Newcomer Star-Watcher Recommendations

[sonicninja]

Hi everyone,

Having spent the last few weeks browsing the internet for a suitable telescope I hoped some of you (all of you) with more experience than me could help me with my first purchase.

After buying what I now know was a mistake I've returned my Celestron Firstscope which I was hoping would get me and my daughter into the hobby. I'm now looking at a couple of telescopes from the Sky-Watcher range and since my understanding of the hobby is almost none I'd like some suggestions as to which scope would get us started. I'm after something user-friendly to the newcomer but also last us a little while until we know more about the hobby and decide if we want to spend more.

I should say that I'm not currently looking to do any photography, at the moment I'd just like to be able to get a better look at the moon and maybe some bright planets (if that's even possible with the scopes Im looking at).

I was originally looking at the Explorer 130P EQ2 but have since reconsidered after reading a few threads on this forum regarding the mount perhaps not suiting beginners. I'm now considering the Sky-Watcher Starquest 130P & Sky-Watcher Explorer-130PS AZ5 Deluxe , leaning slightly towards the latter.

From what I've read generally speaking the hardware on the 130 range is mostly the same with the exception of a non-collimateable/collimateable mirror. Without getting too technical can anyone explain in layman's terms if that is of any concern to a beginner please? The AZ5 Deluxe mount looks easier to use to me but I don't want to make any mistakes when spending £250.

 

Any suggestions anyone? Thank-you in advance

 

Keith

[Waddensky]

Maybe it's good for us to know why you did return the Firstscope? What were your expectations, and what do you hope to see or experience with your new telescope that the Firstscope couldn't provide? It's small, and has a spherical mirror, but in general should give you acceptable views of the Moon and the brighter planets.

Edit: oh, and welcome Keith!

Edited January 4, 2021 by Waddensky

[sonicninja]

Thank-you for your reply. My expectations were way off, I think we're all spoiled with close and beautiful images of planets from Hubble! and although I wasn't expecting that I also wasn't expecting to quite so disappointed. The Firstscope has an appalling finderscope which I found very frustrating (I'm aware these can be replaced though) and  although I knew it needed to be mounted on a table It proved to be very awkward viewing.

I followed the basic instructions and read a bit online but despite a considerable time spent we just resorted to looking up at the sky and not straining our necks. I did originally have my heart set on a scope mounted on a tripod but ended up going for a cheap and cheerful telescope hoping for the best. I'm not looking to spend the earth but am happy to spend a couple of hundred to give us both the best chance of being enthusiastic about the hobby.

[Tiny Clanger]

54 minutes ago, sonicninja said:

Hi everyone,

Having spent the last few weeks browsing the internet for a suitable telescope I hoped some of you (all of you) with more experience than me could help me with my first purchase.

After buying what I now know was a mistake I've returned my Celestron Firstscope which I was hoping would get me and my daughter into the hobby. I'm now looking at a couple of telescopes from the Sky-Watcher range and since my understanding of the hobby is almost none I'd like some suggestions as to which scope would get us started. I'm after something user-friendly to the newcomer but also last us a little while until we know more about the hobby and decide if we want to spend more.

I should say that I'm not currently looking to do any photography, at the moment I'd just like to be able to get a better look at the moon and maybe some bright planets (if that's even possible with the scopes Im looking at).

I was originally looking at the Explorer 130P EQ2 but have since reconsidered after reading a few threads on this forum regarding the mount perhaps not suiting beginners. I'm now considering the Sky-Watcher Starquest 130P & Sky-Watcher Explorer-130PS AZ5 Deluxe , leaning slightly towards the latter.

From what I've read generally speaking the hardware on the 130 range is mostly the same with the exception of a non-collimateable/collimateable mirror. Without getting too technical can anyone explain in layman's terms if that is of any concern to a beginner please? The AZ5 Deluxe mount looks easier to use to me but I don't want to make any mistakes when spending £250.

 

Any suggestions anyone? Thank-you in advance

 

Keith

Greetings,  welcome,this telescope buying lark  is a minefield isn't it ?

