|
Hi everyone. I got my first telescope a few months ago and finally got to take it out in a pretty dark area. There's some really fantastic photography in this thread, to which mine doesn't compare, but I'm pretty proud of it regardless, considering I just held my point and shoot up to the lens of the telescope.  It isn't really my intent to do any sort of photography, but I do amuse myself that it works (marginally) this way at all. So what is good to look at this time of year? I'm disappointed that Jupiter and M42 aren't up right now, and while I do have a copy of Turn Left at Orion, it's currently 500 miles away. For reference, I have one of these: http://www.telescope.com/control/telescopes/reflector-telescopes/orion-spaceprobe-130st-equatorial-reflector-telescope. DorianGravy fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Jun 27, 2010 |
#
?
Jun 27, 2010 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
DorianGravy posted:So what is good to look at this time of year? I'm disappointed that Jupiter and M42 aren't up right now, and while I do have a copy of Turn Left at Orion, it's currently 500 miles away. For reference, I have one of these: http://www.telescope.com/control/telescopes/reflector-telescopes/orion-spaceprobe-130st-equatorial-reflector-telescope. In the summer, there are some great and easy to see deep sky objects like M8 and M13. I'd toss out some more information, but I'm browsing on my phone right now. These should all be visible in your scope, but M8 is pretty huge. It's a great binocular object, or naked eye object in very dark skies, but with a telescope you can get some nice nebulosity in the core of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2010 02:14
|
|
|
The Crescent nebula in cygnus, I'm nearly running out of decent widefield targets in this region, not sure where to head to next. I'm still finding imaging with the ZS66 a lot more fun that working with my dodgy old reflector, joys of using a tool built for the job. There is an interesting nebula region around the star Deneb with a couple of bright emission nebula within the field of view for my setup, plus the gamma cygni nebula region looks like a solid target for me. DorianGravy posted:So what is good to look at this time of year? I'm disappointed that Jupiter and M42 aren't up right now, and while I do have a copy of Turn Left at Orion, it's currently 500 miles away. Tis the season for hunting globular clusters, start with the M13 the great globular cluster in hercules, loads of others around now as well, have a hunt around on stellarium. Globulars are some of my favourite objects for visual observing. Jekub fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Jul 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2010 17:01
|
|
|
Excellent, was wondering if there was a thread for amateur astronomy. Bellingham, WA goon here packing an 8" dob and a 6" newtonian--hoping to branch out into astrophotography when the budget allows for it--currently neither telescopes are AP-friendly, since the newtonian doesn't have a motorized mount... Thinking about going for a schmidt-cass style scope for astrophotography. Anybody have any comments about going that route? Seems to be the most portable option, and I think I'd be happy selling off the Newtonian to replace it. I also own a DSLR, though I'd love to invest in a CCD eventually as well. One of the local guys up here has his own observatory, with a high-end Takahashi hard-mounted into the foundation, and has a separate computer partition that he uses to track, correct, and take exposures. But considering his income is far better than mine I think I will have to slowly build my setup over the next few years to get anything decent going. I'm also a bit curious about how much on average have any of the photographers here spent on equipment? Since the only person I know who does it has about a $30,000 setup I can't really use him as a baseline. Loving all of the photos by the way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 12:46
|
|
|
kanis posted:I'm also a bit curious about how much on average have any of the photographers here spent on equipment? Since the only person I know who does it has about a $30,000 setup I can't really use him as a baseline. Painful question that, but lets see, probably around £4k, so around $6k if I include all my gear and the shed, but I did get quite a few items second hand, and I'm rounding up on random bits and bobs which accumulate with time. I should say that if I was to just include my imaging kit without shed of other random bits the cost would be more like $2.5k My latest image, a small part of the vast IC1318 emission nebula in Cygnus known as the Butterfly, the bright star is Sadr, the central star of the constellation. The small cluster at the top is NGC6910 
Jekub fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Jul 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 22:24
|
|
|
Very nice image! Stacked or single exposure? Thanks for the cost bits, makes it a little more realistic on my end. $6-8K seems like a worthwhile investment over the span of a few years. I think my first new acquisition will be a new scope, and then invest in more digital imaging equipment beyond that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 22:44
|
|
