|
That's awesome. I remember the first time I saw Saturn in a big old newt, scout camp in 1990 or so. Definitely looked fake. I took some milky way shots with a roki 12mm last week while i was there for work. No moon, dark ish site. But every time I remove the green noise I end up with something pretty dull and lifeless. Then to get some pop in it i always overdo it.
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
Raikyn posted:Had a look at saturn on the weekend. Strong disagree. That looks fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 06:21
|
|
|
pumped up for school posted:That's awesome. I remember the first time I saw Saturn in a big old newt, scout camp in 1990 or so. Definitely looked fake. You're not kidding. It is striking just how fake it looks in a scope. Like someone literally hanging a model in front of black velvet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 00:45
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/Urieldesimoni/status/1545167574677209089?s=20&t=4QRNJ9NUusf6tGmXPUD53w
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
Now that I'm in an amateur astronomy group, I'm leaning pretty hard on having my own telescope. I seem to recall that around $300 to $400 is a good starting point on getting a refractor telescope. I can probably get something used that's pretty good for that amount of money if I can find it, but is a 4-inch refractor telescope at that price point a decent buy-in if I got it new?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
double post
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
Cloudy , windy weekend, so only a moon shot was really available 2 shot panorama, each shot a 60sec video with 50% stacked  Moon 09 July by Marc, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 12:34
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Now that I'm in an amateur astronomy group, I'm leaning pretty hard on having my own telescope. You can check out a scope like the Celestron 102 AZ Refractor. Does anyone in your group have refractors of the size you're looking at? At this price point pay a lot of attention to the mount as too many of them are just cheaply made plastic that's doomed to frustrate or fail. These cheap equatorial mounts are really not recommended for beginners. The best bang for your buck especially for visual astronomy would be a dobsonian. They are a bit bulky and weight could be an issue if you're not able, but you can get used a 6" or 8" scope for your budget. I've even seen a few online ads here and there for a 10" dob for $400 or less. There's also tabletop dobs as well with greater aperture and ease of use if a fullsize dob is too daunting. You'll be able to see so much more with that than a 4" refractor and a whole lot easier to use.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 16:17
|
|
|
Liquid Chicken posted:The best bang for your buck especially for visual astronomy would be a dobsonian. They are a bit bulky and weight could be an issue if you're not able, but you can get used a 6" or 8" scope for your budget. I've even seen a few online ads here and there for a 10" dob for $400 or less. There's also tabletop dobs as well with greater aperture and ease of use if a fullsize dob is too daunting. You'll be able to see so much more with that than a 4" refractor and a whole lot easier to use. I have a Celestron 102AZ refractor, upgraded the diagonal, focuser, eye pieces, and eventually bought an 8" Dobsonian and use that now. The only downside is the portability. The 102AZ mount is really flimsy. The wobbliness and float makes it challenging to see detail. I was going to upgrade the mount, but I realized for a bit more money I could just get a used Dob.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 17:23
|
|
|
Yooper posted:I have a Celestron 102AZ refractor, upgraded the diagonal, focuser, eye pieces, and eventually bought an 8" Dobsonian and use that now. The only downside is the portability. Yea, that's what I was getting at. It seems many of the cheaper refractor telescopes just have really cheap mounts and are a headache. As for the dobsonians there's ways to ease portability. The newer truss and collapsible tub designs break down pretty easy to transport in pieces and can fit in most standard cars if needed. I've seen a variety of cart and wheelbarrow designs from commercial options to DIY to get them around. Some folks just use padded hand trucks. I have a manual 10" Sky-Watcher classic dob that I can still carry whole the yard. Then there's the Orion xx16g and it's 220+ lbs. I made a cart for that beast, but on a cart it's pretty easy. For family trips I use a Celestron 8SE that breaks down and fits into a case. I got that used at a steal for $600 via Facebook Marketplace. The used market is definitely a nice option
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 17:56
|
|
|
