Viewing expectation

[xLivvy91x]

Hi guys,

I've wanted a telescope for a long time and I've come into some unexpected money so I'm considering purchasing one for general viewing and some astrophotography and I have a question.

A friend of mine owns a telescope and I asked to go out with him to have a look at what you can see before deciding on whether to look into buying one for myself and I'll admit to being a little disappointed.

We had a look at Jupiter and while I liked seeing it along with 4 of the moons the planet itself was just a white dot, I couldn't see any of the details of the planet except an extremely faint pinkish/orangey flickering band across the light of the planet.

I was expecting to see the cloud bands.

We had a look at Saturn too and it wasn't particularly clear and looked more of a fuzzy blob with no detail or moons and a ring around it.

My friend has what I think is a skywatcher skymax 127. I've read up about aperture, focal length and magnification and his telescope I think is 5 inches in aperture and I was planning on a bigger one, around 10 or 11 inches given what I have to spend, but I'm now having doubts as to whether I should or not because I'm worried I'll only be disappointed.

Is this somewhat a beginner misconception as to what I'd see?

I feel like it might have been but I also feel like it might be either a limitation of the telescope my friend has or possibly how he has it setup? 

I feel like it might be how my friend has his scope set up or how he's using it because he has always been the sort of person to just buy stuff and not really know exactly how to use it and just wing it or use it once or twice and then get bored. We've been out twice to use his scope and he even said to me he's used it more since I asked about it than he has on his own, so I feel like it may be our combined inexperience. I also read something about something called collimation which can cause the image in the eyepiece to suffer if its not right but I don't fully understand this yet as I only read about it very recently.

So what does everyone think? Was I guilty of expecting too much, are all the photos I've seen people posting that they've taken through telescopes edited and stacked to massively enhance what you actually see? Or is it limitations of the telescope/users in question?

If anyone could offer their thoughts, opinions and experiences in this area that'd be hugely appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

Liv

 

 

[Peter Drew]

Probably a combination of all of those things.  Beginners are usually inspired by unrealistic advertising or seeing pretty pictures which, as you have suspected, have been heavily processed.  The planets that you have seen are currently very low so it is difficult to get a good view.  The friend's telescope is a good one and capable of better than what you have seen so far, it just needs good conditions.  I wouldn't jump straight in with a large telescope, it will suffer with the conditions, possibly more.     🙂

[xLivvy91x]

Thanks for your reply Peter.

What sort of telescope would you recommend for a beginner?

[Dr Strange]

There are a few things here that need to be pointed out. 1st, as Peter noted it is likely a combination of factors that lead to your disappointment. They would be: seeing conditions were likely poor; your friend likely didn't have the scope collimated well; the scope was not fully cooled; and your expectations.

Visually it will never look like the pictures you see. Our eyes work "in the moment" meaning that when a photon hits our eyes that is what we see. A camera can leave the shutter open for as long as the user would like which means a much bigger amount of photons are gathered which means a lot more color and detail on the image. The image is further enhanced by post processing where the data is manipulated to bring out the details the photographer wants. In the case of planets, because they are so bright, the photographer takes multiple short exposure images and stacks them together. That is what gives the end image its pop. In the case of Deep Space Objects (DSO) the same is done (multiple exposures) but each exposure can be as short as 15-30 seconds or as long a 2+ hours. And again the image is enhanced in post to bring out the details the photographer wants.

