can find what constellations and extra-galactic objects will be visible at any time on any night, AND spring for the $40 or so for the complete 3-volume set of Burnham's Celestial Handbook. Burnham's has a lot of very handy information, and it is arranged by constellation, so if Orion is going to be visible tonight (for example) you can find out about what nebulae, double-stars, interesting color-contrasting star pairings, etc you might find there. Planning an observing session can be as fun as actually getting out to observe, especially if the weather is not real cooperative where you live. Make lists of the objects you want to observe, and make notes as you check them off. Is object "A" very prominent in your 'scope? How about at different magnifications? What was the sky condition like? Observing logs can be fun, especially on cloudy nights when you want to review. It's interesting to see how "difficult" objects can get easier and easier over time as you learn to become a better observer.
Personally, I prefer the Celestron, but, that is strictly my opinon. Turbo gives sound advice.
mistergrinch
Feb19-11, 03:54 PM
What do people think of astronomy binoculars like the Celestron Skymaster 20x80? Are these too big for casual use, for example to take camping? I'm going to Arizona soon and I'm looking for something portable that gives me the most bang for my buck. Should I just get some smaller binoculars? Thanks.
What do people think of astronomy binoculars like the Celestron Skymaster 20x80? Are these too big for casual use, for example to take camping? I'm going to Arizona soon and I'm looking for something portable that gives me the most bang for my buck. Should I just get some smaller binoculars? Thanks.Large binoculars - especially with magnifications above 10x - can be very cumbersome and difficult to use unless you have a decent tripod for them. That's another piece of gear to pack and lug around.
For camping, casual viewing, and general hand-held astronomy, it's pretty hard to beat 7x50s. My advice is to get a pair of basic 7x50s made by a company that markets high-end gear. You don't get the bells and whistles, but generally, the quality optics, coatings, etc, filter down into the lower-priced models. I have a pair of very basic Nikons, and they are always with me when I'm observing.
mistergrinch
Feb19-11, 04:55 PM
What about 10x50's vs 7x50's? Are there any other brands besides Nikon that you recommend for a reasonable price? Thanks.
I bought a pair of Celestron 10x50s to keep in my vehicle. They were very inexpensive, with better quality than I had expected. I don't want to leave my Nikons in an unattended vehicle, but the Celestrons are fine for that.
Dr know
Feb20-11, 02:09 PM
i think everyone should have the pleasure of owning a telescope a telescope can clearly put a lot of things into perspective
i think everyone should have the pleasure of owning a telescope a telescope can clearly put a lot of things into perspectiveThat's true, of course, though "clearly" might be in question, depending on the observer. When you look at the Orion Nebula, it's easy to say "pretty" and move on if you are incurious. If you spend time on that object with the idea that it is a really active stellar nursery, and imagine the view if our Sun and solar system were embedded in that nebula, it can blow your mind.
Look at M13 in Hercules. It's a very dense globular cluster orbiting the MW. What would our night-time skies look like if our solar system were embedded in that cluster? And these are just local objects. Even modest 'scopes can show you M51, M81, M82, etc - whole "island universes" with their own special characteristics and properties. Once, astronomers had to rely on published catalogs and survey photos to reference extra-galactic objects. Now, we have access to so many on-line resources (NED, HyperLeda, SDSS, IRSA) that it's just mind-boggling. And that doesn't count the imaging done in infrared, ultraviolet, X-rays, etc.
I used to plunk myself down with a planisphere and my Burnham's handbooks to plot observing sessions. Nowadays, people can not only consult planetarium software adjustable for their latitude and longitude; they can go on-line and access huge databases of images, spectroscopy including redshifts, angular dimensions, etc, so that when they go out to observe, they have a lot of background on the objects they plan to see.
A small scope on a decent goto mount is more enjoyable than a giant dob with star charts. I tried it both ways. It's like driving a BMW after riding a horse. You can get there either way, but ...
Who Am I
Apr14-11, 11:43 AM
Well, I have a Zhumell Z8 Dobsonian. 8 inch reflector.
It's kind of heavy, but is easy enough to transport. It didn't cost me much, under 400 I think. I am a big fan of it. I personally wouldn't ever choose portability over viewing quality, as long as I can move the thing. I'd always feel like I could do better for my money if I bought portable over image quality.
I took the thing to northern Arizona. It was actually up by snow bowl, a ski hill near Flagstaff. Since northern AZ boasts some of the darkest skies you can get, coupled with the altitude giving you excellent clarity and less obstruction from surroundings, I had the best night viewing that I've ever had. I was using my cumbersome Zhumell, yet I still take it out in the back yard when I go back home, and I still managed to put it in the back of my car and take it up the mountain.
So, my take on portability is get something that you can still move and set up without it being a major ordeal.
For newbies, I never really had a chance to go to a star party, so if you don't get that opportunity (though I would still highly recommend it since you can usually test out a wide range of equipment), I'd go for a Dobsonian mounted telescope, since you can usually take it in two pieces.
DaveC426913
Apr14-11, 12:29 PM
I personally wouldn't ever choose portability over viewing quality, as long as I can move the thing. I'd always feel like I could do better for my money if I bought portable over image quality.
The factor to consider here is: the skywatching with a medium-quality scope is still a far better experience than that of a high-quality scope that never gets taken outside.
One of my favourite sayings is actually a boat saying, but it is a similar sentiment:
Q: It's 200 miles from here to Kingston. Between a $5,000 boat and a $10,000 boat, which one will make it to Kingston faster?
A: The $5,000 boat, because it can leave a several years earlier!
