Telescopes for StarGazing?
Discussion
Soz for posting in here, couldn't find the "Telescopes" section? Anyway...
Father's 60th birthday is fast approaching (end of October) and as his brother has just bought him the electric guitar we were going to get him, the only other thing we can think of that he's into is looking at the stars.
He lives in darkest (literally) rural Suffolk, but is currently struggling with my Grandmother's old Nazi spotting 'scope from WWII. We'd love to get him something that's not only made for actually looking at the night sky, but will point towards certain interesting bits and perhaps even take photos?
I'm not sure what sort of budget is necessary for this sort of thing, but I think I can probably raise £300 easily from the siblings. Is that enough? If not, I could possibly stretch it by getting more people in, but it'll be a hassle.
So, telescope enthusiasts of PH - I call on your vast and hitherto untapped knowledge to assist me in getting the best thing possible for the money. Many thanks.
Father's 60th birthday is fast approaching (end of October) and as his brother has just bought him the electric guitar we were going to get him, the only other thing we can think of that he's into is looking at the stars.
He lives in darkest (literally) rural Suffolk, but is currently struggling with my Grandmother's old Nazi spotting 'scope from WWII. We'd love to get him something that's not only made for actually looking at the night sky, but will point towards certain interesting bits and perhaps even take photos?
I'm not sure what sort of budget is necessary for this sort of thing, but I think I can probably raise £300 easily from the siblings. Is that enough? If not, I could possibly stretch it by getting more people in, but it'll be a hassle.
So, telescope enthusiasts of PH - I call on your vast and hitherto untapped knowledge to assist me in getting the best thing possible for the money. Many thanks.
£300 will get you a fairly decent scope for observing. Astrophotography (aside from perhaps the moon) is a different ballgame however.
If you want a "GoTo" telescope - there are things like the Meade ETX range that come in on budget. These are computerised and will take you various objects around the sky. You do compromise on size though as you are paying for the computer guidance (and size in telescopes is very important). An 80mm scope like the one below is quite small. Ideally you'll be wanting to look in the range 112mm (4 inch) or larger.
http://www.telescopehouse.com/acatalog/Meade-ETX80...
You could go for a non computerised scope on an equatorial mount (this is a type of mount that can be set up to track the earths rotation) - in which case you can go for larger optics which will show more objects in greater details (good if you have a dark sky site). You have a choice of several different kinds of telescope from Newtonian Reflectors or Achromatic refractors. The former are generally larger for the same budget because mirror telescopes are cheaper to make. Here are a couple of examples:
http://www.green-witch.com/astromaster-130-eq-with...
http://www.green-witch.com/skywatcher-evostar-120-...
Going even more basic on the mount means you can get an even larger scope. These are called Dobsonians - however you need to factor in portability, storage, setup etc when looking at telescopes in the 8 inch plus range - they can get quite heavy.
http://www.green-witch.com/skyliner-200p-8-1573-p....
Avoid buying a telescope based on magnification. Very high magnification can only be used on a few select objects (planets mainly) and cheaper telescopes often quote magnification that they generally aren't capable of. The general rule is that a telescope can only support up to 50x magnification per inch aperture (the size of the main lens/mirror). Any manufacturer saying their telescope can go (usefully) higher than this is telling porkies.
For many objects like nebulae, galaxies and star clusters - lower magnification and wide aperture are often a better combination.
It's probably a lot to take in as it's such a wide field. Take a look over the links I have provided and if you can narrow down the possibilities a bit - people can probably give more specific advice around specific scope types or accessories (which you may also want to factor in your budget - a small range of eyepieces should be a minimum - although some scopes do come with a couple).
There is also a forum called Stargazers Lounge - loads of knowledgeable people on there - perhaps register and ask some questions.
If you want a "GoTo" telescope - there are things like the Meade ETX range that come in on budget. These are computerised and will take you various objects around the sky. You do compromise on size though as you are paying for the computer guidance (and size in telescopes is very important). An 80mm scope like the one below is quite small. Ideally you'll be wanting to look in the range 112mm (4 inch) or larger.
http://www.telescopehouse.com/acatalog/Meade-ETX80...
