Advice on first Scope

[davidmaiden18183]

Hello All,

I am looking to nurture my longstanding interest in astronomy that has been largely from a TV screen regrettably. I’ve watched so many documentaries and series on Astronomy, Cosmology, Space, Space travel etc I am can officially be declared a documentary hore!

Anyways I have had 10x50 binoculars (though partially broke) for some time, and I know binoculars are always advised as the way to start but I really want to be able to get a closer look at the moon and the planets and nebulae etc than bino's will give, that’s what excites me.

I'd like to play it safe and not jump in too deep, and try out a cheap scope to do those things at first, if I enjoy it I'll be happy to sell it and look for something better.

I don’t have a set budget as such, I might push to say 130, but really I am thinking £50-80. If pushing up to £130 can really be justified for what it gives me as starter (an not long term) scope then I am willing to consider that.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Seben-700-76-Reflector-Telescope-incl/dp/B00426KOQI/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

I stumbled across this one, and favourable reviews, man from first time astronomers and for its price it sound excellent value and quality for the outlay. Of course it’s not the best scope in the world but what do you guys think? Any alternatives? What more realistically would I get if I swell my budget?

Thanks

[rwilkey]

Hi David, sorry to say this, but avoid like the plague, when it sounds too good to be true, it usually is. Most reviewers looked only at the Moon, that pretty well says it all really. One reviewer said the so-called maximum magnification (175x (700/4mm = 175x)) was easily achievable, mathmatically this is not, most cheap manufacturers include a 4mm ep to make it look as though the scope is capable of more than it can manage. This make of telescope is poorly constructed I am afraid, and you would have difficulty reselling it. I am afraid it is not well regarded. Look at telescopes from the forum sponsors, FLO, see banner at the top of this website. Also, better to buy from a dedicated astronomy supplier rather than a shop like this, and get some good advice. You will need to budget a bit more I think, but better than wasting cash completely.

Edited January 24, 2013 by rwilkey

[DirkSteele]

Always sensible to be cautious, but the risk one takes by going low budget in this hobby is that the scope could be of a very poor quality which may put you off pursuing the hobby further. One thing to consider is that no telescope has to be a completely sunk cost, as there is a decent and active second hand market so you could recoup some of your investment if you decide astronomy is not for you.

I would suggest something like this would serve you better. I started with something similar over 20 years ago and it showed me plenty but left me hungry for more.

http://www.firstligh...hawk-1145p.html

Edited January 24, 2013 by DirkSteele

[estwing]

don't buy that,get some bins..8x40,10x50's for learning the night sky,and learn to star-hop... much better

[knobby]

Hang on a bit, get out if you can to a club meet, see what the difference is between £80 and £130 scopes...

then save a wee bit more up and get one of these

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/heritage/skywatcher-heritage-130p-flextube.html

Just my opinion and good luck with your choice

[davidmaiden18183]

Hang on a bit, get out if you can to a club meet, see what the difference is between £80 and £130 scopes...

then save a wee bit more up and get one of these

http://www.firstligh...p-flextube.html

Just my opinion and good luck with your choice

I've been looking for a local club, the only one near has a website but it doesn't work, I'm not even sure if they have disbanded and the website a remnant of what once was

I think I am happy getting a scope knowing the outlay is low risk as I should be able to sell and recap if needs be. I've a little money burning my pocket for a Christmas bonus and birthday money from family in part that's what's making me happy to get a scope (well a good excuse) there is nothing else I really want or need for a hundred or so.

If I expanded my budget to £100-150 could I get something decent of quality, and what would be people recommend, I'd love to know what I could expect with such scops looking at say Saturn and Jupiter..

[davidmaiden18183]

Always sensible to be cautious, but the risk one takes by going low budget in this hobby is that the scope could be of a very poor quality which may put you off pursuing the hobby further. One thing to consider is that no telescope has to be a completely sunk cost, as there is a decent and active second hand market so you could recoup some of your investment if you decide astronomy is not for you.

I would suggest something like this would serve you better. I started with something similar over 20 years ago and it showed me plenty but left me hungry for more.

http://www.firstligh...hawk-1145p.html

I uunderstand and share many of your thought, you have given one recommendation and hopefully other can suggest something for the £100-150 budget, ideally hugging the loer end if possible. But I'll consider the upper end when I can understand the benefits.

thanks

[Steve Ward]

" I've been looking for a local club, the only one near has a website but it doesn't work "

This one any help ? . . . http://www.cockermouthastronomy.co.uk/

[davidmaiden18183]

" I've been looking for a local club, the only one near has a website but it doesn't work "

This one any help ? . . . http://www.cockermouthastronomy.co.uk/

I am in south cumbria, and with the lake distric A roads to content with cockermouth is 90minutes drive away

[rowan46]

I uunderstand and share many of your thought, you have given one recommendation and hopefully other can suggest something for the £100-150 budget, ideally hugging the loer end if possible. But I'll consider the upper end when I can understand the benefits.

thanks

There's a slight difference between the use of telescopes for terrestrial use and for astronomy. Although both instruments are the same they are used in a different way. a scope for terestrial use is used to make things easier to see by magnifying. this can be done because there is plenty of light consequently the slight dimming of an object while under magnification isn't a problem as there is still plenty of light to see it. An astronomical telescope is used in the dark its primary purpose isn't about magnification its about collecting enough light to make a dim object visible. In short it needs to be bigger, the bigger the scope the more light it collects and the more the eye can see. A bigger scope costs more but it sees more if you get a small scope it will limit your use to the moon a couple of planets and a few deep space objects and stars. For some people thats enough. In a fairly light polluted place you are best off getting a scope with a minimum apparture of 5"-6" more would be better. if you intend to travel to a dark site you can get away with a smaller scope. the next thing that adds to a cost of a scope is the mount. you are looking at a fairly dim image so this needs to be fairly solid as it's difficult to see an image that is dancing around. cheap scopes have cheap mounts which are not really fit for purpose. If you want to get good views expect to pay near the top of your limit.

http://www.firstligh...p-flextube.html

Will show you jupiter and its moons ,saturn and its rings, the moon, mars, most of the messier list of deep space especially under dark skies. lots of double star systems and quite a fair bit more

Edited January 24, 2013 by rowan46

[davidmaiden18183]

There's a slight difference between the use of telescopes for terrestrial use and for astronomy. Although both instruments are the same they are used in a different way. a scope for terestrial use is used to make things easier to see by magnifying. this can be done because there is plenty of light consequently the slight dimming of an object while under magnification isn't a problem as there is still plenty of light to see it. An astronomical telescope is used in the dark its primary purpose isn't about magnification its about collecting enough light to make a dim object visible. In short it needs to be bigger, the bigger the scope the more light it collects and the more the eye can see. A bigger scope costs more but it sees more if you get a small scope it will limit your use to the moon a couple of planets and a few deep space objects and stars. For some people thats enough. In a fairly light polluted place you are best off getting a scope with a minimum apparture of 5"-6" more would be better. if you intend to travel to a dark site you can get away with a smaller scope. the next thing that adds to a cost of a scope is the mount. you are looking at a fairly dim image so this needs to be fairly solid as it's difficult to see an image that is dancing around. cheap scopes have cheap mounts which are not really fit for purpose. If you want to get good views expect to pay near the top of your limit.

http://www.firstligh...p-flextube.html

Will show you jupiter and its moons ,saturn and its rings, the moon, mars, most of the messier list of deep space especially under dark skies. lots of double star systems and quite a fair bit more

Th anks again for the advice, I think I would prefer a telescope with tripod in the more tarional format (reflector or refractor)

[davidmaiden18183]

Traditional sorry

[rwilkey]

Hi David, by traditional I assume you mean the mount, what's called an altazimuth mount, which in my view is more intuitive, the following telescope has good credentials in my view: http://www.firstligh...tar-90-az3.html

See also the customer review on this one, which is actually more realistic regarding expectations.

Edited January 25, 2013 by rwilkey

[davidmaiden18183]

thanks, I will take a look at the link now. Just as sanity check to what i already think, do you think a refractor or reflector telescope would be more appropriate for me any my price range. Many Thanks

[rwilkey]

thanks, I will take a look at the link now. Just as sanity check to what i already think, do you think a refractor or reflector telescope would be more appropriate for me any my price range. Many Thanks

I think if you are on a small budget, a refractor is better, as a small reflector mirror does not have much light-gathering power as a refractor of the same aperture. I think the views through a refractor will be clearer and sharper.

[E621Keith]

If you can stretch to £140, then the Skywatcher Heritage 130p dobsonian mentioned by Knobby is highly recommended

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-heritage-130p-flextube.html

A dobsonian mount is very cheap to make, so most of that £140 goes into the telescope optics. As a results the scope will show you dimmer objects than others in the same price range.

If you buy the Seben, you will either be extremely disappointed with the view and give up astronomy, or having to spend another £140 to get a real telescope which adds up to a total of just under £200.