Who Am I
Apr14-11, 02:25 PM
Well if it is too big to take outside then you ought to not get it. But I can still move mine outside since it sits next to the door. I just grab the stand, then the tube.
One of these days I might make a dolly and get a larger mirror scope.
But this is my personal preference, anyways.
DaveC426913
Apr14-11, 03:45 PM
Well if it is too big to take outside then you ought to not get it.
Precisely, so there is a limit at which you will (and anyone else should) choose portability over quality.
Precisely, so there is a limit at which you will (and anyone else should) choose portability over quality.That limit is getting stretched by some manufacturers. Orion is manufacturing a line of truss-Dobs that break down into several packages. Rocker box, mirror box, secondary mirror/focusser assembly, truss rods, and shroud. This puts very large 'scopes within the handling abilities of almost any fit person.
Who Am I
Apr14-11, 04:27 PM
Isn't someone doing something like that with 16 inch mirrors? I'd absolutely love to have one of those.
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?client=safari&rls=en&q=16+inch+dobsonian&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=17338204856875363132&sa=X&ei=k2WnTaPQOYq6sAOJh6j6DA&ved=0CCkQ8wIwAg#ps-sellers
I'd buy that eventually and use it frequently. I'd probably make a dolly for it before purchasing it though.
If I made some really good money I'd maybe get one of these suckers and make a custom trailer for it:
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?client=safari&rls=en&q=meade+20+inch&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=2235576149125198712&sa=X&ei=W2anTefyLoj4sAPg7dH5DA&ved=0CB0Q8wIwAQ#ps-sellers
I don't know exactly how I'd go about doing that, but I'd definitely do it if I knew how and had the money. Then I'd take that up to northern Arizona. I almost can't believe that that thing exists for anyone to purchase.
Would one notice a huge difference between a 6" dobsonian and a 10"? I've used a 6" and liked it and have about 500 for a new 'scope. The 10" from Orion is about that much. But of course if there isn't a massive difference, I could get a smaller one with an optics kit. Or in the range of 500 is there something better than a dobsonian? I am fine without the tracking systems. I'd honestly almost rather a manual one. Which would be better - a 10" and the lens it comes with or a 6" with an optics kit?
DaveC426913
Apr26-11, 10:10 PM
Would one notice a huge difference between a 6" dobsonian and a 10"? I've used a 6" and liked it and have about 500 for a new 'scope. The 10" from Orion is about that much. But of course if there isn't a massive difference, I could get a smaller one with an optics kit. Or in the range of 500 is there something better than a dobsonian? I am fine without the tracking systems. I'd honestly almost rather a manual one. Which would be better - a 10" and the lens it comes with or a 6" with an optics kit?
Well, the 10" gathers almost three times more light, so you can see significantly dimmer objects.
Who Am I
Apr26-11, 10:14 PM
If you're in light polluted areas, you want to get as big of a light bucket as you can get.
My next upgrade is probably going to be one of those easy to disassemble 16 inch dobsonians with a really nice eyepiece.
But if you ever get a chance, go to some place like Flagstaff when the weather is clear and there's no moon. I had that opportunity and it was one of the best experiences I had. Even without the scope I could spot some pretty awesome things and the milky way... Holy ****... My eyes water every time I think about what the sky looked like that night.
MartinJH
May6-11, 06:47 PM
Sorry to barge in on a thread, and im sorry if this is the wrong place, but is this a recommended scope http://firstlightoptics.com/proddetail.php?prod=dobsky150 for a amatuer and what could you expect to see with almost/ none light poplution.
Who Am I
May6-11, 06:51 PM
I'd go for a slightly larger mirror for beginners so that they don't feel the need to upgrade after they start looking for the dimmer Messier objects in the suburbs of a bright city.
Messier only had a 4 inch scope, but he had no light pollution whatsoever. If you got light pollution, a bigger mirror is a good investment.
MartinJH
May6-11, 07:05 PM
K that's cool no problem. Yes basically where I live, South Wales,uk, I'm cushioned in every direction by mountains. If you take a short car drive to the top you virtually have no man made light at all. It's an incredible view even with just using your eyes.
Thanks for the info as well :).
Who Am I
May6-11, 09:40 PM
My first real telescope was an 8-inch Dobsonian mounted scope like the one in the picture. Nothing real fancy on it, just a large tube with a couple of decent eyepieces with that simple mount. I actually recommend that mount for starting out.
MartinJH
Jun10-11, 04:17 PM
I plan on getting the above scope (http://firstlightoptics.com/proddetail.php?prod=dobsky150) within the next week/month
I was wondering if anyone here has any nice shots taken with the above telescope or a similar specced
Have you any recommendations of another telescope close to the original chosen scopes price +/- ££.
I plan on getting the above scope (http://firstlightoptics.com/proddetail.php?prod=dobsky150) within the next week/month
I was wondering if anyone here has any nice shots taken with the above telescope or a similar specced
Have you any recommendations of another telescope close to the original chosen scopes price +/- ££.It is highly unlikely that you will get any decent images through a Dobsonian 'scope as small as that. You can try, but you'll be disappointed, I fear. To get decent images that are not smeared/rotated, you should look for a telescope with a German equatorial drive, or equivalent. An undriven alt-az 'scope isn't going to make you happy, unless you just want to have nice visuals. A 6" Newt can get you a lot of satisfaction, visually, though.
MartinJH
Jun10-11, 04:44 PM
Thank you turbo-1. I wanted to quickly ask before I went ahead and purchased.
To save myself embarrassment i'm going to ask rather than say what id like to see, so what is a amatuer like myself expecting to see with the telescopes you have mentioned.