You could go for a non computerised scope on an equatorial mount (this is a type of mount that can be set up to track the earths rotation) - in which case you can go for larger optics which will show more objects in greater details (good if you have a dark sky site). You have a choice of several different kinds of telescope from Newtonian Reflectors or Achromatic refractors. The former are generally larger for the same budget because mirror telescopes are cheaper to make. Here are a couple of examples:
http://www.green-witch.com/astromaster-130-eq-with...
http://www.green-witch.com/skywatcher-evostar-120-...
Going even more basic on the mount means you can get an even larger scope. These are called Dobsonians - however you need to factor in portability, storage, setup etc when looking at telescopes in the 8 inch plus range - they can get quite heavy.
http://www.green-witch.com/skyliner-200p-8-1573-p....
Avoid buying a telescope based on magnification. Very high magnification can only be used on a few select objects (planets mainly) and cheaper telescopes often quote magnification that they generally aren't capable of. The general rule is that a telescope can only support up to 50x magnification per inch aperture (the size of the main lens/mirror). Any manufacturer saying their telescope can go (usefully) higher than this is telling porkies.
For many objects like nebulae, galaxies and star clusters - lower magnification and wide aperture are often a better combination.
It's probably a lot to take in as it's such a wide field. Take a look over the links I have provided and if you can narrow down the possibilities a bit - people can probably give more specific advice around specific scope types or accessories (which you may also want to factor in your budget - a small range of eyepieces should be a minimum - although some scopes do come with a couple).
There is also a forum called Stargazers Lounge - loads of knowledgeable people on there - perhaps register and ask some questions.
bertie said:
I've got a one, great for looking at the moon, can see craters etc....everything else is a dot.
For me it was short lived interest!
Same here, file under the 'stuff that'll be in the cellar for the rest of my life' file.For me it was short lived interest!
Alongside my certificate of land ownership, for a plot on the moon.
Moonhawk said:
£300 will get you a fairly decent scope for observing. Astrophotography (aside from perhaps the moon) is a different ballgame however.
If you want a "GoTo" telescope - there are things like the Meade ETX range that come in on budget. These are computerised and will take you various objects around the sky. You do compromise on size though as you are paying for the computer guidance (and size in telescopes is very important). An 80mm scope like the one below is quite small. Ideally you'll be wanting to look in the range 112mm (4 inch) or larger.
http://www.telescopehouse.com/acatalog/Meade-ETX80...
You could go for a non computerised scope on an equatorial mount (this is a type of mount that can be set up to track the earths rotation) - in which case you can go for larger optics which will show more objects in greater details (good if you have a dark sky site). You have a choice of several different kinds of telescope from Newtonian Reflectors or Achromatic refractors. The former are generally larger for the same budget because mirror telescopes are cheaper to make. Here are a couple of examples:
http://www.green-witch.com/astromaster-130-eq-with...
http://www.green-witch.com/skywatcher-evostar-120-...
Going even more basic on the mount means you can get an even larger scope. These are called Dobsonians - however you need to factor in portability, storage, setup etc when looking at telescopes in the 8 inch plus range - they can get quite heavy.
http://www.green-witch.com/skyliner-200p-8-1573-p....
Avoid buying a telescope based on magnification. Very high magnification can only be used on a few select objects (planets mainly) and cheaper telescopes often quote magnification that they generally aren't capable of. The general rule is that a telescope can only support up to 50x magnification per inch aperture (the size of the main lens/mirror). Any manufacturer saying their telescope can go (usefully) higher than this is telling porkies.
For many objects like nebulae, galaxies and star clusters - lower magnification and wide aperture are often a better combination.
It's probably a lot to take in as it's such a wide field. Take a look over the links I have provided and if you can narrow down the possibilities a bit - people can probably give more specific advice around specific scope types or accessories (which you may also want to factor in your budget - a small range of eyepieces should be a minimum - although some scopes do come with a couple).
There is also a forum called Stargazers Lounge - loads of knowledgeable people on there - perhaps register and ask some questions.
Many thanks - as I suspected, it's a bit of a minefield!If you want a "GoTo" telescope - there are things like the Meade ETX range that come in on budget. These are computerised and will take you various objects around the sky. You do compromise on size though as you are paying for the computer guidance (and size in telescopes is very important). An 80mm scope like the one below is quite small. Ideally you'll be wanting to look in the range 112mm (4 inch) or larger.
http://www.telescopehouse.com/acatalog/Meade-ETX80...
