Talk to me about telescopes
Discussion
zetec said:
Many thanks for all the replies, some food for thought.
I understand I won't get Hubble quality images, to be able to see Jupiter and make out its red spot, Saturn and its rings would be fantastic, even if it isn't crystal clear.
This is within budget and it will easily resolve the red spot on jupiter.I understand I won't get Hubble quality images, to be able to see Jupiter and make out its red spot, Saturn and its rings would be fantastic, even if it isn't crystal clear.
http://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatc...
Plus you'll have no complicated mounts to learn.
nellyleelephant said:
zetec said:
Many thanks for all the replies, some food for thought.
I understand I won't get Hubble quality images, to be able to see Jupiter and make out its red spot, Saturn and its rings would be fantastic, even if it isn't crystal clear.
This is within budget and it will easily resolve the red spot on jupiter.I understand I won't get Hubble quality images, to be able to see Jupiter and make out its red spot, Saturn and its rings would be fantastic, even if it isn't crystal clear.
http://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatc...
Plus you'll have no complicated mounts to learn.
How about Jupiters moons?
Nellyleelephant and Bedazzled, thank you both very much for your help.
My eldest was fascinated by the story Brian Cox told about the Moon Io, that it turns itself inside out due to volcanic activity, how far would you have to step up, budget wise, so it becomes more than just a point of light?
Also with the 'scope you have recommended, would nebulae and galaxies be easily visible?
Again, many thanks
My eldest was fascinated by the story Brian Cox told about the Moon Io, that it turns itself inside out due to volcanic activity, how far would you have to step up, budget wise, so it becomes more than just a point of light?
Also with the 'scope you have recommended, would nebulae and galaxies be easily visible?
Again, many thanks
Hmmm, you're talking pretty serious I would imagine.
I looked through a 20" donsonian at it last year and they still looked the same. Don't forget that having a bigger telescope doesn't mean you can magnify more, it just means you can gather more light and get greater detail. I seem to remember that the upper limit for magnification in the UK is about 250x due to atmospheric conditions, I've pushed mine futher on the moon, but you do lose quality. The theoretical limit of a scope is 50x for every inch of aperture, so an 8" has a theoretical limit of 400x, but trust me, you wouldn't be seeing much apart from a fuzzy mess!
The 8" scope will see all of the Messier objects (110 of them) for a start off, assuming you can get to a dark site....once you've done those there are many many more things to find, galaxies and nebulae are no problem, even small bins can pick a lot of them up!
I looked through a 20" donsonian at it last year and they still looked the same. Don't forget that having a bigger telescope doesn't mean you can magnify more, it just means you can gather more light and get greater detail. I seem to remember that the upper limit for magnification in the UK is about 250x due to atmospheric conditions, I've pushed mine futher on the moon, but you do lose quality. The theoretical limit of a scope is 50x for every inch of aperture, so an 8" has a theoretical limit of 400x, but trust me, you wouldn't be seeing much apart from a fuzzy mess!
The 8" scope will see all of the Messier objects (110 of them) for a start off, assuming you can get to a dark site....once you've done those there are many many more things to find, galaxies and nebulae are no problem, even small bins can pick a lot of them up!
I'm well used to bigger isn't better, I'm a keen photographer and I know that more megapixels doesn't mean a better image, it's the light that can be captured that makes the quality of the image.
I've downloaded the Stellarium software, its a clear'ish night here and waiting for it to get dark, just need a 'scope now.
I've downloaded the Stellarium software, its a clear'ish night here and waiting for it to get dark, just need a 'scope now.
Quick guide.
I don't know if it's of any help but when I was first looking for scopes I was told the following "guidelines":
Refractors. Good accuracy and generally good clarity but poor light gathering so not always suitable for 'long range' work.
Reflectors. Huge light gathering potential so ideal for 'long range' viewing. Can be heavy and cumbersome. The quality of the primary mirror is the single most important factor and if this isn't any good you've just wasted your money.
Catadioptrics. Compact and manageable. However, any quality issues in the mirrors are magnified throughout. Good all round scopes.
Eyepieces. Don't go for the highest magnification possible as you'll end up having to adjust your scope every few seconds. Good eyepieces are made by William Optics and Televue. (Note: Some of these eyepieces cost almost as much as a scope!)
I don't know if it's of any help but when I was first looking for scopes I was told the following "guidelines":
Refractors. Good accuracy and generally good clarity but poor light gathering so not always suitable for 'long range' work.
Reflectors. Huge light gathering potential so ideal for 'long range' viewing. Can be heavy and cumbersome. The quality of the primary mirror is the single most important factor and if this isn't any good you've just wasted your money.
Catadioptrics. Compact and manageable. However, any quality issues in the mirrors are magnified throughout. Good all round scopes.
Eyepieces. Don't go for the highest magnification possible as you'll end up having to adjust your scope every few seconds. Good eyepieces are made by William Optics and Televue. (Note: Some of these eyepieces cost almost as much as a scope!)
OK, my two pennies having dabbled in looking in astro for a good few years. My recommendation would be one of these here.
I had the larger 8" job and it was superb. The scopes are Chinese made but they are now on a par with the much more expensive scopes and getting better all the time. The advantage of a dobsonian is that they are easy to set up, stable and cheap. I would recommend that you spend the rest of the budget on some decent eyepieces as that will get the most out of it. The other advantage is that the height of the scope is perfect for younger eyes to get a good view.
I can also heartily recommend the shop. The chap who runs it is really nice and I've used them many times for all sorts of stuff, including 2 other telescopes.
Hope that helps!
ETA; must read the whole thread before replying! At least most also seem to think the Skywatcher dobs are the way to go!
I had the larger 8" job and it was superb. The scopes are Chinese made but they are now on a par with the much more expensive scopes and getting better all the time. The advantage of a dobsonian is that they are easy to set up, stable and cheap. I would recommend that you spend the rest of the budget on some decent eyepieces as that will get the most out of it. The other advantage is that the height of the scope is perfect for younger eyes to get a good view.
I can also heartily recommend the shop. The chap who runs it is really nice and I've used them many times for all sorts of stuff, including 2 other telescopes.
Hope that helps!
ETA; must read the whole thread before replying! At least most also seem to think the Skywatcher dobs are the way to go!
Snoggledog said:
Quick guide.
I don't know if it's of any help but when I was first looking for scopes I was told the following "guidelines":
Refractors. Good accuracy and generally good clarity but poor light gathering so not always suitable for 'long range' work.
Reflectors. Huge light gathering potential so ideal for 'long range' viewing. Can be heavy and cumbersome. The quality of the primary mirror is the single most important factor and if this isn't any good you've just wasted your money.
Catadioptrics. Compact and manageable. However, any quality issues in the mirrors are magnified throughout. Good all round scopes.
Eyepieces. Don't go for the highest magnification possible as you'll end up having to adjust your scope every few seconds. Good eyepieces are made by William Optics and Televue. (Note: Some of these eyepieces cost almost as much as a scope!)
As a cat lover I'm naturally biased, but the mainstream cats give excellent returns with one requirement, collimation.I don't know if it's of any help but when I was first looking for scopes I was told the following "guidelines":
Refractors. Good accuracy and generally good clarity but poor light gathering so not always suitable for 'long range' work.
Reflectors. Huge light gathering potential so ideal for 'long range' viewing. Can be heavy and cumbersome. The quality of the primary mirror is the single most important factor and if this isn't any good you've just wasted your money.
Catadioptrics. Compact and manageable. However, any quality issues in the mirrors are magnified throughout. Good all round scopes.
Eyepieces. Don't go for the highest magnification possible as you'll end up having to adjust your scope every few seconds. Good eyepieces are made by William Optics and Televue. (Note: Some of these eyepieces cost almost as much as a scope!)
Unk Rod says.. http://skywatch.brainiac.com/collimation.pdf
Remember the most useful scope is the one you use! Not sitting in a corner due to the complexity of it's mount/electronics.