Further more I don't plan on attaching cameras to the telescope if this helps with price, what is the technology like these days can you purchase a reasonable scope that can be connected to your pc etc via a lead; that world be fantastic and a bonus although i'm not getting carried away.
Thank you turbo-1. I wanted to quickly ask before I went ahead and purchased.
To save myself embarrassment i'm going to ask rather than say what id like to see, so what is a amatuer like myself expecting to see with the telescopes you have mentioned.
Further more I don't plan on attaching cameras to the telescope if this helps with price, what is the technology like these days can you purchase a reasonable scope that can be connected to your pc etc via a lead; that world be fantastic and a bonus although i'm not getting carried away.Don't worry about getting digital images to a PC. Learn how to observe and "see" (translate what light comes to your eye and manage that). After that, you should spend a lot of time at star-parties to see if you really want a larger 'scope. That would have been my first recommendation to you as a newbie, but it seems like you are jumping in anyway.
MartinJH
Jun10-11, 04:55 PM
It was an idea, perhaps I was being a little optimistic or just thinking that getting the images to PC was the norm. Either way i'll have a scope around (pun intended) and see what I can find :).
thanks for your help :).
Drakkith
Jun10-11, 06:59 PM
It was an idea, perhaps I was being a little optimistic or just thinking that getting the images to PC was the norm. Either way i'll have a scope around (pun intended) and see what I can find :).
thanks for your help :).
I purchased the Meade Deep Sky Imager II Pro with my telescope. It's relatively easy to use, but the software is extremely buggy on my laptop. I believe it has something to do with Windows 7. I've never used anything else for astro imaging, so I can't comment on how it compares to other devices.
DaveC426913
Jun10-11, 07:17 PM
...the software is extremely buggy on my laptop. I believe it has something to do with Windows 7.
Can you launch the s/w in "compatibility" mode? (Right click icon)
Drakkith
Jun10-11, 07:24 PM
Can you launch the s/w in "compatibility" mode? (Right click icon)
I'm not sure if I did or not. I'll try next time.
my 2 cents: you guys never going to be happy with the scope that you bought or accessories! you'll get the disease called "aperture fever " and there's no cure for it ! yes, there's telescopes for every budget out there, but you need to start by writing down the reasons why you want it : stargazing, astro-photography, research ! when it comes to viewing, aperture rules ! the bigger the better ! those dobs telescopes are a real deal for the price that you pay! attention:the bigger it is the heavier! in deed, a bigger dob, so called a light bucket, will provide you the most spectaculars images of heavens ! you always need to make a compromise ! if you never used a scope, start with a pair of binos ! from 7 or 10x50 and up it will give you an idea of the skies! dont go with a variable bino (meaning 7-15x50 zooming options) because the optics are bad. and i dont think you wanna pay at least 500$ for a better pair. just keep in mind that once you got bitten by the astro bug, is over ! you always going to get a better eyepiece, a better collimation tool, a better filter...and the list goes on !
So, good luck! start by visiting your local astronomy clubs, dont aspect to see in an eyepiece the same image that you see on Hubble's website ( because the location of an DSO-deep space object- is very faraway, the amount of the light gathered by a human eye is not enough to excite the cells in your eye to start seeing colors.
this is my point of view !
Drakkith
Sep9-11, 07:07 PM
Vali that happens with pretty much every hobby! You always want something better!
Gliese123
Oct8-11, 06:06 AM
Hello everyone! I bought a Spectra Optics telescope 1400X150 (reflector) for 260 Euro a few days ago and I had quite big expectations on it. The including oculars was on 25mm and 6.5 mm. But when I was going to look at Jupiter recently, then I didn't get a more visible view than a little dot and extremely small dots of its moons. (I've no light pollution) I tested different items I got with it but it was... well, crap! My expectations smashed into pieces. And the sharpness was horrible! A blurry dot was everything I saw. (I had at least expected some contrast and zoom, but nothing...) And as I said, I tested the different oculars and I also got one 2X Barlow, but the view was crap. First of all, the mirror and everything was totally clean and it was no moisture on it, an everything was placed correctly. But it was horrible. The including description claimed that the telescope was able to see nebulae and planets very good, but I consider NOT!.. I'll return it and hopefully I get the money back. This was my opinions, but someone might bought a similar model and are pleased about it?
Drakkith
Oct8-11, 06:11 AM
Got a link to the manufacturers website or somewhere else with the details of your scope Gliese?
DaveC426913
Oct8-11, 09:28 AM
Hello everyone! I bought a Spectra Optics telescope 1400X150 (reflector) for 260 Euro a few days ago and I had quite big expectations on it. The including oculars was on 25mm and 6.5 mm. But when I was going to look at Jupiter recently, then I didn't get a more visible view than a little dot and extremely small dots of its moons. (I've no light pollution) I tested different items I got with it but it was... well, crap! My expectations smashed into pieces. And the sharpness was horrible! A blurry dot was everything I saw. (I had at least expected some contrast and zoom, but nothing...) And as I said, I tested the different oculars and I also got one 2X Barlow, but the view was crap. First of all, the mirror and everything was totally clean and it was no moisture on it, an everything was placed correctly. But it was horrible. The including description claimed that the telescope was able to see nebulae and planets very good, but I consider NOT!.. I'll return it and hopefully I get the money back. This was my opinions, but someone might bought a similar model and are pleased about it?
Have you collimated it? It could easily look like crap until it's been properly tuned.
Quick test:
1] Point at a bright star.
2] Defocus your eyepiece a lot.