|
I took some afocal images of Jupiter with my digital camera and a pair of tiny field binoculars. The color faults meant the shape of Jupiter wasn't discernable, and stacking would be pointless, but it was fun to see how fast the Earth actually rotates. I think I'll have better luck with the moon or some constellations. Vir fucked around with this message at 09:34 on Jul 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 01:02
|
|
|
What sort of rig does it take to get into radioastronomy at even the beginner level? Is there some way to pick up a used satellite tv antenna and attach some sort of amplifier to it or do you need something considerably bigger/with more gain? I'm actually not sure whether to post this in this thread or the radio thread, actually, but it seems a bit more appropriate here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 01:57
|
|
|
Markov Chain Chomp posted:What sort of rig does it take to get into radioastronomy at even the beginner level? Is there some way to pick up a used satellite tv antenna and attach some sort of amplifier to it or do you need something considerably bigger/with more gain? I'm actually not sure whether to post this in this thread or the radio thread, actually, but it seems a bit more appropriate here. I think you are going to need a sat dish at least as large as an old C-Band one. There isn't a ton of amateur radio astronomy stuff out there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 05:49
|
|
|
ValhallaSmith posted:I think you are going to need a sat dish at least as large as an old C-Band one. There isn't a ton of amateur radio astronomy stuff out there. I was afraid of that. Maybe when I retire some day I'll think about pursuing this hobby again. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 17:57
|
|
|
Markov Chain Chomp posted:I was afraid of that. Maybe when I retire some day I'll think about pursuing this hobby again. Well, the best sort of hobby is one nobody has done before at an amateur level.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 21:30
|
|
|
Actually I've seen people use a smaller European Ku-band satellite antenna bought at the supermarket for radio astronomy. Also, an old satellite antenna might be easier for you to put up than an astronomy yagi, especially if you live in a restrictive area where discreet satellite dishes are allowed, but big yagis are banned. So I don't think the antenna itself will be the bulk of your cost - you might even get one cheap at a scrap yard. I think the tracking system and the receiver setup will be the most expensive part of the system. (I assume you have a computer to use for it.) Edit: Oh, and another thing: You don't have to do things all alone. For example, you can can connect your antenna to others and participate in a big internet-connected interferometer.* Or you don't have to buy an antenna, but can help out with analyzing data which other people collected. *: Interferometry is really freaking cool, creating the equivalent of recievers several thousand kilometers in diameter. Vir fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Jul 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 22:23
|
|
|
Vir posted:some awesome stuff Whoa, you had way more information on this than I expected to get from this thread.  I feel like radioastronomy is somehow even cooler/better than taking photos (no disrespect to the posters itt). It also helps that I really, really love the movie Contact.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 03:46
|
|
|
Yeah, I've just been reading a bit about it - I haven't done any radio astronomy myself, apart from participating in SETI@home. The main point is that you don't have to start out by buying expensive kit. Just read some forums and mailing lists and get in touch with people, perhaps in your area. Amateur clubs sometimes even get to play with some of the professional rigs, and just like in ham radio or optical astronomy there might be some used gear available, or maybe you'll build your own. Actually ham radio and radio astronomy intersect as well. My local ham club do stuff like moon bounce Earth-moon-earth (EME) communication, and some of the same gear can be used to image the moon. For example, here's some Swiss amateurs who measured the radio temperature of the moon with a store-bought 80 cm in diameter Ku-band(?) satellite dish operating in the X band (10.8 GHz/2.77cm): http://www.monstein.de/astronomypublications/MoonEnglishHtml/Moon2001V2.htm The big dish is just used as a mount in this experiment  Click here for the full 640x480 image. Instead, you can build your own tracking system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yldQFXWVfE also good for communicating via amateur radio satellites, even though you really only need a 5W handheld radio with a simple telescopic antenna for that  (N5AFV operating LEO ham satellites Caribbean. Photo by KE4RQZ) A yagi antenna is easier though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HfvmU_utI8 Sending morse code via the MOON  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdfBgwgZy5c Vir fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Jul 25, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 05:08
|
|
|
