|
Binary Badger posted:I know there are some rich goons out there, anyone bought an eVoscope yet? Wait, so it is a Newtonian that plate solves, stacks, and displays it semi-live in an eyepiece? That's pretty sweet really.
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
Cithen posted:Is the orion dobsonian 8" something I should wait on to get back in stock as my first telescope? I've been waiting on backorder for the last month or so and it has an estimated in stock date in late March. The Orion comes out of the same Synta factory as the Sky Watcher dobs, and Apertura, GSO, and I think Zhumell all come out of a Taiwanese factory. All of them are equally likely to be good, and both factories have lots of practice and are a lot more consistent than they used to be decades ago. I’d recommend any of them, so you can look at several and see if a competitor is in stock somewhere. Orion XT8 Sky Watcher S11610 Apertura AD8 Zhumell Z8 GSO “8” Classic Dobsonian” and probably other rebrands like Omegon and Neewer and such Explore Scientific (Firstlight 203mm) and Meade (Lightbridge) have their own dob designs, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 18:04
|
|
|
Cithen posted:Is the orion dobsonian 8" something I should wait on to get back in stock as my first telescope? I've been waiting on backorder for the last month or so and it has an estimated in stock date in late March. Is the 10” in stock? To me much of the draw of a dob (beyond simplicity) is light gathering. A 10” would be a decent choice if you are OK with moving it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 14:32
|
|
|
I bought Yooper's Star Adventurer Pro so I could put my D850 and 300/2.8 on it and start taking some pictures and literally every night since I got it has been balls-freezing cold and cloudy AF. I am irked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 03:42
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I bought Yooper's Star Adventurer Pro so I could put my D850 and 300/2.8 on it and start taking some pictures and literally every night since I got it has been balls-freezing cold and cloudy AF. I am irked. I've become acutely aware of how difficult it is to find a night that isn't frigidly cold, terribly windy, or cloudy in some shape or way. Can really see why people move to Arizona that really enjoy this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 13:11
|
|
|
Don't forget nights without a Moon washing out the sky and literally reducing the amount of visible stars to like two- Rigel and Sirius
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 00:58
|
|
|
Hasselblad posted:Is the 10” in stock? To me much of the draw of a dob (beyond simplicity) is light gathering. A 10” would be a decent choice if you are OK with moving it. Amazon seems to have a bunch of Z10s https://www.amazon.com/Zhumell-Deluxe-Dobsonian-Reflector-Telescope/dp/B002SCUZT4
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
Yeah, it seems all the 8"ers are out of stock everywhere. I guess I'll give some thought to dropping some extra cash on the 10". Thanks for the ideas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 20:01
|
|
|
Can someone explain Deep Sky Stacker's score? I get that it's a relative measure of how useful each frame will be for stacking into the final image, but what I don't understand is what is a good minimum value? 1000? 500? 100?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2021 00:56
|
|
|
Cithen posted:Yeah, it seems all the 8"ers are out of stock everywhere. I guess I'll give some thought to dropping some extra cash on the 10". Thanks for the ideas. Yup, if you are comfortable carrying out the 8", drop the bills on the 10. Dobs are light gathering buckets, and that 2" makes a difference. Here are some Orion Mods that may be good for the Z as well: http://www.orion-xt10.com/mods.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
This is a sincere question, is there any kind of astronomy viewing that can be done during the day?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
net work error posted:This is a sincere question, is there any kind of astronomy viewing that can be done during the day? There is a star that is typically visible. (Sun filters and such. Moon can be neat but eh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2021 16:59
|
|
|
Sanity check time, have an anniversary coming up in a few months and thinking about surprising my wife with an 8 or 10" dobsonian and a road trip to Devil's Tower for some star gazing (both things she's talked about doing for years now). First question, how much would I hate myself when it comes time to drag a 10" to a national park? I'm a big dude and I'm pretty sure there are areas to set up not far from parking, but you never know. Second question, is it reasonable to expect that I'd be able to practice on it for an afternoon and then be able to image at least somewhat competently that same night? Keeping it a surprise is the plan, and I wouldn't have much of a chance to practice with it at home before the trip. I'm not a total novice, but all of my experience in the recent past is with viewing through camera lenses and I've never touched a dobsonian.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