3] The star should defocus into a large perfect ring with 3 (or 4) vanes (your scope's secondary mirror and spider vanes).
If the ring is somehow distorted or askew, invest in a Cheshire eyepiece for about 50 bucks. First collimation will take an hour or two. After that only seasonal adjustments might be necessary.
Some other things:
- Ditch the Barlow.
- Use only your lowest power eyepiece (the 6.5) until you're satisfied with performance and with your skills.
- Try pointing at a local but distant light source (not the sun or anywhere near it! You will permanently blind yourself!). A distant streetlight or window (100+ feet). This will help you adjust your finder scope, help you practice targeting with your main, and makes it easier to practice focusing. Once you get something you can see, You can swing it around to the stars and re-adjust focus.
Gliese123
Oct8-11, 09:53 AM
This is how it looks like: http://images.pricerunner.com/product/image/210758304/Spectra-Optics-teleskop-1400x150.jpg
But I don't know if it's available to buy anywhere else than here.. It's perhaps a small manufacturer. I didn't find any link of any English one: This is the Swedish one: http://teknikmagasinet.se/db.pl?tf=product.html&artnr=600134
Maybe I'm just bought something that can be better if it's an other manufacturer.. ?
DaveC426913
Oct8-11, 11:30 PM
Maybe I'm just bought something that can be better if it's an other manufacturer.. ?
Try my test. I may be a fine scope. You won't know until you check.
russ_watters
Oct9-11, 09:48 AM
A 150mm reflector should provide decent views of Jupiter. Besides collimation, some other possibilities:
1. How high was Jupiter off the horizon when you were viewing it? When low to the horizon, objects are always blurry.
2. A clear night does not necessarily equal good "seeing". The air needs to be still, all through the atmosphere.
3. Don't go too high with the magnification. Yes, it will be a little small, but the detail should show up better. If you magnify beyond the acuity of your eye, the object will get bigger but blurrier. So that means use your 6.5mm eyepiece without the barlow or the 25mm eyepiece with it.
4. Temper your expectations. You shold be able to clearly see the great red spot and color bands on Jupiter and a the shadow of a moon going across (every 3rd or 4th night), but that ain't the Hubble you're using. If you were expecting Hubble-like views...sorry, you were misled.
Gliese123
Oct9-11, 01:49 PM
A 150mm reflector should provide decent views of Jupiter. Besides collimation, some other possibilities:
1. How high was Jupiter off the horizon when you were viewing it? When low to the horizon, objects are always blurry.
2. A clear night does not necessarily equal good "seeing". The air needs to be still, all through the atmosphere.
3. Don't go too high with the magnification. Yes, it will be a little small, but the detail should show up better. If you magnify beyond the acuity of your eye, the object will get bigger but blurrier. So that means use your 6.5mm eyepiece without the barlow or the 25mm eyepiece with it.
4. Temper your expectations. You shold be able to clearly see the great red spot and color bands on Jupiter and a the shadow of a moon going across (every 3rd or 4th night), but that ain't the Hubble you're using. If you were expecting Hubble-like views...sorry, you were misled.
I really thought the observation through this telescope should provided some decent view too... The planet Jupiter was fairly high over the horizon, which I also watched in different times of the evening. 20:00-23:00 (24h) that evening which gave the planet plenty of time to go high up over the horizon. There was no atmospheric interference as I perceived, no foggy clouds. The dot was not twinkle and shaking but rather hard to get a focus on. The weird thing about it was that I tested with and without the 2X Barlow and both the 25mm and the 6.5mm but it didn't make it more visible than a small dot. I really didn't expected Hubble images but at least as you said, a clear visible view of the great spot of Jupiter. What I wanted was a nice zoom and some sharpness, which was denied... At some point I think it's wrong to sell this kind of telescope and less functional than I bought... It really intimidate people from watching the night sky....
DaveC426913
Oct9-11, 06:14 PM
Barlow and both the 25mm and the 6.5mm but it didn't make it more visible than a small dot.
This has got to be operator error if you were seeing a small dot. Even with a 6.5mm,Jupiter should have been a disc with bands.
At some point I think it's wrong to sell this kind of telescope and less functional than I bought... It really intimidate people from watching the night sky....
Don't give up yet. The scope might not be the problem.
It does take a bit of skill, and results can be disappointing until you get proficient.
russ_watters
Oct9-11, 10:06 PM
I'm almost thinking he didn't get the scope centered on Jupiter!
DaveC426913
Oct9-11, 10:18 PM
I'm almost thinking he didn't get the scope centered on Jupiter!
That was my thought.
With a 1400mm focal length and a 150mm aperature, that gives it an f9.3. With the 6.5mm eyepiece that gives a mag of 142x.
(http://www.csgnetwork.com/telescopemagcalc.html)
That gives Jupiter (actual angular diameter of at least 30 arcseconds) a magnified diameter of ... 71 arcminutes? That's more than twice the size of the Moon. Someone want to check my work?
Gliese, you were not looking at Jupiter.
I have a 90mm portable reflector bought more for hiking and birdwatching and can see a few major bands, clear disk, nice moons. I live in an urban area, with no great seeing. I can say I've never quite made out the redspot with this scope where I live. Something very fishy here.
Drakkith
Oct9-11, 10:53 PM
I have a 90mm portable reflector bought more for hiking and birdwatching and can see a few major bands, clear disk, nice moons. I live in an urban area, with no great seeing. I can say I've never quite made out the redspot with this scope where I live. Something very fishy here.
