If you started all over again, what would be your equipment choices?

[Nik271]

When you talk about "performance" is the quality of the image that you get right? Like in a good lens for a dslr?

Being Plossls the minimum, what are the next, better, ones?

Will a better eyepiece like those costing around 50€, assuming an eyepiece that comes standard in a 500€ telescope, dramatically improves the viewing experience? 

Actually for telescopes of high focal ratio, say F8 and higher, a Plossl already maxes out for image quality. The more expensive EPs may have wider field of view or better eye relief but I doubt you will see notable increase in image quality. Maybe a little bit but at double and triple prices it's not worth it.

I'm still using a 15mm Kellner EP  that came with the £50 basic Celestron kit and that's a 3 element design, i.e. not even a Plossl.  I'm using it in two Maks at F12 and F15 which are very undemanding on the eyepieces. 

Expensive eyepieces are worth their money for fast scopes like F4 or F5 Newtonians, especially if you want wide field of view.

Nikolay

[Alan64]

33 minutes ago, pedromreis said:

When you talk about "performance" is the quality of the image that you get right? Like in a good lens for a dslr?

Being Plossls the minimum, what are the next, better, ones?

Will a better eyepiece like those costing around 50€, assuming an eyepiece that comes standard in a 500€ telescope, dramatically improves the viewing experience? 

A few decades ago, and long before, Plossls were among if not the very best eyepieces available.  They were expensive, too.  Plossls can now be made more cheaply, yet are still of very good quality and optical performance.

There are more eyepieces, and types, out there than you can shake a stick at.  I suppose the next step up from Plossls would be eyepieces that offer a wider view, yet without distortions.  Some do not not cost much more than Plossls, but they do not perform well with all telescopes.  Take this wide-field eyepiece for example...

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p2643_GSO-1-25--SuperView-Eyepiece---20mm---68--apparent-field.html

I have access to that one within the household, as it belongs to a relation.  It will play well with my Maksutov, but not so well with my shorter Newtonians.  An 8" Newtonian-Dobson, at f/6, is of a medium focal-ratio.  That 20mm would probably work well with it.  Plossls, however, will work well with practically all telescopes, but they are not for those who must wear prescription-eyeglasses whilst observing.  In those instances, the eyepieces must have longer eye-relief, so as to accommodate the physical thickness and position of the eyeglasses.

In order to recommend eyepieces, it's always best to have a telescope already in possession, so that our suggestions might be tailored to that one, and to the user.  

Edited September 19, 2020 by Alan64

[pedromreis]

12 hours ago, John said:

The atlas I recommend is the Sky & Telescope Pocket Sky Atlas:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Telescopes-Pocket-Sinnott-30-Mar-2006-Spiral-bound/dp/B011T83TX6/ref=pd_lpo_14_t_1/259-5840706-6980031?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B011T83TX6&pd_rd_r=d0c23dfe-6f5f-4092-9f66-a1f0244390d2&pd_rd_w=nQfaC&pd_rd_wg=botGv&pf_rd_p=7b8e3b03-1439-4489-abd4-4a138cf4eca6&pf_rd_r=QQS8JG3111R4N8TWMBDT&psc=1&refRID=QQS8JG3111R4N8TWMBDT

 

Hi

What will a Pocket Sky Atlas give you more than all the apps that you can have on your tablet?

I've tried to find examples of what is inside, with no luck

Edited September 19, 2020 by pedromreis

[John]

3 minutes ago, pedromreis said:

Hi

What will a Pocket Sky Atlas give you more than all the apps that you can have on your tablet?

 

For me, yes, because I don't use a mobile or tablet for astronomy.

What I've done in this thread is just to summarize what my 35+ years in the hobby have taught me works best for me and the lessons that I draw that I would apply if starting out again. I think that was the question you asked ?

Other folks will have been on different journeys and will have different experiences to bring to your thread with different recommendations as you have seen. Some recommend this or that and some are saying that they would not go down that route at all.

You are getting a mix of experiences and preferences.