There are a few folk who will be able  to add the voice of experience on the 130p /130ps debate, I can't, but I do own and use an AZ5 deluxe mount. mine is on a hefty photo tripod (which I already owned) , and I find it excellent: smooth, easy to operate and solid. I'd recommend it over a similarly priced EQ mount any day for a beginner (like me ) who has no intention of astro photo taking beyond the odd snap of the moon. I inherited a 114 celestron on the old version of the eq1 and it was flimsy,  over complicated , imprecise and just horrid. When I started looking to buy a mount that didn't just annoy me, I wanted to go for efficient simplicity over complexity, so an alt/az  mount was an easy choice.

My az5 holds a quite heavy mak 127 (which I don't think would be a good choice for you ) , which was my second purchased 'scope, but my first love , er 'scope is a skywatcher heritage 150, same sort of idea (tabletop dob) as your reject, but on a whole bigger scale, with an RDF finder and a simple dob base. I bought it because it is simple, straightforward and the money (£200) buys a big mirror, simple tube, and a basic dob base, rather than a 'looks the part' wobbly tripod , cheap complex head and smaller actual mirror.

I've seen decent views of Mars,Jupiter, Saturn , the Moon and plenty of other objects in the dob , it is a proper telescope : don't dismiss dobs because of your celestron firstscope experience, that is more a novelty item .

Heather

[Tiny Clanger]

37 minutes ago, sonicninja said:

Thank-you for your reply. My expectations were way off, I think we're all spoiled with close and beautiful images of planets from Hubble! and although I wasn't expecting that I also wasn't expecting to quite so disappointed. The Firstscope has an appalling finderscope which I found very frustrating (I'm aware these can be replaced though) and  although I knew it needed to be mounted on a table It proved to be very awkward viewing.

I followed the basic instructions and read a bit online but despite a considerable time spent we just resorted to looking up at the sky and not straining our necks. I did originally have my heart set on a scope mounted on a tripod but ended up going for a cheap and cheerful telescope hoping for the best. I'm not looking to spend the earth but am happy to spend a couple of hundred to give us both the best chance of being enthusiastic about the hobby.

Oh, and the 'expectations ' thing is well covered in this thread, ifyou've not read it yet it may help :

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/196278-what-can-i-expect-to-see/

Heather

[Zermelo]

1 hour ago, sonicninja said:

the 130 range is mostly the same with the exception of a non-collimateable/collimateable mirror. Without getting too technical can anyone explain in layman's terms if that is of any concern to a beginner please?

Both are reflecting telescopes that use a primary mirror to gather light. It's important for image quality that the optical elements in the telescope are correctly aligned (collimated), and they can get out of alignment. Most larger reflectors have adjustment screws to collimate the primary mirror, but quite a few Skywatchers have for some time included fixed primary mirrors that are collimated in the factory and "don't require adjustment" (i.e. it's not easy for the user to do so). While a few observers have reservations about this, I think the majority agree that it works (I have one myself and have not had any problems so far). And that does make it easier for a newcomer, as it's one less thing to worry about.

1 hour ago, sonicninja said:

The AZ5 Deluxe mount looks easier to use to me

The AZ5 is an "alt-azimuth" mount, the other one you mention is an "equatorial" mount. Beginners usually find that alt-azimuth are easier to use.

 

50 minutes ago, sonicninja said:

The Firstscope has an appalling finderscope

I can't actually see one in the pictures on the Celestron website, so I'm not sure what kind you have.
Both the Skywatchers that you mention (and indeed most smaller scopes) have a "red dot" finder. These are zero-magnification devices that place a red dot in front of your view of the sky, a bit like a podium autocue. They are quite successful for what they do (allowing you to point the scope in roughly the right direction) and you will be able to find the more obvious targets using this, used with the 25mm eyepiece. For more difficult objects you may need a finder that magnifies the view.

[sonicninja]

Thanks Heather. Just Ive been making my way through that thread, so far a lot of it has summed up my very early expectations. My job is fairly technical (though quite different from astronomy) and so reading about some of the more complex aspects of telescopes has been quite enjoyable. However, if I read too much I'll end up spending far more than I should for my first scope without actually knowing if it's something I'd really like to spend time doing. The approx £200-£250 mark seems to be a good place to land where I'm not buying cheap rubbish but also not remortgaging my house. The AZ mount looks just right, nice and solid and not over-complicated. As long as there isn't anything glaringly negative about a scope like the Sky-Watcher Explorer-130PS AZ5 Deluxe I'll probably go for. That's why I'm here; just in case someone says 'don't buy that telescope, it's terrible and ran off with my wife!'.

