Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Mr niall

Members
  • Posts

    1,378
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mr niall

  1. Perfect companion for one of my favourite books! https://openlibrary.org/works/OL5726813W/In_starland_with_a_three-inch_telescope
  2. I’ve no idea if it would work bud - but my guess would be that you’d want to minimise sources of reflections in all directions including outside lights / reflections from your own room and other stray light surfaces from creeping in. Just a guess!
  3. Download a metronome app. You are aiming for 130-135bpm. As long as you are in that window you are all set, otherwise adjust spring to suit
  4. That’s not quite right but it’s probably not worth getting into the details - the point is that Polaris moves through the sky all night in a circle around celestial north (NOT True North) so for the graduations to work you need to calibrate it against your exact time and adjusted date you use it - and the Lx3 lacks the date rings to make that possible. generally using 0 as longitude is effective enough. a much easier way is to download a free app called “polar align” which shows you exactly where to point everything bush bash bosh. Ive had 60 secs at 300mm with a ball head easily enough - the trick is to align AFTER you’ve mounted your camera on it to compensate for sag. I normally shine my phone torch across the front at an oblique angle - works fine imho
  5. Yep I assumed you knew all that just thought I’d say it just in case! have you tried taping a piece of cardboard or something with a hole cut out to your window? it’s not impossible - George Alcock discovered a supernova through 1980s double glazing!
  6. It will be really really difficult to get any sort of half decent image through a window. Window glass is really along way off being good enough for any sort of astronomy - its almost analogous to trying to read a book placed in a bowl of water. And then factor in double glazing, which is not only doubling the problem but adding another extra thin slice of air with its own air current. And that is all assuming the windows are perfectly clean, but ignoring the coatings added to glass to increase reflection and reduce UV and IR absorption. And then factor in the fact you are trying to record a very very small object at very very high magnification that is quite low in the sky. Your best bet is to get as perpendicular to the glass as physically possible, as shooting at an angle will make things much worse. I'm assuming you cant get outside - is there anyway you can shoot through an open window?
  7. I've never done a night-to-day observing session. That sounds great - but to have the moon coming up as night time fades sounds like the perfect way to do it!
  8. Hi Joe That is a fab choice of scope, if you look after it you will probably never want or need another one! As above, definitely by Turn Left at Orion. As amazing as Skysafari & Nightsky & Stellarium (free for PC definitely definitely get that) there is no replacement for that book! With your eyepieces You've actually got a really good range so I wouldnt bother thinking about replacing or upgrading. As above - M57 is a good target but be aware it is teeny tiny - it looks almost like any other stars at low power so watch out for that! I would have a go M13 and M92. They are pretty big and bright and nice and easy to find. If you look over toward the west it should be relatively easy to make out the slightly squashed square at the middle of hercules. If you can find that then you are all set. Here it is below (the website is called freestarcharts.com - it is another one to bookmark!)
  9. 'Tis true and a good point. 99% of my daytime photography is with my phone.
  10. Here's one of Cygnus / sagitta with the nifty fifty. Not the most amazing shot but good edge sharpness at f 2.8
  11. Yes thats the one. 50mm F1.8 - pin sharp all the way down to about f3. And spectacular in the daytime too. Perfect portrait lens - fabulous bokeh, brill in low light. And just about the cheapest brand new lens you can buy! Here's a couple with my 250d. Just low res but you get the idea. The rose is with the nifty fifty (blurry edges applied by me not the lens!)
  12. They're all the same it makes no difference which you pick. Any DSLR made in the last 15 years will give broadly comparable results for astrophotography. The things that make a difference are things like Wifi and tilting screens which are very useful. Canon has a wider range of lenses. Nikon generally have better features but are slightly more expensive. If you stick to those two main brands you will be safe as you will have connectivity to things like Backyard EOS and Canon Connect which are very useful. I've got a 250d, its great, nice and compact and really intuitive to use. Its compact size and low weight is handy too and its a pleasure to use. But having said that, I upgraded from a 1300d which you can get used for about £175. In the daytime the 250d is much better, but at night (for astronomy) they are almost identical (250 is a bit more forgiving at high ISO). It's the lenses and the time spent setting up and learning your system that make the biggest difference, not the camera. The Canon EFS F1.8 50mm should be the first thing you buy! edit: The sony a6000 is brill - but getting on a bit. And you have the least lens choice. I think the 5600 or the 250 is probably better value. The 200d is nearly the same as the 250d. If you try somewhere like MPB you might be able to get a bargain.
  13. An excellent choice (but I would say that!....) Collimation cap - thats good news. A collimation cap is a low-tech version of a cheshire. But its the same idea and all I use. Just look through it and try to line up the centre spot on the mirror with the hole in the collimation cap (which is what you are looking through). Helical focusser. Its quirky - there are no advantages whatsoever. Well there is one - it is significantly cheaper than basically every other type so it keeps the cost of the scope down! No it makes totally zero difference to anything having to rotate the whole eyepiece vs a standard type. In fact I prefer it now I'm used to it! I would do the PTFE tape wrapping thing though. Its basically a standard issue modification that every 130/150 owner in the whole world does immediately! Costs almost nothing and steadies everything up. I've never used any sort flocking of shield on the open tube. No you totally dont need to lie down to use it at all - I sit on a cushion on the ground in fact and have never had a problem with any target. And finally - yes the supplied eyepieces will show you all of those things. Just be aware that the planets are quite low in the sky for the next couple of years so their views are a bit "smushy" in general. But they will start to improve over the next 24 months.
