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_inspirational_skies.thumb.jpg.a20cdbfeadc049807f6d78e6c00ee900.jpg

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For planets and the moon a little maksutov is awesome, newly discovered myself. got a little 90mm mak from skywatcher. £150ish.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, although would you say that you are able to see planets like Saturn and Jupiter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eytan said:

Thanks, although would you say that you are able to see planets like Saturn and Jupiter?

Visually i can clearly see the banding on jupiter with mine. if i got myself a barlow lens it would be even better. i got mine for planetary photography. This is a pic i took

Jup_8-7-18.jpg.019c69ae66a18a5ea114a87abfd1e5c6.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with observing Planets is that they will look about the size of a pea at arms length with most modest scopes, the images you might see are taken with additional barlow lenses and small chip sized planetary cameras. 

Alan

Share this post


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

Visually i can clearly see the banding on jupiter with mine. if i got myself a barlow lens it would be even better. i got mine for planetary photography. This is a pic i took

Jup_8-7-18.jpg.019c69ae66a18a5ea114a87abfd1e5c6.jpg

Nice image, the little Maks are quite a surprise aren`t they.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

The issue with observing Planets is that they will look about the size of a pea at arms length with most modest scopes, the images you might see are taken with additional barlow lenses and small chip sized planetary cameras. 

Alan

This is very true. Planets such as Saturn and Jupiter start to look good in a scope of 90mm, but are pea size.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alien 13 said:

Nice image, the little Maks are quite a surprise aren`t they.

Alan

yeah , for something that practically fits in my hand it blew me away what i could do with it. that was my second night trying webcam imaging so im sure i can do better in the future when i learn how to use firecapture and registax

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Anthonyexmouth said:

Visually i can clearly see the banding on jupiter with mine. if i got myself a barlow lens it would be even better. i got mine for planetary photography. This is a pic i took

Jup_8-7-18.jpg.019c69ae66a18a5ea114a87abfd1e5c6.jpg

Thats actually not a bad image. Ive never seen the GRS looking so red, and i do believe you caught a transit of one of the Jovian moons also.

MAK 127 is a popular choice of scope and a big step up from 70mm. 

Harrison scopes (UK) sell the Bresser 102:

https://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/bresser-messier-ar-102s-600-hex-focus-optical-tube-assembly-4802600.html#SID=1683

 

Edited by LukeSkywatcher

Share this post


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

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.

Hi.

You probably mean a 70mm diameter telescope, and if your only eyepiece is a 4mm you have the highest power but not all the lower ones. You need a choice between four or five magnifications to exploit a telescope.

Planets look small in all instruments, even at elevated magnifications, but viewing experience makes up for that. Just chose some little but detailed and contrasty object to view with your naked eye. Look for all its features with deep attention, and you'll notice a lot more than with casual viewing. Even the blurring effect of turbulence can be partially processed out by the experienced viewer, but no miracles, of course.

A good scope for your 300 to 400 pounds is an 8-inch dob. It's a kind of standard, does everything, does it pretty well, doesn't cost much, doesn't weigh much.

Remember only five planets (and the Moon) show some detail in an amateur telescope, but many hundreds of star clusters, nebulas, galaxies and double stars are within reach. Be sure to ponder that, and if planets are really your passion with the deep sky only a secondary interest, maybe a large apo refractor is your thing, but they cost a lot more than your 400.

Finally, the Andromeda galaxy can be plainly seen with the naked eye in a good sky, or remain barely seen with large binoculars in a heavily light polluted sky. Yes, blackness of the sky makes that much difference.

How dark is your sky?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Ben the Ignorant said:

Hi.

You probably mean a 70mm diameter telescope, and if your only eyepiece is a 4mm you have the highest power but not all the lower ones. You need a choice between four or five magnifications to exploit a telescope.

Planets look small in all instruments, even at elevated magnifications, but viewing experience makes up for that. Just chose some little but detailed and contrasty object to view with your naked eye. Look for all its features with deep attention, and you'll notice a lot more than with casual viewing. Even the blurring effect of turbulence can be partially processed out by the experienced viewer, but no miracles, of course.

A good scope for your 300 to 400 pounds is an 8-inch dob. It's a kind of standard, does everything, does it pretty well, doesn't cost much, doesn't weigh much.

Remember only five planets (and the Moon) show some detail in an amateur telescope, but many hundreds of star clusters, nebulas, galaxies and double stars are within reach. Be sure to ponder that, and if planets are really your passion with the deep sky only a secondary interest, maybe a large apo refractor is your thing, but they cost a lot more than your 400.