Enos Cabell posted:Sanity check time, have an anniversary coming up in a few months and thinking about surprising my wife with an 8 or 10" dobsonian and a road trip to Devil's Tower for some star gazing (both things she's talked about doing for years now). a) Everything is going to be inverted in a DOB, and collimating can be an exercise in frustration. b) That area is pretty dark sky, and even without a DOB you'd likely see so many stars that you'd literally have trouble making out constelations. c) a 10" dob will take up a TON of room in a vehicle, and you are likely to throw off the collimation by the time you get to your destination (see 1) Do you plan to use the dob much at home afterward? Have you considered a sturdy tripod and some astro binocs?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2021 21:06
|
|
|
net work error posted:This is a sincere question, is there any kind of astronomy viewing that can be done during the day? You can see Jupiter and Saturn. It’s not a good time to look at them, but it can be done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
Hasselblad posted:a) Everything is going to be inverted in a DOB, and collimating can be an exercise in frustration. I've got the room in my vehicle, but your points on collimating I hadn't really thought of. I think a dob would get a fair amount of use at home, but now I'm really liking the idea of astro binocs. Time to do a bit of research in that area!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2021 22:40
|
|
|
Enos Cabell posted:I've got the room in my vehicle, but your points on collimating I hadn't really thought of. I think a dob would get a fair amount of use at home, but now I'm really liking the idea of astro binocs. Time to do a bit of research in that area! Binocs would be better for terrestrial viewing as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2021 23:08
|
|
|
I think you could figure out collimation with a bit of practice at home first. A 10" dob is probably 60lbs so it really depends on how far you'd have to carry it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2021 23:33
|
|
|
Enos Cabell posted:
Just to clarify here: in astronomical contexts, "image" or "imaging" usually implies that you are trying to take pictures. Dobsonians are meant for eyepiece viewing. If your primary interest is astrophotography, a Dobsonian is not the right choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2021 00:36
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:Just to clarify here: in astronomical contexts, "image" or "imaging" usually implies that you are trying to take pictures. Dobsonians are meant for eyepiece viewing. If your primary interest is astrophotography, a Dobsonian is not the right choice. Right, bad word choice on my part, the plan was for eye piece viewing only. I would like to get into astrophotography with a scope at some point, but not until I can drop enough on a nice tracking equatorial mount. That makes the binocs a great idea though, I could get two pair one like 7x50 or 10x50 for handheld viewing, and something larger for tripod viewing. Then if we're still into it 6 months or a year from now can look into dropping more coin on a scope.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2021 00:43
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:Just to clarify here: in astronomical contexts, "image" or "imaging" usually implies that you are trying to take pictures. Dobsonians are meant for eyepiece viewing. If your primary interest is astrophotography, a Dobsonian is not the right choice. What are good telescopes for astrophotography? I have a DSLR and I'd like to try some pics of space, but I know very little about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2021 04:36
|
|
|
Crankit posted:What are good telescopes for astrophotography? I have a DSLR and I'd like to try some pics of space, but I know very little about it. Astrophotography is as much about the mount than it is about the scope. In fact, with a DSLR you can just get a decent mount and point it at the sky and be on your way, even without a scope. I'm purely an optical astronomy hobbyist but I'm sure others can recommend good AP mounts for you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2021 05:04
|
|
|
I've wanted to get a telescope for years and near the end of last year I finally started researching and looking for one. There is an overwhelming selection of them despite there being only a few types. Evidently trying to get a telescope then was probably the worst time maybe ever as there was some sort of rare conjunction happening, widespread manufacturing delays, holiday season and winter approaching. None of those circumstances mattered as it was all new to me regardless. Originally I monitored eBay and Craiglist in a few places, but eventually gave up on eBay as it's a fool's errand to try to get any sort of deal on telescopes there. Aside from the high shipping prices for such large and heavy objects, people regularly pay higher than MSRP for used scopes that may be a decade or more old. I refused to compete with that. So I monitored nearby Craiglist for