First Telescope Advice and Recommendations

[mikemarotta]

17 minutes ago, neil phillips said:

< On 08/12/2021 at 08:11,  ScouseSpaceCadet said: For £45 the BK607A72 is worth a punt if it is immaculate.>

Neil Phillips replied Erm the mount looks well flimsy ?????? 

Beginners - and not beginner alike - need to be really careful about what they read.  First of all, every maker has great gear and junk.

I know colleges in the USA with huge Celestron telescopes, even though the Celestron 114mm reflector is a Bird-Jones (spherical, not parabolic) design hated by those with more expertise who ask rhetorically why a nominally reputable firm continues to sell such rubbish.  And so, too, here. 

Quote

 

https://www.barska.com/80060-600-power-starwatcher-telescope-by-barska.html

BARSKA 80060 - 600 Power - Starwatcher Telescope by Barska AE10752
Model Number: AE10752
3x Barlow Lens Multiplies Magnification Choices for Different Kinds of Viewing
Deepsky Astronomy Software for a PC with a Database of over 10,000 Celestial Objects
The Optical Tube Has a Metallic Silver Finish That Offers a Handsome and Appealing Telescope
Red-Dot Finderscope Helps Align the Scope on the Selected Object before Viewing with the Telescope
1.5x Erecting Eye 90° Diagonal Allows Terrestrial Observing and Lessens Neck Strain during Longer Sessions
Adjustable Aluminum Tripod with an Accessories Tray and an Altazimuth Mount Make Sky Watching Pleasurable and Easy
Three Interchangeable Eyepieces, an SR4, an H12 and an H20 Provide Multiple Magnifications. It Is Always Advisable to Start with a Lower Power and Slowly Increase the Magnification

 

The last line: "... Eyepieces, an SR4, an H12 and an H20 Provide Multiple ... " 

The SR is a "Symmetric Ramadan" two Plano-convex lenses. The H stands for Huygens, also two plano-convex lenses. In the SR, the curves face each other. In the H, the flat sides face the viewer's eye. The Huygens design is from the 1600s. The Ramsden is from the 1700s. Both have long since been superseded for hobbyists by the Plössl (Ploessl or incorrectly Plossl), which is four lenses in two sets of two. I found this out the hard way, buying "First Scope" set from Celestron as backup.  It came up in our local club that with Covid restrictions and realities, we did not want people sharing eyepieces. So, when I saw these, I bought them. The advertisement did not say "Huygens" and after they arrived, I wondered what the H stood for: Heave into the Rubbish Bin, apparently.

Read more on WIkipedia here

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

[neil phillips]

The problem is at this price point there is always going to be a compromise. Be it mount or optics. Its certainly safer to go with longer focal length refractors though at this price point. There is quite a bit of variance between optics sets. But i belive the longer focal ratio refractors, are less risky of  getting a complete lemon. No guarantee though. Even at F10 unfortunately. But likely better than the shorter offerings. 

These are better recommendations from Adam j

Skywatcher Evostar 90 AZ3 Telescope - Rother Valley Optics Ltd

Eq mounts are not that complicated. just plonking it north is pretty easy. As the posters daughter gets more interested, she could even take photos of the moon planets with this as she gets older. 

its a good starter package. 

Celestron AstroMaster 80EQ-MD Refractor Telescope with Motor Drive & Smartphone Adapter | First Light Optics

The reflector recommendations from people on here are very risky. As far as i am aware no one in the family knows about collimation. I see people worrying about the complex nature of EQ mount. And then recommend a reflector ??? Really great advice with a lot of thought that. I feel sorry for some people trying to get advice on here. we are supposed to be the experts. yet. to be blunt some of the advice is about as dodgy as one could get. I have to say it as i see it. Because many on here need to realize, this could be a make or break moment in the life of someone starting out in astronomy. I would hate to think. we recommended a scope that showed a big white ball. where there should be gas bands on jupiter. As was tested by Rory and quite clearly showing there shortcomings. And some on here recommending them. Its disheartening seeing such poor advice. We are supposed to be the experts here ????? 

Edited December 12, 2021 by neil phillips

[johninderby]

Pity the Bresser Ar-80 f/8 Nano is out of stock. Good comprimise.

https://www.bresseruk.com/Astronomy/NANO-AR-80-640-AZ-Telescope.html

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

1 hour ago, neil phillips said:

Erm the mount looks well flimsy ?????? 

