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.

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By jadcx
      TS Optics Photoline 90mm Triplet
      On reflection (or should that be through the lens of reality?) this was overpriced at £800, so is now reduced accordingly  
      In excellent condition, I gave a small writeup about this when I bought it, and it is still an excellent scope.  However it has been losing out to the 60 and 76 Tak and now spends all of its time alone, safely flight-cased.
      Don't leave this scope to suffer a lonely and unused life.  Buy it and catch some great views this winter! 


      Payment: PayPal (buyer pays fees) or bank transfer (preferred).
      Postage: Not included.  Collection from Nottingham, UK is free (of course), otherwise you will need to arrange your own courier.
    • By Spacecake2
      What telescope brand would you choose?
      Reply below for your favourite telescope brand. It would be really helpful to know which brand to buy.
      Celestron, Meade, Orion, Skywatcher  etc.  
      Thank you for viewing
       
    • By Spacecake2
      Hello,
      Does anyone know if I should upgrade my telescope? I have a Celestron Nextar 127slt and I've been using it for a few years now. I want to see more detail on Jupiter, Saturn and Mars.
      Does anyone have any suggestions from Celestron?
      Kind Regards
    • By endlessky
      I have already posted my first astrophotographic session report in the telescope review thread: Tecnosky 80/480 APO FPL53 Triplet OWL Series - Review. But since that is more of a general review/diary of my experience with the new telescope, I feel some of the issues I am having are being buried and they will probably get more visibility if I post them - in a more synthetic version - in a dedicated thread.
      So, a few nights ago (October, the 5th) I took out my new telescope for its first light. All the photos have been taken with the 0.8x flattener/reducer and the Optolong L-Pro 2" filter attached to the reducer. The camera is an astromodified Nikon D5300. The only processing the following pictures have consists in this:
      - AutomaticBackgroundExtractor
      - ColorCalibration
      - Stretch
      Here we have a 90s shot of M31.

      And here's a mosaic generated with the AberrationInspector script.

      What I do like:
      - tightest, smallest, roundest stars I have gotten since I started doing astrophotography at the end of January. Obviously comparing it to what I have been achieving with a kit 70-300mm zoom lens, these can't be anything else but better by orders of magnitude
      What I don't like:
      - star shape not consistent in all areas of the image
      - residual chromatic aberration, especially on stars that are not round: there's clearly some red and blue edges visible
      I didn't expect this from an apochromatic refractor, but maybe it's just because the stars are kinda "smeared", so not all light is focused at the same spot? I don't see this around the center of the image (or, at least, the problem is less pronounced). Maybe I have some tilting in my imaging train/sensor?
      I have been doing some reasoning about it and it seems like a combination of tilting and/or backfocus spacing. According to the following image about backfocus spacing:

      if the stars are elongated radially, the sensor is too close, if they are elongated tangentially, the sensor is too far. But to me it seems I have a little bit of both: in the top right corner, for example, the stars look radially elongated, in the bottom right, they look tangentially elongated. Top left they look tangentially elongated, bottom left also, but a little less. Seems like there has to be some tilting as well, otherwise they would all have a symmetric shape on all corners, correct?
      How do I determine - is there even a way - if the issue is due to tilting only, backfocus only, or the combination of the two? Is there a sure proof way of checking for tilting? Like, rotating the camera and taking pictures with, say, the camera at 0°, 90°, 270° and 360°? If there's tilting, the pattern of the star shapes should follow the camera, correct?
      I also tried splitting the channels in R, G, and B components, doing a star alignment of the blue and red channels with the green as a reference, and recombining the channels. The blue and red edges become a lot less evident, which is good, but obviously the star shapes remain the same.
      In my Telescopius gallery you can also find two other images, Capella and Capella Mosaic showing pretty much the same issues.
      Also, one issue with the guide camera: ZWO ASI 224MC. When attached to the guide scope (Artesky UltraGuide 60mm f/4), I can't seem to get a "sharp" focus, I even tried on the Moon, and the best I got was a soft lunar disc, with some major features visible, mainly by change of color/brightness (the maria, for example), but no details. The image still seemed blurred/bloated. Is it because of lack of IR blocking filter? I tried the same camera attached to the main refractor, with the L-Pro filter (which blocks UV and IR, as well) and I could focus perfectly. Do I need an IR block filter for guiding or even if the stars appear a little soft, the camera guides just fine?
      Matteo
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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