the past 3 months. Coming across more humorously incompetent listings than useful ones, but there were a couple promising blips in that time. There was a 10" Orion dobsonian for $350. I waited too long on it and called to ask if it was complete the next day and not just the tube. The guy said that someone was coming to look at it and hung up before I could find out how much of a deal I was missing out on. I suspect it was tube only since that seems to be more common than selling them complete. We don't want to miss an opportunity to sell a few pieces of wood for $300 after all. Then there was an 8" Meade Lightbridge for around $250. That one looked cool. I regret being second in line on that. Earlier this month I spotted a listing for a scope I didn't expect to find on the used market, but that I had heard good things about since I had been doing research in nerdy places. Someone was selling an AWB OneSky for $50. This is a scope I've heard multiple times is a good deal even at the $200 it goes for new, which it is backordered like the vast majority of telescopes right now. I made sure to reply then and there even though it was in the AM hours. I ended up being first this time and we met in a McDonald's parking lot. He hadn't used it in awhile and we struggled to test it out on the Kroger behind the McDonald's as the drive-thru line slowly passed a couple guys pointing a telescope at them out of the back of a rusty minivan. I knew there wasn't much to go wrong with these as long as the mirrors weren't messed up, and they weren't, so really I just wanted to complete the transaction and leave. In the meantime I ended up asking him why he was selling it since I figured someone with a somewhat obscure model would be into astronomy. He said it had been a gift and that he wasn't interested anymore. Maybe someone in this thread even gifted it and now I have it, so thanks. I haven't gotten to use it on the sky itself yet. Too much snow, clouds, mud and now the moon is drowning everything out. I did look at the moon through the window. I know that's a yikes, but there's no other option right now. It was almost unbearably bright and I couldn't make out much detail since it isn't magnifying that much even with the 10mm eyepiece. It didn't come with a barlow lens, so I think I need to get one of those. Need to figure out what size fits the eyepiece, what magnification to get and how much to pay for it. The manual states that the 10mm eyepiece provides a x65 magnification and the highest usable magnification (with a stable sky) is 250x, so maybe a 3x would be good. Need a moon filter too I suppose since that cuts down on the brightness, but so does a barlow from what I've heard. The focuser on it is uh...spartan. I'm sure some owners have sought to replace it in that massive thread about the scope on cloudy nights, but I haven't looked through it yet. That's definitely something I would want to replace if I could. I don't think I like the alt-az method either and would want to get an EQ mount for it at some point. Same questions as with the barlow lens. Don't know what fits it and what's a reasonable one to get. It would surely cost more than the scope did. When it's drier and warmer and clearer, I have a nice spot planned that is blocked from direct light pollution, but it's not a place I want to carry a table out to. I did do some light astronomy with 7x50 binoculars since their versatility allowed it even in these conditions. I targeted a constellation I always notice, but never knew the name of. I always thought it was the big dipper since it's like a square with a line under it, but it was part of the Orion constellation. I never notice the rest of it. It's not very distinct as being "connected" to me. I did notice a cloudy thing near the bottom and spotted my first deep sky object, the Orion Nebula. That's where I am right now. I did find a nice youtube channel about telescopes while doing research. Thanks for reading my star blog. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2021 07:19
|
|
|
Crankit posted:What are good telescopes for astrophotography? I have a DSLR and I'd like to try some pics of space, but I know very little about it. You can get surprisingly far with a star tracker and a decent lens. The latest Astrobackyard shows off a lot about this. https://youtu.be/WoSnR7TVAOA
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2021 08:11
|
|
|
Crankit posted:What are good telescopes for astrophotography? I have a DSLR and I'd like to try some pics of space, but I know very little about it. I'll 2nd Internet Explorer on the mount. I had that same Star Adventurer kit that Astrobackyard is using (and then I sold to Phanatic). It was really a great little setup. I coupled with my Canon T3 and a 1960's era SMC Takumar 200mm prime lens. https://www.astrobin.com/full/vxb3ps/0/ That is the Double Cluster shot on that mount. My two main issues were being able to dither and being able to shoot nebula. In the daytime the DSLR is Mrs. Yooper's, so me modifying it to allow those deep nebula colors just wasn't going to happen. Then I began to get walking noise that really drove me nuts. The Canon T3 is known for having this issue, the T7's they used in that video don't look to have a single bit of walking noise. Another lens that gets high regard is the Rokinon 135. Dude north of me takes absolutely beautiful images on a color modified DSLR. https://www.astrobin.com/qjrlfx/B/
