Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_2.thumb.jpg.72789c04780d7659f5b63ea05534a956.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.

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
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

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

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
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
Link to post
Share on other sites
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
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
Link to post
Share on other sites
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
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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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

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.

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 Cobberwebb
      Hi everyone.
      Looks like I will get some favourable weather in the coming days, but the moon is out and full. I finally have a car so I can get away from light polluted Weymouth, and tonight I took a drive and found a great spot to shoot (see image).
      So to the point, I want to shoot Andromeda during these moonlit nights since the moon will be directly behind me. How much will it still affect my images?
      I'm still a beginner, using a Nikon Z50 and the 50-250mm kit lens @250 (F6.3), but I do have a Star Adventurer now, so I'll go out and shoot if nothing for the practice (my polar alignments have been pretty good).

    • By astrobena
      Hey everyone,
      I was out recently in what felt like the first clear sky in years and got ~109 min of data on M31, minus 76 frames due to a 12mph wind, which left me with 69 min of data (each shot is 45 sec with ISO 200 tracked with skywatcher star adventurer). As mentioned in the title I captured all these images in a bortal 8 location, used an unmodified canon eos 400d and the skywatcher 75ed as the scope (with a flattener). I've attached my edit (warning: it is not great at all + slightly overedited to see what details are even there), and to be my surprise it looked very similar to an image of M31 with only 20 min of data which i captured a month earlier (both of which i used DSS and photoshop for). Now this may well have something to do with the way i edited it in photoshop or a different setting in DSS or just the fact that 49 more data doesnt make much of a difference considering im in a bortal 8 location, maybe you guys could help on that. I've attached the link to the original files (in the folder called 18.2.2021) as well as the stacked image from DSS (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12NT4TmLCXvTfOXNPE_l8UWPRpgO2VjLe?usp=sharing). I didnt capture any flat images but have dark and bias frames, all in their correpsonding folders in the attached link. It would be greatly appreciated if you guys could see if there is more data in this then i have managed to 'extract' using photoshop. (If you use different software and try and edit these files please tell me what you used) If there isn't then maybe do you guys have any images of M31 (or similar) from very light polluted skies that you could share here? (If so i would if you could share the full exposure time and gear that would be great)
       
      Many Thanks!
       

    • By AstroM1
      Andromeda Galaxy Group
      Nikon D5100 -- Nikkor 70-300 at 200mm
      60x30 sec + DOF
      Star Adventurer
    • By Astro_Dad
      Looking forward to receiving my 102MC in the next few days/weeks depending on supply. Does anyone have any experience, tips/advice?  Looks like a good grab and go particularity for planetary observation - interesting “next generation” mount. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.