The mystique of " the best ".

[cotterless45]

Could have said " the beast "!

There's always upgrades or .1 lambda and Stehl specs for all our equipment. Keeping to basic eps and optics I've found that views are very enjoyable and dictated by other factors.

For dsos the main one being dark sky , leading to contrast and the ability to see faint targets .

Then transparency and seeing. This can vary from misty to wobbly.

naturally collimation follows on.

Please  correct me if I'm wrong , but are there any benefits to uber optics for visual astronomy ? I like to persuade newbies that the most simple, not basic gear will catch "many fish ".

clearer skies ! 

Nick.

[John]

Well it's a good point Nick.

I've had a couple of mediocre chinese 6" F/8 refractors through my hands recently which really did not perform so perhaps it's a case of paying a bit more to swing the odds towards getting a "good one" ?

I agree entirely that the conditions and skill of the observer are higher up the "wobbly stack" than optical quality though.

 

[acey]

Great post, Nick, totally agree. The biggest mistake in any hobby is to assume that the answer to every problem is to spend more money. When usually the answer is to get more experience, learn where we're going wrong, and make the most of what we've got. In astronomy we deal with what I like to call the "great chain": its links are the target object, the atmosphere/environment, the optical equipment and the eye/brain. It's easy to spend all our time worrying about just one link - equipment - when all are equally important. If one fails then the whole connection between brain and target is broken. We can't change the target but we can choose which ones to go for. We can't change the atmosphere but we can choose our night and observing site. Can't change our eyes but can learn to use them. Can change equipment - but if we don't deal with the other things there's no point.

[Size9Hex]

I'll be watching this thread with interest! I'm currently considering a smallish wide field refractor to sit alongside my dob and have wondered the same in terms of achromats vs. ED. The price difference is eye watering!

Although I own some nice wide angle eyepieces now, the stock eyepieces didn't show me much less detail (if any) exactly. The nice eyepieces are better in ergonomic and practical terms though, and with a manual mount, it means I see more than I otherwise would. Quicker star hopping, and less scope nudging. Being able to frame a target at higher magnification is good too. For me, this was worth upgrade.

But, stock eyepiece at a dark site vs. my new eyepieces from my slightly light polluted garden? I'd take the dark site with no hesitation at all.

[Mak the Night]

As I have a disability, I decided to get a portable grab'n'go scope to take advantage of small breaks in the weather. I've had as much fun with a 90mm Omegon Mak as with anything else I think. Mind you, I bought some top quality eyepieces for it lol.

[Size9Hex]

18 minutes ago, acey said:

Great post, Nick, totally agree. The biggest mistake in any hobby is to assume that the answer to every problem is to spend more money. When usually the answer is to get more experience, learn where we're going wrong, and make the most of what we've got. In astronomy we deal with what I like to call the "great chain": its links are the target object, the atmosphere/environment, the optical equipment and the eye/brain. It's easy to spend all our time worrying about just one link - equipment - when all are equally important. If one fails then the whole connection between brain and target is broken. We can't change the target but we can choose which ones to go for. We can't change the atmosphere but we can choose our night and observing site. Can't change our eyes but can learn to use them. Can change equipment - but if we don't deal with the other things there's no point.

Great points, but your comment about experience particularly struck a chord with me. Gaining a few months experience, and learning how to see/sense subtle targets is the biggest upgrade I've had. I see miles more with my cheap eyepieces today than I suspect I would have ever seen with the best eyepieces in the world when I first started.

[Paul73]

Now there is a contentious post!

I've always wondered what difference I would see ...... Would previously invisible Galxies jump into view? Would close doubles jump apart? Would the orb of Mars reveal Moon like detail?

I do know that my eyepieces are top notch for what I need them to do. And. No. They are not all Green & Black. £££ buys wide comfortable views. But a canny £30 buys pretty much the same smack in the center of the view.....where most of the targets sit....

Other than "Spend the money on petrol". The biggest jump in my single target viewing came from advice on this forum about how to view Jupiter. The combined cost of following all of that advice? A bit of practice and £ZERO.

Obviously I still spend the majority of my spare cash on Astro gear. But at least I don't expect it to make the invisible visible.

Now if the question were to be about size rather than quality.....

Paul

 

[brantuk]

Spot on Nick - there's no point having the best if you haven't learned the basics. A 200P on a goto mount will take you to M51 - but you won't necessarily see it if you don't know about light pollution, dark observing sites, and how to avert your vision, dark adaption, etc - even with an ethos in the focuser tube.

But if you know where it is and can judge the conditions, transparency and seeing, at a dark site, with dark adapted eyes, it can be exciting to see M51 in a supplied eyepiece with a 150P on a manual mount. I cringe sometimes when I see newbies go straight for collimation adjustments almost out of the box before having at least a half dozen sessions under their belt and a little experience doing star tests.

The best upgrade to any gear is to get out there and use it, accompanied by a bit of advice from friends who've been doing astronomy a while. I couldn't believe how my knowledge accelerated once I'd joined a practical group of observers.

[cotterless45]

I began to wonder at SGL. Mark , next to me had a lovely 130 Altair Astro triplet and some really uber class eps. We didn't always have the best observing conditions. It was somewhat gratifying when we compared my old C6r with a 5.5m Meade UWA with his scope and a 3.5mm Delos. He preferred my views and the ease of a range of BST Explorers instead of swapping 1.25" and 2" Axioms.

We had further adventures bird spotting the next day , when for daylight feather inspection , the 102 ruled !

 Nick.

 

[Stub Mandrel]

I see this argument over and again comparing top-end (and often second hand) British workshop machinery with relatively cheap imported machines.

The truth is the skill and experience of the operator is far more important, and as long as a cheap bit of kit fundamentally works n it is unlikely to be the limiting factor.

Astronomers seem to be far more accepting of imported kit, perhaps because there just isn't the availability of older quality second hand stuff?

I've been amazed with what I can see/image with inexpensive kit and I know 99% of the stuff holding me back is down to my skills, not the gear.

 

Look at the 'no-eq imagers' - the challenge of getting the best out of your kit can be more rewarding than 'buying' better results. But if folk can afford top end kit, I have no problem with them enjoying it.

[Putaendo Patrick]

In the last 25 years or so, equipment available to the amateur astronomer has improved enormously and prices are comparatively much cheaper than ever before. A basic Plossl EP was a dream to most in the 1970s, and before Dobson came along, large apertures were only for the very, very rich. Go-to simply did not exist - astronomy was about patience and putting the hours in!

And yet some brilliant astronomy was done in the past. I suspect Galileo's telescopes were worse than most cheap department store scopes of today, yet he was able to revolutionise the way we perceive the solar system (and almost got himself burnt in the process!)

Thomas William Webb in the 19th century wrote his Celestial objects for common telescopes based on observations with a telescope which probably cost at least 10,000 pounds in modern prices but which I doubt was much better than one of today's 8 or 10" Chinese reflectors, price no more than 500 pounds. In the 20th century some of the greats of the Southern Hemisphere such as Australian Ernst Hartung or South African Jack Bennett used telescopes which many of us today would turn our noses at!

If you have the money, by all means spend it, and yes, expensive optics are generally better than cheap. But for the beginner there's no need to spend a lot. In fact, although I wouldn't recommend it given the options, you can learn a lot with a really cheap bad pair of binoculars for under 10 quid if you have determination!

 

[Stu]

2 hours ago, cotterless45 said:

Could have said " the beast "!

There's always upgrades or .1 lambda and Stehl specs for all our equipment. Keeping to basic eps and optics I've found that views are very enjoyable and dictated by other factors.

For dsos the main one being dark sky , leading to contrast and the ability to see faint targets .

Then transparency and seeing. This can vary from misty to wobbly.

naturally collimation follows on.

Please  correct me if I'm wrong , but are there any benefits to uber optics for visual astronomy ? I like to persuade newbies that the most simple, not basic gear will catch "many fish ".

clearer skies ! 

Nick.

Nick, I both agree and disagree with your post!! ?

I totally agree that new starters can get excellent views with some nice entry level kit which shows great views. Your f8 frac gave great views of Jupiter at SGLXI, and recently I had equally nice views through Paul's 150P with a BST eyepiece; on the night it gave better views than my Portaball, quite possibly just because it dealt with poor seeing conditions better but it was still impressive. Looking through a number of different types of scopes at the star party, each showed a view that I enjoyed, none could be described as bad (even Derek's 16" but only after he collimated it ??)

Seeing conditions are a great leveler, and along with sky brightness are the most important factor in getting the best views. Poor seeing definitely severely limits the detail visible even with the best kit.

Personally I do place a value on high end kit though, so I don't follow an 'expensive kit is a waste of time' argument. In the right conditions, with an experienced observer you can definitely see the difference in my book.

I've had a few sessions recently which really confirm my views of my Tak FC-100. Over the winter I had been doubting it a little, but when the seeing stabilizes it is just a stunning scope, showing detail which belies its aperture. When seeing is poor you get all sorts of horrid artifacts including atmospheric CA, but under good seeing all these things disappear. I had been considering getting a faster triplet Apo, but when all is considered, having a lightweight scope which cools quickly and is pretty much up there in terms of quality is more important than having the triplet which would need a much more substantial mount and longer to cool so would get less use.

Of course it doesn't compete with a 16" in terms of resolution, but the contrast, control of light scatter and beautiful star patterns make it the scope I most enjoy using. There's a real delicacy to the views which comes from top notch optics.

In my location, I've given up on Galaxies, and only observe planets, the moon and brighter DSO's so much of my enjoyment is in how things appear, rather than chasing ever dimmer objects.

In summary, absolutely, when starting out, and even after a number of years observing, the entry level kit can and does give great views. There is no need to be buying Televue or Pentax eyepieces expecting them to show you things the cheaper eyepieces won't.

Astronomy is my only hobby, so I'm happy to spend cash on it to get the views I want.

[Special K]

I agree the hard hours put in at the eyepiece and resulting experience is the biggest advantage to observing. Great point by Acey that there are things beyond our control but choosing when and where to observe, including what to expect and how to train the brain are fundamental to success. Most of us who have not splashed out on the very best from the beginning have gone through a journey of learning. We learned that the stock ep's supplied with most scopes are the cheapest components in the box. Simple, relatively affordable upgrades in EP's often provide a dramatic jump in performance. But we also have learned this as we got our eyes used to observing and so learned how to appreciate better optics. Let's face it the difference between an average view and an outstanding one can be mere subtle differences. 

Hands down, a dark sky is a MASSIVE advantage.  Shame they can be hard to come by so we do our best with what we've got.

But on the other side of the coin, I agree with Stu's point on wanting the best view you can afford.  My view is I allow myself a few luxury items!  If there is just one piece of kit I've got that I can say has made a big difference it will be the 31mm Nag. I'm impressed every time I use it.  Yes, there are bigger and better things out there, but I draw the line at that point.  Bought used it still was more than a lot of scopes cost.  Compared to the (quite nice) stock 28mm EP that comes with the ED80, it's a significant step up.  Regarding scope quality, the skies the limit in terms of cost. Call me old fashioned, but I get a lot of fulfilment in trying to eek the best results out of moderately priced equipment.  A huge APO would be lovely I'm sure. If I could afford it, I'd be tempted, but hard to say it would make me much more happy than I already am about my endeavours. 

[Perseus_m45]

Excellent thread Nicko ! 

[cotterless45]

Yep, one thing us Luddites enjoy is throwing another CAT on the fire ! Some wonderful replies , it's quite a fine balancing act between spending and using,

old Nick.

[Demonperformer]

Like many of the previous posts, I would say 'yes & no'.

My first two telescopes were a disaster. The first had all the bells and whistles and I it found too complicated to set up. Then I fell for the "bigger is better" line and found it to be too big to use in my circumstances. I can count the number of times each of these got used on the fingers of one hand. I then bought a measly ETX-80, which is small and is often disparaged, but was simple to use, as a result I was out almost every evening I could. The best scope is the one that gathers photons rather than dust.

Having said that, I moved on from the ETX and got a 6SE - the difference was staggering. After a few years I upgraded to the 8SE and the difference in views of Jupiter and Saturn (since you specifically asked about visual) were again staggering (for a mere 2" increase in aperture). The thing is, that for each of these "upgrades" I knew what I wanted to achieve by it that I couldn't achieve with the scope I already had - it wasn't just spending money to get a more astro-status.

Status, after all, has been described as "buying things you don't want, with money you don't have, to impress people you don't even like"!

[chiltonstar]

Wonderful thread Nick! I have a suspicion that many of the arguments set out above re astro kit might also apply to cars.......

Chris

[brantuk]

What I would add to this thread is the notion that the more you spend on gear - the more subtle the differences seem to be. A beginner upgrading the supplied eyepieces on a basic scope will notice a huge jump in quality of views. Going from a £5 eyepiece to a £60 eyepiece produces a very obvious and significant improvement.

However - upgrading a 100^o Explore Scientific eyepiece, or a WO UWAN, to the equivalent Televue or Pentax eyepiece may mean spending an extra £200. But the differences won't be so obvious to someone who hasn't had a heck of a lot of experience with different scopes and eyepieces. The improvements are a lot smaller and a lot more subtle once you're into premium quality.

[John]

1 hour ago, brantuk said:

What I would add to this thread is the notion that the more you spend on gear - the more subtle the differences seem to be. A beginner upgrading the supplied eyepieces on a basic scope will notice a huge jump in quality of views. Going from a £5 eyepiece to a £60 eyepiece produces a very obvious and significant improvement.

However - upgrading a 100^o Explore Scientific eyepiece, or a WO UWAN, to the equivalent Televue or Pentax eyepiece may mean spending an extra £200. But the differences won't be so obvious to someone who hasn't had a heck of a lot of experience with different scopes and eyepieces. The improvements are a lot smaller and a lot more subtle once you're into premium quality.

More good points in an excellent and interesting thread

As you get more experienced you try and achieve things that are more ambitious as well I think and thats sometimes where small differences in performance make an impact. Quite a lot of what we discuss on here and are trying to see is on the limit of conditions, equipment and observer and everything needs to come together to go from "not quite" to "bingo !"

 

 

[Stu]

I think the only other thing I would add to this thread is that no one should be ashamed of the kit they have. There is no need to be embarrassed about having entry level kit, and no need to apologise for having high end kit. It all basically achieves the same aims at the end of the day (literally ?) so the key thing is just to enjoy what you've got.

People make perfectly valid choices about how much to spend on a hobby. If that means you've got a used ST80 on a photo tripod and that fits your lifestyle then that's perfect, enjoy it ??

[mikeDnight]

16 hours ago, cotterless45 said:

Could have said " the beast "!

There's always upgrades or .1 lambda and Stehl specs for all our equipment. Keeping to basic eps and optics I've found that views are very enjoyable and dictated by other factors.

For dsos the main one being dark sky , leading to contrast and the ability to see faint targets .

Then transparency and seeing. This can vary from misty to wobbly.

naturally collimation follows on.

Please  correct me if I'm wrong , but are there any benefits to uber optics for visual astronomy ? I like to persuade newbies that the most simple, not basic gear will catch "many fish ".

clearer skies ! 

Nick.

Great thread Nick!

I have a classic book titled Telescopic Work for Starlight Evenings, by W. F. Denning, and although much of the science is out dated, Dennings comments about telescopes and observers are spot on. One such comment states "The observer who quietly ... surveys the evening star or the new moon through his little telescope often finds a deeper pleasure than the proficient astronomer who, from his richly appointed observatory, discovers new orbs with one of the most powerful instruments..."

There is something to be said in favour of keeping things simple!

Denning also goes on to say "The capacity of a telescope cannot be correctly assigned and its powers circumscribed by arbitrary rules, because ... the character of the observer himself becomes a most important factor in this relation." "Some men will undoubtedly see more with 5" of aperture than others will see with 10."

Ultimately, no matter how good the optics are, if the seeing conditions are poor then a telescope cannot perform at its optimum. Likewise, if the observer is inexperienced and hasnt learned how to see, he may blame his perfectly good telescope, not realising that the problem lies with him. In such cases, having certificates of optical quality indicating a telescopes worthiness really account for nothing.

However, having an optically superb instrument will pay dividends in the hands of a good observer when the seeing allows for it. So, the better the optical quality the greater potential for outstanding performance. Is the gain though worth the increased cost? Well as painful as it might be, I believe it is.

Mike ?

[John]

2 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

....However, having an optically superb instrument will pay dividends in the hands of a good observer when the seeing allows for it. So, the better the optical quality the greater potential for outstanding performance. Is the gain though worth the increased cost? Well as painful as it might be, I believe it is.

Mike ?

Good post Mike.

I guess the above addresses this original question in Nicks post:

" are there any benefits to uber optics for visual astronomy ?"

It seems to me that there are but the extent to which the benefits are realised depends on many other other factors.

 

 

[DirkSteele]

I agree and disagree with you in almost equal measure.

Without a doubt, first and foremost, visual astronomy is a contrast game and dark skies are the most powerful addition to an observers ability to pull out faint detail.  I have been fortunate to observe in places like Namibia and Oman where scopes of 3-4” show as much if not more than my 11” does in suburban skies in the UK.

When it comes to observing fine planetary detail, how steady the sky is will often prove to be the limiting factor.  There is the reason why the Hubble was put into orbit.

And collimation is key.  I have been to astro-camps where I have looked through 8” scopes and the image is getting mushy at only 100x and yet I can push my 2.4” scope to 180x plus and still be very sharp.  A quick star test reveals optics horribly out of alignment.

However I have most certainly seen the benefit of high quality optics for the visual user.  It is why I now own what I do (see my signature).  I have also had numerous opportunities to show very inexperienced observers my APM LZOS and Takahashi scopes alongside average and good scopes at monthly star parties I attend in London.  Every month I hear the same comments along the lines of “your scope is the best one here.”  We are not talking leaps and bounds better, it is often subtle.  Just a tiny bit sharper, a little bit more contrast etc, but the difference is there and people can see it.  I am certain a patient and experienced observer will see more of a difference but those with less can also tell.

What one needs to remember is the cost performance curve is most certainly not a straight line where y=x.  It asymptotically approaches perfection with ever increasing costs to squeak out a tiny bit more performance.  Each observer needs to decide where they wish to position themselves on that curve.  A cheap scope with very so-so optics will still show way more than no scope at all and can provide a rewarding observing experience just as a scope with 1/10 wave optics and finest eyepieces on the back end can as well.  However, for those moments where, for lack of a better phrase, and the stars align, you can most certainly see the difference between a scope of ¼ wave (diffraction limited criterion) and 1/6 wave let alone something above 1/8.  My Takahashi FS-60, a 6cm scope has split the double-double in Lyra cleanly at around 80x magnification.  I have looked through scopes over twice that aperture that have failed to do so at the same magnification.  That is down to extremely good optics.  Trouble is, unless you are lucky enough to live somewhere like the Atacama, those star aligning moments are not frequent and require a patient, diligent observer. 

Perhaps the other thing to highlight with the premium brands is better (though not always, sometimes something slips through) quality control.  When you buy premium you are almost guaranteeing quality (and paying for the ones that did not make it) whereas lower down the scale there can be a bit more of a lottery.  Though the general level of consistency at the more sensible end of the price spectrum has materially improved over the last decade which is why it has never been a better time to be an amateur astronomer regardless of budget.

[Piero]

Not much left to add.. 

I also think that one who has just started should go for a good, easy to use but not expensive option. A key point in every hobby is passion and this needs dedication, effort and time to be sustained and strengthened. I don't think money or fancy equipment replaces this or can do this for you when you start off.

When one knows what s/he wants, well, that's another story and is entirely up to the person how to spend her/his money. I don't think overspending money in astro equipment is throwing money away. Astro equipment, if well kept, is an investment, far more than cars or fancy clothes which lose their value within few years or even months! Said this, I am not encouraging people to spend thousands of pounds in astro equipment. I'm just saying that if one has her/ his finances sorted and has some money to spend for this hobby, knowing what it is needed, it's not a drama if a bit of money is spent. Eventually it can be resold later if needed. 

My TV60 + naglers + delos are obviously not cheap. I doubt though that there is a cheap option for a 60mm wide field telescope which fits in a back pack and can be pushed to 180x without showing aberrations. I also doubt there is a cheap delos with similar features, and showing no obvious aberration on the tv60 as well as on a faster telescope (as I intend to get one day).  Of course, everyone should put some limits on money. I could replace all my eyepieces with Ethoi (assuming they had the eye relief I like and that I fancied uwa fovs), but I am just not keen to spend over 300 quid for a s/h eyepiece. Other people would, and they are happy so. Nothing to be ashamed about this. 

[Cjg]

Great thread. The darker less light polluted skies make all the difference. That said, the 'wobble' on the focusser of my Skywatcher 102 was so bad that it became a pain in the neck / eye / Bottom. Sure the optics in the Tak are a multitude better, but so is the focusser; one would have driven me to quit if I'd stayed with it, the other is an absolute pleasure to use.