Jump to content

Narrowband

another 'newb' needing advice....:)


Recommended Posts

hello all and apologies for jumping straight in with the questions (that have probably all been asked seventy twelve million times!)

i'm looking to take the leap into a bit of casual astrogazing and if i could eventually take a pic or 2 that would be great - i'm not naive enough to expect to be seeing hubble like images and know there's a lot of work involved getting astro images.

so a little bit of background fwiw, a few years back i was bought a cheapo brasser telescope as a pressie which let me see the moon in great detail and i was blown away (even considering the limitations of the scope) life however stopped me pursuing the interest further (kids meh...who'd have them ?) but i am starting to get a bit more free time and the oldest is nearly 4 so i'd also like to introduce her to the beauty of the night skies. 

at this stage i'm looking at the second hand market (i don't want to be one of those people who spends 1000's) then finds they don't have the time or the 'love' wanes.

budget wise i've tentatively set it at £200 (i appreciate the limitations this places) but i could extend this for the right scope.......thus far looking on the usual second hand places i've come across the likes of the below; (i'll link to the new items on FLO)

but obviously i'm flying blind here and have no idea what i should be looking at. so any and all advice will be greatly appreciated.......please be gentle ?

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-150p-eq3-2.html

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/az-goto/skywatcher-skymax-127-synscan-az-goto.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm aware there will be different views on this but for visual astronomy I would steer well away from a Newtonian on an equatorial mount. The first scope you link to was what I started with, would I start with this again - no!!! The scope itself is capable of giving good views of plenty of objects, I enjoyed the views but not the faffing about with the mount. Let me explain, an equatorial mount is designed so the mount points to the celestial pole, for us in the northern hemisphere that's the north pole. When an object is in view as it moves across the sky only the right ascension axes needs to be moved to keep the object in view. Sounds great - yes!!! The drawback is the optical tube rotates to get the object initially in view, the result is the eyepiece gets in positions where it is difficult/impossible to see through without rotating the tube in the rings. To me an equatorial mount is only needed for astro photography. As I say this is just my view, others may/will disagree.
Good luck.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get yourself one of these used, but even new one is not so far out of budget:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-skyliner-150p-dobsonian.html

If you can manege the size (in storage and transportation terms), look for 8" version used - probably the best starter (and sometimes lifetime) scopes for visual.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Astro Imp said:

I'm aware there will be different views on this but for visual astronomy I would steer well away from a Newtonian on an equatorial mount. The first scope you link to was what I started with, would I start with this again - no!!! The scope itself is capable of giving good views of plenty of objects, I enjoyed the views but not the faffing about with the mount. Let me explain, an equatorial mount is designed so the mount points to the celestial pole, for us in the northern hemisphere that's the north pole. When an object is in view as it moves across the sky only the right ascension axes needs to be moved to keep the object in view. Sounds great - yes!!! The drawback is the optical tube rotates to get the object initially in view, the result is the eyepiece gets in positions where it is difficult/impossible to see through without rotating the tube in the rings. To me an equatorial mount is only needed for astro photography. As I say this is just my view, others may/will disagree.
Good luck.

ah ok, that's a much better explanation of how a Newtownian works on an EQ mount. i had previously read about the complexities but hadn't fully understood what i was reading. that makes perfect sense. thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Get yourself one of these used, but even new one is not so far out of budget:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-skyliner-150p-dobsonian.html

If you can manege the size (in storage and transportation terms), look for 8" version used - probably the best starter (and sometimes lifetime) scopes for visual.

 

2 minutes ago, Louis D said:

A used 8" classic Dob would work well for your needs and budget.

thanks, yea i had read that Dobs were often recommended for beginners and i had looked at those but for me transportation would be a pain. Storage not so much. but i live smack bang in the middle of town so light pollution is a nightmare. it's practically daylight 24/7 front and back of my house! so most, if not all my viewing will require bunging everything in the car and driving (don't have to far though) so i had kind of ruled the Dob out. with something like that i assume i'd need to also bring a stable platform to set it on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously I'm not aware of the car you have but in most cars transporting a dob isn't a problem. Wrap the tube in an old blanket/duvet or similar and wedge it securely in the boot/on the back seat, the base will sit comfortably on the front seat with seat belt holding it securely. You don't need a platform for an 6"/8" Dob but if you are observing on wet grass an old piece of plastic like a bin liner will keep the damp away.
FWIW my previous car was a Peugeot 207 and my 8" Dob travelled happily with the tube in the boot and the base on the back seat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, thekwango said:

 

thanks, yea i had read that Dobs were often recommended for beginners and i had looked at those but for me transportation would be a pain. Storage not so much. but i live smack bang in the middle of town so light pollution is a nightmare. it's practically daylight 24/7 front and back of my house! so most, if not all my viewing will require bunging everything in the car and driving (don't have to far though) so i had kind of ruled the Dob out. with something like that i assume i'd need to also bring a stable platform to set it on?

