Best Telescope for under 1400$.

  • Stargazing
  • Thread starter themadquark
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Telescope
In summary, the conversation discussed purchasing a telescope for astrophysics purposes, with a budget of under 1.4k. The desired capabilities included viewing of Jupiter, the moon, Saturn, Venus transit, and various deep space objects. The recommended scope was the Orion 10" f/3.9 Newtonian Astrograph Reflector Telescope, with suggestions to also budget for solar filters and other accessories. There was also discussion about the quality and legitimacy of images seen on various telescope websites, with the conclusion that visual observing may not be as impressive as digital imaging. Suggestions were also made for a computerized GoTo Dobsonian Telescope and a DSLR camera for astrophotography.
  • #1
themadquark
22
1
Due to my interest in astrophysics, I have decided to consider purchasing a telescope. I am looking for something under 1.4k that would allow viewing of Jupiter, the moon, Saturn, venus transit, and deep space objects such as the Orion Nebula, Crab Nebula and possibly M-27, M-51, Triangulum, lagoon nebula, etc. http://www.telescope.com/Orion-10-f39-Newtonian-Astrograph-Reflector-Telescope/p/99602.utsp

I also understand the basics of focal length, etc. I am wondering what is the recommendation for good planetary viewing and very good deep space viewing (Nebulae, etc.).
I've also read from here: https://www.astronomics.com/what-can-you-expect-to-see-in-a-telescope_t.aspx That a 10" or larger would enable me to see detail on Jupiter, Saturn, The moon, and see distant Nebulae and certain galaxies and such with quite good detail. Can anybody recommend the best scope for me?
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
  • #3
That was a mess up on my part. It should work now. For whatever reason no links to that site work on PF.
Edit: A search for Orion 10" f/3.9 Newtonian Astrograph Reflector Telescope should work. The pictures seen there are the quality I wish to have, could anybody confirm whether those pictures are even legitimate? And how much colour would I expect to see? I understand the images were taken with CCDs, but I hear if your aperture size is high enough you can see some colour in more distant objects.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
@OP, remember that if you want to watch Venus transit the Sun, you will have to budget for a decent solar filter, and once you get up around 10" in aperture, they can get pricey, unless you stick with mylar, and those are delicate.
 
  • #5
I do understand that when I purchase the scope, I will need to purchase things such as solar filters and other accessories, but I need a recommendation of which scope would be best for generally quite good planetary and deep space viewing.
 
  • #6
turbo said:
@OP, remember that if you want to watch Venus transit the Sun, you will have to budget for a decent solar filter,

You'd also have to wait until 2117...

The scope the OP mention would definitely work for the listed purposes but it looks like it costs $1,949.99 with a suitable mount. It is also a rather large and heavy (60+ kg) telescope that is surprisingly hard to transport. The best advice I can give is to talk with local amateur astronomers and if possible attend one of their star parties. That will give a much better idea of which telescope you want than any internet discussion.
 
  • #7
themadquark said:
That was a mess up on my part. It should work now. For whatever reason no links to that site work on PF.
The pictures seen there are the quality I wish to have, could anybody confirm whether those pictures are even legitimate? And how much colour would I expect to see? I understand the images were taken with CCDs, but I hear if your aperture size is high enough you can see some colour in more distant objects.

Well they are legitimate images taken with CCDs and hours of exposure but that has almost nothing to do with what the human eye can register looking through an eye piece. Except stars and planets only a few deep sky objects have enough surface brightness to trigger our colour vision. All of them appear blue-green since the human colour vision is most sensitive there.

The M33 galaxy featured on the web page will look more like this in a telescope but even that would require some experience as an observer and dark skies.
 
  • #8
themadquark said:
The pictures seen there are the quality I wish to have, could anybody confirm whether those pictures are even legitimate? And how much colour would I expect to see? I understand the images were taken with CCDs, but I hear if your aperture size is high enough you can see some colour in more distant objects.