Astro Photography (AP) can be a very expensive, time consuming, and frustrating part of the hobby. And even someone who has lots of experience doing terrestrial photography can find AP very difficult. In general common wisdom says the following about AP: 1. visually observe for at least 6-9 months before attempting AP. That way the person has time to learn his/her night sky, their equipment, and how things work. It also gives them a chance to enjoy visually the objects that are out there before shoving a camera in the rear end of a scope and going forth. 2. The scope used for visual astronomy is not the scope used for AP. Trying to buy a single scope to do both is usually an exercise in frustration, especially for someone just getting started. In visual astronomy quality aperture (meaning size of the scope) is key. In AP first comes the mount so spend most of your money on it, then the scope, then the camera. And for those just starting out in AP it is best to get a low f/stop short focal length APO or ED refractor. The reason for this is because the longer the focal length and/or slower f/stop the scope the more precise one has to be with how the mount functions, tracks, and is aligned to the celestial pole, and if using a focal reducer then spacing for the camera. In addition with a reflector (mirror based telescope) the collimation (alignment) of the mirrors is very important. More so the longer the focal length. With a short focal length fast f/stop refractor (lens based telescope) there is no added complexity from collimation or having to be precise in the polar alignment or tracking because it is more forgiving thus more enjoyable for the photographer to work with and a good platform to learn on.

With that said and based on your comment that you had funds for a 10 or 11" telescope that would work for both AP and visual use I would suggest the following. Forget the 10 or 11" scope. The best telescope is the one you use. If it is too big, too heavy, or both you will not use it. And a 10-11" telescope is pretty big.  Instead consider a 8"/203mm SCT package from Celestron. I would suggest the EdgeHD Advanced VX package. The EdgeHD will be a scope you will grow into for AP but it is a cracking visual telescope. Add to it an Explore Scientific 80mm APO FCD1 refractor. That will be your AP scope to start with. The Advanced VX mount is not top shelf in terms of an imaging mount but those can be in the 10's of thousands of dollars. Add to that package a Tele Vue SCT to Compression fitting, 18mm, 14mm, and 8.8mm Explore Scientific 82 degree  eyepieces, a comfortable chair (for your eyes not your rear. You see more when comfortably seated), TEMPest fans from Deep Space Products for the EdgeHD which will cool the telescope faster than if you just had to do it normally, and the Pocket Sky Atlas from Sky and Telescope.

That will be about what a 11" computerized telescope will cost. And will do very well for what you are looking to do. 

[cletrac1922]

Liv

First of all welcome from Land Down Under

This question gets asked all the time

Since you definitely want to expand into AP, then you will need a scope with GoTo, SynScan controller

You cannot go far wrong with a Skywatcher  ED100 or ED120 on either a EQ5pro or HEQ5 mount

Have attached pic of my ED80 on a EQ5pro mount, taken at a club solar day last year, and I also use a car jump start pack to power it

Scope in the background with 600D camera fitted, is also a ED80 on a HEQ5 mount

With respect to camera, you can use a Canon 600D or equivalent, or a more specialize unit such as a ZWO ASI, with ZWO AIR WiFi unit, and a ZWO ASI290 mini as a auto guider

Then download varies software to control, and Stellerium  seems to be main weapon of choice,in here Regi Stack as a staking program

John

  

Edited July 21, 2020 by cletrac1922

[Kyle Allen]

Adding to what others have said about the conditions, as you gain more experience observing you will see more detail. It takes patience when you are observing the planets to wait for fleeting moments of good seeing (where the image suddenly snaps into focus) or to properly dark adapt if you are viewing deep sky objects. Also, I think it’s true to say that your brain performs a sort of stacking process and if you continually observe an object, detail that is barely visible to you can become more obvious. 🙂

[Rusted]

Learning to see is a major part of amateur astronomy.
All things requiring any special human skill need time to develop.
It cannot be bought. Make haste slowly and savour the journey of personal discovery.

The Moon is far more rewarding than planets and quite magical.
I can still clearly remember all the details of the first time I saw the Moon properly.
It was through a friend's telescope, I was a young teenager and it was 60 years ago.

I like the suggestion of a medium sized 100mm ED refractor on a popular mounting.i
A refractor is so much more than a pure astronomy tool. It is the optical, Swiss army knife.
With an erecting diagonal it can be used to admire distant views and for bird watching.