I'm leaning pretty hard on a refracting telescope because it seems like there's little to no prep for getting it out and using it. I also rent a one bedroom apartment, so storage for a bigass dobsonian telescope is an issue. A Celestron 102AZ (or similar) was what I was looking into buying if I get something new, and I figured a better mount was going to be the first thing I'd need to upgrade. When they come off backorder or I find one from a different retailer, I'm just going to have to baby it until I can upgrade. Fortunately the park I have access to as an AAAP member is nice and flat. Too bad the glow from Pittsburgh's light pollution is visible over the hills on the south of it. What does a decent mount end up going for new? Star Man fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Jul 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
Star Man posted:I'm leaning pretty hard on a refracting telescope because it seems like there's little to no prep for getting it out and using it. I also rent a one bedroom apartment, so storage for a bigass dobsonian telescope is an issue. Refractors are probably much more city / small apartment friendly especially if you have to deal with any stairs. I wouldn't deal with a dob if I had to navigate stairs. For your urban situation and less than ideal seeing conditions and all, the 102AZ will be fine for the moon, larger planets and certain larger and brighter DSOs. One can look at the Orion Nebula just with average binoculars. Actually just thinking about it, have you thought about astronomy binoculars as well? They are well within your price range and can accomplish much the same as what you're looking at already. I have a pair of 20x80's from Oberwerk (company in Ohio) on a sturdy tripod. Easy to transport. Binos are great for wide-field viewing - downside, can't change the magnification (there's zoom binos, but they are largely advised against). If you're going to stick with the refractor, budget in some for a couple of better eyepieces. The ones that come with it really suck. Celestron X-Cel LX eyepiece would be good upgrades. Hell, even SvBony Redline eyepieces would too. Both can be had from our friend AliExpress for less.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 21:04
|
|
|
I do have a pair of binoculars that have been in the family for a while, and I did take them with me to my first star party in June. I know they're better for stuff like the Hyades and I think they can resolve the moons of Jupiter. The folks in the association I've joined have answered some questions about what kind of gear is needed to see a lot of deep sky objects and it takes a pretty fuckin big shaft to see a lot of the things I thought I could find when I was ten with whatever it was that my parents gave me for Christmas in 1996. Really I just want something I can take out to a friend's house or be able to call the shots when I go to a star party with my own gear. If I need access to better equipment, I now have a group of people willing to share that I can reach out to. After a year of good standing, I can get training on how to use the big poo poo at the two observatories.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 21:18
|
|
|
If you’re in the city, have space constraints, and are mostly going to be looking at bright high-ish magnification targets, you should get a mak. Even if you wanted to see all the Pleiades at once, with a 102mm mak, you can still do that with an ES68/34mm. Maks are low to no maintenance, lightweight, short, and MUCH easier to mount steadily than the equivalent refractor. The high focal ratio is easy on cheap eyepieces like the Svbony Redlines mentioned earlier. Ge those 4 redlines, eventually improve the stock diagonal, eventually go to scopestuff and get an upgraded visual back. (The cheap set screw stuff is only barely good enough.). Get a solar filter maybe for good sunspot days. All you need is an alt az mount with slow motion controls to keep Jupiter in the eyepiece. That 6mm redline gets you to over 200x with the 102mm mak, which (floaters notwithstanding) will be a nice view come opposition time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 22:13
|
|
|
I store my dob in the basement, what a pain in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 22:18
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I store my dob in the basement, what a pain in the rear end. I live on the third floor  duodenum posted:If you’re in the city, have space constraints, and are mostly going to be looking at bright high-ish magnification targets, you should get a mak. Even if you wanted to see all the Pleiades at once, with a 102mm mak, you can still do that with an ES68/34mm. I drive a Ford Escape, so lugging a refracting telescope isn't an issue. Really as long as it's something I can fit under my bed or in my closet in its case or bag, I can make do. I'll look into a mak too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 23:06
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I store my dob in the basement, what a pain in the rear end. That would be a pain in the rear end unless you have a walk out basement with a large sliding glass door. I roll out the front or back of the garage.  Best I could do with my 6th grade wood shop skills. I'm modified the cart a bit since then. Replaced the wing nuts with star knobs. Added some rubber foot bumpers to prevent the scope from sliding around in the cart. Also added an 80mm RACI and green laser pointer (latter replaced with a better quality William Optics style red dot finder when it's too cold).
