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.

JaydenvdH

i can only see the moon good quality but nothing else.

Recommended Posts

 ng90 1250.jpgNational Geographic 90/1250 maksutov is my telescope  and thanks for all the replies and support of my previous post it helped me alot and i figured out how to see the moon for example in beautiful quality :)

but there's the problem i have. I can only see good views and a sharp sight of the moon but that's about it. Do i need a better lens that can zoom even more out or is this the limit of my telescope?

Please let me know if you know a solution to this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you have had good views of the moon you have obviously worked out focusing your scope. This being the case you shouldn't be having problems viewing other objects.
What else have you tried to observe? What problems did you experience?
Tell us all you can and I'm sure we will be able to help you enjoy your scope.

Edited by Astro Imp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could try m44 the Beehive cluster. M45 the Pleiades and then there is m42 Orion. Use your lowest power eyepiece.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

As you have had good views of the moon you have obviously worked out focusing your scope. This being the case you shouldn't be having problems viewing other objects.
What else have you tried to observe? What problems did you experience?
Tell us all you can and I'm sure we will be able to help you enjoy your scope.

well for example i looked at the brightest stars (Sirius A,Betelgeuse,Procyon)  and planets (like: mars,uranus) but if i focus on those stars/planets they were still been seen as if you were looking at them without a telescope.

i have a K25mm and K12mm lenses do i need a better lens? and the moon is perfectly in frame when i look at it through my lens with the K25mm and it is seen about half for the K12mm and my telescope can't like zoom in it can only focus.

Edited by JaydenvdH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, happy-kat said:

You could try m44 the Beehive cluster. M45 the Pleiades and then there is m42 Orion. Use your lowest power eyepiece.

what do you mean by lowest?

the only lenses i got are a K25mm and a K12mm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

happy-kat means use your K25mm Jayden, that is your lowest power eyepiece and will make finding targets easier.

You must realise that no telescope will make stars look any bigger, they will always be tiny points of light as they are so very far away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stars will always only show a bright dots regardless how big your telescope. Mars will show as a very small disc. Venus depends on where it is in it's phases but equally small.

Your telescope focal length 1250mm divide by eyepiece focal length gives magnification. So your 25mm is your lowest powered eyepiece.

Share this post


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

well for example i looked at the brightest stars (Sirius A,Betelgeuse,Procyon)  and planets (like: mars,uranus) but if i focus on those stars/planets they were still been seen as if you were looking at them without a telescope.

i have a K25mm and K12mm lenses do i need a better lens? and the moon is perfectly in frame when i look at it through my lens with the K25mm and it is seen about half for the K12mm and my telescope can't like zoom in it can only focus.

Any star you see through amateur telescopes will only ever look like a point of light as they are so far away. The planets you have looked at are very small at present, Mars will be better in eighteen months or so Uranus will always be small. 
Your 25mm lens will give the least magnification and 12mm a little more than twice.
At this time I wouldn't invest in any different eyepieces those you have are maybe not the best but will get you going. 
There is plenty to see and enjoy with what you have, @happy-kat above has made some good suggestions. For an easy and fun double star look at Mizar/Alcor in the plough.
Have fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you looked at the pictures on page one here: 

As the others have noted, all stars will appear as just points in the sky - no disc shape to them, unless you are looking at our own star during the day with appropriate filters.  All other stars are just too far away.  The planets as shown in that thread will be little more than the ration of a small pea on a large dinner plate.  What you need to do is to find areas of the sky where many stars and gases are together forming clusters and nebulas - then you will find some larger objects to look at, but they still won't be in colour like the images Hubble provides.  Feint Grey Fuzzies is what many people call them.

I think it might be a case of re-addressing your expectations.

 

Edited by JOC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JaydenvdH said:

well for example i looked at the brightest stars (Sirius A,Betelgeuse,Procyon)  and planets (like: mars,uranus) but if i focus on those stars/planets they were still been seen as if you were looking at them without a telescope.

i have a K25mm and K12mm lenses do i need a better lens? and the moon is perfectly in frame when i look at it through my lens with the K25mm and it is seen about half for the K12mm and my telescope can't like zoom in it can only focus.

Have you managed to setup the goto on your scope? If you do this then you can find some of the more interesting objects out there such as nebula and open and globular clusters for example.