You could go for a non computerised scope on an equatorial mount (this is a type of mount that can be set up to track the earths rotation) - in which case you can go for larger optics which will show more objects in greater details (good if you have a dark sky site). You have a choice of several different kinds of telescope from Newtonian Reflectors or Achromatic refractors. The former are generally larger for the same budget because mirror telescopes are cheaper to make. Here are a couple of examples:
http://www.green-witch.com/astromaster-130-eq-with...
http://www.green-witch.com/skywatcher-evostar-120-...
Going even more basic on the mount means you can get an even larger scope. These are called Dobsonians - however you need to factor in portability, storage, setup etc when looking at telescopes in the 8 inch plus range - they can get quite heavy.
http://www.green-witch.com/skyliner-200p-8-1573-p....
Avoid buying a telescope based on magnification. Very high magnification can only be used on a few select objects (planets mainly) and cheaper telescopes often quote magnification that they generally aren't capable of. The general rule is that a telescope can only support up to 50x magnification per inch aperture (the size of the main lens/mirror). Any manufacturer saying their telescope can go (usefully) higher than this is telling porkies.
For many objects like nebulae, galaxies and star clusters - lower magnification and wide aperture are often a better combination.
It's probably a lot to take in as it's such a wide field. Take a look over the links I have provided and if you can narrow down the possibilities a bit - people can probably give more specific advice around specific scope types or accessories (which you may also want to factor in your budget - a small range of eyepieces should be a minimum - although some scopes do come with a couple).
There is also a forum called Stargazers Lounge - loads of knowledgeable people on there - perhaps register and ask some questions.
If photography isn't available at this price point, that's not a massive problem. I know he'd love a computerised mount that could point the telescope at various things - he's obsessed with his iPad that can approximate the same sort of thing.
I didn't factor in eyepieces though - do you have to have different ones like on a camera if you have poor eyesight? I'm the only person in my entire family who doesn't have to wear glasses, so forget about these sorts of things!
GTIR said:
As apposed to telescopes for other things?
As I stated in the OP - he has one at the moment that was designed for spotting Germans. Also, I've used one for looking at birds.And pirates have them. And sniper rifle operators.
Eric Mc said:
Most things are a dot in even the biggest telescopes - including Hubble.
What larger telescopes do is collect more light - so you can see fainter objects - or more details in large diffuse objects, such as nebulae.
So in summary, the more you pay, the better your telescope, and the more dots What larger telescopes do is collect more light - so you can see fainter objects - or more details in large diffuse objects, such as nebulae.
HereBeMonsters said:
Many thanks - as I suspected, it's a bit of a minefield!
If photography isn't available at this price point, that's not a massive problem. I know he'd love a computerised mount that could point the telescope at various things - he's obsessed with his iPad that can approximate the same sort of thing.
I didn't factor in eyepieces though - do you have to have different ones like on a camera if you have poor eyesight? I'm the only person in my entire family who doesn't have to wear glasses, so forget about these sorts of things!
Whilst go-to does sound great in principle - they aren't infallible. My setup cost thousands - but the go to function is still a little hit and miss - and required quite a lot of preparation.If photography isn't available at this price point, that's not a massive problem. I know he'd love a computerised mount that could point the telescope at various things - he's obsessed with his iPad that can approximate the same sort of thing.
I didn't factor in eyepieces though - do you have to have different ones like on a camera if you have poor eyesight? I'm the only person in my entire family who doesn't have to wear glasses, so forget about these sorts of things!
Invariably it puts the object i'm looking for out of the field of view unless I have a very low magnification eyepiece - and that means you still need to know what to look for and how to look for it (which generally comes with experience of hunting using a manual scope).
Personally - I think a larger manual scope together with some star charts and a section of eyepieces would be a better option. There is a certain thrill that comes from hunting for and finding an object - and you learn along the way. There is also the opportunity to spot other interesting things whilst searching for your object (coloured double stars, open clusters etc) that may be overlooked by going to the same objects night after night just because they are in the telescope's database.
If you do decide to go down the Go-to route - you will be looking at quite a small scope which will limit the objects available to view to a few dozen anyway - even though the scope will boast "thousands of objects" in its database.
IMO a 5-6 inch Newtonian on an equatorial mount plus a few eyepieces would be my default starter scope at the £300 price point.
bertie said:
So in summary, the more you pay, the better your telescope, and the more dots
Nah - you start getting more smudges beyond a certain size too Just a word of warning OP. These jokes about dots and smudges aren't too far off the mark. No telescope gives views like you see in the magazines and on the web. Unless you are looking at the planets, moon or stars - most other objects appear as faint colourless fuzzy patches in the sky. A large part of the thrill in astronomy is realising and understanding just what that smudge represents.
Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 24th September 13:11
Moonhawk said:
Nah - you start getting more smudges beyond a certain size too
Just a word of warning OP. These jokes about dots and smudges aren't too far off the mark. No telescope gives views like you see in the magazines and on the web. Unless you are looking at the planets, moon or stars - most other objects appear as faint colourless fuzzy patches in the sky. A large part of the thrill in astronomy is realising and understanding just what that smudge represents.
True, the first time I saw Saturn and her rings I had my mind well and truly blown. Until that point, it may or may not have even existed, and at the very least I thought the visible rings were a bit fictitious and were subject to photographic tricks. But nope, clear as daylight, big old lump of planet and very visible rings. That was on a £250 telescope. And you could hold your phone camera up to the eye piece and get a reasonably decent shot. But you definitely feel smaller...! Just a word of warning OP. These jokes about dots and smudges aren't too far off the mark. No telescope gives views like you see in the magazines and on the web. Unless you are looking at the planets, moon or stars - most other objects appear as faint colourless fuzzy patches in the sky. A large part of the thrill in astronomy is realising and understanding just what that smudge represents.
Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 24th September 13:11
Moonhawk said:
HereBeMonsters said:
Many thanks - as I suspected, it's a bit of a minefield!
If photography isn't available at this price point, that's not a massive problem. I know he'd love a computerised mount that could point the telescope at various things - he's obsessed with his iPad that can approximate the same sort of thing.
I didn't factor in eyepieces though - do you have to have different ones like on a camera if you have poor eyesight? I'm the only person in my entire family who doesn't have to wear glasses, so forget about these sorts of things!
Whilst go-to does sound great in principle - they aren't infallible. My setup cost thousands - but the go to function is still a little hit and miss - and required quite a lot of preparation.If photography isn't available at this price point, that's not a massive problem. I know he'd love a computerised mount that could point the telescope at various things - he's obsessed with his iPad that can approximate the same sort of thing.
I didn't factor in eyepieces though - do you have to have different ones like on a camera if you have poor eyesight? I'm the only person in my entire family who doesn't have to wear glasses, so forget about these sorts of things!
Invariably it puts the object i'm looking for out of the field of view unless I have a very low magnification eyepiece - and that means you still need to know what to look for and how to look for it (which generally comes with experience of hunting using a manual scope).
Personally - I think a larger manual scope together with some star charts and a section of eyepieces would be a better option. There is a certain thrill that comes from hunting for and finding an object - and you learn along the way. There is also the opportunity to spot other interesting things whilst searching for your object (coloured double stars, open clusters etc) that may be overlooked by going to the same objects night after night just because they are in the telescope's database.
If you do decide to go down the Go-to route - you will be looking at quite a small scope which will limit the objects available to view to a few dozen anyway - even though the scope will boast "thousands of objects" in its database.
IMO a 5-6 inch Newtonian on an equatorial mount plus a few eyepieces would be my default starter scope at the £300 price point.
Could you clarify one point though - what exactly do extra eyepieces do? Does it not come with one?
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-...
When staff at the centre went to find him he hid in a cubicle and tried to answer in a woman’s voice when challenged.
Edited by Studio117 on Wednesday 24th September 14:50
Most telescopes come with a variety of eyepieces which offer different magnifications. Lower magnifications work best for general observation - higher magnifications are best used when looking at the moon or planets.
Depending on what you want to observe, you can slide in the appropriate eyepiece.
Bear in mind also that astronomical telescopes generally invert the image - with south at the top and north at the bottom. This is a natural result of the way the optics work. An eyepiece with a correcting lens can be used to restore the image "the right way up" but every extra lens put between your eye and the object you are looking at reduces the brightness of the image - so it is normal NOT to bother correcting the image.
Depending on what you want to observe, you can slide in the appropriate eyepiece.
Bear in mind also that astronomical telescopes generally invert the image - with south at the top and north at the bottom. This is a natural result of the way the optics work. An eyepiece with a correcting lens can be used to restore the image "the right way up" but every extra lens put between your eye and the object you are looking at reduces the brightness of the image - so it is normal NOT to bother correcting the image.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff