Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_android_vs_ios_winners.thumb.jpg.803608cf7eedd5cfb31eedc3e3f357e9.jpg

Matthew.Blake

Members
  • Content Count

    294
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Matthew.Blake

  • Rank
    Star Forming

Profile Information

  • Location
    Coventry, UK
  1. They would probably struggle to hold bins steady and get them pointed at the right target. Maybe by year 6 they could get it pointed at Jupiter but would need help recognising it.
  2. We have a Nexstar 6SE at the school (11-18yo) I teach at. It's perfect for the pupils. Very easy to set up quickly and goto the objects you want - pupils are not patient creatures The tripod can be lowered such that even the smallest of them can look through the eyepiece Because it is small it can be taken in and out easily Long focal length - great views of jupiter and the moon which the pupils really love I would go for something similar, remembering to get a few essentials like a powertank with it (we tried using AA batteries for a while, it was amusing).
  3. Does your netbook have the facility to have the desktop at a higher resolution than the screen and then let you scroll around the desktop? A while ago I had my desktop at something silly like 3000x2000 but a monitor resolution of 1024x768 and just scrolled around it like I would an RTS game.
  4. I think the Meade has the better reputation, though you won't be dissapointed with the Hyperions
  5. Surely by that logic the best telescopes will be those with a single lens? Is not the extra glass in the camera lenses (certainly for prime focus anyway) there to reduce the optical abberations? Perhaps some of the weak performance compared to telescopes can be put down to the fact they are not really designed to be focused at infinity so their performance is optimised for object distances far closer than stars?
  6. I would have thought the big difference will be field of view though. I'm assuming your F1.4 lens is the 50mm prime: how many telescopes do you know of focal length 50mm? I rather imagine, given the typically shorter focal lengths you will have with camera lenses, the quality will be at least as good as an expensive refracting telescope but you will have access to lower focal ratios.
  7. I doubt having it imperfectly levelled matters. It would be no different from not being exactly at the longitude and latitude you told it you were at.
  8. Will you do a side by side of aperture mask vs ND filter with a larger aperture or aperture mask vs no mask?
  9. I've fitted my 200p with adaptive optics....
  10. Surely a smaller aperture reduces your resolution due to diffraction effects though! Moon & Neutral Density Filters - Variable Polarizing Moon Filter looks like just the thing, no loss of resolution but dealing with the glare problem.
  11. Nothing wrong with better eyepieces, you should be able to see an improvement in just about any scope. I think it's better to get fewer, better eyepieces as you know then you won't have to replace them in the future.
  12. Why not just use a neutral density filter so you don't lose any resolution?
  13. It just means when you have it properly focussed you should see a disc. It might be a very small disk but importantly it is not a point source as stars appear to be.
  14. In fairness to the antimatter though, we annihilate it as much as it annihilates us. It's got a bit of a bad rap these days, everyone assuming it's the evil one!
  15. I'd go for the Meade. I've never heard anyone prefer the Hyperion but have read quite a few reviews where people preferred the SWA.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.