kanis posted:Very nice image! Stacked or single exposure? Sorry, busy couple of days, that one was a stack of 39 x 5 minute exposures, 195 minute total. Plus all the flat, dark and bias frames for calibration.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 19:16
|
|
|
 Click here for the full 800x600 image. The Moon. Canon PowerShot A570 IS afocal with Astro Mercury 8x26 binoculars. 7 images (1/160 s exposures) and 3 darks stacked in GIMP, and then some unsharp masking. I have the CHDK installed, which gives me raw capability, but this time I just used JPEG mode. Vir fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Jul 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 02:58
|
|
|
Anyone else unable to shake the impression that Tycho crater is actually the Moon's south pole and the rays are lines of longitude?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 04:59
|
|
|
Bolkovr posted:Anyone else unable to shake the impression that Tycho crater is actually the Moon's south pole and the rays are lines of longitude? To me it always makes the moon look like an orange.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 04:12
|
|
|
Are there any focusing knob modifications I can do for my Celestron 114GT? At medium to high magnifications, the focus knob needs a miniscule amount of turning to bring the image into focus and it's almost impossible to be precise with such a clunky and high-geared focuser. I read that attaching a larger knob would help, but I don't even know where to begin with that. Are there any resources or how-to's that I can look at or for what materials to use? http://www.celestron.com/c3/product.php?ProdID=528 I wonder why they even bother making such clunky focusing mechanisms on telescopes anymore, even low end scopes, instead of gearing down the focuser for more precision.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 05:08
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:Are there any focusing knob modifications I can do for my Celestron 114GT? At medium to high magnifications, the focus knob needs a miniscule amount of turning to bring the image into focus and it's almost impossible to be precise with such a clunky and high-geared focuser. One thing you can do is remove the focuser from the scope and re-lubricate it. All Celestron scopes are manufactured by Synta technologies in China. They also manufacture most scopes by Orion and SkyWatcher, and they're the parent company of Celestron. While Synta typically makes great poo poo, they use the weirdest gluey crap to lubricate everything. It's sticky, has the consistency of tar, and has terrible thermal properties. Re-lubricating the focuser will do wonders towards making it easier to focus at high magnifications. First, after removing the focuser from the optical tube assembly, dismantle the focuser entirely. Keep an eye on how it all goes together. Now, unless I'm very much mistaken, the 114GT has a corrective Barlow lens built into the focuser drawtube. If this lens CAN be unscrewed and removed, do so and set it aside. If it can't, care must be taken to prevent any cleaning chemicals from coming in contact with the lens surface, as the optical coatings may get damaged. Now, you'll need the following: WD40 Formula 409 degreaser White Lithium grease A toothbrush you never plan to use again Liberally spray WD40 everywhere you find the "Gluebricant," particularly in the gear surfaces. Let it absorb for about 10 minutes. WD40 is pretty much the best degreaser solvent on the planet for this, but you'll need a second degreaser to get the WD40 off. Use the toothbrush to scrub out the now combined WD40 and Gluebricant, using the 409 degreaser to further loosen the combination. Thoroughly wipe it all off with a wet paper towel. If any Gluebricant remains, repeat as necessary. Once the focuser components are completely clean and dry, lubricate the gear surfaces with the white lithium grease. Reassemble the focuser and adjust the tightness of the screws holding the mating gears and backing panel together. You want the drawtube to move smoothly and freely when you turn the knob, but also to stay where you leave it. If the screws are too loose, the weight of an eyepiece will cause the drawtube to move of its own accord. You need to find a happy medium of tightness. When all this is done, reinstall the focuser on the tube and you should be good to go! This will make focusing MUCH easier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 17:19
|
|
|
Tonight is going to be the peak of the Perseid meteor shower. If your skies are cooperative, go spend some time outside after midnight looking towards the east. It's projected to be ~60-100 meteors per hour.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 23:50
|
|
|
On my Celestron 130EQ, the drawtube wobbles within the focuser assembly. A couple of layers of tape surrounding the drawtube, and now it fits nice and snug.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2010 18:13
|
|
|
Hobby astronomer Erlend Rønnekleiv (homepage: http://www.eronn.net/astro/default_eng.htm) in Norway, brought the solar telescope belonging to the Trondheim Astronomical Society with him to demonstrate it to the public on the street last Saturday (August 7th). After that he brought it home to a garden coffee party, and while using it there he was able to photograph that solar eruption we had last weekend: http://www.taf-astro.no/nyheter/2010/soleksplosjon.htm They got a story in the newspaper: http://www.adressa.no/nyheter/trondheim/article1516359.ece