Not a great mount probably, but still a 70mm f10 for £45... A good deal if in excellent condition and you're really skint. The moment passed anyway Neil. It wasn't a friend selling it.

 

[neil phillips]

1 minute ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

Not a great mount probably, but still a 70mm f10 for £45... A good deal if in excellent condition and you're really skint. The moment passed anyway Neil. It wasn't a friend selling it.

 

Yeah i suppose for the money and 70mm not a terrible buy. The scope alone is likely worth that 

[Saggy]

Hey guys

 

Apologies, I got horribly confused between them all and had to just have a break from telescopes for a couple of days as my brain was blowing up and panic set in as Christmas approaches with so much else to do and order but can't afford to get it wrong but now obviously need to get on with an order in before it's too late. I can see parcel deliveries are beginning to struggle now a bit too.

Some mentioned that I would probably need closer to £200 to get what I want and I've just been given some unexpected extra cash now so figured why not and I have a total budget of £200 or thereabouts. Also assuming, the more cost, the easier it will be to get some cash back on resale anyway should the hobby not continue. On this basis, what is your best recommendation for this budget for what I want bearing in mind that:

I want to see some deep space stuff well enough as a little more interested in this aspect but also some planets and moon well enough. I know it will be far from the best at this price level but just all well enough perhaps.

Ease of use is very important as we're beginners, have limited opportunities to use and don't want to overly faff either with set up or the tripod. Gather that AZ3 is best option for us in regards to tripod so happy on that point unless EQs really are no bother at all.

I know you've given me a load of info already but wanted to know if the higher budget makes a difference to the final recommendation.

So a couple of things I would love to clarify if you do state any particular one is what makes it that much better than say the £150 mercury 705 option as would like to understand why I would spend the extra £50.

Also, collimation was mentioned again above. Is this process quick and obvious? I'm quite technically minded (apart from telescopes and optics obviously) but if it takes experience to judge if doing it correctly for some time or takes some time to actually do it, I would rather avoid altogether - primarily again because opportunities to view and time are quite limited and not like I can sit in the comfort of my home to use while learning and she's at her dad's house a certain amount of time a week so leaves us with little alongside everything else we do.

Does the heritage range need collimation as can't quite tell? I love the easiness these seem to offer but wasn't happy with the 76 nor 100 shown on the video as just not quite enough (unless I misunderstood the issues). Would one of the more expensive options of this range provide me with what I would like to have?

Also just to add if it helps (and because I suddenly thought it might be an issue), I like details in the things that I view. I am short sighted and distance outside of my house has not been quite so perfect. I'm assuming that this won't be an issue for looking at things that far away in a telescope as the image is brought closer to me or will I suffer lol?? However, I do see things close up better than normal 20/20 vision and on the row below normal sight. For example, I can read the ingredients on the M&S toy mini versions of their food they give out to kids on occasion and no other kid I've come across can and I can see a teeny weeny mite crawling across the floor from some distance. My daughter is normal 20/20 vision and no problem with distance but cannot see things as small as me. As mentioned here and elsewhere, brightness or size of things seems an issue etc - I like details over these considerations but will assume the brightness and amount of light you have makes a huge difference in the amount of detail you can see such as if I put a micro bug on something white, my camera can pic up more detail if trying to identify what it is? (and yes, I've a rare infestation of micro parastic wasps in my house that sting the hell out of me and took me and the council some time to identify)!! In regards to chromatic aberration, I'm assuming this is like my sight although to do with colour - I have a weakness in my left eye which has always been compensated by my right until I recently hit 40 and now it's causing some issues with my right. But basically the distortion between the two now mean when looking into the distance means a couple of far from perfectly overlapping versions of things which prevent me from seeing the details that well if at all - although not the same cause, is the impact of what you see through the scope the same as this?

It also crossed my mind that the pictures or video footage that I see on the videos from astrobiscuit or on here etc may not be quite what my eyes will see? - similarly to the fact my camera can see tinier details of a micro bug better than my eyes can! live viewing is more important to me but my daughter would likely be more interested in the pictures she can see thereafter.