Finally, the Andromeda galaxy can be plainly seen with the naked eye in a good sky, or remain barely seen with large binoculars in a heavily light polluted sky. Yes, blackness of the sky makes that much difference.

How dark is your sky?

Yeah, obviously 70mm diam. A 4mm EP would be pretty useless. 

What scope do you have?.

A 6-8" Dob............is the ideal solution. Good all rounders, but not good for imaging.

 

Edited by LukeSkywatcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For observing the planets and other brighter objects of the night with a refractor, that will require a longer achromat...

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/evostar/skywatcher-evostar-102-eq3-2.html

However, for the galaxy in Andromeda, to see a fair-sized chunk of it, that may require another telescope entirely...

https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-explorer-130pds-optical-tube-assembly.html

That's a Newtonian, however, and would require collimation on occasion.  It can also be used for planetary observations with the aid of 2x and 3x barlows, or with planetary oculars of short to very-short focal-lengths which contain built-in barlowing elements.  Mounts for the telescope...

https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-eq3-2-deluxe-equatorial-mount-tripod.html

...or... https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-eq5-deluxe-mount-tripod.html

If you'd rather a simpler alt-azimuth... https://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/explore-scientific-twilight-i.html#SID=568

...or... https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p1753_TS-Optics-Altazimuth-Mount-GSAZ-with-fine-adjustment-and-tripod.html

A 127mm Maksutov... https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-skymax-127t-optical-tube-assembly.html

...is a specialty telescope, with a very long focal-length, and ideal for observing the planets, and the smaller DSOs, up close.  Wide- and wider-field views are not possible, and for observing the galaxy in Andromeda.  You would see only quite small sections of it.  It could, or could not be, just the thing for your purposes.  A computerised, go-to mount is generally preferred for a Maksutov.

For observing the gamut, everything, at low power and high power, both, a 130mm f/5 or 150mm f/5 Newtonian is ideal.  But, the design does require routine maintenance, and unlike a refractor.  A Maksutov can require maintenance, although infrequently if at all, for it contains two mirrors like a Newtonian, but the design is "tighter" in its construction.

Then, there's a 200mm f/6 Newtonian on a Dobson alt-azimuth to consider... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bresser-telescopes/bresser-messier-8-dobsonian-telescope.html

...and for that delightful "Earl of Rosse" experience.  It would be capable of mostly medium-to-high powers.  It is possible, however, to realise a low-power, the lowest and widest practical, of 32x with that one, and with a 2" 70° 38mm ocular...

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/ovl-eyepieces/panaview-2-eyepieces.html

...and for a pot-shot at the galaxy in Andromeda.

For the planets, it can realise up to 400x, under ideal atmospheric conditions.  On average nights, 250x or so at least should be routine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Anthonyexmouth said:

Visually i can clearly see the banding on jupiter with mine. if i got myself a barlow lens it would be even better. i got mine for planetary photography. This is a pic i took

Jup_8-7-18.jpg.019c69ae66a18a5ea114a87abfd1e5c6.jpg

I've never used a Mak telescope, and visually, thats a pretty good image, but if that was the visual image from my scope, any further magnification with a Barlow would destroy the image. Are you sure the image would be 'even better' on the Mak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ben the Ignorant said:

Hi.

You probably mean a 70mm diameter telescope, and if your only eyepiece is a 4mm you have the highest power but not all the lower ones. You need a choice between four or five magnifications to exploit a telescope.

Planets look small in all instruments, even at elevated magnifications, but viewing experience makes up for that. Just chose some little but detailed and contrasty object to view with your naked eye. Look for all its features with deep attention, and you'll notice a lot more than with casual viewing. Even the blurring effect of turbulence can be partially processed out by the experienced viewer, but no miracles, of course.

A good scope for your 300 to 400 pounds is an 8-inch dob. It's a kind of standard, does everything, does it pretty well, doesn't cost much, doesn't weigh much.

Remember only five planets (and the Moon) show some detail in an amateur telescope, but many hundreds of star clusters, nebulas, galaxies and double stars are within reach. Be sure to ponder that, and if planets are really your passion with the deep sky only a secondary interest, maybe a large apo refractor is your thing, but they cost a lot more than your 400.

Finally, the Andromeda galaxy can be plainly seen with the naked eye in a good sky, or remain barely seen with large binoculars in a heavily light polluted sky. Yes, blackness of the sky makes that much difference.

How dark is your sky?