I guess the challenge for you is to pick your way through all this to decide what you invest in to get the most satisfying results for yourself, this time around.

Sometimes these threads generated almost too much information perhaps (in a very well meaning way course !)

You can end up suffering from "paralysis from analysis" which I've seen happen quite a few times in such threads.

Good luck in finding your way though

 

 

[pedromreis]

4 minutes ago, John said:

You can end up suffering from "paralysis from analysis" which I've seen happen quite a few times in such threads.

Good luck in finding your way though

Yes, sometimes is better to have 1 recommendation instead of 20

I have this book ordered, will arrive sometime next week https://www.cambridge.org/pt/academic/subjects/physics/amateur-and-popular-astronomy/turn-left-orion-hundreds-night-sky-objects-see-home-telescope-and-how-find-them-5th-edition?format=SP&isbn=9781108457569

This is enough for now right?

 

[Carbon Brush]

Many years ago (don't ask) I was put off astronomy by the views through a 1" (no not a typo) refactor on a table top mount, then a 60mm scope with built in zoom eyepiece. Again table top.

The situation improved when I tried out a 3" long FL refractor. But it was on an undersized EQ mount and wobbled.
Ridiculous magnifications offered by the eyepieces didn't help. It spent many years in its box.

Fortunately for £150 now you can get something that is going to give enjoyment and tempt you to continue the hobby.

The biggest difficulty is the wide choice. Hence the length of the thread!

 

[John]

1 minute ago, pedromreis said:

Yes, sometimes is better to have 1 recommendation instead of 20

I have this book ordered, will arrive sometime next week https://www.cambridge.org/pt/academic/subjects/physics/amateur-and-popular-astronomy/turn-left-orion-hundreds-night-sky-objects-see-home-telescope-and-how-find-them-5th-edition?format=SP&isbn=9781108457569

This is enough for now right?

 

That's a good one to get you started in finding a range of targets.

Apps like Stellarium and Sky Safari can also be very useful. I use the free PC software version Stellarium and another one called Cartes du Ciel a lot.

[mikeDnight]

44 minutes ago, pedromreis said:

Hi

What will a Pocket Sky Atlas give you more than all the apps that you can have on your tablet?

I've tried to find examples of what is inside, with no luck

Using an atlas is thrilling and you have the comfort of knowing you aren't reliant on some form of power supply or electronics. It's also less distracting and less stressful, for me at least, as there are no buttons to fumble with or tiny screens to swipe. Somehow using an atlas is more easily relatable to the night sky. My old Norton's Atlas is littered with comet paths that I pencilled in as I followed the comets across the sky, so it has history going back to Iras-Iraki-Alcock and Halley, and many more, including the biggy Hale Bopp. Finding my way around the sky with an atlas is a more relaxing experience to a technophobe like me. As a result of my years with atlases I'm very familiar with the whereabouts of a great many objects of interest hidden in the night sky, and can generally find most of them quickly and without thinking, so no need for goto either. If I'm unfamiliar with an object, I'll find its position in my Atlas and hunt it down. It's thrilling to find things this way and really bolsters your confidence. Having a machine do it for me takes the joy out of the whole experience.

[pedromreis]

6 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

My old Norton's Atlas is littered with comet paths that I pencilled in as I followed the comets across the sky, so it has history going back to Iras-Iraki-Alcock and Halley, and many more, including the biggy Hale Bopp. 

I can relate to that  I also prefer paper to electronics.

[Macavity]

Learned a lot from BOTH "first" scopes: ST102 f/5 achromat and SW MAK90...
Always aware of likely virtues / limitations, I'd still go for both one or t'other. 🙂
The ST102 came with the (slightly awkward!) AZ3-2... But I do still have/use it!

Mounts: Again a useful learning tool, but I didn't "get on" with small GoTo's. 🤔
(A decent mount - tho' more expensive, will "last forever"... HEQ5, Sky Tee...)