I've got a 10 inch schmidt-newtonian and I've never even made out the red spot. I think I just suck at collimation...(aligning the mirrors)
DaveC426913
Oct9-11, 11:15 PM
I've got a 10 inch schmidt-newtonian and I've never even made out the red spot. I think I just suck at collimation...(aligning the mirrors)
You have a ten inch scope and you haven't seen the Red Spot?
Where do you live? Times Square?
Drakkith
Oct10-11, 02:14 AM
You have a ten inch scope and you haven't seen the Red Spot?
Where do you live? Times Square?
Would that matter? I think my collimation sucks is all. Not sure though. I've done the best I can, and even use a good laser collimator.
Edit: The views from my front yard are no different than when I head out to my buddies house or the local observatory, both are in much better light pollution areas than my front yard.
I have an older 90mm APO by Vernon, and it gives good views of Jupiter, the color bands, and the red spot. Limiting resolution is not the issue with an easy target like Jupiter. In fact, I can crank up the magnification by dropping in a 2" barlow when the seeing is good. This isn't a Tak Sky 90 by any means, but it's still a decent little 'scope that I use for a finder/guidescope for the the 6" APO. I'd like to get some of the respondents together and inspect and adjust their 'scopes and spend a bit of time observing - some of the recent statements don't add up.
russ_watters
Oct10-11, 05:29 AM
The red spot may be an issue these days as it has been changing color/fading.....and, of course, it is only visible about half theh time....
But there are two very distinct dark bands that should be visible in a very small scope. I made them out even with a pair of 50mm binos on a ship!
Drakkith
Oct10-11, 05:32 AM
I'd like to get some of the respondents together and inspect and adjust their 'scopes and spend a bit of time observing - some of the recent statements don't add up.
Lol. If your anywhere near Shreveport, Louisiana sure. Or if you know a really good dark spot within a few hours, I'd love to spend a few nights taking pictures without all this horrible light pollution.
Gliese123
Oct10-11, 09:14 AM
That was my thought.
With a 1400mm focal length and a 150mm aperature, that gives it an f9.3. With the 6.5mm eyepiece that gives a mag of 142x.
(http://www.csgnetwork.com/telescopemagcalc.html)
That gives Jupiter (actual angular diameter of at least 30 arcseconds) a magnified diameter of ... 71 arcminutes? That's more than twice the size of the Moon. Someone want to check my work?
Gliese, you were not looking at Jupiter.
Of course I looked at Jupiter! I'm not stupid.. I saw the moons as smaller dots around it. But just that, dots.. Im an enuthiast of space and know more than some people think I do. Do I have to get a master examination to show that I'm interested in astronomy? I know that I looked at Jupiter. I also know that Mars is currently rising over the horizon at ~02:30 at midnight at my latitude.
I think that the best telescope I've right now is my computer for sure. And as a poor student, there isn't so much I can do if I want to see some celestial objects for real. I really wish for a winning ticket..
DaveC426913
Oct10-11, 10:00 AM
Of course I looked at Jupiter! I'm not stupid.. I saw the moons as smaller dots around it. But just that, dots.. Im an enuthiast of space and know more than some people think I do. Do I have to get a master examination to show that I'm interested in astronomy? I know that I looked at Jupiter. I also know that Mars is currently rising over the horizon at ~02:30 at midnight at my latitude.
I'm sorry. Gliese no offense was intended.
I read that you "saw Jupiter as a small dot". That just doesn't make sense with your scope.
Even if it were poorly collimated, you still wouldn't see a small dot - you'd see a large blurry disc.
So, if you're seeing a small dot, I don't know what other conclusion to come to.
Gliese123
Oct11-11, 01:00 AM
No worries. I think it's strange that I didn't saw more and longer than I was supposed to do..
DaveC426913
Oct11-11, 08:17 AM
No worries. I think it's strange that I didn't saw more and longer than I was supposed to do..
Where do you live? Are there any astronomy clubs near you? They would probably be very happy to take a look at your scope and see if there's a problem.
Gliese123
Oct11-11, 08:51 AM
Where do you live? Are there any astronomy clubs near you? They would probably be very happy to take a look at your scope and see if there's a problem.
Well, I've returned the telescope now and got the money back.. I'll find some better way to look at the night sky. I might consider to join some astronomy club near me, there should be some. I live in south east Sweden. Approx. 62° North.
Drakkith
Oct11-11, 11:53 AM
Well, I've returned the telescope now and got the money back.. I'll find some better way to look at the night sky. I might consider to join some astronomy club near me, there should be some. I live in south east Sweden. Approx. 62° North.
Before you give up, I would seek out a local club and spend a little time stargazing with some of their scopes with them. Our local club has monthly public stargazing meetings where anyone can show up and look through peoples scopes.
Before you give up, I would seek out a local club and spend a little time stargazing with some of their scopes with them. Our local club has monthly public stargazing meetings where anyone can show up and look through peoples scopes.That's always my first recommendation to newbies. Many people come to the hobby with unreasonable expectations, and are quickly disappointed. Plus, if you chat up the members at a star-party, you may find someone who will sell you a well-maintained 'scope with some accessories, because they want to upgrade, or perhaps buy a $$$ eyepiece. Best of all, you get to try it first!
:biggrin: I need a telescope for my astronomy class next semester :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin: and a $700 budget...having a difficult time deciding which one to get :-/
:biggrin: I need a telescope for my astronomy class next semester :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin: and a $700 budget...having a difficult time deciding which one to get :-/You shouldn't actually *need* a telescope if you are planning on taking an astronomy class, much less one in the $700 range. There are lots of other ways to skin that cat.