[triton1]

Hi there,I used my brother scope last year and was quite impressed.It was a 41\2 helios on an eq1 mount.I think they are now skywatcher.i've seen these on ebay for £50 to £80.as long as the mirrors are clean these might be worth considering

regards Jonn

[davidmaiden18183]

Apologies for the late reply. I’ve had a busy week.

I’ve been looking into scopes and the good advice given (thankyou) and I think I have warmed to the idea of the Heritage Dobsonian Flextube linked earlier http://www.firstligh...p-flextube.html

In all honesty, excusing my ignorance or maybe snobbery, I looked at the Dobsonian type and with perhaps less engineered construction, and to the laymen a rudimentary mount and materials i.e "flextube" it made me dubious of it.

I’ve seen some recommendation and for my budget that Dobsonian type is indeed probably is going to give the best image. I understand the Dobbins have less cost in the mount and this more money into the optics.

I do however wonder if having to manually track and item will drive me mad, that I can’t answer. I presume anything I have in the viewfinder will move out of it in about a minute’s time, and I am guessing that without a finder scope you really are point and find. Finding, and refining sounds tedious.

Please correct me if I am wrong, I don’t have any first hand experience. This kind of make me feel if you lose track of something (say after reviewing a planisphere for a minute or two, you may have to drop down magnifications in order to find the object again, to then increase the magnification once found; sounds tedious).

That may or may be not be a real concern; I’m just using my imagination here. So if anyone can give a flavour of first experiences with Dobsonians would be good?

Additionally, how do people use such dobsonians out and about? Do you have to buy a tripod to attach it to or use some other means to raise it from the floor and give a sturdy platform? I would want to take it up my local hill away from light pollution.

It is I admittedly difficult for me to quantify the picture difference I would get between http://www.firstligh...p-flextube.html and say http://www.firstligh...hawk-1145p.html

[davidmaiden18183]

Can anyone help with my last message?

[DirkSteele]

I will defer to other Stargazers Lounge members on the question of how they raise the small flexitube Dob to a level where it is comfortable to view rather than crouching on the ground. If tables are suggested for example, they will need to be very stable, otherwise it will look like you are trying to view during an earthquake each time you touch the scope.

As far as tracking goes, it really is very straight forward to give the telescope a little nudge every 20 to 30 seconds to keep the object of interest in the field of view. Even the alternative 4.5" equatorial mounted scope will require you to turn the RA (no motor) axis to keep the object in the field (assuming you have polar aligned the scope), though that is a simple case of turning one of those flexible extensions you can see in the picture. A larger issue could manifest if you leave the scope to grab someone for example to show them what you have, only to find the object has drifted well out of the field. Both scopes have red dot finders so centering back in on the object should be relatively easily. So your concerns are valid to degree, and one could make the argument of relocating the object would be easier for an equatorial mounted scope as the object will have just traveled along the RA axis.

The additional aperture of the flexitube Dob will grasp approx 27% more light than the 4.5" scope. Not a meaningless amount of extra light grasp, but will not make as much of a difference as you would think, due to non-linear response to intensity of light of the retina. If you have the ability, possibly visiting a local astronomy club to look through different scopes may pay dividends as it will allow to see first hand how much difference more aperture makes to what you see at the eyepiece.

As I mentioned in my first post on this thread, the 4.5" EQ scope is very similar to my first scope from over 20 years ago. It was capable of showing me a lot and kept me happy for a few years until my interest (and a Saturday job in Sainsburys gave me the money) to buy something larger.

One other thing to consider, is that a Newtonian telescope needs to be well collimated to perform at its best. It is a relatively straight forward exercise to undertake (plenty of threads on here if you need some pointers) but the flexitube may well need to be checked each time you use it as the mechanics of the scope are such, that it not likely to precisely return the secondary mirror to the exact same position each time you extend it. The EQ model being a fixed length tube will need to collimated less often.

Clear skies,

Edited February 4, 2013 by DirkSteele

[E621Keith]

Apologies for the late reply. I’ve had a busy week.

I’ve been looking into scopes and the good advice given (thankyou) and I think I have warmed to the idea of the Heritage Dobsonian Flextube linked earlier http://www.firstligh...p-flextube.html

In all honesty, excusing my ignorance or maybe snobbery, I looked at the Dobsonian type and with perhaps less engineered construction, and to the laymen a rudimentary mount and materials i.e "flextube" it made me dubious of it.

I’ve seen some recommendation and for my budget that Dobsonian type is indeed probably is going to give the best image. I understand the Dobbins have less cost in the mount and this more money into the optics.

