advanced / automated beginner's telescope for IT novice
Discussion
Hi there
For any keen astronomers here
Thinking about purschasing a telescope for firt time. I have no ideas about either telescope types or the IT behind them.
It makes sense to buy an automated telescope that allows you to fix on known objects etc. That makes sense to me. But I am also somewhat an IT novice. They idea of linking up to a laptop (if necessary) is a bit beyond my knowledge.
However, if it turns out to be an expensive purchase, and a hobby I become keen on, I envisage wanting to capture images and I understand time-lapse photography becomes necessary, again outside my knowledge
Where should I start?
Also - any inspiring stories of what images you first saw when you got into this would be good
Thanks
For any keen astronomers here
Thinking about purschasing a telescope for firt time. I have no ideas about either telescope types or the IT behind them.
It makes sense to buy an automated telescope that allows you to fix on known objects etc. That makes sense to me. But I am also somewhat an IT novice. They idea of linking up to a laptop (if necessary) is a bit beyond my knowledge.
However, if it turns out to be an expensive purchase, and a hobby I become keen on, I envisage wanting to capture images and I understand time-lapse photography becomes necessary, again outside my knowledge
Where should I start?
Also - any inspiring stories of what images you first saw when you got into this would be good
Thanks
I'm a rank amateur compared to many on here. But I went for a bigger scope, without automation - the cost of the automation seemed (to me) to seriously limit the quality and size of the scope, certainly at the lower-middle end of the market. From memory an automated reflector was going to be 3-4 inches, for the same sort of price as the 8 inch one I have. I'm interested in galaxies and nebulae so the increased appature is important. For planets you might not care so much, but then you don't really need autoguidance to find them.
And personally I found that finding my way around the sky was worthwhile in itself. So I'd say, bigger, manual scope, and a pair of decent binoculars. Unless you have a massive budget in which case you can get the best of both worlds
To start, Sky at Night magazine and Astronomy Now are pretty good, or were last time I bought them. Decide what sort of things you want to look at, that will help decide what type of scope, and what size. The usual advice is to start with a good pair of binos, but nobody follows that, even though it's dead right
Big moments for me were the first view of the orion nebula (through an old spotting scope I used to use for rifle shooting!) First view of Andromeda galaxy; and first view of Saturn through my scope, which is just amazing.
I've not done any imaging, but I can retrofit motors to my tripod if I wanted to. I imagine that most mainstream brands will support that these days, but it's something to check.
And personally I found that finding my way around the sky was worthwhile in itself. So I'd say, bigger, manual scope, and a pair of decent binoculars. Unless you have a massive budget in which case you can get the best of both worlds
To start, Sky at Night magazine and Astronomy Now are pretty good, or were last time I bought them. Decide what sort of things you want to look at, that will help decide what type of scope, and what size. The usual advice is to start with a good pair of binos, but nobody follows that, even though it's dead right
Big moments for me were the first view of the orion nebula (through an old spotting scope I used to use for rifle shooting!) First view of Andromeda galaxy; and first view of Saturn through my scope, which is just amazing.
I've not done any imaging, but I can retrofit motors to my tripod if I wanted to. I imagine that most mainstream brands will support that these days, but it's something to check.
Edited by CrutyRammers on Tuesday 22 October 15:32
Edited by CrutyRammers on Tuesday 22 October 15:33
Binos - yes, partly for scouting out the place to look with the scope, but also are the tool of choice for viewing some things - Andromeda for example, the seven sisters will come up well, the Milky way, satellites and other fast moving things - sometimes a scope has too small a field of view.
Mine is also an 8 inch skywatcher, but on an equatorial mount rather than a dobsonian - so to keep something in view you only need to turn a single knob (which you can put a motor on later if you're so inclined for photos etc).
Mine is also an 8 inch skywatcher, but on an equatorial mount rather than a dobsonian - so to keep something in view you only need to turn a single knob (which you can put a motor on later if you're so inclined for photos etc).
Costco sell the Celestron 102GT every so often for £169. It's fully "go-to" and you can interface to a PC with a serial cable.
It's a 4" refractor, approximately equivalent to an 8" reflector, and considered to be pretty good optically, though better eyepieces help at higher magnification.
But because it's an altazimuth mount it's not suitable for long-exposure photography as the image gradually rotates in the field of view.
It's a 4" refractor, approximately equivalent to an 8" reflector, and considered to be pretty good optically, though better eyepieces help at higher magnification.
But because it's an altazimuth mount it's not suitable for long-exposure photography as the image gradually rotates in the field of view.
Nimby said:
Costco sell the Celestron 102GT every so often for £169. It's fully "go-to" and you can interface to a PC with a serial cable.
It's a 4" refractor, approximately equivalent to an 8" reflector, and considered to be pretty good optically, though better eyepieces help at higher magnification.