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2021 13:02
|
|
|
Gotta say I've puttered around with amateur astronomy for years and this recent dearth of good telescopes is definitely attributable to the pandemic. I've never seen this level of interest in telescopes until now, guess people stuck at home need something to do.. Even though it's not a great idea at the moment, I've always found it to be worth the money to visit a local telescope dealer, if you have one and they're open. They are usually reasonable about shipping and are a good source of advice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2021 14:47
|
|
|
Anyone here done any astrophotography with film? We’ve got a darkroom at home (my wife is the photographer in the family) and it’s an appealing idea to stick my camera adapter on the film camera instead of the DSLR and see what we can do with the higher... resolution is the wrong word, but I don’t know what you would call it with film... of film over the fairly old DSLR. And the fun of messing around on the darkroom after.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2021 14:56
|
|
|
Yooper posted:I'll 2nd Internet Explorer on the mount. I had that same Star Adventurer kit that Astrobackyard is using (and then I sold to Phanatic). It was really a great little setup. I coupled with my Canon T3 and a 1960's era SMC Takumar 200mm prime lens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
Does anyone have images of what you would see with the naked eye through a telescope? Toying with the idea of getting a telescope and want to know what I could expect using one, but it's hard to get a handle on it when everything seems to be touched up after the fact. Thinking in terms of focus/detail/colour/etc. Basically what you would see just looking through the scope.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 01:26
|
|
|
Gringo Heisenberg posted:Does anyone have images of what you would see with the naked eye through a telescope? Toying with the idea of getting a telescope and want to know what I could expect using one, but it's hard to get a handle on it when everything seems to be touched up after the fact. Thinking in terms of focus/detail/colour/etc. Basically what you would see just looking through the scope. What are you hoping to look at?  That dude made up planets. My scope, ~ 4", is much smaller than that. On a good night I can make out the rings and a smudge of color on jupiter. Mars is still just a red dot. Probably the most impressive, yet still quite dim, was Andromeda on a moonless night in the middle of a national forest. But even at that it was just a glowy-smoky smudge in the sky. Probably the most enjoyable thing is tossing on the giant eyepiece and just zipping around and taking it all in. One of the best spots I found to look for optical stuff is the CloudyNights sketching forum, https://www.cloudynights.com/forum/81-sketching/, there are some very talented people sketching what the optical stuff looks like in reality. I have the artistic ability of a potato yet I want to give it a go.  https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/757216-low-powerwide-field-view-of-m4647-and-ngc-2423/
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 02:09
|
|
|
Basically, throw any expectations of seeing color out the window. You'll never see a Hubble photo through an eyepiece. The human eye is not sensitive to color in low light, and the vast majority of astronomical objects are not bright enough to stimulate the color-sensing cells in our eyes. Planets and bright stars are compact and bright enough that you can see color, but galaxies/dim star clusters/diffuse nebulae are pretty much always grayscale. Much of the fun in visual observing is in trying to make out little details in that faint fuzz, because you know that you're looking at light that has traveled hundreds/thousands/millions of years to reach your retina. With large aperture telescopes you may see color in the brightest planetary nebulae or the Orion Nebula, but that is the exception, not the rule.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 02:45
|
|
|
Someone here recommended me a 90mm maksutov which was very affordable. Its pretty incredible to be able to look at Jupiter and see moons and bands of gas, or the rings of Saturn. I know its a tiny image, its greyscale, its tricky to get lined up and move around on my camera tripod, but drat if that isn't incredible anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 02:49
|
|
|
The first time I dialed in Saturn in my old Dob, I was shocked at how...FAKE it looked. I immediately thought someone was loving with me and put a little ball with rings in front of a satin black cloth. Then it proceeded to drift out of view. Was no less exciting, and I get all giggly each viewing since. You will never see stars as anything larger than a pinpoint, unless you look at the sun (preferably with filters) This is the summer that I commit to getting a proper pier mount installed. I anticipate much magpie and eagle poop on it. Hasselblad fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Mar 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 14:45