I'll stick my head up here and state the best beginners scope are a pair of 100X25's and a photographic tripod both robust and tall enough to be used in an astronomy context.
Mo.
Mojocvh said:
As a cat lover I'm naturally biased, but the mainstream cats give excellent returns with one requirement, collimation.
Unk Rod says.. http://skywatch.brainiac.com/collimation.pdf
Remember the most useful scope is the one you use! Not sitting in a corner due to the complexity of it's mount/electronics.
I'll stick my head up here and state the best beginners scope are a pair of 100X25's and a photographic tripod both robust and tall enough to be used in an astronomy context.
Mo.
Although the 100x25 bins would be good, they won't let him see detail on planets. Big bins are great but they're not a substitute for a telescope, more a compliment.Unk Rod says.. http://skywatch.brainiac.com/collimation.pdf
Remember the most useful scope is the one you use! Not sitting in a corner due to the complexity of it's mount/electronics.
I'll stick my head up here and state the best beginners scope are a pair of 100X25's and a photographic tripod both robust and tall enough to be used in an astronomy context.
Mo.
nellyleelephant said:
Mojocvh said:
As a cat lover I'm naturally biased, but the mainstream cats give excellent returns with one requirement, collimation.
Unk Rod says.. http://skywatch.brainiac.com/collimation.pdf
Remember the most useful scope is the one you use! Not sitting in a corner due to the complexity of it's mount/electronics.
I'll stick my head up here and state the best beginners scope are a pair of 100X25's and a photographic tripod both robust and tall enough to be used in an astronomy context.
Mo.
Although the 100x25 bins would be good, they won't let him see detail on planets. Big bins are great but they're not a substitute for a telescope, more a compliment.Unk Rod says.. http://skywatch.brainiac.com/collimation.pdf
Remember the most useful scope is the one you use! Not sitting in a corner due to the complexity of it's mount/electronics.
I'll stick my head up here and state the best beginners scope are a pair of 100X25's and a photographic tripod both robust and tall enough to be used in an astronomy context.
Mo.
There are two distinct specialisations, the planets/solar system and everything else in deep space. The equipment for successful high power observation of the planets is different than that of deep space where aperture counts and resolution steps back in priority compared to planetary work. If you go big on the planets (already ££££ scope wise) the mounts get pretty ££££ as well.
Far better a beginner has basic kit and joins a society where he can use other peoples kit to gain experience before deciding what direction to take.
cheers
Mo.
Mojocvh said:
As a cat lover I'm naturally biased, but the mainstream cats give excellent returns with one requirement, collimation.
Unk Rod says.. http://skywatch.brainiac.com/collimation.pdf
Remember the most useful scope is the one you use! Not sitting in a corner due to the complexity of it's mount/electronics.
Mo.
You'll get no argument from me on the CAT front. I've got a 10" Newton and a small CAT. Even though the cat needs collimating, it gets used far more often than the newton. But I stick by what I said, lens defects in a cat get multiplied and can ruin everything. Oh.. and a big no to Meade. Who else would paint the inside of their tubes white? Unk Rod says.. http://skywatch.brainiac.com/collimation.pdf
Remember the most useful scope is the one you use! Not sitting in a corner due to the complexity of it's mount/electronics.
Mo.
Lol at the above!!
Apologies for the thread ressurection!
The birthday approaches and she still has her heart set on a telescope
As recommended I have done some research on this the Skywatcher Skyliner 200P Dobsonian. Now it seems rather large and my house is rather small. Also my daughter will be 14, will it be too big for her to handle? I have seen examples of what it can do though and it is very impressive, is there anything else that gives the same performance with ease of use?
Again, many thanks.
Apologies for the thread ressurection!
The birthday approaches and she still has her heart set on a telescope
As recommended I have done some research on this the Skywatcher Skyliner 200P Dobsonian. Now it seems rather large and my house is rather small. Also my daughter will be 14, will it be too big for her to handle? I have seen examples of what it can do though and it is very impressive, is there anything else that gives the same performance with ease of use?
Again, many thanks.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff