Telescopes

[Doris]

I know the ‘toy’ £50 telescopes are a waste of money, but not got a clue about what to get in the £100-150 mark to scratch the itch.

Anyone have any expertise with scopes? Cheers

Whatever you decided to buy. I'd look into getting a decent second hand version instead of shelling out for a brand spanking new one if it's just to scratch an itch.

A reflection telescope somewhere in the six to eight inch range was my choice
Used it for years, I could see Saturn’s rings, only got rid of it when after it had been left in the shed after my move
the silver on the lens had degraded from being left outside
All the best

I've been eyeing one of these up myself but the issue is (and possibly for original poster as well) that they are not very portable. I personally don't have space for one but it's a "one day" purchase

I was using a Hawke birdwatching scope which was very mobile but the optics were sort of fuzzy when it came to planets like Saturn. I bought it for birdwatching and then one day pointed it at the planets and was surprised what I could see with it, but the quality wasn't a shade on a reflector or refractor telescope made for looking at the night sky.

I think the original poster needs to decide whats more important, portability or image? If it's portability I would, like other have said get a high end, high magnification pair of binoculars if it's image then a reflector telescope.

 

[bbtex]

As I mentioed above have a look an my link to images taken by owners of this telescope and you can see good images of celestial objects that you can't see by naked eye or with just a telescope.

It is not a replacement for high end equipment but it seems to give a good low cost entry to let you see parts of the night sky, as well as the moon, the sun as it includes solar filters. It also works well as a teresstrial telescope.

The important factor with any telescope is its light capturing capability. With my old Meade telescope using a lager magnification eyepiece makes the image bigger, darker but with no increase with definition.

Also it is "not just a camera" but a telescope with a built in camera with software to help you prduce your images.Click here to see some examples of Andromeda

Well I would consider it to be a camera strapped to a lens. To be fair to it, it should probably be referred to as an astrograph and one that has ease of portability and some software that allows stacking of pictures to achieve some impressive results. Its automation capabilities and compact size makes it ideal for setting up quickly and using. I was considering one to take with my motorhoming as it could be plonked down on a table in the evening and some astrophotography done with a nice glass of wine. But, I feel it is very limited in what it can do. The resolution is small and it is an Alt-Az mount and so longer exposures will see some errors creeping in from field rotation but the biggest thing for me is the inability to use eyepieces and change up the magnification optically. The Moon is a wonderful sight under high magnification but the S30 will only give a small image without allowing any detail and the planets will still be small specks. You can zoom in, but the low resolution camera will cause pixelation very quickly.
I truly believe that a good pair of binoculars and a decent monopod (very tall one) will be the best introduction for anyone. Honestly, a good pair of 10x50 binoculars on a tall monopod beats it for a beginner’s intro—cheaper, versatile, and you actually see the sky.”

 

[bbtex]

Whatever you decided to buy. I'd look into getting a decent second hand version instead of shelling out for a brand spanking new one if it's just to scratch an itch.



I've been eyeing one of these up myself but the issue is (and possibly for original poster as well) that they are not very portable. I personally don't have space for one but it's a "one day" purchase

I was using a Hawke birdwatching scope which was very mobile but the optics were sort of fuzzy when it came to planets like Saturn. I bought it for birdwatching and then one day pointed it at the planets and was surprised what I could see with it, but the quality wasn't a shade on a reflector or refractor telescope made for looking at the night sky.

I think the original poster needs to decide whats more important, portability or image? If it's portability I would, like other have said get a high end, high magnification pair of binoculars if it's image then a reflector telescope.

One thing to be wary of with Newtonian reflectors (the mirror is at the back and the eyepiece towards the front) is that unless you enjoy tinkering, they can be very frustrating. The collimation of the mirrors is vital and Newt's have a tendency to go out of collimation just from being sneezed at. Better to go for a Maksutov or a refractor that don't need nearly as much fiddling.

 

[jb94]

While the computerised Astrograph produces some amazing results I’m not really interested in just making a picture via a smartphone but actually seeing something with my eyes.

Years ago I won a Nikon p900 in a photo competition and got some really nice pictures of Saturn with it, but I hated the fact that you were just looking at a screen and no option to see things with your own eyes. I sold it soon after.

Portability is the biggest factor for me and although the binoculars have been recommended a few times I’ve had several outings with the Binos on a tripod and it’s no fun viewing unless objects are close to the horizon, you’d need a prism to make viewing easier or handheld - but then subject to shake.

Some of the second hand scopes I looked at round here are… questionable condition at best, and from my photo days am very careful of second hand optics unless it’s from a second hand dealer as you can get a misaligned lens / fungus in the lens/ motor damage etc with no hope of fixing it.

I’m going to take a look sometime after work at the Rotherham valley optics shop and see in person what fits the bill best.

From the discussion I think it would be between a spotting scope or a travel refractor. I think the big Newtonian or tabletop dobs are too unwieldy for me to carry any distance and would take up too much space in my house. And had added benefit of my wife being able to use it for birdwatching if it’s right-way-up.

 

[bbtex]

Portability is the biggest factor for me and although the binoculars have been recommended a few times I’ve had several outings with the Binos on a tripod and it’s no fun viewing unless objects are close to the horizon, you’d need a prism to make viewing easier or handheld - but then subject to shake.

Which is why I recommended the manfrotto monopod further up. It extends way up and is taller than me when fully extended. It also has a small base that adds stability.
Whatever you decide on, don't forget that the mount is often considered to be more important than the OTA. If it is flimsy and unstable, the views will be ruined by the slightest breeze and can take ages to settle down.
If you have a 'scope in mind, plug in the values in this calculator https://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/ and it will give you a good idea of what you can expect from any telescope.

 

[MikeJhn]

You have to decide what your priority viewing is, planet observing and deep space nebula require different tubes, plus bird observing (close quarters) is different again once you have set your priority you can then make a choice, I would suggest planetary observation (moon) in the fist instance as its the easiest to start with, a 100mm refractor will do to start with, as you get more into the observations you can then progress from there, I still use mine, but on a motorised Go To mount, if you can stretch the budget and get a Go To mount the Universe is your Oyster.

As an aside, looking at a full moon is very disappointing there are no features to look at, it's best to look at a crescent moon at the shadow line to see mountains and the depth of craters.