When I was in college, I had limited access to a venerable old Alvan Clark 8" refractor. It was nice to get some access to that instrument, but still, it was just a novelty, since the campus was so light-polluted. Now, I have my own 6" APO, with very dark skies. Better, visually, but still not really useful for research because of the lack of instrumentation. I may eventually set up an observatory to house that scope, just to start some astrophotography survey work and give myself a relatively comfortable base of operations.
If you *want* a telescope (and who doesn't?!!) that is different from *needing* a telescope. Very few people who take an introductory astronomy class own much more than very basic optical aids (a decent pair of binoculars, for instance), nor can they benefit from them in their classwork. Please hook up with a local astronomy club and go to a few star-parties. You'll soon find out what a $700 entry-fee will buy you, and then you can decide if you want to jump in or wait until you can afford to invest more.
I have a friend in England that has a custom-made mount. He will eventually populate it with 4 (!!!!!) Tak 90s and cameras so that he can do high-precision wide-angle imaging with short, simultaneous captures. (2 down, 2 to go) He's out there on the edge, but is putting out some of the nicest images available anywhere.
Anyway, please don't spend money on equipment unless you are going to use it over and over and tweak the hell out of it. It's not like you are going to turn cosmology on its head with a little 'scope. It should be fun and entertaining for you and a source of enjoyment. If you can discover a new comet or an Earth-grazing asteroid, or a supernova in a nearby galaxy, that's great (and well within the capabilities of many amateur instruments), but such discoveries generally take a lot of time, and require you to be VERY familiar with the night sky. I have looked at M51 a zillion times, for instance, but if there was a new supernova in that galaxy, I'd probably miss it (unless it was really bright!) because I'm just not wired that way.
Anyway, save your money unless you really want the fun of playing with astronomical optics. Owning a telescope will not help you one little bit when you are taking an introductory astronomy course (or much more advanced courses, to be realistic). After you have a few courses under your belt, you may find that you want to do some survey work (like searching for supernovae), though the equipment you'll need to get started will probably rival the cost of a new vehicle, at a minimum. Amateurs can make an impact in astronomy/astrophysics, but you'll have to nibble around the edges because we can't afford huge instruments, nor can we site them on dormant Hawaiian volcanoes.
Thanks turbo :biggrin: Astronomy class has observation nights scheduled so I thought I would need a telescope....and of course I *want* one :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin: and I have $700 to spend on it, but if it is better for me to wait until later and buy a better telescope I will. I moved out to the country some months ago and the sky is reasonably clear here--not very dark but I can see more stars here than any other place I've ever lived. Lately I find myself standing outside in the middle of the night with my head tilted back almost 90 degrees. I am very unfamiliar with the night sky and can only identify a few constellations lol. Next semester I have an earth and space sciences class as well as astronomy, then next fall I should have my first astrophysics class and second astrophysics class the semester after that :biggrin: I plan on joining the local astronomy club as well.
Thanks for such a thorough response a lot of what you said is very insightful :)
focusoninfini
Oct30-11, 07:00 PM
Photographically, my query likely falls between distant wild-life photography and below astronomy photography.
I live at Southport, North Carolina, at the mouth of the Cape Fear River (ancestor lawyer Edward Hilton, Sr., of Exeter, N.H., was the brother of Capt. Wm. Hilton, Jr., who in 1666 "purchased" and named the Cape Fear River) above which, I guess at about 15,000' to 20,000 feet, one airliner after another (sometimes in parallel routes) that has just departed the Wilmington (ILM) VOR is going on over-water to Miami or landwards to Atlanta. They do not seem fast (600 mph?) from here, from terra firma. I doubt there is a camera and lens I could purchase per se for less than $500, or build for less that $500; dedicated solely to capturing close-up images of these big "birds" aloft?
I'm not much into astronomy except in one way. I love the sailor's star, the Mizar (one of a pair?), as I was once an Ordinary Seaman, 12-4 watch helmsman aboard the USNS Mizar, T-AGOR 11, R.I.P., on an Arctic expedition. That star, I'd love to learn anything I can about.
∞-focusoninfinity
Yipeee ... my new scope has arrived :)
hopefully tonite It will make "first light" last nite was cloudy
http://www.telescopesdirect.com.au/Celestron-CPC-925-GPS-XLT-Computerised-Telescope?sc=189&category=-289
Golly Gosh its some what bulkier than I expected hahaha, I was hoping to take it to Cairns, Queensland, Australia in November for the total solar eclipse, but that aint gonna happen. The main scope unit is 26kg (~ 56lbs) and the tripod another 18kg.
But I have to credit Celestron, it is built strong!! compared to the tiny forks of the early Celestrons that came out in the '70's and '80's
Am looking forward to reviving my astro photography activities that have been pretty much in recess since I left New Zealand 12 years ago.
Dave
Davenn, every telescope that is worth the price will be more massive than you expect, and doubly so for the tripod and mount. You have to live to learn with that. I had a mild stoke some years back and my main 'scope has languished in the detached garage as a result. Huge oak tripod, massive mount, and heavy 6" OTA ( APO refractor) make it a bit problematic to set up and tear down in the dark.
yeah true but this was really more massive haha
my existing scope is a 8' Newtonian on a Dobsonian mount
I did have a 10" Meade back in NZ, mounted on a German Equatorial
I really hate those things they are so hard to "point and shoot"
so I'm no stranger to larger scopes, but the online photos of this new scope gave no indication as to how big the fork mount is and as I said its very substantial compared to the early celestron scopes like the C8
well there is some blue sky today ... hopefully I will be able to give the scope its first tryout tonite :)
Dave
hey Guys ....
well after a really cloudy start to the evening the sky finally cleared and I was able to do a sky alignment with the scope wow really easy to do. and from there its easy to goto any object in its huge database.