I do however wonder if having to manually track and item will drive me mad, that I can’t answer. I presume anything I have in the viewfinder will move out of it in about a minute’s time, and I am guessing that without a finder scope you really are point and find. Finding, and refining sounds tedious.

Please correct me if I am wrong, I don’t have any first hand experience. This kind of make me feel if you lose track of something (say after reviewing a planisphere for a minute or two, you may have to drop down magnifications in order to find the object again, to then increase the magnification once found; sounds tedious).

That may or may be not be a real concern; I’m just using my imagination here. So if anyone can give a flavour of first experiences with Dobsonians would be good?

Additionally, how do people use such dobsonians out and about? Do you have to buy a tripod to attach it to or use some other means to raise it from the floor and give a sturdy platform? I would want to take it up my local hill away from light pollution.

It is I admittedly difficult for me to quantify the picture difference I would get between http://www.firstligh...p-flextube.html and say http://www.firstligh...hawk-1145p.html

Like you said, most of the dob's cost is spent on the optics and less on the mount. However dob mount is very simple and generally more sturdy than cheap equatorial mount such as the one on the Skyhawk. EQ1 and EQ2 mounts are really poor quality, unstable and not very durable. EQ1 and EQ2 doesn't give you tracking either, unless you spend more on the motors, but it will be a waste of money anyway.

Nudging the dob every half a minutes is't too bad. You will get used to it quite quickly.

[Itabot]

" I've been looking for a local club, the only one near has a website but it doesn't work "

Is it this one in Kendal meeting tonight 7 pm.

http://www.eas-onlin...g.uk/index.html

[Mezolitik]

I do however wonder if having to manually track and item will drive me mad, that I can’t answer. I presume anything I have in the viewfinder will move out of it in about a minute’s time, and I am guessing that without a finder scope you really are point and find. Finding, and refining sounds tedious.

Please correct me if I am wrong, I don’t have any first hand experience. This kind of make me feel if you lose track of something (say after reviewing a planisphere for a minute or two, you may have to drop down magnifications in order to find the object again, to then increase the magnification once found; sounds tedious).

Finding and following is half the fun, in my opinion. Stars do move fairly quickly, but as long as you know what direction they are heading in, you can usually find them again without changing the eyepieces - provided that you're not gone for a long time.

Also, I had - and still have - a great deal of trouble using a finderscope. I found Betelgeuse twice in succession while trying to get Sirius in the eyepiece; it's still a case of point and find even with a finderscope until you get used to things - at least in my experience, it is!

[davidmaiden18183]

Well! 8 years on I am bringing this thread back to life! I never forgot the good advice given to me on here. I never did get that scope back then, life got in the way and monies found there way elsewhere, a lot has changed since..... I am now a father to a 4 year old who is fascinated by Space, and whom asked for a telescope for Christmas. It has encouraged me to finally make that purchase and for us both to share those first experiences of looking at the the moons, stars, nebulae and a planet or two.

I am happy to say I am now the owner of a Skywatcher Heritage 150P Dobsonian.

I am now looking for advice on some starter accessorries to help us on our way. I am happy to take suggestions but I am thinking we will be needing a filter for moon viewing and also a Barlow lens (the scope came with a 10mm and 25mm eyepiece).

 

We are only staring so not looking for top draw accessories, but something or fair quality for a starter. Still I am a novice an choosing the right and suitable accessories is something I am not confident with yet. So I would greatly appreciate any recommendations (or links) to filters, a Barlow lens or anything else you recommend for us.

 

Thankyou

[Spile]

Interesting to read your journey since the thread started way back. I have the same make Dobsonian, a 200P.

Toiletry bag to hold EPs  etc - Tick!

Warm socks, Red LED light, Warm boots, hat and gloves - Tick!

Two step chair - Tick but only for low objects so may need something height adjustable.

I wanted to avoid "upgrades" but have already succumbed...

I wanted to see what the 200P was capable of and decided to get a better planetary EP. I eventually decided on a Baader Hyperion IV Zoom and Barlow combination as it hit the sweet spot in terms of focal length range/quality/price - Very happy with that decision.

The straight through finder is a pain in the neck (literally for anything high in the sky) so am now reading the reviews of Telrad/Rigel or RACI. Tending to the latter - TBC

Looking at making or buying a smart phone mount. Managed to get a few reasonable shots of the moon without one. Not an area I plan to get into in a big way but it would be nice to have a record of what I have seen and to bore my friends with.