The sky is very dark with no light pollution whatsoever, it is on the very west side of Turkey by the Agean sea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Anthonyexmouth said:

Visually i can clearly see the banding on jupiter with mine. if i got myself a barlow lens it would be even better. i got mine for planetary photography. This is a pic i took

Jup_8-7-18.jpg.019c69ae66a18a5ea114a87abfd1e5c6.jpg

Great picture, with the moon as well. I’ll look into the telescope you recommended, Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Eytan said:

Great picture, with the moon as well. I’ll look into the telescope you recommended, Thank you.

just remember thats a picture , dont expect to see it that big visually. it'll be recognisable as a planet but not huge in the eyepiece. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/07/2018 at 10:04, Anthonyexmouth said:

just remember thats a picture , dont expect to see it that big visually. it'll be recognisable as a planet but not huge in the eyepiece. 

Yes I understand thank you, could I ask what camera and lense you were using when you took it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎27‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 08:36, Eytan said:

The sky is very dark with no light pollution whatsoever, it is on the very west side of Turkey by the Agean sea.

Excellent, you are free to use any instrument to the max of its possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the pictures in the first page of this thread:

 

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 Selborne
      Hi Guys,
      I thought I would share with you my first hand experience of the Skywatcher ED100 Pro Esprit Telescope, I have only had it a few months, but so far I am extremely happy with the results, it is so sharp and the contrast is very high.
      I live in a small town, Stowmarket, Suffolk, UK, where the light pollution is not to bad, but still I have to be cautious with the direction I choose to point the telescope.   All my astrophotography is done from the back garden on my patio.
      I have had a few different telescopes over the years, but I always found myself moving more and more into astrophotography, so after some research I selected the Skywatcher ED100 Pro Esprit, as many of the other users had commented on the sharpness and contrast.  As I wanted to focus on more wide field astrophotography the F5.5 speed giving 550mm seemed the right choice, I also use an ED50 Skywatcher Guide Scope with an Altair Astro ASI130mm camera for the guiding and of course PHD2 software, all mounted on my Skywatcher HEQ6 mount.
      Here is a shot of the Andromeda Galaxy, 20 x 30s stills at ISO 800 on my Sony A7Rii, no filters just RAW images processed with Photoshop, Stacked Mean option.  I used the Trevor Jones video on his BackyardAstro You Tube page for processing DSO's and it seems to work very well.  What you will see from the image is just how sharp it is, something that really surprised me when I processed the images.
      This has inspired me to spend more time outside in the garden to photograph more objects, plus I have recently purchased an Astronomic CLS Filter for my Sony A7Rii, so I am looking forward to using this to see if it improve the contrast.  I will keep you informed.
      Also I am looking forwarded to trying my Olympus EM1 MK2 camera, yes I know it does not have the capabilities of the Sony A7Rii for light gathering, but it does have a really clever mode where it can stack the images in camera to reduce noise, so I will also let you know how this went as well.
      Best Regards
      Jamie
       

    • By Maxrayne
      Messier 31
      Andromeda Galaxy
      Distance from Earth - approx 2.5 million light years

      After spending ages getting a decent polar alignment, the clouds were on their way in so I only had a small window of opportunity remaining. This was my first real run with the new setup (minus the ST80 and ZWO ASI120 as i was having issues there) and I almost gave up. SO glad I didn't!! Focus was off a bit though I think and I've definitely over-processed

      EXIF:

      Nikon D5300
      270mm
      f / 5.6 @ ISO 800
      21 x 30 second subs
      Bortle 5

      Stacked in Sequator. Very quick minor crop and global edits in LightRoom. No darks/flats/offsets

    • By -ChoJin-
      Hello,
      This is my first astrophotography with my own scope (and first light for this scope). I've always been fascinated with this galaxy, and it was my childhood dream to capture it. It finally happened ;-)
      You'll find all the technical details on the description on flickr.
      Overall it's the first light of my skywatcher Quattro 250mm/1000mm f4, NEQ6, with an unmodded Canon 6D.
      Integration time: 1h59
      Processed with PixInsight.
      link to flickr for the full resolution and description: 
       
       
       
       
    • 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?
    • By wimvb
      NGC 205 in Andromeda; often imaged, but rarely noticed, it seems. I decided to put it centre stage.
      In most images, this elliptical galaxy shows no details. But there are actually very subtle dark dust bands near the center, and there's also a very weak tidal stream that ties it to its larger neighbour.

      Imaged in November of 2017
      Equipment as in my profile
      L: 14 x 180 s, at - 30 C, gain 0
      RGB: 6 x 300 s each
      Integration time: 2.2 hours

      (click on image to enlarge)
      A reprocessed version with a little more detail in the core is posted further down.
      https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/308426-ngc-205/?tab=comments#comment-3373998
       
×

Important Information

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