Jupiter was impressive and looked it periodically over several hours watching the 4 Galelian (sp?) moons doing their little dance around the planet.
went through a few other well known objects M's 45, 42, 41 and a couple of fainter ones M's 1, 79, 77 till the rising bright moon washed out the sky
People... if you are looking for awesome easy to use scopes to buy, I recommend the Celestron CPC range of scopes. They have a range of mirror sizes that surely there's one that will fit a lot of budgets :) I have no affilliation with them, just impressed with their gear :) Just remember once you get a scope you WILL be afflicted with the astronomers disease called "aperture fever" and you will forever be looking forward to the upgrade to a scope with a bigger mirror hahaha
Dave
Note to mods .... for consideration... there is nowhere on the astronomy forum for people to just casually discuss their observing activities, posting a few pics etc hence all my posts in this particular part of the astronomy forum. Would it be worth creating a subsection for that ?
thanks
Dave
DaveC426913
Jan11-12, 03:47 PM
Note to mods .... for consideration... there is nowhere on the astronomy forum for people to just casually discuss their observing activities, posting a few pics etc hence all my posts in this particular part of the astronomy forum. Would it be worth creating a subsection for that ?
thanks
Dave
That might be a good use of your PF blog...
Drakkith
Jan11-12, 03:54 PM
Davenn, have you been to cloudynights.com? It's a site dedicated to amateur astronomy with sections for discussing everything in the sky and also to post any pictures. It's a pretty nice site. PF isn't really for these things, although the Fun, Photos, and Games forum in the General section may be appropriate for any pictures you take.
BreMatthews
Jan11-12, 03:57 PM
MotoH,
I would go with the Orion Skyview pro 120mm refractor. It will give you a much clearer image.
Drakkith
Jan11-12, 04:21 PM
MotoH,
I would go with the Orion Skyview pro 120mm refractor. It will give you a much clearer image.
That person is no longer a member of PF. At least, I think that's what the line through his name means.
BreMatthews
Jan11-12, 04:29 PM
Ahh thanks for the heads up. Kind of new at this, so I appreciate the feedback.
Drakkith
Jan11-12, 04:44 PM
Ahh thanks for the heads up. Kind of new at this, so I appreciate the feedback.
Np. Just look at the date of the post you are responding to. It's at the top of each post. That way you don't bump up a post that's been dead for 5 years lol.
Davenn, have you been to cloudynights.com? It's a site dedicated to amateur astronomy with sections for discussing everything in the sky and also to post any pictures. It's a pretty nice site. PF isn't really for these things, although the Fun, Photos, and Games forum in the General section may be appropriate for any pictures you take.
cloudynights site dont think I have been there tho the name rings a bell, maybe some one else mentioned it in the dim distant past haha will check it out thanks
ok on that part in the general section :)
DaveC ... havent looked at the blogging option for PF dunno how that works will have to investigate, thanks for that idea :)
thanks guys
Dave
Here is a nice place to check for astronomy.
http://forum.ourdarkskies.com/
There are some very advanced astrophotographers who will post their images here. Greg and Neil have posted most of their work here prior to publishing "Star Vistas". Good bunch of people.
Millacol88
Mar13-12, 08:34 PM
Right so I'm looking to buy my first telescope and rather than start a thread I thought I'd post here. How does this (http://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Reflector-Telescopes/Reflector-Telescopes-with-Equatorial-Mounts/Orion-SpaceProbe-130ST-Equatorial-Reflector-Telescope/pc/1/c/11/sc/341/p/9007.uts?refineByCategoryId=341#) look for a beginner telescope? Keeping in mind its my first and I really only want to look at the moon, some of the closer planets, and maybe some nearby galaxies or nebulae. I am not expecting Hubble-quality images, just to get started with the hobby. Thoughts?
Drakkith
Mar13-12, 09:17 PM
Right so I'm looking to buy my first telescope and rather than start a thread I thought I'd post here. How does this (http://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Reflector-Telescopes/Reflector-Telescopes-with-Equatorial-Mounts/Orion-SpaceProbe-130ST-Equatorial-Reflector-Telescope/pc/1/c/11/sc/341/p/9007.uts?refineByCategoryId=341#) look for a beginner telescope? Keeping in mind its my first and I really only want to look at the moon, some of the closer planets, and maybe some nearby galaxies or nebulae. I am not expecting Hubble-quality images, just to get started with the hobby. Thoughts?
My opinion is that if you aren't going to use a computerized mount (AKA a GoTo Mount) then get a Dobsonian telescope, but after looking through 2 sites I can't seem to find one for the same price with the same aperture. This one here http://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Dobsonian-Telescopes/Classic-Dobsonians/Orion-XT6-Classic-Dobsonian-Telescope-amp-Beginner-Barlow-Kit/pc/1/c/12/sc/13/p/27160.uts?refineByCategoryId=13 comes with a barlow and some other stuff, but no eyepieces, so you may be better off getting the one you linked.
Also, if you head to astromart.com or the classified section of cloudynights.com you can probably snag a used scope that's similar for half the price.
Millacol88
Mar13-12, 09:20 PM
I looked at that one, but it just seems to bulky to be practical at all. Why do you recommend a dobs over a regular reflector on an eq mount? Just curious.