When properly and safely filtered you can watch the sun change over time. A whole hobby in itself.
The refractor is small enough and handy enough to store very easily.
Yet is light enough to be carried outside easily. Without ever needing optical alignment.
A refractor can be turned into a nice big camera lens with very little effort or expense.

Do not get greedy for size of telescope!
Larger instruments spend far more time in storage than ever see the sky.
It is the most common mistake and can soon lead to a complete loss of interest.

What I call instrumental inertia: Been there. Done that. We all have.
The huge physical and mental hurdle you have placed between yourself and the sky grows constantly larger.
The psychological effort just to get up and leave the cosy warmth of TV or browsing becomes insurmountable.

Spending time waiting for a large instrument to stabilize is precious observing opportunities wasted.
Larger instruments are far more sensitive to poor seeing conditions.
They soon become "fair weather" friends and who needs those kinds of friends?

[Dark Vader]

At the top of this forum is an excellent, informative and very well written article called "What can I expect to see". 

It certainly helped manage my expectations when I started out last year. A highly recommended read, if you've not already done so.

 

[DanielC]

Let me add that Jupiter and Saturn are actually difficult targets. I know everyone wants to see Jupiter and Saturn, but they're tiny and it's hard to see anything besides a small fuzzy circle. In general, planets are hard because they're small, and nebulae are hard because they're dim. The easier targets (after the moon) are globular clusters and binaries. Go back to your friend and ask him to show you some of these:

1) Double Double -- it is a 4-star system (two binary stars in orbit around one another).

2) Mizar & Alcor -- binary in the Big Dipper; if you zoom in you'll see at least one more star. In truth, Mizar & Alcor are really a 6-star system.

3) Albireo -- a beautiful binary; one bright red and one dimmer bluer star.

4) Great Cluster in Hercules -- globular cluster

Then you'll have more information about what's possible with a telescope.

[Kyle Allen]

Good advice above. Don’t forget about some of the lovely open clusters out their either. M11 is well placed at the moment.  🙂

[John]

One of the best targets for an easy "wow" for new observers is the double cluster in Perseus. It is easy to find, bright and spectacular in any scope or large binoculars. It's a low power object to get both clusters in the single field of view for maximum impact. These clusters are designated NGC 869 and NGC 884 and also Caldwell 14. They don't have Messier numbers.

And this IS how it looks though a small scope:

[sputniksteve]

Hi Liv,

Your experience of looking through your friend's scope is unfortunate I think. For comparison, I have currently borrowed from school a really rather trashy Tasco reflector. It's just 76mm aperture, and only has a stock 12.5mm eyepiece. The tripod head and yoke are pretty knackered so the whole thing wobbles. Collimation is off a bit. The finder scope is off by quite a bit. Nonetheless, I got a half decent view of Jupiter and Saturn through it a couple of weeks ago. Jupiter showed its two main cloud belts - just about - and Saturn showed its wonderful rings. 

Now, I have got a bit of a trained eye as I used to have a 12' Lightbridge. This thing was beautiful. But when the kids came along, I pretty much stopped using it. It was BIG. And although it was quick to set up and just start using it, I soon tired of having to manually nudge it as objects drifted out of the FOV. And I struggled to find new objects, so ended up just looking at the same DSO and always ended up on the planets and moon. But that experience means that I can probably pick out more detail in that crappy 76mm reflector than others might be able to.  

I will be buying a Skymax 127 AZ-GTi later this year, but I'm under no illusion that I will need to get new eyepieces for it. I've read that the stock 25mm is ok, but the 10mm is rubbish. I will probably get a 6 or 7mm to go with it. And then at some point in the future will get a wedge so that I can use it in EQ mode. And then even later I shall get a 80mm refractor to compliment it. 

 

I've also got a 6" mirror set that I intend to use in a dob at some point ...

 

My advice actually would be don't buy one yet. Join a local astronomy group or society and attend their events to have a look through the different scopes that the members use. I'd also recommend a decent pair of binoculars.