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_dslr_mirrorlesss_winners.thumb.jpg.9deb4a8db27e7485a7bb99d98667c94e.jpg

AussieBill

New Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About AussieBill

  • Rank
    Vacuum

Profile Information

  • Location
    Australia
  1. Yeeha ! I saw the moons of Jupiter with my cheap telescope - Am well pleased. Admittedly they were tiny but nonetheless quite clear. So next targets are the red spot and the bands on Jupiter - maybe a bit ambitious but what the heck - have a go ya mug. Then back to playing with our own moon for something a bit easier. Bill
  2. thanks for the advice Gus ........ Tried again tonight .............. unscrewed the moon filter ............. thanks for the tip ....saw 4 little tiny white specks. Am quite puzzled ........... although I could see the moons I couldn't see the red spot or the bands. A white disc and 3 tiny white dots and one not quite so tiny. Bill
  3. Hello, I managed to observe Jupiter tonight with my 76 x 350 Dobsonian, 4mm and 20mm eyepieces and 2x Barlow lens. Couldn't see any moons around Jupiter - would our own full moon have washed them out and made them harder to see ? Any thumb rules for calculating/estimating the effect of full moon washout compared to almost no moon at all ? Bill
  4. Thanks for all your help. Have had cloudy nights so havent been able to play at night. Local astronomy club holds a meeting in a couple of weeks and am hoping to have a look through some different telescopes so that I better understand what I am asking about. Seems to me there is a fairly quick and vicious diminishing return rule in this hobby. All telescopes with bigger apertures than mine may get a better quality image but given the upper ceiling on magnification imposed by the air we breathe most of your dollars are going towards a far better quality image rather than a higher magnification. So a $2000 dollar telescope compared to my $50 telescope : $2000 sees Jupiter in exquisite detail but its only the same size as a small pea on the palm of my hand ....... and is far more sensitive to atmospheric conditions ? $50 sees Jupiter with far less detail and as large as a big peppercorn on the palm of my hand ? Bill
  5. ............... Thanks, will work my way through those examples and try to digest the calculations, maybe in a few years time, I too, will be able to rattle something like this out in the spur of the moment. Am off to google floaters and exit pupils. Bill
  6. Blimey, that was quick, 3 answers already. Thankyou all. I live in Latrobe Valley, Gippsland, Victoria, Australia - right down down in the southeast corner of Australia 2 hours east of Melbourne. I don't know how to classify skies, all I can say is that I saw the moon through a telescope the very first time a few days ago. It was a little very cheap Dobson, National Geographic 76/350 (Aldis $50 Australian) with a 20mm eyepiece and to my uneducated eye the skies were clear and still and the craters on the moon were astonishing and vivid. Says on the box 175x magnification is possible and a 2x Barlow lens was included so theoretically 350x available but unlikely to achieve a meaningful image. Made me wonder what might be achieved if I spent up to $500 on a telescope and started reading and wondering about the posted question. I think I understand the point about eyepieces and FOV - the 4mm eyepiece was a right awkward painful thing to use - much prefer the 20mm eyepiece with its wide FOV, but am concerned about tiny images when looking at things smaller than the moon, hence the question. Furrysocks, with respect to resolution of detail - I have assumed, perhaps wrong ?, that the 8" would resolve details better than the 3" simply because it gathers more light, so assuming similar quality lenses+mirrors, the 8" would give a better more detailed image. Regards Bill
  7. Hey, I get the impression that an 8" dobson will gather more light than a 3" this enables a more detailed image but am wondering if it will automatically yield a "larger" image. .............. Or in both instances will Jupiter be the same relative size as a peppercorn in the palm of my hand. Am starting to think that this also depends upon the eyepieces and focal lengths involved, with the 8" having a longer focal length and therefore capable of producing a more highly magnified image with the appropriate eyepiece. This issue probably already discussed but I don't know the correct keywords to search for. Am aware of the "What can I expect to see " thread but it doesn't quite address my question. What threads/books/websites should I be reading to better understand these things ? Bill
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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