|
|
|
If you want to see color you can attach a DSLR to your telescope and snap some pics or use live view if your camera supports it. It's really amazing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
Here is my third photo using a tracking mount and my 300mm 2.8 My first two were garbage, and I had to grab another counterweight to achieve balance. Anyway, I have a hell of a lot to learn, and I have to remember a hell of a lot of the Photoshop I've forgotten in the past 13 years thanks to Lightroom.  This is like 50ish minutes of exposure. I don't think I had the mount quite well-enough aligned; it's easy as hell to spot Polaris until you go and look through the little alignment scope and then I have no idea if I'm actually looking at the right star or not. I took longer exposures until trails became apparent, which was at 70 seconds, and backed off to 50 seconds from there. Incidentally, I'm looking at the NPF rule for sharp stars, and I'm told it's ((3.5 * aperture)+(30*pixel pitch in micrometers))/focal length in millimeters = how long an exposure you can get away with without a tracking mount, in seconds. And I am not understanding what that aperture value is doing in there. For example, with the lens and camera I'm using I get a range of exposures from: ((35*2.8)+(30*4.35))/300 = 0.76 seconds to ((35*22)+(30*4.35))/300 = 3 seconds If the image of the star moves across the sensor fast enough to generate a visible star trail if I expose for 0.76 seconds wide-open, why would stopping down allow to to get a longer exposure? The image is still moving just as fast across the sensor. What am I missing here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2021 04:20
|
|
|
Diffraction limits resolution. With less resolution, or put another way, fatter stars, stars can drift across a larger proportion of the frame without making noticeable trails.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2021 04:33
|
|
|
EngineerJoe posted:If you want to see color you can attach a DSLR to your telescope and snap some pics or use live view if your camera supports it. It's really amazing. Yeah, stuff like this is what you'll see lumped under "electronically assisted astronomy" or EAA. Basically using cameras to enhance the view, like night vision goggles. Cloudy Nights has a whole forum for people who do this. Phanatic posted:stuff This is a great shot for starters. But yeah astrophotography has a steep learning curve, partially because you're picking up so much stuff at once. You have a nice steady trail-less shot there which means now you can focus on getting more data. With your star trail question, I always sort of boil it down to two things: - The more zoomed in you are, the faster the patch of sky is moving across your view (if you were not tracking) - The more light you're capturing, the more likely you are to see a trail (this is what Platystemon is talking about) Tweaking the variables associated with those two qualities will let you explore your limits. Want to capture a lot of light? Back off on the focal length. Want to zoom in on something? Back off on the aperture/ISO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
Hard disagree that some of you are saying stars and planets are underwhelming through a scope. I started off with a XT6 manual dobsonian and I was always impressed. The planets were are awesome even through smaller scopes. The best were the various Messier clusters you could see, even though colour was never visible it didn't matter to me. Some of them I would spend hours outside in the freezing cold navigating the sky manually. As for stars, double stars such as Albireo were neat to look at as it was such a striking red/blue colour. The most underwhelming but most rewarding for me was Pluto. Now that's just an indescribable white dot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
The Real Amethyst posted:The best were the various Messier clusters you could see, even though colour was never visible it didn't matter to me. Some of them I would spend hours outside in the freezing cold navigating the sky manually. Spent my first night at the new house over the weekend and had crystal clear skies. Had the scope out for about 2 hours in 9 Fahrenheit. Froze my rear end off, but man, what a difference going from Bortle 5-6 to a Bortle 1-2. I ran through the "best of" on the Starsense app then just scooted about and took it all in. M42 was like a giant gray hawk in the sky. Was really awesome to see. The various clusters are also awesome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2021 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
There are some visually unspectacular things I have enjoyed seeing because of their significance. It was cool finding and viewing a quasar two and half billion light‐years away (3C 273) and the globular cluster Mayall II in M31, even though they just looked like stars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2021 01:51
|
|