M42 is still visible in the early evening and is one of the most rewarding objects. Your scope and eyepiece combination will show around 1 degree of sky which will not fit objects like M45 or M44 in fully although you will still see an eyepiece full of stars. The Double Cluster would be a good target to try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Geoff Barnes said:

happy-kat means use your K25mm Jayden, that is your lowest power eyepiece and will make finding targets easier.

You must realise that no telescope will make stars look any bigger, they will always be tiny points of light as they are so very far away.

Yeah cause i realised that with the K25 i could find targets very easy thanks for the information. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, JOC said:

Have you looked at the pictures on page one here: 

As the others have noted, all stars will appear as just points in the sky - no disc shape to them, unless you are looking at our own start during the day with appropriate filters.  All other stars are just too far away.  The planets as shown in that thread will be little more than the ration of a small pea on a large dinner plate.  What you need to do is to find areas of the sky where many stars and gases are together forming clusters and nebulas - then you will find some larger objects to look at, but they still won't be in colour like the images Hubble provides.  Feint Grey Fuzzies is what many people call them.

I think it might be a case of re-addressing your expectations.

 

Aha i see now thanks. But one question it says all the time if you have a "4 or "8 so what do they mean with that? 

Share this post


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

Aha i see now thanks. But one question it says all the time if you have a "4 or "8 so what do they mean with that? 

4 inch (100mm) or 8 inch (200mm) aperture scope. Yours is 90mm

Share this post


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

4 inch (100mm) or 8 inch (200mm) aperture scope. Yours is 90mm

So your scope is closer in size to the 4" one (just 1cm smaller).  It will therefore gather slightly less light than the 4" telescope referred to in the web-page and this will make it harder to see fainter objects in the sky because less light can be gathered by the mirror in your telescope.  Whilst all factors play a part - it is the ratio between maximum mirror width size and length of your tube in combination with your eyepiece that determines how big you can make something and it is mirror size and how much light it gathers that sort of determines how faint an object you can see.  Thus, if you want to see objects that are faint and also make them big you kind of really need a long telescope with a wide lens.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/03/2019 at 10:12, JaydenvdH said:

well for example i looked at the brightest stars (Sirius A,Betelgeuse,Procyon)  and planets (like: mars,uranus) but if i focus on those stars/planets they were still been seen as if you were looking at them without a telescope.

Hi Jayden, if you look at individual stars with a telescope they will still look like pinpricks of light, as they do to the naked eye.  Mars should not be a problem, you just need to focus better once you have found it.  For Uranus I don't think you have enough light-gathering power to find or view it satifactorily, you will need a bigger scope with an objective of 150mm or greater.  The star clusters suggested (M44, M45 etc) make really good targets for telescope viewing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By johnno0015
      An image created by the NASA visualisation studio of what a lunar eclipse would look like from the surface of the moon! Pretty cool right? If you want to get a better understanding of what is happening and why, you can checkout this article HERE which goes into the theory behind it all and also shows you what a solar eclipse would look like from the surface of the moon. 
       

    • By acr_astro
      Dear all,
      yesterday evening after doing the sketch of the three-day old moon, we had a wonderful twilight scene with Venus and the Moon over here.
      So I did a pastel sketch how I recalled it afterwards:

      Clear skies!
      Achim
    • By MrGuGuZai
      Hi, i have a Celestron ExploraScope 70AZ,  when i look at the saturn or jupiter (low or high magnification) the picture is clear if the object is at middle of my viewing but blurry and color mismatch if the object is at left side of the viewing.
    • By JoshHopk
      Hello all,
      This is my first post on SL, so please correct me if I have started this topic in the wrong place. I am also relatively new to astrophotography, so please ignore my naivety!
      I had some clear skies last week, so decided to do some lunar imaging with my new(ish) ASI224MC. I captured my frames in SharpCap as RAW24 AVI files, stacked in AS!2 and processed in Registax and Photoshop. When i got to sharpening in Photoshop, I noticed a sort of mosaic pattern over the image, which took away from some of the detail, and really ruined the image the more I sharpened. I did a quick search and it turned up with 'debayering'. This is a completely new concept to me and all of my attempts didn't seem to improve the image at all (perhaps I was debayering in the wrong order?). I have attached some images and also my some of my SharpCap settings in case they are of help.  
      COLOUR SPACE: RAW24
      CAPTURE ARE: 1304x976
      OUTPUT FORMAT: AVI files (*.avi)
      EXPOSURE: 0.29ms
      GAIN: 282
      Thank you in advance
      Regards, Josh.
       


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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