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2010 20:06
|
|
|
I was at my club's solar star party this morning and got to see my first flare through a Lunt solar systems H-alpha scope. It was loving righteous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2010 21:04
|
|
|
Hey guys. VERY VERY newb question here - I am wanting to jump into this, so I have a few... * Any opinions on the NexStar 5se? I can get one from a coworker for $300...it retails for $700, so on the face it seems a good deal. * Would I be able to connect my Nikon D90 to this and take pictures? * Would I be able to see the farther planets/stars? I really want to see some of the stuff you guys have been posting - it is so amazingly beautiful. Galaxies and nebulas - unreal. Thank you so much for any advice - and please keep up the pictures - i have several fo them on rotating desktops now. :-) [edit] On their web site ( http://www.celestron.com/c3/product.php?ProdID=414 ) they say the camera thing is possible - how exactly does that work? Do you put the camera up to the viewfinder or is it somehow cabled? (See, newb!) pipebomb fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Aug 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2010 20:25
|
|
|
pipebomb posted:Hey guys. VERY VERY newb question here - I am wanting to jump into this, so I have a few... You WOULD be able to attach a camera with special adapters. Astrophotography, however, is nowhere near as simple as hooking up a camera and pressing a button. It takes a lot of discipline and practice to get images that look even halfway decent. As for nebulae, galaxies, etc, you can definitely see many brighter ones with a 5" Schmidt-Cassegrain. Be prepared, however, that you need to get outside of city lights to see them and most of them will look like smudges of light. If you expect them to look like the photos you see, you will be disappointed. CCDs and photographic plates are much more sensitive to fine details and colors than the human eye. The NexStar 5 is an excellent telescope, and 300 bucks is a steal. It WILL show excellent detail on most of the solar system (Mercury, Uranus and Neptune will be pretty hard to see, but still there. You can forget pluto - WAY too dim to see with a 5" scope). I say go for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2010 20:50
|
|
|
Thanks much. I hope to ask smarter questions of you guys in the future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 08:06
|
|
|
Jupiter from this morning. I have a few more shots to put together, but I'm at work. I'll try to get them posted this weekend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 10:33
|
|
|
Just found this thread. I read/post on CN a bit under the same name. I have an NEQ6 (EQMOD with a self-made bluetooth adapter) and a TS GSO RC 6" (same as the $299 AT6RC except with the dielectric 99% reflective coatings of the fancier models, and upgraded to the monorail focuser), plus my father's 1984 orange-tube C5, shown here without the optics, they were away for recoating (at Orion Optics UK) at the time. Still haven't reassembled it   Having suffered 5 weeks worth of New Telescope Curse weather, I haven't gotten any neat pictures to show yet, and having started university is going to put a cramp in my observing time, but I'll get around to it!
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 16:12
|
|
|
After reading this thread the urge to get into astrophotography has reappeared! I have several questions though so forgive me if they are noobish. 1: I live in Las Vegas so the city lights are very bright. There are several locations not to far out of the city that are pretty dark. Would being able to go out into the desert be a good idea with a telescope/laptop/camera setup? 2: also its windy here always, so exactly how bad would that interfere with my viewing? I see there are a lot of telescope links etc for purchasing them, but I have no idea what I'm looking for. So if its worth getting into for me based on the previous questions, what kind of telescope would you guys recommend for a beginner that would have to travel to his site? I'd like to hook up my Cannon Rebel XTi to it as well! Not sure on what other accessories I would need to get started ether. Thanks for the help!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2010 10:32
|
|
|
By just having a look online, I don't even live in the US: http://cleardarksky.com/csk/prov/Nevada_charts.html http://www.jshine.net/astronomy/dark_sky/index.php?lat=35.98689628443789&lng=-115.33447265625&zoom=7&pollution=true&selected_id=1 (And many more) Lots of well-used sites available, but you probably need to get into at least a green zone, preferably a blue, to be happy with the results, you will be able to do astrophotography in yellow through red zones using narrowband filters and get good results. Visually, not really so much fun. If you can get away from light trespass, you can manage a bit better, but that tends to be hard anywhere near a town. You apparently have several astronomy associations to choose from, I would try to get in touch with them and see what they have to offer