Beware the "eyepiece tango"? A lot of time/money can be spent on that one!
I rarely do/did visual, but (again, within limitation re.. faster scopes) I still LIKE
(still have) three of my old Baader Hyperions: 10mm, 17mm & 31mm Asph. 😉

Aside: My "epithany" came with (independent) discovery of Video Astronomy.
Occasional flirting with Classical Imaging? But that's a rather long/er story... 🥳

P.S. I learn a lot from Books... the Internet. (I know how to find references! lol)
Others learn from "Forums"... (onetime!) Astro Soc. "Beginners' Evenings" etc.
Whatever! I think it a good thing to "know your stuff" when... before starting.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Macavity

[pedromreis]

18 minutes ago, Macavity said:

Learned a lot from BOTH "first" scopes: ST102 f/5 achromat and SW MAK90...
Always aware of likely virtues / limitations, I'd still go for both one or t'other. 🙂
The ST102 came with the (slightly awkward!) AZ3-2... But I do still have/use it!

[...]

Aside: My "epithany" came with (independent) discovery of Video Astronomy.
Occasional flirting with Classical Imaging? But that's a rather long/er story.

Those are for taking pics/video only right?

The achromat are the ones that have distortions right? can you link me to the exact ones?

Video Astronomy is taking a video and convert it to pics?

Thanks for your post!

[Alfian]

18 minutes ago, pedromreis said:

The achromat are the ones that have distortions right? can you link me to the exact ones?

Achromatic refractors have a simpler lens configuration that means that not all wave lengths are brought to focus at the same point which in practice means that on brighter objects like the moon you will often get  a yellow or purple fringe to the bright edge of the image. That is, however, not the whole story. A short focal length achromat (F5 or so) the light path to the eye is at a wider angle (than it would be at say F10) and produces a greater level of chromatic aberration producing more colour. For something like a 102/F10 achromat the CA may not be too much of an issue, although some people find it more distracting than others. Increasing the focal length even longer the light cone narrows to the point where CA becomes even less of an issue but of course this makes for quite a long 'scope which in tern brings its own challenges. I  have an old Russian made Tal100r achromat 100/1000 (F10) which does show some CA (which i can live with) but is otherwise very sharp and a very useful scope indeed.  As you can gather seeing achromats as scopes that "have distortions"  and by implication not desirable, is not always quite how it  is  and many astronomers have spent many happy and useful years with an achromat! The alternative in refractor terms is to go for an "apochomatic" scope  where the lenses are of a type,quality and configuration to bring light wave lengths to a single focused point. Such quality costs much more money but they are very very nice!

Looking back and doing a leap where I can learn from my mistakes without the cost is difficult as that learning process has been important. One of the big lessons was that the quality of the mount is almost, maybe as, as  important as the scope itself. A wobbly marginal mount leads to nothing but frustration. This is where Dobsonians score. You get a stable mount and more aperture for your money,  so to start again yes I'd go for a Dob , and although the 8" makes a lot of sense, I'd go for the 6" F8 Dob. At F8 its easy on eyepieces, easy to collimate, potentially will give a wider field of view and a makes for a good cost effective all rounder.  This is where I's start but I suspect I would still finish up having  a long-ish  refractor too. Where ever we start, as sure as eggs are eggs, experience, circumstance and developing preferences will lead us on to other things - better, bigger, smaller, more refined, more expensive .....

[Macavity]

48 minutes ago, pedromreis said:

Those are for taking pics/video only right?
The achromat are the ones that have distortions right? can you link me to the exact ones?
Video Astronomy is taking a video and convert it to pics?

Unfortunately, these can be quite LARGE topics... But don't be discouraged... 🙂
Wikipedia shows the general effect of Chromatic Aberration (false colour) re.
budget Camera Lenses. The general idea holds for refracting telescopes too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration



The above is clearly a "worst case example" to illustrate the idea! A typical
(modest... reputable) Achromatic scope will show *some* of these issues.
A better (more expensive) ED refractor etc. will show much less of these...

Of course, I did forget about the "aperture is king" Dobsonian Reflectors!
It is a GOOD point. For some reason I was "not attacted" by Dobsonians. 😛
But reflecting telescope show no false colour... but do need collimation etc.
This is a big forum! But this sort of information can be found via a search!
(Once you find some information on ONE term... checkout other (links)???

Video Astronomy is an exciting (and substantial) topic in itself. Things
have evolved quite a bit since "my day" - Albeit but few years ago. lol.
Video data can be "stacked" both in real time and via offline software!
But if you are excited by this (Perhaps after a bit of visual observation):

https://stargazerslounge.com/forum/208-eeva-electronically-enhanced-visual-astronomy/

Opinions differ... There are many solutions / personal preferences! 😅
These were just mine. Good to read... "mull over"... a variety of post(er)s!

[Louis D]

I did one thing right starting out 23 years ago.  I attended public star parties for 2 years before deciding on the type and size of telescope I wanted to use.  That was a 6" to 8" Dobsonian solid tube telescope.  I was even looking through 4" Astro-Physics refractors on really nice mounts, but I was completely unimpressed by them compared to the bigger Newts.  SCTs of the day seemed to put up really mushy images aperture for aperture compared to their Newtonian counterparts.  They all couldn't have been out of alignment.  No one was observing with Maks or traditional Cassegrains back then that I can remember, so those were never considered.  I also realized nudging to track wasn't that big of a deal.  Neither was learning the sky via sky atlases and star hopping.  There were a few fledgling planetarium programs out there, but there were no smart phones or tablets to use them on while observing.  Vastly expensive laptops were the only portable electronics option, but I didn't have one and couldn't afford one, either.  I also realized I needed long eye relief eyepieces that work well at f/6, so I bought Vixen LV and Pentax XL eyepieces and skipped the whole eyepiece upgrade treadmill.  Vixen LVWs and long focal length Panoptics were about the only other well corrected, long eye relief options back then.

There are so many more high quality options today at much lower inflation adjusted prices that folks starting out today don't even realize how lucky they are compared to the situation just 23 years ago.  I can't even relate to those who started out in astronomy in the 1950s to 1970s.  Everything seemed so rudimentary and yet so expensive at the same time based on the ads I've seen.

[cloudsweeper]

Knowing nothing, I started with a Newt on an Eq.  Never again.  As a purely visual observer, I would only ever have an Alt-az mount.

Where would I have started?  At first, a short focus frac for ease of use and widefield views.  After that, a lovely long focus 5" frac for the sharp, contrasty views, depth of focus, advantages of a higher focal ratio (more forgiving of EPs etc.) - overall, just about the best "all-rounder".

Not sure I'd bother with a small aperture Dob, but a 10" or higher would be my choice for DSO enthusiasts.

We all have different preferences of course, and what really matters is what you like to use!

Doug.

 

[pedromreis]

Lots of fantastic posts! Thanks all.

A lot to think about.

On my shopping list currently is a newt/dob >=8" + 2/3 quality eye pieces for the starting kit. I'm open to suggestions on brands/models.

But before the buy I'll need to first go and experiment so never before christmas... BTW, is there a better / worse season to buy? Sales, discounts, etc...

 

 

[Peter Drew]

The biggest thing that determined my astronomical career was not being able to afford to buy a telescope.  This forced me to make my own, eventually proving so interesting and successful that it became my business and way of life.  Would I change much if starting again?  NO!🙂

[alacant]

On 18/09/2020 at 01:06, pedromreis said:

where would you NOT spend your hard earning money

Getting an 80ed and a heq5.

On 18/09/2020 at 01:06, pedromreis said:

where would you spent your hard earning money

An old ebay flavour 135mm lens for my dslr and a heavy tripod.

Cheers

 

Edited September 20, 2020 by alacant

[pedromreis]

5 hours ago, Peter Drew said:

The biggest thing that determined my astronomical career was not being able to afford to buy a telescope.  This forced me to make my own, eventually proving so interesting and successful that it became my business and way of life.  Would I change much if starting again?  NO!🙂

It sorta came to mind in the beginning... but one of the drives for this, maybe the most important is that my daughter wants to experiment also, and I don't want that the her will fades away by the time I would take to make my own. 