Both 6" and 8" are fairly easily portable with even small car.

Both tubes are around 1m and a bit long (1200mm focal length, but not all of it goes into tube length) - so fit nicely on the back seat lied down. Dob base can fit into most booths. You need an observing chair - look for foldable one or one you can take apart and put together with ease. Eyepiece case and you are all set.

In reality such dob is about as portable as EQ mounted shorter dob - you need place to put tripod and mount and scope. You might not need observing chair for EQ mount - but it is much more comfortable observing while seated down.

For really compact and portable design you need to look at folded scopes - here you will find that you will be limited by aperture even second hand for your budget - like Mak 127 you mentioned - it will gather about x2.5 less light than 8" dob. Mind you, nothing wrong with 5" Mak or SCT - very good scopes and very light for their size - Dobs are often said to be the best bang for the buck - meaning the most aperture at lowest price, and aperture is important for visual (as long as one can manage bulk).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

For really compact and portable design you need to look at folded scopes - here you will find that you will be limited by aperture even second hand for your budget - like Mak 127 you mentioned - it will gather about x2.5 less light than 8" dob. Mind you, nothing wrong with 5" Mak or SCT - very good scopes and very light for their size

Plus one for the 127 Mak on an alt-az mount.  That's the route many folks go for compact transportation in the trunk (boot) of a car.  The problem is, being a more complex design than a Newtonian, it costs more.  TANSTAAFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Both 6" and 8" are fairly easily portable with even small car.

Both tubes are around 1m and a bit long (1200mm focal length, but not all of it goes into tube length) - so fit nicely on the back seat lied down. Dob base can fit into most booths. You need an observing chair - look for foldable one or one you can take apart and put together with ease. Eyepiece case and you are all set.

In reality such dob is about as portable as EQ mounted shorter dob - you need place to put tripod and mount and scope. You might not need observing chair for EQ mount - but it is much more comfortable observing while seated down.

For really compact and portable design you need to look at folded scopes - here you will find that you will be limited by aperture even second hand for your budget - like Mak 127 you mentioned - it will gather about x2.5 less light than 8" dob. Mind you, nothing wrong with 5" Mak or SCT - very good scopes and very light for their size - Dobs are often said to be the best bang for the buck - meaning the most aperture at lowest price, and aperture is important for visual (as long as one can manage bulk).

coolio - so it's as simple has a that. i was, wrongly it seems, under the impression for the Dob's you'd need a separate mount or a flat levelled table to be able to use them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Plus one for the 127 Mak on an alt-az mount.  That's the route many folks go for compact transportation in the trunk (boot) of a car.  The problem is, being a more complex design than a Newtonian, it costs more.  TANSTAAFL.

yea, i kind of figured i'd be sacrificing on the viewing abilities given the added 'stuff' on a scope like this over 'simpler' ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, thekwango said:

coolio - so it's as simple has a that. i was, wrongly it seems, under the impression for the Dob's you'd need a separate mount or a flat levelled table to be able to use them. 

Some of the smaller models (usually designated as table top) need something to put them on, but 6" and 8" are properly sized to be placed on ground.

Here is interesting thread about observing chairs (lot of recommendations) - something that you will need. 6" and 8" dobs are not really suited for standing observing (although they can be used like that, but you will bend your back quite a lot).

Here is a short video (plenty of such videos on youtube) - showing the size of the scope and how it is assembled:

It would be a good idea to browse thru some of those videos to get "the feel" for the size of the scope and what it looks like - both 6" and 8" - it can help you decide if you opt for any of the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

It would be a good idea to browse thru some of those videos to get "the feel" for the size of the scope and what it looks like - both 6" and 8" - it can help you decide if you opt for any of the two.

Height-wise, 6" and 8" work out to the same length because the 6" is f/8 and the 8" is f/6.  6x8=8x6=48 inches in focal length of the optical tube.  The main difference is in girth and overall weight (and price, of course).  If a car can fit a 6", it most probably could also fit an 8".  Of course, if you're camping, there isn't much room left over for gear in a small car.  If you've got a van or large SUV as many of us have in the US, they can be swallowed up with ease in the back.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Height-wise, 6" and 8" work out to the same length because the 6" is f/8 and the 8" is f/6.  6x8=8x6=48 inches in focal length of the optical tube.  The main difference is in girth and overall weight (and price, of course).  If a car can fit a 6", it most probably could also fit an 8".  Of course, if you're camping, there isn't much room left over for gear in a small car.  If you've got a van or large SUV as many of us have in the US, they can be swallowed up with ease in the back.