for help and advice. It's usually more fun than going alone, too. For photography, I would heartily recommend the scope I just posted about, it's made for it, and insanely cheap for the quality. (zones: Bortle Dark-Sky Scale) As for wind, it's not good. A heavy mount and a short optical tube helps decrease the mechanical impact. What it'll do to your seeing is another matter. Just as a quick overview, you would need an optical tube (the "telescope" as such), a M42/0.75 (Tamron, or most commonly known as T-thread) T2 ring adapter for Canon, a T-thread to 2" focuser tube adapter (Baader Planetarium makes a nice one, but there are many), and a reliable mount. For mounts, I would recommend some variant on the SkyWatcher EQ6/Orion Atlas (exactly same product, different color scheme), possibly the HEQ5 if you have a light-weight tube, it's a bit less heavy but also has lower load capacity. The EQ6 weighs somewhere around 35 kg in all with the drive head, tripod and counterweights, it's not something you want to carry long distances! Any mount worth its salt is bound to be massive, though, the EQ6 just goes a bit too far with the amounts of cast aluminium. Your alternatives in order of greatly increasing price are: EQ6/Atlas $1200-1400, Celestron CGEM ** $1400, CGE Pro $5000, Losmandy GM-8 $2500, G11 $3200, Titan $6000, some other alternatives I know even less about (Takahashi, Vixen, probably all good & expensive), and a bunch of super expensive Astro-Physics mounts I'm not even going to bother with listing. They're probably all good, and all cost a sizable fraction of the price of my car. Then you get into the serious stuff at $15000+… ** Hardware wise probably on par with the EQ6 when they work, they have a very poor record of actually working-as-delivered though. The hand controller software for Celestron mounts is much better, however, even though they're all manufactured by Synta. That's a lot of infodump all at once, but you need to realize that for astrophotography, your money should go something like 80% into the mount, 20% into everything else. Without a solid mount nothing else can help you get sharp pictures. As for the optics, an APS-C sensor is big enough for you to need well-corrected optics, that means coma corrector & field flattener lenses for the SCTs (exception made for EdgeHD that comes with a fixed corrector) and Newtonians. The Ritchey-Chrétien design is less dependent on it (this is basically why it exists), but still needs a field flattener for larger sensors. APS-C is probably fine, anything larger, definitely. There's a couple interesting wacky alternatives out there, notably a few Schmidt-Newtonians and Maksutov-Newtonians, Synta makes a 190mm mak-newt astrograph that's pretty good, but it's more than twice the price of the 152mm GSO RC which is probably optically better and at least weighs a hell of a lot less, so… This part is a jungle, and the decision largely comes down to how much money you're willing to spend, and how much you want to optimize for photography vs visual use. Astronomy is always compromises, no scope is very good at everything (though something like an Orion Optics UK 300mm/f4 SPX comes pretty close (on a hefty enough mount)  - totally getting one at some point)
Wolf on Air fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Aug 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2010 14:26
|
|
|
knowonecanknow posted:1: I live in Las Vegas so the city lights are very bright. There are several locations not to far out of the city that are pretty dark. Would being able to go out into the desert be a good idea with a telescope/laptop/camera setup? I guess your only limitation would be the size of your car and your budget for the mount and scope. knowonecanknow posted:2: also its windy here always, so exactly how bad would that interfere with my viewing?  Click here for the full 800x600 image. The Moon. Canon PowerShot A570 IS afocal with Safari 10x30 binoculars. 6 images averaged, no darks, some unsharp mask. The camera didn't fit as easily with the binoculars as with the 8x26 set, and there was some more cloud, so even if the 10x30's have more magnification, I didn't focus and shoot as well with them. I think I need to make a mount. Here's a photo without the binoculars - 10 second exposure:  Click here for the full 800x600 image.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2010 14:31
|
|
|
M31: Andromeda Galaxy This was about an hour and a half exposure. 2500 ISO. Half of the pictures used a broadband filter, and the other half had none. Also, I'm glad to see so many other people posting. Astrophotography is surely a game of patience, but the results (even from a not so great telescope like mine) are amazing. Keep up the good work guys! Crusty_mabiba fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Aug 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2010 15:35
|
|
|
Well, my other purchase fell through, but I plan to order this tomorrow ( http://www.telescopes.com/telescopes/catadioptric-telescopes/celestronnexstar4setelescopeultimatepackage.cfm ). I think it will be a good starter package. On another note, do any of you have iPads and have you seen 'Star Walk'? it's the one featured in the comemrcials and lets you move the iPad around and it shows you where celestial items are in the sky. Very cool, played with last night. http://vitotechnology.com/star-walk.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2010 20:34