But if some kind of "kit" I would try, only that the ones I saw are too small/childish. Hence I bought a small 100€ telescope for the startup

[pedromreis]

3 hours ago, alacant said:

An old ebay flavour 135mm lens for my dslr and a heavy tripod.

I thought about that .. I do have some old nice glass canon FD lenses, 135/f2, 200/f2.8, 300/f5 etc. If I buy an adapter I could use them on the eos/ef. The thing is that due to the distance to the sensor after the adaptor in place, the lenses will not focus all the way to infinity. So I don't know if I would be able to take any photo worth while....

[alacant]

51 minutes ago, pedromreis said:

an adapter

Unfortunately, they need an optical element to reach infinity, so you lose any advantage.

Look instead at the M42 Takumar or Zeiss lenses. The M42 to Eos adapter is purely mechanical.

Cheers

[pedromreis]

44 minutes ago, alacant said:

Unfortunately, they need an optical element to reach infinity, so you lose any advantage.

Look instead at the M42 Takumar or Zeiss lenses. The M42 to Eos adapter is purely mechanical.

Cheers

I have some of those also, but not as fast. Maybe f4-f5.

But my DSLR is also very old so this is another upgrade I don't want to do just now

[Alan64]

Lisbon is, perhaps, lit up like a Christmas tree at night.  Many do opt to image instead with their telescopes as a result.  The larger aperture of the 8" Newtonian-Dobson may allow you to see more under such.  There are DIY tricks of the trade whereby you can improve the observing experience...

http://washedoutastronomy.com/washedoutastronomy.com/index/index.html

Albeit, it's not all roses and wine, but still.  To block out the lights surrounding you, an old-timey photographer's drape may be employed...

You place it over the head; same principle as that shown.  Of course, there is that nagging thought in the back of the mind of being bonked on the head by those criminal and nefarious, and whilst deploying.

Are you wanting to see the glories of the night sky with your eyes and mind only, or relegate the experience to an automated, electronic "eyeball"?

[pedromreis]

45 minutes ago, Alan64 said:

Lisbon is, perhaps, lit up like a Christmas tree at night.  Many do opt to image instead with their telescopes as a result.  The larger aperture of the 8" Newtonian-Dobson may allow you to see more under such.  There are DIY tricks of the trade whereby you can improve the observing experience...

You place it over the head; same principle as that shown.  Of course, there is that nagging thought in the back of the mind of being bonked on the head by those criminal and nefarious, and whilst deploying.

Are you wanting to see the glories of the night sky with your eyes and mind only, or relegate the experience to an automated, electronic "eyeball"?

I think eventually I'll try to take some photos but its not my priority right now. 

I don't live in the city, rather nearby, around here https://goo.gl/maps/HvFMfrXkMNKDu6xc7

There is lot of light yes, the main problem for me are the street lights.... Even in the backyard. But I'll manage time to get to observation spots with dark skies.

 

[Alan64]

7 minutes ago, pedromreis said:

I think eventually I'll try to take some photos but its not my priority right now. 

I don't live in the city, rather nearby, around here https://goo.gl/maps/HvFMfrXkMNKDu6xc7

There is lot of light yes, the main problem for me are the street lights.... Even in the backyard. But I'll manage time to get to observation spots with dark skies.

 

Ah, you live in a suburb of Lisbon.  Every little bit helps.  Photos may certainly be taken, and enjoyed; posting them for family and friends to see on social-media, perhaps in getting them interested in astronomy as well, then acquiring a telescope of their own as a result.  I take afocal-shots now and again through my telescope, with a small point-and-shoot camera, of even one or two objects that are a bit dim...

But that's how my eyes and mind see them, too; no timed-exposures there.  The camera of a "smartphone" can be used as well.  It is more difficult to take instantaneous shots of the planets at high power, but not impossible...

A virtual-sketch of Polaris even, from memory shortly after I returned indoors...

  

I take photographs and make sketches like those to show others what might be seen through this telescope and that.