Yes, I know they have about the same length (focal length at least, tube length depends on secondary size as well, and how much of tube there is after focuser - good figure, not often utilized in mass produced scopes would be x1.5 diameter), but size is quite different - base is also a bit wider and quite heavier in 8" model - around 16kg vs 26kg total (base + OTA). Not something that can easily be seen on video though :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

Yes, I know they have about the same length

I knew you knew, but I was trying to point this out to @thekwango in case it made a difference in choosing between the two sizes.

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

tube length depends on secondary size as well

I had forgotten that the extra inch(es) in radius of the tube also puts more of the light path perpendicular to the tube getting it to the focuser.  The 8" might actually be shorter overall.  The heavier mirror might also allow for the altitude bearing to be further back on the tube allowing for shorter base sides.

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

base is also a bit wider and quite heavier in 8" model - around 16kg vs 26kg total (base + OTA)

Sounds like they need to work on finding a way to save some weight.  Perhaps something lighter than particle board could have been used.  I've seen lots of folks build their own solid wood bases, but even that won't save all that much weight.  I've been looking at the ultralight 12" Dobs made of aluminum for this reason.  Their main problem seems to be control of structure flexure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, vlaiv said:

snip

thanks for the link to the vids - dayum they are big. you don't nearly get a sense of the size just looking at them on for sale listing! I think sadly I would need to retract my previous statement that storage wouldn't be an issue (not an issue for me but the wife might have something to say about it!)

given the physical size of the 6 & 8 inch Dobs I'll have to rule them out for now, even though they seem to be very much the best 'bang for buck' scope and the views with look absolutely brilliant. I suppose I could always try and trade the wife in for a smaller model to make room ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Louis D said:

I knew you knew, but I was trying to point this out to @thekwango in case it made a difference in choosing between the two sizes.

cheers, yea I really didn't realise how big they actually were till I watched a few videos. sadly the size of them kind of means I have to rule them out and focus on something with a mount, which given the limited budget means i'll take a hit on what i'll see. but if I bring something that into the house the wife would give me 2 black and eyes and i'd see even less then! ?

I might have to look at upping the budget somewhat to try and overcome this a bit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked my Skymax 127 with Synscan so much that I bought a second one to take to my holiday home in France. The 127mm Mak. is built like the proverbial brick outhouse, and neither of mine have needed any collimation adjustment.

I have a 10" collapsible Dob, and there is no way that it will fit in my Mazda MX5 roadster - no problem with the Skymax setup.

This is my transportable configuration

657793490_SkymaxBackpack-Annotated(R).jpg.f6c7f7e12907041cf70dd50390c05cda.jpg

With 2 sets of batteries, and a couple of eyepieces, the whole lot weighs under 11kg.

Geoff

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Geoff Lister said:

I liked my Skymax 127 with Synscan so much that I bought a second one to take to my holiday home in France. The 127mm Mak. is built like the proverbial brick outhouse, and neither of mine have needed any collimation adjustment.

I have a 10" collapsible Dob, and there is no way that it will fit in my Mazda MX5 roadster - no problem with the Skymax setup.

This is my transportable configuration

657793490_SkymaxBackpack-Annotated(R).jpg.f6c7f7e12907041cf70dd50390c05cda.jpg

With 2 sets of batteries, and a couple of eyepieces, the whole lot weighs under 11kg.

Geoff

oh nice one. I need to ask the million dollar question though...what kind of things could I expect to see with this type of scope......and were I to try a jam a camera on there at some point is taking a pic or 2 possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll not weigh in on the benefits of the scopes suggested by others far more qualified than me. But I would give back to your comment regarding involving your almost 4 year old.  My daughter has been involved in our stargazing since she was just over 4. In fact it was her interest in space that motivated out telescope purchase.

And the big thing I've learned (fortunately before our ourchase) was that motorised tracking on a scope is a HUGE benefit if you are sharing viewing and (in my experience) essential if trying to let a little one view. You can manage fine without for the moon but the magnification required for the planets means they move across the field of vision too quickly. Even if YOU can manually track when viewing the kids won't be able to (at that age anyway). It just takes them too long to focus through the eyepiece and it's gone before you can be sure they ever saw it. And that's not even including the accidental nudges.

If you can stretch to something with tracking (full go to not essential) I'd really reccomend it it intending to view with small children. And a smartphone adapter for live viewing rather than through an eyepiece makes a huge difference too. Great for the moon although tricky to line up well enough for planets.  

