Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
By LR Watanabe
For Deep-Sky AP of mostly galaxies (and nebulae), what'll give me the best results– a medium-weight 130 P-DS or a very lightweight wide-field WO Z61? I know the "best" telescope is one that doesn't just collect dust all day long, but I just can't figure it out. Supporting said telescope will be the SW HEQ5 PRO Synscan (with the Rowan Astronomy belt attached), which will be supported further by a autoguiding system, possibly a very lightweight CF 32mm refractor with a ZWO ASI 120mm Mini (Can't find the -S model in Japan). On the telescope'll be the Canon EOS 600D, quite a heavy beast IMO.
Instead of leaving it here, I'll say (just blurt out) everything I know about these seemingly-equal telescopes.
The 130 P-DS, clocking in at F/5, will produce fantastic photos of Nebulae and Galaxies alike, although its aperture will slightly limit the galaxies it'll see. It seems this telescope does particularly well when it comes to imaging M81 or M51, and Nebulae like the Rosette. Its price-performance ratio is basically unbeatable, as it's only 250$ over here in Japan and it cranks out fantastic images. The only addition I'll need will be a F/5 SW-issued Coma Corrector; however, I don't need to worry as I'll be getting one from me mum in a few week's time.
The William Optics Z61, which has a slightly higher F number of 5.9. It sports 2 lenses with FPL-53 elements in them, allowing for extremely high contrast images of nebulae like the Rosette, Orion, all that lot. I've previously asked a similar question, and I've been convinced by the answer that "I won't really be able to take images of galaxies other than M31, Andromeda, and M33, Triangulum. So why do I even have this as an option when I could just go with the cheaper 130 P-DS? Well because it's a wide field APO. Everything it supports, whether it be the design to the focuser, is just amazing, so much so I can't emphasise the emotion enough.
On Astrobin, I've checked out what kind of images these telescopes produce, and I encountered a problem– pretty much everyone was using everything but the 600D. They all used the fancy Mono-cooled CCDs like the ZWO ASI 1600MM Pro.
To save time getting right to the point-Ive owned a celestron skyprodigy 90 and that scope alone made me feel more powerful than ever.Im planning on spending close to 2,000 on a new setup with a far larger aperture and although I love the cassegrain goto scopes from celestron and Meade,I’ve been wondering if my budget should go toward a custom dobsonian.
My dream begins with landing a setup within that budget and choosing the right attachments to be able to study the moon up close and personal.If you can imagine it I’d like to be able to at least recognize a footprint if there is one.Im assuming this is possible while so many scopes can see so much further away like other planets and such.
I’m more than grateful for any input that you’ve learned the hard way or any financial corners I can cut while still being true to the game.
Thanks in advance.
I’m a beginner, I started of with a 70mm focal length telescope with a 4mm lense. With this I am able to see the moon in fine detail however all other planets appear very small. Mars for example, I can see with me eyes and when I look through the telescope it is barely magnified. My question is; What telescope could I buy at a £300-400 budget to see all the planets in the solar system and perhaps even nebula from Andromeda.
By Ben the Ignorant
Funny, the physical laws of reflection, refraction, scattering, diffraction, etc, are similar for sound waves and light waves, but the resemblance does not stop there. Listening to various car loudspeakers, I found the minimal diameter for an acceptable sound is 70mm, and that's also the smallest diameter for a satisfactory telescope in my view. 80mm grant a little more resolution in both, and 80mm is a very popular diameter in compact scopes or compact radios, at least the older ones.
They make 90mm scopes to get some extra oomph, and the 90mm loudspeaker begins to issue more discernible bass, so much so I keep one from an old radio my father bought in the 70's, not knowing what I'll do with it but the bass, checked that when plugged to a guitar amp, is noticeable enough despite the size. Then the standard louspeaker size in non-toy stereos is 100mm, and the standard refractor size to get good resolution and power is also 100mm. There must be a reason if so many observers buy that many expensive 4-inch apos, but not nearly as many buy tighter apertures for comparable sums.
Following the same progression, monitors in studios have 125mm to 130mm loudspeakers (that need to be complemented by a tweeter because the similarity cannot be total between light and sound), and these diameters are also the ones that provide deeper resolution on planets. 150mm approaches real power in telescopes, and 150mm is also the entry-level size for a guitar amp, like my 15 watt Fender Frontman, which does not lack bass despite its handbag format (WonderWoman's kinda big and heavy handbag).
200mm is quite enough for most observers, resolution-wise and power-wise, which happens to match the size of more serious amps. I have a modded Stagg 20w 200mm guitar amp and an Ampeg 20w 200mm bass amp, both are plenty large enough to deliver a full sound in their range. There is a reason if so many 8-inch Schmidt-Cassegrains and newtonians are in use everywhere!
Then the 10-inch scopes are heavier, but not unbearably so, and the 10-inch loudspeakers also deliver the near-maximal power and resolution for an amp that remains not hard to carry around. 12-inch scopes deliver enough light and detail to satisfy most everyone; again, the equivalent 12-inch size amps give out enough frequency range and raw power to please the vast majority of players. Size and weight become an issue in both cases, but not enormously so.
And lastly, the ultra-large 15" amps or 15" to 16" scopes start another league in power and resolution but they both become equally difficult to transport.
Not quite apples and oranges in my opinion, does it seem like a coincidence to you?