Apologies for all that waffle on my sight, but I'm trying to put it all into context/commonly used language of the most similar thing I actually know over the technical jargon as I've literally know nowt about sight, cameras, optics/lenses and never looked into a telescope before and I think that's the problem I'm having - trying to gauge what exactly I will see through these things which is obviously the most important element!! If all these telescope sites had three pictures (one planet, one moon and one deep space object) of what your eye will actually see on each telescope listing, I think I probably would have purchased one within 24 hours 😄

So between the ST80 and Mercury 705, the ST80 will have more of this distortion overall but may see a couple of the DPS a little more clearly than the 705. The 705 will see the planets and moon more clearly. but overall there's not much in it and therefore not worth the differing £50 in costs perhaps? Am I also right in that longer tubes can see things closer up better and fatter ones can see things more further away? So the lens diameter - the bigger, the further away it can see. And I'm getting the impression that the longer the tube, the longer the focal length which provides the ratio between the two (F1/F10) which maybe lets you know how focused  you will see. So the ST80 has 80mm lens diameter but short focal length meaning more distortion.

So then the Evostar 90 and celestron Astromaster 80 EQ was mentioned, what exactly do these differ over the 705/ST80 in regards to what I can actually see of  both the planets and DSOs? so in regards to Evostar 90 I'm assuming this can see a little further away than the ST80 and 705 but has a longer focal length so will see more details than either in regards to both planets and DSOs as less distortion? But what does this jump actually mean in regards to how much more I can see lol? I just have nothing to relate it to to be able to work it out as no experience and therefore can't evaluate the value to me of spending that much more so struggling to make a judgement. Basically, if the £100-£125 ones can only see fuzzies (I think you call them) and a £200 can still only see fuzzies just slightly less fuzzy), then I imagine I would just opt for cheaper and be happy that I can't get what I want on this budget lol!

I am honestly grateful for all your advice so far and after, I don't know why I'm struggling with this so much and will be surprised if any of you have the energy left to even respond to me still as I might have given up by now so I solute you. I don't know why I've struggled so much with this but remember there's a child you are helping to have magical Christmas day as from Santa ahem!!  😄😉

 

Thanks again, Sarah

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by Saggy

[Saggy]

Ignore my questions on the heritage range. I had a quick look and I can see collimation is not for me and that this range requires it. Not because I can't do it but simply a time issue as saw people mentioning waiting for it to cool down for 30 mins, need to do it every occasion I view etc etc. We're really busy during the week as a single mum with work and school and she's often at her dad's at the weekend so it will literally be when we can grab a bit of time and actually get on top of the hill near my mums or the beach with my mum as I don't drive. I can walk to the beach in about 10/15 mins (20 mins+ to get away from the more lit areas) but I'd have to carry it. This would practically only leave the few longer camping trips where we go camping locally and come back and forth to feed the pets as wouldn't be able to fit it in the car with all the other camping gear for the shorter trips or when camping further away.

THerefore only a refractor is really considered now I suppose 😄

THanks, Sarah.

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by Saggy

[bosun21]

On 12/12/2021 at 16:27, mikemarotta said:

 

Beginners - and not beginner alike - need to be really careful about what they read.  First of all, every maker has great gear and junk.

I know colleges in the USA with huge Celestron telescopes, even though the Celestron 114mm reflector is a Bird-Jones (spherical, not parabolic) design hated by those with more expertise who ask rhetorically why a nominally reputable firm continues to sell such rubbish.  And so, too, here. 

The last line: "... Eyepieces, an SR4, an H12 and an H20 Provide Multiple ... " 

The SR is a "Symmetric Ramadan" two Plano-convex lenses. The H stands for Huygens, also two plano-convex lenses. In the SR, the curves face each other. In the H, the flat sides face the viewer's eye. The Huygens design is from the 1600s. The Ramsden is from the 1700s. Both have long since been superseded for hobbyists by the Plössl (Ploessl or incorrectly Plossl), which is four lenses in two sets of two. I found this out the hard way, buying "First Scope" set from Celestron as backup.  It came up in our local club that with Covid restrictions and realities, we did not want people sharing eyepieces. So, when I saw these, I bought them. The advertisement did not say "Huygens" and after they arrived, I wondered what the H stood for: Heave into the Rubbish Bin, apparently.

Read more on WIkipedia here

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

SR stands for Symmetric Ramsden 

[Starwatcher2001]

Hi Sarah,

I can answer a couple of your questions.

Cool down: a scope will work as soon as you take it outside, but the image might now be stable or as good as it will be when it's reached the outside temperature. Heat in the tube causes ripples like you'll see on the road on a hot day. Small scopes cool fairly quickly. With a small scope, I just take it outside first, take the rest of my kit, grab a coffee and then go get observing. With my bigger scopes I just put the tube in the back garden, have my tea and then go out to play.

Eyesight: If you're just short sighted you can take your glasses off to look through the scope and adjust the focus a little. It will compensate for your glasses and you should be fine. If you've got astigmatism this doesn't quite work, depending on how bad your astigmatism is. Glasses can be worn when viewing through a telescope (I do it regularly), but you have to be a little more careful about which eyepieces you use. Eyepieces have a thing called "eye-relief", which is how far away from the top lens your eyeball can be, and still see a good amount of the field of view. You obviously can't get your eyeball as close to the lens if you've got your glasses on.  The eye-relief that you need with glasses depends on a few things, including your prescription, how deep your eye-sockets are, and how far from your face your glasses sit. Personally I need around 18-20mm depending on the eyepiece, but some people need less. I can use eyepieces with less e/r, but it's like looking down a straw.

I don't know if you've read then following thread, and I don't want to overwhelm you with more to read, but it gives a realistic description of what you're likely to see through a scope. It's well worth a read if you have time.  https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/196278-what-can-i-expect-to-see/page/14/#comment-4176722

[Saggy]

51 minutes ago, Starwatcher2001 said:

Hi Sarah,

I can answer a couple of your questions.

Cool down: a scope will work as soon as you take it outside, but the image might now be stable or as good as it will be when it's reached the outside temperature. Heat in the tube causes ripples like you'll see on the road on a hot day. Small scopes cool fairly quickly. With a small scope, I just take it outside first, take the rest of my kit, grab a coffee and then go get observing. With my bigger scopes I just put the tube in the back garden, have my tea and then go out to play.

Eyesight: If you're just short sighted you can take your glasses off to look through the scope and adjust the focus a little. It will compensate for your glasses and you should be fine. If you've got astigmatism this doesn't quite work, depending on how bad your astigmatism is. Glasses can be worn when viewing through a telescope (I do it regularly), but you have to be a little more careful about which eyepieces you use. Eyepieces have a thing called "eye-relief", which is how far away from the top lens your eyeball can be, and still see a good amount of the field of view. You obviously can't get your eyeball as close to the lens if you've got your glasses on.  The eye-relief that you need with glasses depends on a few things, including your prescription, how deep your eye-sockets are, and how far from your face your glasses sit. Personally I need around 18-20mm depending on the eyepiece, but some people need less. I can use eyepieces with less e/r, but it's like looking down a straw.

I don't know if you've read then following thread, and I don't want to overwhelm you with more to read, but it gives a realistic description of what you're likely to see through a scope. It's well worth a read if you have time.  https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/196278-what-can-i-expect-to-see/page/14/#comment-4176722

Thank you 🙂

I don't have astigmatism although it was incorrectly diagnosed as this at first some years ago at a more commercial place but a specialist optometrist who I saw shortly after and also works as a consultant at the local hospital said it was just the difference between my two eyes in terms of the short sightedness and the distortion this created that worsened the further away I looked - I had glasses then years ago for when sitting in massive lecture theatres but other than have never needed them as right eye mostly compensated apart from looking really far away. It is only now that my left eye has got worse and my right eye is no longer compensating and it's resulting in worse sight in my right now as putting too much pressure on it (at least that's what they said or something to that effect as wasn't really listening) that I have to go and get some bleeding glasses to correct it all which is still minor in my right eye 😄 

I wasn't worrying so much about my eyesight and viewing as assuming I can effectively just close one eye - although my better eye is still a bit short sighted, it was more my attempt to work out the differences I might see between the options of telescopes given to me as so confused as to exactly what the differences with be with all the unfamiliar terminology and chromatic aberrations and what not and just plain simple what I can expect to see so I could try and make a judgement call between all these options. My own sight and what I've seen with basic cameras over the years is the only point of reference I have to relate to these differences from an experience point of view.

I shall read that thread later this evening before making a final decision. Info is good, just struggling to make sense of what this all means visually through the telescope.