But because it's an altazimuth mount it's not suitable for long-exposure photography as the image gradually rotates in the field of view.
There is a big difference between a 4" refractor and a 8" reflector the latter will outperform the former optically every time unless you want wide fields.It's a 4" refractor, approximately equivalent to an 8" reflector, and considered to be pretty good optically, though better eyepieces help at higher magnification.
But because it's an altazimuth mount it's not suitable for long-exposure photography as the image gradually rotates in the field of view.
Cheers
As with many things budget will dictate what you do next.
If you have sufficient funds then go no further than the Celestron Skyprodigy series.
These scopes are able to determine where they are and what they are looking at so you put it in the garden, switch it on and let it do its stuff. After a couple of minutes you'll be able to look at any of thousands of objects by selecting then on the handset. No getting lost with no idea what you're looking at
If budget doesn't go that far then (like me) go for a used dobsonian off fleabay - quick to set up and gives you biggest bang for the buck. (I got a 250mm Skywatcher which is just about as big as you can comfortably carry from the garage).
Also take time to think about what you want to look at. High magnification is good for planets but often has a limited field of view. For me a newtonian reflector is the best compromise but I'd get advice dependant on what you want to do.
That's my 2p worth.
If you have sufficient funds then go no further than the Celestron Skyprodigy series.
These scopes are able to determine where they are and what they are looking at so you put it in the garden, switch it on and let it do its stuff. After a couple of minutes you'll be able to look at any of thousands of objects by selecting then on the handset. No getting lost with no idea what you're looking at
If budget doesn't go that far then (like me) go for a used dobsonian off fleabay - quick to set up and gives you biggest bang for the buck. (I got a 250mm Skywatcher which is just about as big as you can comfortably carry from the garage).
Also take time to think about what you want to look at. High magnification is good for planets but often has a limited field of view. For me a newtonian reflector is the best compromise but I'd get advice dependant on what you want to do.
That's my 2p worth.
Nimby said:
Costco sell the Celestron 102GT every so often for £169. It's fully "go-to" and you can interface to a PC with a serial cable.
It's a 4" refractor, approximately equivalent to an 8" reflector, and considered to be pretty good optically, though better eyepieces help at higher magnification.
On what basis do you make that assertion.It's a 4" refractor, approximately equivalent to an 8" reflector, and considered to be pretty good optically, though better eyepieces help at higher magnification.
The light gathering area of an 8 inch reflector is over 4 times as much. Even if you factor in a 30% reduction due to the secondary mirror obstruction - you are still talking about 3 times as much. This means faint objects will be visible in an 8 inch scope that the 4 inch simply cannot touch.
Also - the angular resolution of an 8 inch scope is half that of a 4 inch scope meaning potentially sharper views and higher magnifications.
Finally - cheap refractors can suffer from significant chromatic aberration, which is something that reflectors generally dont suffer from.
Large reflectors do have their own problems (collimation, tube currents, portability) - but generally you'll get much more bang for your buck from a reflector.
OP - if its just tracking you want and not go-to, you can pick up a 5 inch reflector on an equatorial mount with a tracking drive for under £200. This will keep your object in the field of view (assuming you correctly align the mount) - but won't require any IT knowledge. The downside is - you'll have to search for the objects yourself using star charts etc - but you'll probably learn more about the sky that way.
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 29th October 00:18
ash73 said:
I assumed people tend to use a refractor to look at the moon/planets (where light gathering is less critical) or a reflector to look for DSOs. The latter lets you do both of course, but you can sometimes have too much of a good thing; I have to use a filter looking at the moon or it's too bright!
Pretty much as I understand it. For deep sky objects, you can't really beat a large aperture Newtonian (when you consider price)Nimby said:
I thought it was a given that a 3" refractor was approximately similar to a 6" reflector - maybe that doesn't scale up, and with a bit of digging it seems there is no simple way to compare.
Good refractors (APOs) will generally outperform slightly larger reflectors due to their increased contrast and clear aperture. I did a search and found the article below which claims you need about 1/3rd more clear aperture for a reflector over a good APO to deliver comparable results. This means a 4" APO would perform similar to a 5.5" reflector.http://www.chuckhawks.com/telescope_aperture.htm
Of course - with the budget the OP is talking about - they are nowhere near APO territory. A 3" APO OTA can set you back over £500 (4" and you are looking over a grand), and you still need to factor in the tripod/mount. Given the OPs budget - they will be looking at Achromats and the gains over a reflector are likely to be less than stated in that article.
Personally - if the OP has the space, i'd go for a newtonian on a decent equatorial mount. I know several people who have been put off astronomy because they bought an underpowered scope (usually a cheap refractor with hugely inflated magnification claims) on a cheap mount. I nearly made the same mistake myself many years ago.
Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 30th October 12:11
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff