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.thumb.jpg.5b348d6a5e7f27bdcb79e9356b7fc03b.jpg

Recommended Posts

Hello guys as you see i am new in the forums and im starting my stargazing adventure.I want to use my telescope as an astronomical and a terrestrial telescope so preferably a mak or a refractor.My budget is 450 dollars for both telescope and tripod.

I already found one good telescope http://skywatcher.com/product/bk-1206az3/ Its the skywatcher 120/600.

Let me know if you have any other telescopes.Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome!

I have the smaller version of the skywatcher (ST102). The AZ3 mount really just manages it - I know some people use the AZ3 with the ST120, but I think most end up modifying the mount with counterweights. 

The ST120 would probably give you chromatic aberration (CA) and false colour if used for day time terrestrial viewing, due to it being a short achromatic refractor. Other, more experienced members may be able to advise on this.

I also have skywatcher skymax 127 mak, which I only just got recently and haven't managed to use much because of the weather. It's really good from the short time I've spent with it. However I think the field of view might be a bit narrow for terrestrial observing?

Both the Skymax and the Startravel range from skywatcher are great starter scopes - I've certainly enjoyed using them both so far. Although I only use them for stargazing, so don't have a lot of terrestrial experience. I use an AZ5 mount for  both of my telescopes.

I know you want to use it for astro and terrestrial, but which one are you mainly interested in? Also, what are you hoping to look at most (moon/planets/clusters/doubles)? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the advide.Im hoping to look mostly at the planets.And im also considering the skymax 127 because if i purchase it with the az3 mount it will be 90 dollars more expensive but i think it will be worth it.What are your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the budget is $ then I assume the US, in which case have a look at the ES AR80/640 offering.

It is an 80mm scope with a reasonable Alz/Az mount so will cover a fair number of astro viewing, and if you bought an erect image prism you can use it for terrestrial. At f/8 CA should be present but minimal, at 640mm FL you might get to 120x for Saturn (5mm eyepiece) but it is likey at the very top of what it can do. And it may not make it. Good for moon and Jupiter. Decent fielsd of view with a 25mm or 30mm plossl eyepiece.

Also it costs $150. and as you will no doubt soon require an additional 2 or 3 eyepieces you have budget remaining for that, and at some time you can pickup a solar filter for the front and go solar viewing.

After all that I still guess you would have budget left over, not a lot but some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the mak would be better if your main aim is the planets (in terms of astro observing). The mak 127 might be a bit heavy for the AZ3 mount, a 102 mak would be better as its a bit lighter.

However I'm not sure a mak is the best for terrestrial. Might be worth looking at longer focal length refractors. Not something I know much about I'm afraid, but I'm sure others will have good advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AstronomicalCheeki said:

Thank you again.So if i understand the shorter the refractor the more ca it has.Right?

For a given aperture, yes. See this table below for an idea on how it varies for different size achromats.

CA-ratio-chart-achro.jpg

You might get away with using an ST120 for terrestrial, but the only way that you will know if you are happy with the view is by trying it. It also depends on how you expect to use it. If you live up on a hill and have a great view across a valley from your garden it might be ok, but if you live at the bottom of the valley and are imagining carrying it up the hill to find a vantage point then it is a completely different story as it is quite a heavy scope for that.

The problem is that any scope you choose will have compromises for your intended purposes. Astronomically you will want a large aperture to support high magnification and gather lots of light but terrestrially a small and lightweight scope is more suitable. I "solved" the same problem by buying two scopes, an 8" Dobsonian for astronomy and a 65mm spotting scope for terrestrial use. However, to do this I think that you will need to increase your budget and patiently wait for suitable telescopes to appear in the second hand market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AstronomicalCheeki said:

Thank you so much for the explanation.But i heard mak has really minimal ca so wouldnt it be better for terrestrial.

Yes and no. It would be better from the CA point of view but by design a Maksutov has a long focal length, which means that it produces high magnification, small field of view images. For example the 90mm Skywatcher Mak has a focal length of 1250mm with the widest field of view possible coming from a 24mm 68° eyepiece or a 32mm 50°. The 24mm would give 52x and 1.3° and the 32mm 39x and 1.3°.  Both of these magnifications are high enough to be affected by heat haze on a warm day and for comparison with my spotting scope my "high power" fixed eyepiece gives 1.75° and my normal power gives 2.5°. However, if you are only intending to observe stationary objects then the small field of view may not be an issue.

I have seen a couple of people post here about owning an Omegon MightyMak 60. This has a much shorter focal length (700mm) so will allow you lower magnification, wider field of views than the 90mm. However, 60mm is too small for astronomy I think so you are back to needing two scopes.

I think both Maksutov options have photo threads so that you can attach them to photo tripods for terrestrial use but you will also want a correct image 45° diagonal for terrestrial use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So maksutov is pretty much better for terrestrial if we exclude the fov.Field of view isnt a problem because as you said i will be watching stationary objects.If i was to choose i mak i think i would oick the 102/1300 mm mak with az3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AstronomicalCheeki said:

Also would the az3 be able to hold 127 mm mak?

I've had the mak 127 on my AZ3 for a quick test. The mak is very much at the limit of what the AZ3 can cope with. It's a bit wobbly for high magnification work and struggles as you increase altitude.

Again, for terrestrial it's probably acceptable as you won't be going too high in altitude. But I don't think it would be my option.  The 102 mak would be less strain on the AZ3.

Are you sure you're happy with around 1 degree fov? I only ask because personally for a terrestrial scope I'd be looking for more than 1 degree. My ST102 with a 25mmm eyepiece gives 3 degrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main difference is the size. The bigger the size the more light it collects and the higher you can push the magnification, but the heavier the telescope gets. The 127 is going to be the best for astronomy but the 90 will be a lot easier to carry around for terrestrial viewing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you do go for one with goto it would have to be an alt/az one rather than equatorial if you're planning on using that same mount for terrestrial use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for terrestrial use I'd pick a mount with freedom find as this means it will also work fully manual with no power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By orfest
      [A few more photos are in the imgur album]
      Made this telescope for observing sunspots. The Sun gets projected onto a piece of paper after bouncing from 3 mirrors inside the frame.

      It's compact, light, takes only a few seconds to point at the Sun, and sketching sunspots is as easy as circling the spots on a piece of paper.

      It can even project the Moon:

      The design is inspired by a commerically available telescope, but I’ve done all the designing myself, just for the fun of it.
      Sunspotter is full of little details that make it interesting. How do you fix the eyepiece in the exact place where it needs to be? How do you keep the lens in place and perfectly aligned?
      Building the telescope was a lot of fun, I’ve learned to use a jigsaw, X-Carve and a 3D printer. The plan is to use it to complete the Astroleague Sunspotter Observing Program, but unfortunately I completed it at the minimum of a Sun cycle, and won’t see any sunspots until next year.
       
      Telescope parameters:
      Magnification: 75x Size: 41cm x 41cm x 15cm Weight: 1kg Design: Keplerian Projection size: 75mm Materials needed:
      Lens: Ø52mm f=750mm achromatic doublet Mirrors: 1, 2, 3 Eyepiece: Baader 10mm ortho 1.5m² of 10mm plywood Wooden glue 5m of PLA filament 12 nails Compressed air Isopropyl alcohol Tools I used:
      Jigsaw with a 30° bevel capacity X-Carve 1000 3D printer A laser pointer Clamp Learned modelling basics in:
      LibreCAD Easel TinkerCAD Fusion 360  
      Part 1: Choosing the lens
      The idea of a sunspotter is that the light goes through the lens, travels inside the telescope, bouncing from 3 mirrors, enters an eyepiece and the image gets projected on one of its sides.
      The distance the light travels before entering an eyepiece is the focal length and it determines the size of the telescope.
      I chose a Ø52mm f=750mm achromatic double. Observing the Sun doesn’t require a large aperture, 50mm is more than enough. I wanted a high magnification and went for the longest focal length I could find, which was 750mm. Achromatic doublet design is what people use in refractors. If it is good enough for a refractor, it’s definitely good enough for my project.
       
      With the focal length chosen I could design the wooden parts. A drawing showed that the frame needed to have sides 30cm long, but I wasn’t sure about the placement of the mirrors and went for 31cm sides, planning to shorten the light path as needed by adjusting mirror positions.
      This is the LibreCAD drawing of the layout of parts on a piece of plywood:

      Part 2: Building the base
      Having a drawing of the base in LibreCAD, I printed the drawing 1:1 scale on multiple A4 sheets of paper and glued them together. I transferred the drawing to a piece of cardboard and cut it out.

      Applied this cardboard template to the sheet of plywood, and cut out two parts with a jigsaw.. I’m not an experienced user of jigsaw, and couldn’t manage to cut half-circles accurately enough. Even worse was that the two parts were very different. I didn’t want the frame to randomly tilt left or right when adjusting its altitude, and had to spend a lot of time with sandpaper to make the halves as similar as I could.
       
      Glued the two large parts with three small parts in the middle. Additionally nailed the parts and the base was ready.
       
      Part 3: Frame
      The frame is simply a triangle made of three pieces, with short sides cut at a 30° angle. Most jigsaws can cut at 45°, but not at 30°. Had to buy a new jigsaw with a 30° bevel capacity.
      Cut out three sides, cut short sides at a 30° angle, but didn’t put them together just yet.
      The lens needs to be perfectly aligned with the Sun-facing part of the frame, otherwise the Sun projection isn't circular but elongated.
      My solution was to carve a hole with a little step as shown on the image.

      The inner hole is Ø46.5mm, the outer hole is Ø50.8mm.
      The outer hole is the exact size to let the lens fit, but with a little bit of friction. Had to carve several holes to find the minimal size the lens could fit in.
      The step is just large enough to have enough surface for the glue to keep the lens in place, I didn't want to reduce the aperture too much.
      I used an X-Carve for carving and Easel for modelling.
       
      With all 3 sides ready, I could assemble the frame. It appeared that my 30° angle cuts were not very precise, but after some sandpapering the sides started fitting together alright. Glued the parts together and left them to dry for a day. To apply some pressure on the joints, I wound several twine loops around the frame really tight, made sure all sides fitted well together and left it to dry like that for a day.

      Part 4: Mirrors
      When selecting mirrors I was looking for the smallest mirror that fit the cone of light. Small mirrors are a lot easier to place, and they let me better control the length of the light path. I considered using elliptic mirrors, but they were bulky and really hard to place. All mirrors are first surface mirrors, otherwise planning their locations would be a lot more confusing.
      This was my original plan of placing the mirrors:

      As you can see, all the angles and distances were carefully measured, and I wanted to simply make mirror holders of those exact dimensions. This was clearly a bad idea.
      I 3d-printed some parts like this:

      And only later I realized that the frame angles are not exactly 60°, and that there are drops of glue along the edges that don’t let me fit the pieces deep enough in the joint between the sides.
      I cut angles from all the mirror holders:

      After I put the first mirror in place I realized the angles are all wrong, and that I needed to re-do the holder. Separating the mirror from the holder was a huge pain, which resulted in an accident. The mirror fell off the desk and got damaged.

      Luckily, only the back side got damaged, the front side was still working:

      The final designs of mirror holders looks like this:

      The holes in the front surface let me apply pressure on the back of the mirror if I ever want to separate it from the holder. The recesses collect the excess glue to avoid mirror skewing when gluing them.
      All other holes are simply to save the filament.
       
      Part 5: Placing mirrors
      What I learned is that you can’t plan positions of several pieces with high precision and just hope that it all comes together. I needed a feedback about the precision of mirror positions.
      I used a laser pointer to verify mirror positions at each step.
      In the picture you can see that the laser is firmly set in a hole in another piece of wood, with layers of isolation tape on the tip of the laser pointer to make it stable. A clamp holds the piece of wood in place, ensuring that the laser ray goes in the same direction as a solar ray would. A crosshair of black thread at the center of the lens ensures the laser goes exactly through the center of the lens.


      When placing each mirror, I marked the spot where I expected the laser to end up. While gluing the mirror holder to the frame, I kept the laser as close to that spot as possible. If for some reason, the laser couldn’t hit the expected spot, I did my best with placing the mirror, and recalculated locations of the following mirrors.
      I saw the first sunspots after placing all the mirrors and simply holding an eyepiece in hand.

      Part 6: Eyepiece holder
      I tried eyepieces of different focal length and liked the picture I got with a 10mm eyepiece the most.
      An eyepiece needs to be in a very exact spot to produce a sharp image. At this point it was obvious that my frame doesn’t match the model, and that I didn’t even know what exactly was wrong with the frame. I didn’t want to rely on the model and moved forward with trial-and-error.
      I printed several parts to hold the eyepiece, with different eyepiece locations:

      The part in the photo was a total disaster. It needed quite a lot of filament, at the same didn’t have enough surface area to be glued to the frame, and not enough surface area to hold the eyepiece firmly.
      The next iteration was a lot better:

      This part has a lot more surface area, and needs less filament to be printed. I intentionally printed the hole for the eyepiece too small, and had to sandpaper it a little bit, to make the eyepiece stay firmly fixed.
      Adjusting the focus is done by sliding the eyepiece up and down until the Sun becomes a circle with well defined borders.
       
      Part 7: Dust
      All optical parts should be kept clean. Dust on the mirrors and the lens will make the image darker. Dust on the eyepiece will show up as artifacts on the projected image. Unlike sunspots, the artifacts will not move with the Sun. To clean the eyepiece I used compressed air. To clean the mirrors I used isopropyl alcohol.
       
      Part 8: Fire safety
      Don’t leave devices with magnifying lenses lying around. Once the Sun happened to be in such a spot that its light went right through the lens, burning through the cap of the eyepiece. Luckily, nobody was hurt and no other damage was done.

      Part 9: Future work
      Build quality of the base is very poor. The frame tilts sideways when adjusting its altitude despite all my efforts. I’d like to build a new base, but leave all the work to the machines. I already have a model for an X-Carve to make both base parts, compatible with my current frame:

      A notch along the edge of the half-circle should eliminate the tilt. The precision of the machining should make the base very stable. Maybe next year, when sunspots become a common daily sight, I’ll get to this project.
       
      Thank you for reading this far!
      I hope you enjoyed it.
    • By Dan20
      I'm trying to buy a 10" or 12" dobsonian and I found this website https://www.telescope.com/ 
      Turns out they have free shipping and can ship anywhere.
      Can I trust this website?
       
    • By stardude07
      Hello,
      I am wanting (not really 😪) to sell my Stellarvue SV105-3SV with tube rings [not shown in pictures]. The telescope is in great condition with very little dust and no scratches. There is one very small ding in the dew shield paint but it is not dented and it is almost not even noticeable. It happened when I took the telescope out of the saddle and it lightly hit the saddle. The telescope has never been dropped or had any issues and is optically perfect with a strehl of .95 or higher (claimed by Stellarvue).
      I've only used this telescope for imaging however I've once or twice thrown an eyepiece in it during a star party or two and it's VERY crisp with no false color.
      Currently I live in Italy so that's where it can be picked up or shipped from. Price is negotiable however Stellarvue says it is worth around $1200-$1500 USD. The nice thing is you wouldn't have any VAT from Stellarvue . Please let me know if you have any questions, comments or are interested.
      Lastly, here is a link to some images that I've taken with it and what it looks like mounted up: https://www.astrobin.com/users/chriscorkill/
      SV105-3SV Specifications
      Aperture: 105mm Apochromatic Precision Triplet Focuser: 3" Dual Speed Focuser with 2" and 1.25" eye piece adapters F Ratio: f/7 Focal Length: 735mm Color Correction: Excellent Minimum Tube Length: 16" in travel mode Tube Diameter: ~ 4-1/8" (105mm) Dew Shield Diameter: ~ 5-3/8" (137mm) OTA Weight: ~12lbs (5.4kg) Retractable Dewshield: Yes


    • By devdusty
      Further to my post about the Skywatcher flexible 130 p, I am now looking at a short focus tefractor. I am 70 years old so can only manage to carry a fairly lightweight telescope into my back garden.
      I am interested in viewing the moon, double stars,  bright planets and the brighter star clusters.
      I am looking to purchase one of the following
      Celestron  travel scope 70
      Bresse r Classic 70/350
      Skywatcher mercury 705 70mms.
      I understand that these telescopes have limitations, but they the only ones in my price range.
      Any comments or advice would be welcome.
      Chris P
    • By Fraunhoffer
      lets imagine I wasn't to see a nice DSO about 15' size and I think it should look good nicely framed with a 1 deg field of view in the EP..
      Which would give the better (or higher probability of seeing anything at all ) view from a semi urban light polluted home site (e.g Bortle 6)?
      a) an 100mm f/6 refractor (fl 600mm) and a 10mm EP (60 deg afov, gain 60x = fov pf 1 deg)
      (and exit pupil of 100mm / 60 = 1.6mm)
      or
      b) a  200mm SCT with focal reducer to give f/6 (fl 1200mm) and a 20mm EP (60 deg afov, gain 60x = fov of 1 deg)
      (and exit pupil of 200 / 60 = 3.3mm)
      My gut feeling is that the SCT should give a better view just based upon its 2xaperture - but Im not sure I understand fully the maths why.
      Is the larger exit pupil going to result in a better / brighter / more successful view?
      Or will the view be 'roughly' the same ?
      Or have I got it all wrong.....

      Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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