I've seen a lot of very decent looking dobsonians (don't think I've been here long enough to abbreviate it) but my circumstances mean it's not really suitable as I don't have anywhere great to put it.

[sonicninja]

2 minutes ago, Zermelo said:

I can't actually see one in the pictures on the Celestron website, so I'm not sure what kind you have.

Both the Skywatchers that you mention (and indeed most smaller scopes) have a "red dot" finder. These are zero-magnification devices that place a red dot in front of your view of the sky, a bit like a podium autocue. They are quite successful for what they do (allowing you to point the scope in roughly the right direction) and you will be able to find the more obvious targets using this, used with the 25mm eyepiece. For more difficult objects you may need a finder that magnifies the view.

Thanks for your reply Zermelo. The finderscope I bough didn't come with the telescope but was a Celestron part specifically made for that telescope. It was a standard scope with no red dot and felt very 'plasticy' and much like a toy. I knew as soon as I'd unpacked it that it was a mistake. Should have gone with my gut and not purchased it as an add on in the first place.

[Zermelo]

2 minutes ago, sonicninja said:

Thanks for your reply Zermelo. The finderscope I bough didn't come with the telescope but was a Celestron part specifically made for that telescope. It was a standard scope with no red dot and felt very 'plasticy' and much like a toy. I knew as soon as I'd unpacked it that it was a mistake. Should have gone with my gut and not purchased it as an add on in the first place.

One potential problem with a "straight through" type magnifying finder on a reflecting telescope is that you need to twist your head to see through it properly, which may be very uncomfortable for objects that are close to overhead. An alternative is a right-angled finder, allowing you to use it looking from the side of the telescope tube. You can also get versions ("RACI") that invert the image so that you see a (magnified) view that has the same orientation as a normal star map, which many people find helps with locating targets. Mine is on order, somewhere between China and Somerset. 😪

[wibblefish]

It is difficult to decide, it took me a while to do a lot of reading and forum lurking to get an idea of what to go for especially with the cost (I had a similar budget). 

I eventually landed on a 102 Mak at first, due to portability primarily and storage but then with a lack of a stock in that flavor I eventually took a bit of a punt on a Sky-watcher Evostar 90/660 short tube refractor which had no reviews I could locate anywhere! I think for a beginner the wider field of view is much more useful than I would've had with the Mak and I imagine a reflector type  will be even better especially without any collimation worries due to the sealed units.

A dobsonian would likely be the best, there is a reason they are mentioned a lot for beginners as a lot of the pennies go into the light gathering ability. For example I think my telescope on an AZ pronto mount is roughly 60/40 cost of the mount / telescope and the tripod (other than the mount head) is a fairly lightweight affair I will likely change eventually for a more sturdy one but it is fine for the telescope as it is and I can lift everything one handed if needed 

I think one of the things that helped me was definitely tempering my expectations prior to getting a telescope and the thread @Tiny Clanger mentioned is pretty good for setting the tone. You could also use some of the fov target tools such as this one which might help (you can plug in scope and EP details - sky-watchers usually come with a Super MA 10 and 25). I can also recommend the following books which may also help with decisions etc.  The Backyard Astronomers Handbook, Night Watch for reference.

Good luck whatever you choose and clear skies when you do get it and itd be excellent to hear about how you find it (and what you find)!

Another later thought you could go for some binoculars whilst you await stock / decide if you want to get out there and see what fun you can have observing - I have some Olympus DPS-1 10x50 and they are excellent I probably could have waited and used them but I am marvelously impatient at times 😕

Edited January 4, 2021 by wibblefish

[Tiny Clanger]

1 hour ago, sonicninja said:

I've seen a lot of very decent looking dobsonians (don't think I've been here long enough to abbreviate it) but my circumstances mean it's not really suitable as I don't have anywhere great to put it.

That was precisely my problem when I was looking to buy my first " proper''scope in the summer: with around £200 to spend (max. £250) my choice came down to a solid tube 150  dob or nothing. I was sadly reconciled to the latter because I just couldn't store such a big lump of telescope in my small house when suddenly the first ever heritage 150 dobs arrived  and I snapped one up .Reading any threads I've contributed to on here will probably show how utterly , comically chuffed I've been with the heritage 150 ever since. I've subsequently bought a 127 mak as well, for its 'planet busting' capabilities, and it's good, but not as good an all rounder as the heritage 150 .

Heather

Edited January 4, 2021 by Tiny Clanger

[Waddensky]

Excellent advice so far. I'd second the advice to consider a dobson. They're easy to use, and offer the largest aperture for the price. I'm pretty sure the dimensions of the Heritage 150P can be found somewhere, so you can find out if you have enough space to store it. I'm pretty sure it's smaller than you'd expect. 150 mm aperture is a lot more than the Firstscope offers and will show you incredible detail on the Moon and the larger planets, as well as a myriad of deep-sky objects. Perhaps a scope for life. Good luck with your choice, and we'd love to hear about your experiences!

[Tiny Clanger]

Not that I'm being a starry eyed heritage 150 fan (honest) but this video will give you an idea of the size of the 150

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyhViri1utU

That chap is on here too, https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/359669-semi-permanent-light-shroud-and-focuser-mod-for-heritage-150p/

OK, I'll shut up now.

Heather

Edited January 4, 2021 by Tiny Clanger

[Zermelo]

4 minutes ago, Tiny Clanger said:

Not that I'm being a starry eyed heritage 150 fan (honest) but this video will give you an idea of the size of the 150

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyhViri1utU

That chap is on here too, https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/359669-semi-permanent-light-shroud-and-focuser-mod-for-heritage-150p/

OK, I'll shut up now.

Heather

Heather, I swear you're on a commission.

[Tiny Clanger]

20 minutes ago, Zermelo said:

Heather, I swear you're on a commission.

If only ...

[sonicninja]

Thanks so much for all the replies. Does the lack of tripod make a dobsonian a dobsonian or is there more to it than that? It's more having the right space to observe from as I live in a tiny two bed bungalow (it's lovely and im underselling it!). Presumably you need somewhere suitable like a conservatory, spacious shelf or garden table to use one?

[Tiny Clanger]

16 minutes ago, sonicninja said:

Thanks so much for all the replies. Does the lack of tripod make a dobsonian a dobsonian or is there more to it than that? It's more having the right space to observe from as I live in a tiny two bed bungalow (it's lovely and im underselling it!). Presumably you need somewhere suitable like a conservatory, spacious shelf or garden table to use one?

Yes, a dobsonian telescope is defined by its base, a relatively simple wooden (or particle board) contraption originally designed by a chap called John Dobson as a cheap alternative base for telescopes . He ground mirrors and made big telescopes using them, with a diy type ethic, well worth searching for youtube vids of him 'pushing glass' as he called it !

Dobsonian bases simply hold tubes which are Newtonian telescopes, i.e. have a concave mirror at the back and a smaller angled mirror to sent the light out to the side. Newtonians are therefore also called reflectors sometimes.

The usual idea of a telescope, a long tube with lenses in it, is a refractor.

Heather

[Zermelo]

16 hours ago, sonicninja said:

Thanks so much for all the replies. Does the lack of tripod make a dobsonian a dobsonian or is there more to it than that? It's more having the right space to observe from as I live in a tiny two bed bungalow (it's lovely and im underselling it!). Presumably you need somewhere suitable like a conservatory, spacious shelf or garden table to use one?

An introduction to the basic telescope types: https://www.celestron.com/blogs/knowledgebase/the-ultimate-guide-to-celestron-optical-tubes

As Heather said, the Dobsonian is a kind of Newtonian as far as the optics are concerned, which is itself a variety of reflecting telescope.

The Dobsonian mount is actually a variety within the alt-azimuth category (another being the "fork" mount). This means that, to follow an object across the sky, you need to adjust both in a rotational sense (with the axis of rotation pointing straight up) and an "up-down" sense (the altitude). The Dobsonian design allows construction from cheaper materials, and for larger/heavier mirrors to be deployed than could be accommodated in other designs. The majority of Dobs have no drive motors so they are "nudged" manually to keep targets in view.

Edited January 5, 2021 by Zermelo
correcting my own illiteracy

[sonicninja]

I've made my purchase so now all I need to do is wait 60-90 days! 😪

Hopefully I'll post back when I get it or do a newcomer review (is there isn't already one of the telescope Ive bought). Thanks to everyone for their advice!

 

Keith