And yes, I've learnt my lesson and should have looked into this in a less panicky state months ago - just thought it would be easy with a few obvious options like a "every one says this is the best telescope ever for beginners"  but many of them say this and many of them seemingly lie and then I realised it was more complicated but have very little time to actually research 😄

Ah okay, so cooling time not really that big a deal on the range i'm looking at even if have to learn how to collimate so possibly heritage range not completely out the question???

Thanks again, Sarah

 

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by Saggy

[wulfrun]

1 hour ago, Saggy said:

Ah okay, so cooling time not really that big a deal on the range i'm looking at even if have to learn how to collimate so possibly heritage range not completely out the question???

Thanks again, Sarah

The smaller Heritage scopes don't have provision for collimating the primary mirror, it's "factory set" and fixed. At least up to the 114 this is the case, I'm not sure about the 130 but the 150 and upwards have collimatable primaries. The secondary mirror can be adjusted on all but unless you mistreat it fairly badly it's not likely to go out of adjustment in a long time - and it should come set correctly.

All scopes work at their best when cooled to ambient temperature, it's not a case of they don't work before. A small scope cools more quickly (no surprise!).

[cajen2]

54 minutes ago, Saggy said:

 

Ah okay, so cooling time not really that big a deal on the range i'm looking at even if have to learn how to collimate so possibly heritage range not completely out the question???

Thanks again, Sarah

 

 

Please don't get too concerned about collimation for Heritage dobs. I have a Flextube 150, which people think must have unstable collimation. I collimated mine when I first got it (it was only fractionally out). Since then, I've checked it and it's still spot on. It's also very easy to do on the Heritage.

[Saggy]

8 hours ago, Starwatcher2001 said:

Hi Sarah,

I can answer a couple of your questions.

Cool down: a scope will work as soon as you take it outside, but the image might now be stable or as good as it will be when it's reached the outside temperature. Heat in the tube causes ripples like you'll see on the road on a hot day. Small scopes cool fairly quickly. With a small scope, I just take it outside first, take the rest of my kit, grab a coffee and then go get observing. With my bigger scopes I just put the tube in the back garden, have my tea and then go out to play.

Eyesight: If you're just short sighted you can take your glasses off to look through the scope and adjust the focus a little. It will compensate for your glasses and you should be fine. If you've got astigmatism this doesn't quite work, depending on how bad your astigmatism is. Glasses can be worn when viewing through a telescope (I do it regularly), but you have to be a little more careful about which eyepieces you use. Eyepieces have a thing called "eye-relief", which is how far away from the top lens your eyeball can be, and still see a good amount of the field of view. You obviously can't get your eyeball as close to the lens if you've got your glasses on.  The eye-relief that you need with glasses depends on a few things, including your prescription, how deep your eye-sockets are, and how far from your face your glasses sit. Personally I need around 18-20mm depending on the eyepiece, but some people need less. I can use eyepieces with less e/r, but it's like looking down a straw.

I don't know if you've read then following thread, and I don't want to overwhelm you with more to read, but it gives a realistic description of what you're likely to see through a scope. It's well worth a read if you have time.  https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/196278-what-can-i-expect-to-see/page/14/#comment-4176722

HI again

 

Yes that link was very useful.... but I can't quite relate it to the telescopes I'm looking at with certainty. So this link is referring to 4 to 8 inch scopes but not sure what that means. Everything I've seen is in mm or should I take this to mean all hobby type scopes which effectively are not the hubble or other massive permanently fixed to the floor type scopes are contained within this 4-8 inch with the 4 inch being the bottom level and as shown in the photos?

Only thing I can see is perhaps the objective lens diameter? 4 inches would equate to 100mm - is this what they mean? And I think everything I have been looking at is below 4 inches yes? This would make sense as the thing in the title/name of most of the scopes so figure it's important 😄

With the exception of the 100 heritage dobs perhaps?

 

 

Edited December 17, 2021 by Saggy

[Saggy]

5 hours ago, wulfrun said:

The smaller Heritage scopes don't have provision for collimating the primary mirror, it's "factory set" and fixed. At least up to the 114 this is the case, I'm not sure about the 130 but the 150 and upwards have collimatable primaries. The secondary mirror can be adjusted on all but unless you mistreat it fairly badly it's not likely to go out of adjustment in a long time - and it should come set correctly.