|
|
|
pipebomb posted:On another note, do any of you have iPads and have you seen 'Star Walk'? it's the one featured in the comemrcials and lets you move the iPad around and it shows you where celestial items are in the sky. Very cool, played with last night. http://vitotechnology.com/star-walk.html There's a very similar program called Google Sky Maps that I've been using with Android for this very purpose. I think it will work on any Android powered phone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2010 20:57
|
|
|
pipebomb posted:Well, my other purchase fell through, but I plan to order this tomorrow ( http://www.telescopes.com/telescope...matepackage.cfm ). I think it will be a good starter package. That should be fine, though personally I would have liked at least 5 inches of aperture. I think that mount is enough to carry one later if you should find a cheap OTA. The mount is good, and NexStar is great. The eyepiece kit is the usual questionable Plössls, Celestron's E-LUX Plössls are fine, the ones in the kit seem to be a different make. Don't expect miracles, as eyepieces should be decent amount of the total cost of a visual observing system. Still, they should do the job. (I'm a TeleVue-is-worth-the-$300+ person, so make of that what you will.) Beware of the barlow, it may do more harm than good, though. This is a lot more money, so don't take this as a that-scope-sucks-buy-this-one, just as a heads up: The new C6 is a really nice midway scope at $799 *: http://www.telescopes.com/telescopes/catadioptric-telescopes/celestronnexstar6se.cfm Just for comparison, relative light gathering: 6²/4² = 2.25 times as much light for 6" as compared to 4". * but don't forget the cost of proper eyepieces, TeleVue radians are neat and have a pretty nice sale going on: http://www.televue.com/engine/TV3_page.asp?id=146&seq=0&max=1. They also invented the modern Plössl, and those are pretty affordable, and probably the best in the category. This is the top-tier premium stuff, practically everything else is cheaper for the same category, but often optically worse as well. I'm picky. Wolf on Air fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Aug 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2010 23:10
|
|
|
Probably my best astronomy purchase was a Baader 8-24mm Zoom eyepiece (~180 used, $225 new if you can find it). Almost all zooms are terrible, but this one is done right. It is a constant zoom with clicks at certain points, and mostly parfocal, so you will only have to do minor focus adjustment. It won't match the FOV or sharpness of a great TeleVue, but I love the convenience of it. They're hard to find due to their popularity, but if you're wanting to take care of the typical range of eyepieces it's a solid purchase. The best part is if you get more into the hobby (or less), you can probably recoup most of your cost, as this eyepiece is a couple years old and still reselling for 80% of it's retail price regularly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 04:37
|
|
|
I've heard good things about the Hyperion Zoom, I have a Hyperion 21mm that I'm pretty happy with, at least! They just released the Mark III version, which has reportedly been Really Hard To Get, but really good. The one thing to watch out for in those is the apparent-field-of-view reduction to 50° at the 24mm end, which is where you usually want to have a wide aFOV. Which doesn't mean it isn't still a great zoom, but there's a difference between 50° and 68°. Speaking of drooling over eyepieces - that 110° Ethos SX 3.7mm. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 07:06
|
|
|
Bought a Celestron 102SLT refractor to complement my 10" dobs as a more portable scope but I'm kind of disappointed in the stability of the tripod. I can't extend the legs to standing height or the view gets real shaky even on my 21mm baader. Any suggestions besides keep the legs retracted? Also, I have a $50 Celestron 8-24 zoom that works pretty drat well for being 1/4 the price of the Baader click-stop. Hardly any noticeable difference in image quality looking at Jupiter through it at ~21mm vs my 21mm Baader, just slightly smaller fov.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
Metajo Cum Dumpster posted:Bought a Celestron 102SLT refractor to complement my 10" dobs as a more portable scope but I'm kind of disappointed in the stability of the tripod. I can't extend the legs to standing height or the view gets real shaky even on my 21mm baader. Hanging a wight from the center tripod spreader helps, as does tightening down the bolts that attach the tripod legs to the mount. Additionally, try getting a set of vibration suppression pads to place under the feet of the tripod. Some people dismiss them as a gimmick without trying them, but they really work. Also, ALL tripods are more stable with the legs retracted. Build yourself a "Denver Chair" (instructions in Star Ware, second edition, or google "Denver Astronomy Chair"), keep the legs retracted and enjoy the view while sitting down. Trust me, your back will thank you. It will go well with your dob, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 23:35
|
|