Jump to content



New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. I own a small car so I need my telescope to be small enough to fit easily. I suppose a dob would be a problem on that sector. Also, I like the fact that dioptics don't need any additional calibration or service/maintenance once you buy them. Not sure about the dobsonians but I suppose they do need some kind of maintenance now and then...
  2. The tripod I have now for the TravelScope 70 is a photographic tripod that can't stand any additional weight and isn't that stable anyway. Not the best for astronomy, but much better that the unacceptable one included with the scope
  3. Actually think of the perfect picture. That kind of a picture would reach your eyes if your scope and eyepieces where perfect optically, but such thing doesn't exist. The farthest your scope and eyepieces are from being perfect, the less perfect image you get. So, a very good eyepiece will slightly reduce the perfection in its part. A worse will take you even lower etc etc. So now, there isn't an eyepiece that is too good for any scope in that matter
  4. Hello! I've been a happy user of Celestron's TravelScope 70 during the past two years that I entered the hobby. It was a cheap scope that ended up being expensive after buying a decent tripod, 90 degrees diagonal mirror, barlow lens, a few eyepieces and a laser pointer finderscope along with filters and such. The experience was great, it really is a decent "take anywhere" scope that can be set in under a minute, but I am looking to sell it and buy something of a level-up on the same kind. I found SkyWatcher 102/510 to be the coolest dioptric (I don't want any other kind right now) with a very low price (around 300 euros where I live). It comes along with AZ3 and 25mm and 10mm eyepieces. I am also thinking about ordering it from abroad to get it with EQ1 instead of the AZ3, but I am also using my current scope during the day so I'm not sure I'd want this. Anyone owning/using this scope? Any opinions on the matter? I know it won't be as handy and "traveler" as the TravelScope, but I find it quite compact. Is there anything better for the price?
  5. So you say that UHC is sufficiently suitable for the Veil nebula? Also, what about the Orion nebula? I remind you that with my equipment I can only see the big ones, so this is what interests me. So if OIII is better for only 4 nebulas, but these four happen to be the biggest then this is what I should go for. Also, does the UHC have any other usability expect for nebula observation? Would it help in planetary observation for example?
  6. Hello people! I own a Celestron Travel Scope 70 and have used it for 5 months now and I am currently very happy with it (although I had to buy a better tripod, a better finderscope and more/better eyepieces). I also own a pair of 15x50 binos that I use extensively. I recently saw Veil nebula in the application Stellarium and thought that "hey that's a big one", but I couldn't see it at all when I tried with the binos (although there is very few light pollution where I live). I then read that to see Veil Nebula you need an Oxygen III filter, and that it is so big that you may see it even without binos - just the filter. Since the filter costs at least 60 euros, I wanted to ask for your opinion. Would it be of any use for my current equipment? Would buying an UHC be a wiser thing to do since it supposedly is more suitable for a greater number of nebulas? Since my equipment isn't large and powerful, and I have only seen the Orion nebula successfully through travel scope 70, what filter would provide good views for the very large nebulas? Would the UHC be suitable for the Veil nebula? Thanks in advance
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.