You will see next to no color with any reasonably sized telescope you could purchase. At best everything but the planets will be "faint fuzzies" you can barely make out. In the age of digital imaging, visual observing is fairly underwhelming in my opinion. Though some people believe otherwise.
 
  • #9
Yes, I agree that you should not expect to see nebulae and galaxies as dramatically as photos. For instance... a great observing accomplishment is observing one or more dark lanes in M31 - not any detail or anything, just the fact that you can see them at all with your eye. For many "deep sky" objects, that is the goal - seeing them at all.
Planets look pretty good, but the detail comes in short bursts in-between minutes of swirly, fuzzy (Earth's) atmosphere.
Take a look at some of the drawings here http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/postlist.php/Cat/0/Board/Sketching [Broken] to see what can be done visually.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
Thanks for the info all who helped.

Chrispen Evan said:
a friend has a 10" goto dobsonian with a mount for a generic slr digital camera. computer program to stack images. that cost around ~$1500AUS with some eyepieces, camera is extra.

http://www.ozscopes.com.au/skywatcher-10-go-to-dobsonian-telescope.html $1,719.95AUS

http://www.telescope.com/Telescopes...bsonian-Telescope/pc/0/c/1/sc/23/p/102020.uts $1,299.99US

gives you some idea.

I plan to buy this scope (1300$), a cheap DSLR camera (~500$), and find some sort of program for photo stacking, if anybody has any further recommendations for cameras or stacking programs that would be great. Overall, I think this is what I will likely use, thanks for the help everybody.
 
  • #12
and find some sort of program for photo stacking,

hi there

deep sky stacker is one of the most common ones used and best of all its free :smile:

yup you have missed out on the Venus transits, the last one was June last year and as said next isn't till 2117
I doubt any of us reading this today will be around for that one

BUT

there are several Mercury transits to look forward to

Transits of Mercury

Transit Contact Times (UT)
------------------------------------- Minimum Sun Sun Transit
Date I II Greatest III IV Sep. RA Dec GST Series
h:m h:m h:m h:m h:m " h ° h

2016 May 09 11:12 11:15 14:57 18:39 18:42 318.5 3.130 17.58 15.190 7
2019 Nov 11 12:35 12:37 15:20 18:02 18:04 75.9 15.098 -17.45 3.366 6
2032 Nov 13 06:41 06:43 08:54 11:05 11:07 572.1 15.274 -18.14 3.535 4

cheers
Dave




Dave
 
Last edited:
  • #13
themadquark said:
Thanks for the info all who helped.

I plan to buy this scope (1300$), a cheap DSLR camera (~500$), and find some sort of program for photo stacking, if anybody has any further recommendations for cameras or stacking programs that would be great. Overall, I think this is what I will likely use, thanks for the help everybody.

Note that the Dobson is a type of Altimuth-Azimuth mounted telescope that is inherently limited when it comes to astrophotography due to field rotation. If you are thinking about astrophotography I strongly advise you to first buy and read Covingtons "DSLR astrophotography" or Steve Richards "Making every photon count". It will save you both time and money.
 
  • #14
themadquark said:
Thanks for the info all who helped.
I plan to buy this scope (1300$), a cheap DSLR camera (~500$), and find some sort of program for photo stacking, if anybody has any further recommendations for cameras or stacking programs that would be great. Overall, I think this is what I will likely use, thanks for the help everybody.
That telescope/mount is not suitable for deep sky astrophotography. Though it tracks objects through the sky, it does not rotate with the celestial sphere. For that you need an equatorial mount. Such as this one:
http://www.telescope.com/mobileProd...th-GoTo-Controller/pc/1/c/11/sc/343/24729.uts

[Edit: oops, beaten to it!]
 
Last edited:
  • #15
I would avoid going bigger than 8" to start with. That is pretty much the high water mark for mounts and handling. Bigger scopes require beefy mounts and handle with the grace of a greased pig. For practical advice on scopes and accessories I suggest cloudy nights. For astrophotography, APT is excellent and inexpensive. There's even a free demo version - http://ideiki.com/astro/Default.aspx.
 