There have been a few threads on here talking about observing with small ones that will give more info on balancing the technical aspects with the specific needs of youngsters.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually hadn't given thought to fact the little one wouldn't be able to actually see planets etc due to them moving - so more luck than design that I looked at motorised tracking scopes! cheers for the input/insight

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, vlaiv said:

Both 6" and 8" are fairly easily portable with even small car.

Both tubes are around 1m and a bit long (1200mm focal length, but not all of it goes into tube length) - so fit nicely on the back seat lied down. Dob base can fit into most booths. You need an observing chair - look for foldable one or one you can take apart and put together with ease. Eyepiece case and you are all set.

In reality such dob is about as portable as EQ mounted shorter dob - you need place to put tripod and mount and scope. You might not need observing chair for EQ mount - but it is much more comfortable observing while seated down.

For really compact and portable design you need to look at folded scopes - here you will find that you will be limited by aperture even second hand for your budget - like Mak 127 you mentioned - it will gather about x2.5 less light than 8" dob. Mind you, nothing wrong with 5" Mak or SCT - very good scopes and very light for their size - Dobs are often said to be the best bang for the buck - meaning the most aperture at lowest price, and aperture is important for visual (as long as one can manage bulk).

Don't count out the 10" f/4.5 Meade Starfinder dob if you can find a used one with good mirrors, one of which I've hauled out to the back yard, roadsides, and dark sky locations with relative ease for twenty years. The tube is three inches shorter than the f/8-f/6, while the overall weight is still less than 100 lbs. Bring along a 1m square of 3/4" plywood and you're set up in minutes anywhere.

I realize I may be blowing your budget, but aperture fever is only funny when you're not afflicted with it. After starting with a 4.5" and then soon buying a 6", I was finally cured with the 10", the length of time I've owned and used it proof of it's overall practicality to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, thekwango said:

I need to ask the million dollar question though...what kind of things could I expect to see with this type of scope......and were I to try a jam a camera on there at some point is taking a pic or 2 possible?

I have used mine for viewing the main planets (super for the Moon, Venus, Jupiter & Saturn; Uranus is a definite blue-green sphere, and Neptune looks like a wide star). The Mak design has the focal range to take almost any camera, so a modified webcam is fine for the planets out to Saturn.

The aperture is fine for most of the Messier objects, given clear skies and low light pollution. My Nikon D3200 and GP-CAM work well on the Az/Alt mount with exposures of up to 15 seconds.

This is an idea of the setup with the Philips SPC 900 webcam, replacing the eyepiece, feeding an adjacent laptop. The red wine is optional ?.

1431901439_Skymax127MCTinFrance(R).jpg.aa0c01ae605589c4046bc1fb477f2c79.jpg

Geoff

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Seanelly said:

Don't count out the 10" f/4.5 Meade Starfinder dob if you can find a used one with good mirrors, one of which I've hauled out to the back yard, roadsides, and dark sky locations with relative ease for twenty years. The tube is three inches shorter than the f/8-f/6, while the overall weight is still less than 100 lbs. Bring along a 1m square of 3/4" plywood and you're set up in minutes anywhere.

I realize I may be blowing your budget, but aperture fever is only funny when you're not afflicted with it. After starting with a 4.5" and then soon buying a 6", I was finally cured with the 10", the length of time I've owned and used it proof of it's overall practicality to me.

Oh my. While it does appear an impressive scope, I fear having recently spent close to a grand on pc upgrades I’d be best sticking a bit closer to my budget but thanks for post and info. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Geoff Lister said:

I have used mine for viewing the main planets (super for the Moon, Venus, Jupiter & Saturn; Uranus is a definite blue-green sphere, and Neptune looks like a wide star). The Mak design has the focal range to take almost any camera, so a modified webcam is fine for the planets out to Saturn.

The aperture is fine for most of the Messier objects, given clear skies and low light pollution. My Nikon D3200 and GP-CAM work well on the Az/Alt mount with exposures of up to 15 seconds.

This is an idea of the setup with the Philips SPC 900 webcam, replacing the eyepiece, feeding an adjacent laptop. The red wine is optional ?.

1431901439_Skymax127MCTinFrance(R).jpg.aa0c01ae605589c4046bc1fb477f2c79.jpg

Geoff

Excellent looking setup (especially the wine - though White is my preferred poison)

interesting to see you say you use your D3200 camera. I’ve a D3100 kicking about somewhere and I’d read the Nikon D3xxx range aren’t supported by most Astro imaging software. Do you use a particular sw solution to control the camera via the laptop or do you manually take your shots?

Link to comment
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.
×
×
  • 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.