I looked at that one, but it just seems to bulky to be practical at all. Why do you recommend a dobs over a regular reflector on an eq mount? Just curious.Dobs are simple. Newts on German Equatorial Mounts generally suffer from cost-savings on the mounts. Too light, too cheap, unable to bear the weight of the OTA properly. A decent OTA on a cheap, light mount will suffer from vibration, poor damping, etc, and generally be a pain to work with.
Drakkith
Mar13-12, 09:29 PM
I looked at that one, but it just seems to bulky to be practical at all. Why do you recommend a dobs over a regular reflector on an eq mount? Just curious.
Usually you get more aperture for the price, plus dobs are REALLY easy to use. EQ mounts are kind of weird to use at first, as you can simply move the scope up and down or left and right. Plus you have to polar align them a bit to use them correctly, but that isn't much of an issue once you do it a few times. The tube length is longer, but your EQ mount is going to be almost as much of an issue to move around and store. There's nothing wrong with the EQ mounted one though, and I think you'll be satisfied with it if you purchase it. It's a little easier to keep track of objects, as you only have to move the RA axis and many times the mounts come with a slow motion knob for this purpose. (At least that's what I've heard, I've never owned a non GoTo EQ mount)
For a first telescope, NOTHING beats a Dob in my opinion. It's the "point and shoot" of telescopes.
Edit: As Turbo said above, a good EQ mount usually cost a decent amount. While this particular one would probably work ok for you, I highly suggest a Dob, as it will be much more stable and easier to use. You won't be kicking the legs around in the dark and having to worry too terribly much about a little wind.
Millacol88
Mar13-12, 09:39 PM
Dobs are simple. Newts on German Equatorial Mounts generally suffer from cost-savings on the mounts. Too light, too cheap, unable to bear the weight of the OTA properly. A decent OTA on a cheap, light mount will suffer from vibration, poor damping, etc, and generally be a pain to work with.
Honestly I probably wouldn't even notice any vibration until I got a second telescope that didn't have the same problem. :P I don't need perfection, just something a little bit cheaper and smaller than a dob.
Usually you get more aperture for the price, plus dobs are REALLY easy to use. EQ mounts are kind of weird to use at first, as you can simply move the scope up and down or left and right. Plus you have to polar align them a bit to use them correctly, but that isn't much of an issue once you do it a few times. The tube length is longer, but your EQ mount is going to be almost as much of an issue to move around and store. There's nothing wrong with the EQ mounted one though, and I think you'll be satisfied with it if you purchase it. It's a little easier to keep track of objects, as you only have to move the RA axis and many times the mounts come with a slow motion knob for this purpose. (At least that's what I've heard, I've never owned a non GoTo EQ mount)
For a first telescope, NOTHING beats a Dob in my opinion. It's the "point and shoot" of telescopes.
Edit: As Turbo said above, a good EQ mount usually cost a decent amount. While this particular one would probably work ok for you, I highly suggest a Dob, as it will be much more stable and easier to use. You won't be kicking the legs around in the dark and having to worry too terribly much about a little wind.
Right, I think I'll go with this one if you think the EQ mount would be bearable. Believe me, I gravitated towards Dobs immediately when I started looking at telescopes, but I just don't really have that much space to store it. At least the one I'm looking at has a relatively short tube and a collapsible tripod. Perhaps for my second scope a few years down the road I'll look at a 10" dob and try and make room for it. No reviews I've read on this one have mentioned any problems with the mount, just a little shaking/vibration.
DaveC426913
Mar13-12, 09:44 PM
No reviews I've read on this one have mentioned any problems with the mount, just a little shaking/vibration.
"just"?
That's the primary complaint about mounts.
Millacol88
Mar13-12, 09:46 PM
"just"?
That's the primary complaint about mounts.
Is it? As you can probably tell, I'm new at this. :P I wish I knew someone on here who owns this one so I could figure out how big of an issue it will be...
EDIT: Just curious Dave, would you recommend a dobs as well?
Drakkith
Mar13-12, 09:58 PM
Is it? As you can probably tell, I'm new at this. :P I wish I knew someone on here who owns this one so I could figure out how big of an issue it will be...
Let me put it this way. Any scope will make you happy if you've never owned one before. The one on the EQ mount looks like it takes up a little less floor space and is probably a tad lighter overall, so if your really pressed for space then it will be better. However the dob will be sturdier and easier to use. It's your scope, you buy what you want. I think you will be happy with either of them.
Millacol88
Mar13-12, 10:16 PM
Well since it doesn't seem there are any enormous differences between the two, and I found my original one for cheaper and with better eyepieces, I think I'm going to pull the trigger on that one. Thanks everyone for your help!
DaveC426913
Mar14-12, 08:00 AM
Is it? As you can probably tell, I'm new at this. :P I wish I knew someone on here who owns this one so I could figure out how big of an issue it will be...
EDIT: Just curious Dave, would you recommend a dobs as well?
It is highly dependent on what you want. Dobs gives you great bang for your buck at the cost of awkwardness. For someone like me, who likes to haul his scope down to the lake where there's darker skies, it's not the best. Dobs have no tracking controls on their mounts, so you're freely wheeling the thing around the sky by the seat of your pants.
But for light-gathering ability (which is what you want in order to see dim objects), they cannot be beat.
chemisttree
Mar16-12, 01:39 PM
Well since it doesn't seem there are any enormous differences between the two, and I found my original one for cheaper and with better eyepieces, I think I'm going to pull the trigger on that one. Thanks everyone for your help!
If you find the mount vibrates too much, you might try to improve the tripod legs as was done here. (http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=417) I did it on my son's '102 with great results. Looks a whole lot better too!
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.