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 00:06
|
|
|
Carina from last weekend. Trying to start to get my head around the processing side. Unguided at the moment, so a bit of work to do to get better stars  Carina Nebula by Marc, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 16:54
|
|
|
Any thoughts on a manual 8" dobsonian vs some of the smaller tripod-mounted reflectors that might have a goto/motorization? Specifically interested in the Apertura AD8, seems to come with a nice set of accessories. https://www.highpointscientific.com/apertura-ad8-8-inch-dobsonian-telescope-ad8 Photography is not really a major concern, it's more about being outside and loving around. Just trying to judge how hard it will be to find interesting stuff and keep it in view without tracking. EDIT: To be clear, not demanding you all to educate me about telescope options just wondering your personal experience/opinions. Thanks! Rescue Toaster fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Jul 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 03:03
|
|
|
I'd scheduled a work trip out to a Bortle 2 area near an interesting foreground for MW shots (ruins of an old west Army fort). No real moon. Rather than clouds being the "lol you made plans, let's screw that up" villain, the valley is pretty smoky. I was walking the site today for about an hour and trying to convince myself it wouldn't be so bad, and then scratching my eyes and clearing my throat the rest of the afternoon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 03:32
|
|
|
Using my canon lenses at the moment, but a 300mm focal length telescope is in the mail  It'll be interesting to see what the difference is between it and my 'L' lenses Bit of a messy setup 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 11:34
|
|
|
Rescue Toaster posted:Any thoughts on a manual 8" dobsonian vs some of the smaller tripod-mounted reflectors that might have a goto/motorization? My first scope was a lower end goto ($160 in '05) with a Newtonian and it was a pretty disappointing experience. Everything seemed so flimsy that the mount struggled to do much of anything. Within a couple of months the gears stripped out and I just returned the works. On a few occasions it worked well, and it was cool, so I think had I purchased the non-department store sort of thing it would have been a positive experience. The GOTO is a cool option if you get something that has a a good tripod, mount, that you add your own scope to. After a few years I picked up the Starsense Explorer kit, and while the mount was garbage, the app location system was really awesome. I now have that retrofitted to an 8" Dob with a 3d printed adapter. The Dob is definitely more of a pain to drag out. I tend to stick with fairly widefield eyepieces so constantly fiddling with keeping something centered in an eyepiece hasn't been an issue. But I imagine if you get a really narrow eyepiece and try to track a singular object it may be more of a challenge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 12:34
|
|
|
Whats the thread opinion for Maksutov Cassegrain telescopes for eyepiece viewing? I like the idea because of the relative compactness and decent aperture. There seems to be a few modestly priced mak cas scopes with motorized mounts out there and got curious again. I realize the focal length tends to lend itself to planetary viewing which is probably for the best given I don't have much dark sky access, but hypotheically if I took it out to some dark areas to try to look at some deep sky nebulas and galaxies and messier objects etc etc am I wasting my time due to narrow field view?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 13:17
|
|
|
I love maks for us visual observers stuck mostly in our Bortle 8 backyards. If you go out to a dark sky site to look for faint, ghostly, averted imagination objects, you're going to be starved for aperture more than anything else. Get a mak for home and join an astro club. My club has dobs you can check out and bigger dobs that stay out at the dark sky site you can sign up to use for the night. Thats 100x better than trucking the parts around, assembling, and collimating. Maks are great for seeing the things you can see from heavily light polluted areas, and tracking mounts are great for sharing that view with kids who can't smoothly follow something with a manual dob. A tracking dob gets expensive, but 8-10" of motorized glass is small enough to compete with the space needs of a mak-and-its-mount and big enough to spank it on the sky in resolution and light gathering. A mak might be better ergonomically, as sitting behind a tripod at an eyepiece in a diagonal is nicer than leaning over a tube, sometimes on a tall chair or a step ladder. Maks' high f ratio is easier on cheap eyepieces than an f/5 dob. f/5 isn't ridiculously fast, but it means you'd see edge distortions in a $150 Baader Hyperion and need to spend the $300+ for the Delos or even a coma corrector if you're really sensitive to it. None of that is a problem in a mak, which put up a nice flat field. oh my god do I ramble off the point, sorry
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 14:42
|
|
|
no no, by all means keep going. It's all great to me
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 14:55
|
|
|
I think I'm going to recommend a 120-130mm mak w/ goto to my dad instead of a 8" dob. Maybe the Skywatcher 127 AZ GTI or the Celestron NexStar (127SLT or 5SE I suppose, not sure the difference.) He's firmly in a bortle lower-4 range, which is great, and has a cabin with deck, so he could do a big dob. But he's had some knee/leg problems I worry about him hauling it around. But he's also very interested in solar viewing, which it sounds like the mak would be a lot better at. (With a good filter of course) Also if he gets interested in photography (he says he's not especially but he's always been a big camera guy) the mak & goto sounds a lot better. Or if he gets bored with it and I end up with it, it would be more useful in a high bortle area like I live in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 16:19