  • #16
If you main interest is in visual observing I suggest something around 10 to 12". Orion makes very good dobsonians with DSC ( digital setting circles) that allow you to locate thousands of objects at the push of a button. You just type in or look up an object in the handset and then push the scope in alt and az until the coordinates reach zero. The orion 12" xti was the first big scope I ever owned and it was amazing!

Now if you going to be getting into astrophotography I suggest meade or celestrons SCT scopes on their high quality EQ mounts. The celestron 8" SCT on their CGX mount is a good scope for photography and visual.

Also you do not need a ccd camera to start with because you can take amazing pics with just a good dslr camera like canons eos rebel series
 
  • #17
Affirmed, a CCD is a waste of money until you have mastered DSLR astrophotography. The only advantage of a CCD is lower thermal noise and somewhat better pixel density - but, comes at a hefty price. It's about as practical as buying your kid a Ferrari for their sixteenth birthday. I have a Meade 8" SCT, it is fun and portable - even somewhat useful for AP. I also have a Meade 10" f/4 SNT. It is heavy, awkward, seriously under mounted, and barely adequate for visual use. Both were approximately the same price. A telescope you dread to use is called a mistake.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Chronos said:
Affirmed, a CCD is a waste of money until you have mastered DSLR astrophotography.

I'm not sure I agree with this.
 
  • #19
Chronos said:
The only advantage of a CCD is (...) somewhat better pixel density

And this just depends on which CCD camera you are looking at. You can easily find CCD sensors with pixel sizes from 3 to 24 microns. Pixel density is not a good metric for astrophoto since pixel size should be matched to to the focal length of the scope and the pixel scale you desire.
 
  • #20
Drakkith said:
I'm not sure I agree with this.
Me neither. The most basic problem here is that it is an incorrect/false dichotomy. A DSLR is a type of camera while a CCD is a type of chip. Dedicated astrophotography cameras are usually CCD but not always and DSLRs are more usually CMOS (the other type of chip), but not always. Much of the early breakout work in amateur astophotography was done using using a certain Philips webcam with a CCD chip. And many astrocams and DSLRs even use exactly the same chips. The main difference is the electronics and accessories you get with them (in particular, built-in cooling capability on an astrocam is a big deal).

Here's a cnet discussion of the issue of CMOS vs CCD for DSLRs:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-7603_7-6241014-3.html

Obviously, the only real con for CCDs is the price: power consumption is not an issue for a camera that is always plugged-in. But image quality is much better and the difference is much larger for long exposure astrophotography.

Bottom line: if you already have a DSLR, start with it. If you don't, I'd start with a low-end (even used) solution such as a webcam (planetary photos only) or dedicated astrocam.
 
  • #21
Me neither.

there's good advantages to having a dedicated astro imager camera
They are smaller - don't impede movement of the scope to any degree, unlike a heavy DSLR
They are lighter - don't upset the balancing of the scope to any degree, unlike a heavy DSLR
They are easier to mount to the scope optical path --- because they are specifically designed for the purpose
Altho you can, if you wish, spend a small fortune on a hi grade astro imaging camera, there are many out there that are very affordable for the amateur astrophotographer

EDIT ohhh and one more important thing...

They are easier to cool to reduce thermal noise ... using peltier cooler, liquid nitrogen ... etc

cheers
Dave
 
Last edited:
  • #22
In my opinion, the biggest advantage to having a DSLR is that you can use it for taking pictures without using a telescope. You know, family gatherings, christmas, birds, etc.
 
  • #23
I concede. Obviously, it is smarter to blow a grand or two on a ccd before you know crap about AP. What was I thinking?
 
  • #24
Chronos said:
I concede. Obviously, it is smarter to blow a grand or two on a ccd before you know crap about AP. What was I thinking?

like I said, there are many units http://www.bintel.com.au/Astrophotography/CCD-cameras/66/catmenu.aspx, you don't have to spend a fortune :smile:


Dave
 
  • #26
nice one Drakkith

many of those ones were also in my link

yup for less than ~ $500 there is reasonable range to choose from. I really prefer the dedicated astro cameras
particularly for that point two I made in post #21, they are small and light and don't screw around with the telescope balancing to any great extent

Dave
 
  • #27
The vastly wider FOV of a DSLR begs for intro AP. Cropping is no big deal when you can actually center the object of interest. You can get an excellent DSLR body for less than $500, and can be modified for even better AP performance for a couple hundred more. A similar CCD camera starts between 2-3K, and is useless for purposes other than AP. There are no balance issues on a good mount. At worst, you might need a few ounces on the tube. If you have flex issues over an extra half a pound weight on the focuser, the camera weight is not your biggest problem.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Oy:
Chronos said:
The vastly wider FOV of a DSLR begs for intro AP.
It isn't a wider field of view, it is - possibly (some DSLRs and asto-cams use exactly the same chips) - a wider imaging surface. Which doesn't actually help you any if you already have your telescope and camera properly matched.
Cropping is no big deal when you can actually center the object of interest.
The field of view of a telescope is fixed. A chip that is much wider than the fov just shows black space, not the desired image, so having a bigger chip does not actually help you center an object. It is just money wasted on pixels you aren't using. That's called vignetting:
http://www.lensadapter.net/images/vignetting.jpg [Broken]

Ideally, the telescope and camera are matched so the light cone diameter exactly matches the chip diagonal width.
You can get an excellent DSLR body for less than $500...
You can get an excellent astro-cam (compared to DSLRs) for less than $500...
...and can be modified for even better AP performance for a couple hundred more.
...and is already fully optimized for astrophotography and includes the proper software and adapter (costs extra for a DSLR) to make it easier to use for that purpose.
A similar CCD camera starts between 2-3K...
1. You are again confused about what "CCD" means.
2. Nonsense. A $500 asto-cam will take better astro-photos than a $500 DSLR. Repeating this wrong claim will not make it true no matter how many times you make it. Most of the pictures on my website were taken by a Meade DSI II, which cost $800 when I bought it 5 years ago and is now obsolete. Superior low-end cameras start at about $400 today. The issue here is price point vs technology. DSLRs have stuck to a $500 minimum price point with increasing performance for a decade, while astro-cams started out with minimum performance for whatever price it cost - which then dropped over the past decade. Today the astro-cam prices have bottomed-out while performance continues to increase.

I suspect the issue here is that you are simply living in the past - you aren't aware of the current state of the art of astro-cams.
...and is useless for purposes other than AP.
That one is true.
There are no balance issues on a good mount.
1. Balance has nothing to do with mount quality.
2. I thought you cared about money?
At worst, you might need a few ounces on the tube. If you have flex issues over an extra half a pound weight on the focuser, the camera weight is not your biggest problem.
I run a relatively heavy imaging train, even with a dedicated astro-cam. This isn't actually a big issue, mostly cropping-up when I start and want to align the scope with an eyepiece before using a camera or otherwise wanting to switch back and forth. Nice to be lighter, but not essential.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
I agree my knowledge is dated. I do, however, know what a CCD is - a charge coupled device. A Meade CCD [I have one] has an abysmal FOV. I use it as a guide camera now on an ST80 scope. I feel compelled to ask if you would feel comfortable suggesting your current rig for a rookie AP'r, or something simpler?
 
  • #30
hey Russ

didnt know you were into astronomy let along astro-photography
a whole mass of outstanding pics on your site ! well done

cheers
Dave
 
  • #31
Chronos said:
I do, however, know what a CCD is - a charge coupled device.
Saying "CCD camera" in this context is confusing because an astrocam is not necessarily a CCD (though most longer exposure, higher end ones are) and a DSLR isn't necessarily not.
A Meade CCD [I have one] has an abysmal FOV.
On what type of telescope? Are you using a focal reducer? I use my C11 to take pictures of small things and my ED80 to take pictures of big things, so I cover a pretty wide range of FOVs even with a fairly small chip.
I feel compelled to ask if you would feel comfortable suggesting your current rig for a rookie AP'r, or something simpler?
No, the telescope I recommended in post #14 matches the OP's $1400 budget. He didn't say what his budget is for accessories and we didn't get much into his preference on planetary vs deep sky astrophotography so I don't have a specific camera recommendation - but I know it wouldn't be a DSLR.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
I have two cameras and 3 scopes to choose from. Cameras: Meade DSI Pro ii ccd, Canon T1i DSLR. Scopes: Meade LXD75, Meade LX90 ACF and Astro Tech AT6RC. Here are the FOV stats for each combo at prime focus with no focal reducer

Cam Scope pixel size Width Height

DSI LXD75 1.68" 21' 16.9'
T1i LXD75 0.95" 75.5' 50.4'
DSI LX90 0.84" 10.5' 8.5'
T1i LX90 0.48" 37.8' 25.2'
DSI AT6RC 1.25" 15.6' 12.5'
T1i AT6RC 0.71" 56' 37.4'

The DSI Pro II is not even close to the T1i. Both cameras cost about $500 new. CCD's that approach T1i FOV, which include SBIG 8300 and QHY8, start around 2K. In my mind this is a big deal. A typical half megapixel CCD like the DSI with 8.5 um pixels [about all you can afford for $500] is not going to compete well against a 15 megapixel DSLR with 4.7 um pixels.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Chronos

I think you are still not quite understanding

The field of view (FOV) that your camera will see through a given telescope is determined by physical size of the CCD/CMOS sensor and the focal length of the telescope. Note that this has nothing to do with the number of pixels. A CCD/CMOS that has 512 x 512 pixels that are 20 microns square will have exactly the same FOV as a CCD/CMOS with 1024 x 1024 pixels that are 10 microns square even though the latter CCD has four times as many pixels. This is also why binning 2x2 or 3x3 affects resolution but does not affect the FOV of the CCD/CMOS. Larger CCD/CMOS's have larger fields of view at a given focal length. You can change the FOV of a CCD/CMOS only by changing the focal length of the telescope.

you comment on the poor FOV of one of your cameras ...
A Meade CCD [I have one] has an abysmal FOV.

you are blaming the camera when you shouldn't be. The problem is in the matching of the camera and the telescope.

Russ commented on focal reducers and by using a focal reducer you shorten the effective focal length of the telescope and increase the FOV (this makes the image brighter in the process). By using a Barlow or eyepiece projection you effectively lengthen the focal length of the telescope and decrease the FOV (and this will make the image dimmer in the process). To determine the FOV for a given CCD/CMOS, note the CCD/CMOS's length and width dimensions (or diagonal) in millimeters and use the formula to determining the FOV for that CCD/CMOS through any telescope as follows:

(135.3 x D ) / L = Field of View in arcminutes

where D is the length or width dimension of the CCD/CMOS in millimetres, and L is the focal length of your telescope in inches. You can use the same formula to find the diagonal field of view if you know this dimension.

I have an app somewhere on my home computer for matching scopes and astro cameras will try and find it over the weekend

cheers
Dave
 
Last edited:
  • #34
here's a www page that goes into FOV's focal lengths, pixel size etc
and the importance of taking into account the type of scope a given camera goes onto

down towards the bottom of the page ... just above a table is a link to a spreadsheet showing a particular camera and how it matches to a variety of different telescopes with different apertures, focal lengths etc

After reading through that and other sites will lead you to realize that smaller pixel size is NOT always an advantage. That in some situations a smaller sensor size and larger pixels will outperform a larger sensor size and smaller pixels

cheers
Dave

EDIT ... another link of interest ... http://www.skyandtelescope.com/howto/astrophotography/3304356.html
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Chronos said:
I have two cameras and 3 scopes to choose from. Cameras: Meade DSI Pro ii ccd, Canon T1i DSLR. Scopes: Meade LXD75, Meade LX90 ACF and Astro Tech AT6RC. Here are the FOV stats for each combo at prime focus with no focal reducer

Cam Scope pixel size Width Height

DSI LXD75 1.68" 21' 16.9'
T1i LXD75 0.95" 75.5' 50.4'
DSI LX90 0.84" 10.5' 8.5'
T1i LX90 0.48" 37.8' 25.2'
DSI AT6RC 1.25" 15.6' 12.5'
T1i AT6RC 0.71" 56' 37.4'
Other than not having a focal reducer (and me not knowing the scope sizes), I'm not seeing a problem there. With a focal reducer, your 21x17 becomes about 42x34, which is near perfect for most DSOs: an awful lot of globular clusters and galaxies are in the 10-30' range.
The DSI Pro II is not even close to the T1i. Both cameras cost about $500 new. CCD's that approach T1i FOV, which include SBIG 8300 and QHY8, start around 2K. In my mind this is a big deal. A typical half megapixel CCD like the DSI with 8.5 um pixels [about all you can afford for $500] is not going to compete well against a 15 megapixel DSLR with 4.7 um pixels.
Since you have both, I'm really not understanding how you can be saying these things: have you taken pictures of the same object with both to compare them? FOV is not the only thing that should be compared between the cameras and is definitely not the most important: since the DSI is a CCD and has a heatsink, it should provide substantially better image quality. And It should also be easier to use due to the dedicated software.

When I bought my DSI cameras, FOV was not high on the list of wants.
 
<h2>1. What features should I look for in a telescope under $1400?</h2><p>When looking for a telescope under $1400, it is important to consider the aperture size, which determines the amount of light the telescope can gather and therefore affects its magnifying power. Additionally, consider the focal length, which determines the telescope's magnification capabilities, and the type of mount, which affects stability and ease of use.</p><h2>2. Can I see deep space objects with a telescope under $1400?</h2><p>Yes, with a telescope under $1400, you can see many deep space objects such as galaxies, nebulae, and star clusters. However, the quality of the views may vary depending on the aperture size and other factors.</p><h2>3. Is a computerized or manual telescope better for under $1400?</h2><p>It ultimately depends on personal preference and intended use. A computerized telescope may be more convenient for beginners or those interested in astrophotography, while a manual telescope may offer a more hands-on and traditional viewing experience.</p><h2>4. How important is the brand when choosing a telescope under $1400?</h2><p>Brand is not the most important factor when choosing a telescope under $1400. It is more important to consider the specific features and capabilities of the telescope, as well as reading reviews and recommendations from other users.</p><h2>5. Can I upgrade my telescope under $1400 in the future?</h2><p>Yes, many telescopes under $1400 have interchangeable parts and can be upgraded in the future. However, it is important to research the specific telescope and its compatibility with different upgrades before purchasing.</p>

1. What features should I look for in a telescope under $1400?

When looking for a telescope under $1400, it is important to consider the aperture size, which determines the amount of light the telescope can gather and therefore affects its magnifying power. Additionally, consider the focal length, which determines the telescope's magnification capabilities, and the type of mount, which affects stability and ease of use.

2. Can I see deep space objects with a telescope under $1400?

Yes, with a telescope under $1400, you can see many deep space objects such as galaxies, nebulae, and star clusters. However, the quality of the views may vary depending on the aperture size and other factors.

3. Is a computerized or manual telescope better for under $1400?

It ultimately depends on personal preference and intended use. A computerized telescope may be more convenient for beginners or those interested in astrophotography, while a manual telescope may offer a more hands-on and traditional viewing experience.

4. How important is the brand when choosing a telescope under $1400?

Brand is not the most important factor when choosing a telescope under $1400. It is more important to consider the specific features and capabilities of the telescope, as well as reading reviews and recommendations from other users.

5. Can I upgrade my telescope under $1400 in the future?

Yes, many telescopes under $1400 have interchangeable parts and can be upgraded in the future. However, it is important to research the specific telescope and its compatibility with different upgrades before purchasing.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
23
Views
9K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
19K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
2
Replies
60
Views
8K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
34
Views
12K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
7
Views
8K
Back
Top