  14. Yeah thats the one. Funny, mine came with a collimation cap - collimation caps are dirt cheap and easy to use though. I'd assumed they were standard issue with these? Interesting. Thats a bold statement about collimation though! They are perhaps stretching the truth a bit there... But yes collimation has gotten a bit of a bad reputation but honestly its a 30 second job - personally I dont think its something to factor into a buying decision. It takes less time than carrying the scope outside in the first place. And its not even an "art" or a "practised skill". Collimation is just making sure everything is lined up. You have two mirrors, the main primary and the little secondary (which you know already). The little secondary almost never needs adjusting at all so dont worry about it for now (although it is a bit of a pain). The primary has a dot in the middle. Your collimation cap has a hole in the middle, a cheshire collimator has cross hairs. The back of the telescope has three big adjustable screws that you can turn by hand. If the dot of the primary mirror isnt exactly in the middle of the hole of your collimation cap or the centre of the cross hairs of your cheshire collimating tool, then you turn those screws to fractionally adjust the main mirror until it is. Thats it. The kicker is that even if it is a little bit out it wont really make much difference. And even better - alot of the time it doesn't need touching at all! Dead easy. I would throughly recommend the 150 if your budget can stretch. Its really built on the success of the 130p and improved it considerably in my opinion. But I'm biased. Like I say, a refractor is a fine choice. But the 150 will show you Jupiters GRS, the cassini division in Saturns Rings. A 70mm refractor wouldnt be able to do that.
  15. Yep sorry lazy use of a double negative! What I mean is when I had one it was big enough so I could still use it comfortably if I sat on the floor next to it. Im 5' 11. But as said above, they can be removed from the base anyway if you decide to get a tripod as they have a universal dovetail anyway which is another nice touch. Yes we call it the Skywatcher Heritage 130p flextube. In USA they call it the AWB Onesky. Its the same scope. Skywatcher have just released a slighty bigger 150p flextube. I've got one, its brilliant. its also comes with a collimation cap. But it may be above your budget. I probably wouldn't bother upgrading the eyepieces on your existing scope. I actually think the eyepieces are MA: https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-super-ma-eyepieces-125.html Those are the ones that normally ship with the scope. Either way, millions have used them and they're not too bad. Not something to worry about upgrading straight away.
  16. Ha ha apologies I was just being flippant no offense meant, I do not doubt they are worth every penny and are quality items. And yes I totally agree "eyepiece creep" ends up costing more in the long run than buying well at the start so I cant fault you. I just wouldn't call it minimalist 😉 But I'm with @John, you are staring straight down the barrel of a "wouldnt it be nice if I had all the Ethos" type conundrum in the near future! I hate to say it but I also feel the 3.7 would complement your existing collection nicely.
  17. In what universe is upwards of £2500 worth of eyepieces minimalist 🤣 I've got three plossls, and really debated if I needed the third!
  18. Yep you are correct - good spot. I meant eye relief not exit pupil.
  19. I understand. Well that isnt a plossl, its a Kellner or MA derivative but the point actually applies to Plossls too so its a moot point. Its a fairly standard issue 4mm eyepiece and not that amazing. You have a short focal length scope. Which means getting high magnifications will be a challenge. Short focal length achromatic refractors suffer from chromatic aberration at high magnifications. This causes a violet or purple halo that can be quite a sight. That shouldnt put you off - I'm just letting you know its perfectly normal. With your scope - really, I'd probably aim for no higher than 80 or 90x. The good news is you can see the cloud bands on jupiter at 25x and get a good view of Saturn at 50x so that is good. Eyepieces - well. The biggest problem with eyepieces of that type of anything 10mm or higher is their "exit pupil" and "field of view". Exit pupil is the maximum distance your eye can be away from the eyepiece and still be able to see the whole field of view. In your 4mm it is probably about 3.5 to 4mm which is why you are struggling. You need an eyepiece with a much bigger exit pupil. And that is also why your 20mm eyepiece is easier to use as it has a much bigger exit pupil. You have two choices: 1. Buy a new eyepiece. As @DaveL59, the BST Starguider is a good choice. But expensive. Another cheaper choice is the 66 degree 6mm super wide angle eyepiece. They are a clone and sold under a thousand different brands but you can find them for about £25 from the far east if you check the usual suspects. 2. Actually use your barlow. One of the quirks of Barlows is that they actually preserve the exit pupil. So if you use your 20mm eyepiece with your barlow then you effectively have a 6.7mm eyepiece with the same exit pupil as your original 20mm eyepiece. Maybe try having a play around with that. The other things to take into account are field of view and focussing. Focussing at higher magnifications is trickier as you have to be more delicate to get it right. Additionally the amount of sky that that scope sees at higher magnifications is much narrower so you have to be a tad more precise. And to top it off, any "wobble" when you touch your scope is massively exacerbated by high magnifications. So keeping stuff in the field of view and focussing takes a bit of practice. Best of luck!
  20. No its ok I know what lenses look like. Telescopes are all much of a muchness, if you can expand on the questions I asked above it should help. We cant help unless you can expand on what statements like "gave me a really hard time" mean. Hard time how? Specifically? But, when you say "zoomed in".... Forgive me if I'm way off here but... You are aware that magnification is a fixed product of the relationship between the focal length of the scope and the focal length of the eyepiece? So if you have a focal length of 400mm (length of the scope) then a 20mm eyepiece would give you a magnification of 20x - 400/20 = 20. Similarly a 4mm eyepiece would give you a magnification of 100x (400/4 = 100). Every eyepiece is a slightly different construction and design. Just to be clear - you are aware that the little wheel on the side of the scope is for focussing right? Not for zooming in like a camera lens? That knob is to bring the eyepiece into focus only, it doesn't zoom anything. Each eyepiece gives you one magnification only.
  21. It may be worth pointing out a couple of things about your existing scope to give some context. It looks to me from reading all of these that you are intentionally leaning away from another reflector because of the reasonably poor experience you have had with your existing reflector. The reason - the real reason - you have struggled with you Nat Geo reflector is because it is a very very introductory piece of equipment. Without boring you ad nauseum about the shortcomings of it is probably worth realising two important things: There are two types of mirror - spherical & parabolic. Both are almost identical but not quite. Spherical are easier to make and much cheaper. They work well at long focal lengths (f10 or above) but get really smushy and aberrated at fast ratios. You have a very fast ratio spherical mirror. So you will never really be able to achieve sharp focus or pleasing views no matter what. The more magnification you add, the worse it will get. Collimation is easy. Honestly. It takes about 30 secs if it needs doing. It doesn't need doing that often. So your experience with a reflector isn't indicative of reflectors in general, you just had a bad start. People here are pushing you toward a reflector because it is, without question, the best value and quality at your price point. £ for £ (or $ for $) you wont beat a reflector for sheer light collecting power at any given price point. Upgrading your eyepieces with that system probably wont attract the return in investment in terms of viewing improvements that you would hope for. However - refractors are lovely. Contrary to what some have said, I believe that a 70mm refractor and an AZ2 is not a terrible choice. The mount is fairly sturdy and you will see loads and loads with it. The big issue is that you may wish at some point that you could see "more". Things like the AWB onesky would keep you going for a long time. Years in fact. It has a parabolic fully adjustable mirror, and it is bigger - so much easier to find a comfortable viewing angle. You wouldnt definitely need to set it up on a table for it to work. But, as above, a long focal length refractor is a lovely choice too. I just thought I'd add some context to the debate. A 70mm is a fine choice.
  22. Can you see distant things ok in the daytime? Try it out on something as far away as you can in the daylight. Can you give us more specific information on what the problem is? Is it that it doesn't reach focus, or gets near focus - or you aren't sure if anything happens or what focus should look like? Or that you are struggling to achieve fine focus, or that you are getting close to focus but not quite there? Are things fuzzy? Or just not there? Are you experiencing the exact same thing with the different eyepieces or a different thing with each eyepiece? With the 4mm you'll need to get really close to the eyepiece so would be difficult with spectacles for example. With that scope the 20mm eyepiece will be your main eyepiece for most stuff. The 4mm is useful for moon and planets only. The barlow is "kind of" usable for daytime use but I wouldn't bother with it at all for night time use personally. Celestron have a habit of adding strange accessories to ensure they can advertise a scope as achieving 10,000x or whatever but that kind of misses the point. You shouldn't really bother with the barlow at night. It wont add anything to the experience. 99% of observing is done in the 20-75x magnification range anyway. Have you got the F4 version (400mm?) - if so the 4mm eyepiece will give you 100x magnification which is a reasonable max for that scope. The barlow shouldnt figure anywhere in that equation.
  23. That's a book for telescope astronomy specifically. While an excellent book indeed, it may not be great for those just interested in astronomy in general which is what the OP asked.
  24. Just to be 100% clear - longer focal length eyepieces don't exist purely as stepping stones to the higher focal length eyepieces. Each eyepiece serves a different function and has its place - while it is true that the larger eyepieces with longer focal lengths have lower magnification and a wider field of view that doesn't mean that their job is purely to centre stuff in the eyepieces so you can get to the "good high power eyepieces". I'm sure you know that already I just thought I would reinforce the point based on some previous comments. If you haven't already I would recommend reading the following:
  25. Yep sorry my bad! You can do it through the secondary mirror adjustment screws too. Just be really ginger, back off each of the three screws a quarter turn then you’ll have enough room to tighten it into shape. Try to avoid twisting the mirror if you can. The trick is to make sure you can always see your three primary mirror clips. The good news is once you’ve got it it’ll stay like that for months/years.
×
×
  • 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.