|
|
|
The 127mm mak on the Nexstar SLT or GT is maxing out that mount, I don't know about the AZGTi. When you're under-mounted at high magnification trying to fine tune the focus, your view will blur from the lightest touch of the focus knob, then you'll turn the knob and guess where the focus might be, then let it go and wait for it to settle down before you try again. The 127mm is great, but it lives in that zone between mounts, I think. Better to put it on a Nexstar SE or something. If your dad is out in Bortle 4 territory, he needs a dob with wheels on it like a dolly so he can hand-cart it out to his observing spot. If he can use the finder, he can browse around and find things by hand out there with a reasonably dark sky. If I were retired under a Bortle 4 sky, I would love that. 10" or more. If you want to consider photography, that's a can of worms that takes you and your money in a different direction. edit: the 5SE is an SCT, not a mak. Still decent, would need more attention to collimation, slightly wider field of view. Also, if your dad is observing from a deck, you might consider the vibration. Better to be on the ground, I think, though I've never observed from a deck, and decks vary in rigidity I suppose. duodenum fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Jul 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
duodenum posted:The 127mm mak on the Nexstar SLT or GT is maxing out that mount, I don't know about the AZGTi. When you're under-mounted at high magnification trying to fine tune the focus, your view will blur from the lightest touch of the focus knob, then you'll turn the knob and guess where the focus might be, then let it go and wait for it to settle down before you try again. The 127mm is great, but it lives in that zone between mounts, I think. Better to put it on a Nexstar SE or something. Gotcha. I missed the SCT/mak part. I was searching more and saw the same thing as you said about the mounts, that in fact the 5SE was a bad value for it's price as it's large for the mount, it makes way more sense to go up to the 6SE for a much larger mount in virtually the same price range. So we'll chat again about whether a big dob or something like the 6SE makes sense for him. He apparently doesn't have a great view from the deck (the building and a tree line block more than I remembered) so he goes quite a way up the path to the top of the pasture. That might be too far for him to haul a dob, but we'll talk some more. Thanks for all the help!
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 19:28
|
|
|
 Celestron finally paired the Starsense setup with an 8" Dob for $800. They also have a 10" for $1100. That's going to be a pretty solid newbie rig if it isn't all garbage components. People really love using the app to steer my Dob around, for whatever reason it's not as daunting that way, and it's an almost instant reward.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 19:37
|
|
|
Yooper posted:Starsense setup with an 8" Dob That is very cool, thats what they should have started with!
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
Can anybody point to an article that describes how to think about focal length/f-ratios for telescopes? I understand how these work for regular camera lenses but the way telescope people talk about them seems pretty different - using absolute rather than relative aperture to describe light gathering ability, basically. Also, when talking about field of view or magnification it seems like that's usually described as a function of the eyepiece, though I presume focal length is the main variable when using a camera where you don't have an eyepiece? I've seen a bunch of telescope reviews that mention focal length and f-ratios for various telescopes but never describe what the actual implications of those numbers are for how you use the scope or what tradeoffs they imply. I suppose it probably doesn't make a big difference for a beginner setup, but I feel like I should understand the basics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 19:29
|
|
|
I don't have an article handy but here's my best explanation. First of all leave behind photographic definitions of aperture and f/stops and whatnot entirely. It's easier to explain it from the ground up for telescopes. In telescopes, "aperture" refers to the diameter of the main light-gathering optic, be it a lens or mirror (what's referred to as an "objective"). Aperture dictates the sheer amount of light the optic can collect. "Focal length" is the distance between the objective, and the point where the optic reaches focus, or "focal point." "Focal ratio" is what you see as an f/-number on telescope specifications. It is the ratio of the focal length of a telescope to the aperture of the telescope. Example; I have a reflecting telescope with a mirror 6" in diameter and a focal length of 48". Therefore, the focal ratio is f/8. Focal length of a telescope, combined with the focal length of the eyepiece, dictates a telescope's magnification. It goes by the following formula: Magnification = Telescope focal length / eyepiece focal length So for that 48" focal length telescope (1200mm), a 25mm eyepiece will give a magnification around 48x Consequently, the longer the focal length of a telescope, the more magnification it will give for a given eyepiece. A 25mm eyepiece in a 6" f/5 telescope gives 30x, and 60x in an f/10. Telescopes with very long focal lengths are restricted to higher magnifications (and consequently much narrower fields of view) than telescopes with shorter focal lengths. So while a 6" f/10 telescope may be great for looking at planets and double stars at high magnifications, it's not great for looking at extended deep sky objects that require lower magnification. For specializing in those objects you generally want shorter focal ratios to give wide fields of view at low power. Generally speaking, for an objective with no measurable optical defects, a longer focal ratio will give a higher-contrast image. A consequence of that, however, is greater required exposure times for photography. Generally you see shorter focal ratios on telescopes primarily geared towards photography because of this. A short focal ratio has consequences. Achieving precise focus is a bit trickier because the light cone coming into the eyepiece or camera is a lot steeper, so the "sweet spot" is a lot narrower. Precide optical Collimation is also a LOT more critical as a result of this. Short focal ratios also tend to be more taxing on eyepieces in terms of revealing aberrations and imperfections in cheap eyepiece designs. Short focal ratio Newtonians suffer from an optical imperfection known as "coma" that can require auxiliary lenses to correct. Shorter focal ratio optics are also much more difficult to manufacture accurately so good ones tend to be more expensive. I can try to answer any specific questions you have from there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
Cool, so if I understand correctly, if you're comparing two telescopes with the same absolute aperture, the longer f-ratio will have a longer focal length, a narrower field of view in either a camera or with an eyepiece of the same length, be slower for photography, but easier to engineer/manufacture for a given price point? That actually helps a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
Bingo!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 21:52
|
|
|
I'd also add that for visual use, longer f/ratio telescopes will be easier to use and generally give you better images at a lower price. They're also way less fussy with cheap eyepieces. There's a saying that "everything's great at f/8," meaning once you reach that focal ratio and above, things become a lot more forgiving from a standpoint of eyepiece selection, collimation and ease of finding precise focus. I've noticed that even the difference between a 6" f/8 dobsonian and an 8" f/6 dobsonian (same focal length, 1200mm) can be significant vis-a-vis eyepiece fussiness. There's a reason my favorite scope is my 6" f/8 dobsonian. It's optically perfect, easy to collimate, and not fussy with cheap eyepieces. Not too long to be unusable for deep sky, not so short as to be poo poo with planets. A happy medium for the observing I like to do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 22:01
|
|
|
Cool, thanks. I know a couple reviews I've seen described a telescope as good for newbies after mentioning an f-ratio, but didn't explain why.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 22:09
|
|
|
Base Emitter posted:Cool, thanks. I know a couple reviews I've seen described a telescope as good for newbies after mentioning an f-ratio, but didn't explain why. You'll also hear that long focal length telescopes are called "slow" like the Celestron SE SCT telescopes and short focal lengths called "fast" like the larger dobsonians. It's true the faster the scope the greater the need for well corrected, more expensive eyepieces like those sold by Baader, APM, Pentax, Explore Scientific and of course Tele Vue. One can easily spend more on one eyepiece than on their 8" dobsonian. However, one the flip side, the faster ratio dobsonians are far cheaper per inch of aperture compared to any other type of telescope. This is really helpful for the wallet if you're interesting in visual astronomy and want to see some of the dimmer objects with a large dobs greater light collecting abilities. Downside if of course the weight of the larger models and they go up in price quickly if you add options like goto (at this point only Sky-Watcher can offer this for commercial models as Orion might not have goto dobs any day soon in the near future). AstroZamboni mentioned coma as one of the visual aberrations that can afflict viewing in faster ratio telescopes. It mainly affected the out viewing area when you're using the eyepiece and tends to be worse with eyepieces that have wider apparent fields of view (AFOV). Well corrected eyepieces from the brands mentioned above can help, but also the use of a coma corrector can eliminate most if not all coma depending on the eyepiece used. Brands include the top of the line Tele Vue Parracorr II, but also budget friendly models from GSO and it's clones sold by Orion and Apertura.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 04:13
|
|
|
Excellent points that I should have mentioned!
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 22:23
|
|
|
I don't know if any of you guys are Costco members but they have the 10" ES Dob back in stock.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
Went to another star party last weekend and got that itch again for my own hardware. I did come across a website that had some breakdowns on the quality of different manufacturers. I'm not sure of the accuracy of their claims about the build quality being worse for a lot of telescope brands, but it's factored into my search. I've got a contractually-mandated backpay check coming in October from my old job as a postal clerk, and I plan on sinking that into a telescope. This mak by Explore Scientific seems to hit a sweet spot for planets and Star Man fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Aug 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 15:59
|
|