All scopes work at their best when cooled to ambient temperature, it's not a case of they don't work before. A small scope cools more quickly (no surprise!).

 

5 hours ago, wulfrun said:

The smaller Heritage scopes don't have provision for collimating the primary mirror, it's "factory set" and fixed. At least up to the 114 this is the case, I'm not sure about the 130 but the 150 and upwards have collimatable primaries. The secondary mirror can be adjusted on all but unless you mistreat it fairly badly it's not likely to go out of adjustment in a long time - and it should come set correctly.

All scopes work at their best when cooled to ambient temperature, it's not a case of they don't work before. A small scope cools more quickly (no surprise!).

Okay so the heritage dobs don't need to be collimated every time you use it like others mentioned when talking about collimation and the process is easier than in other reflectors. I could work with that. I just didn't want it to be every single time you want to view even if you just have a short opportunity as need to decrease faffiness.

 

I'm still a little stuck - there's been many different suggestions on here but not too many the same - apart from maybe  a few for the dobs. Astro Biscuit suggested the Skywatcher ST80 and so did three other specialist stores (I called round today to make sure postage before Xmas was still okay and that they were definitely in stock). Even Rother Valley who don't have it in stock before Xmas so therefore can't even make a sale to me still said the ST80 was the best option for me? I mentioned the Evostar 90 and the dobs and they said no, the ST80 with a barlow lens as I would see more of what I want to see. So I'm thinking this is the best bet???

However, I'm also still lured by the compactness and ease of the heritage dobsonians still 😄  How about the heritage 130? How does this compare visually to the ST80? IS it worth the extra £60 on top of the 100 version of the dobs?

I can see multiple mentionings of the heritage 150 so will assume this is an often bought quick grab and go by some with more extensive set ups perhaps - meaning must be somewhat satisfactory to more than just beginners but I'll ignore that for now and grumble in my mind at some later time 🤪

Also if I did get the ST80 - there appears to be two versions available from different shops with either a 45 or 90 degree star diagonal (just assuming this is what it is as kinda appears either 45 or 90 degree and that's the only thing in list that mentions degrees). THe thing you look through (I really hope that is the case and I'm not that stupid) Apart from the one that's right up at seemingly 90degrees looking like it's more awkwardly placed, are there any differences in these  or which is best?

AAAhhhhh I want to blow my brains out 😄 

THanks for your patience again, Sarah 

Edited December 17, 2021 by Saggy

[John]

Although I do not own a Heritage 130 dobsonian myself, I see regular posts on this forum from folks who I know are very experienced who do use these scopes and think very highly of them.

Neil English is the author of several books on astronomy and astronomical instruments and writes reviews for "Astronomy Now" magazine. Here is a link to his experiences with the Heritage 130:

https://neilenglish.net/a-newtonian-travel-scope/

 

[cajen2]

Ok, Sarah, chill...!

It's not too difficult, honestly.

Inches or mm? Well, the Americans have never trusted the nasty foreign metric system and so still often use inches to measure aperture (yes, the diameter of the scope), focal length, etc. For some reason, inches are still commonly used for reflectors, though many manufacturers now use cm. A rough rule of thumb is 25mm = 1 inch, so 150mm is about 6". Generally, a wider aperture will allow in more light, which is why people who want to see distant galaxies, nebulae, etc often choose Dobsonian reflectors.

Refractors are preferred by astro photographers and people who want to concentrate on planets.

Both types of scope can be used for these different targets, of course.

So the answer to your search depends on what kind of things you'd like to observe. I got the Heritage Flextube dob because it's portable enough to store, carry to and from the garden and will catch more light than any affordable refractor.

If you want something to carry around when travelling, a smallish refractor like the ST80 (or smaller) is better.

Oh and 90 degree diagonals are often preferred for astronomy, where the scope is often nearly vertical. The 45 degree ones are handy for daylight use but can lead to odd positions when stargazing!

Note to experts: I'm trying to keep it simple and as jargon-free as possible, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited December 17, 2021 by cajen2

[johninderby]

Information overload is rearing it’s ugly head. 😕

I think you need to go back to the beginning and redefine your needs. Pressing the reset button so to speak.🙂

OK to redefine your needs.

      New budget?  

      Ease of use?

      Do you WANT a traditional refractor or are you letting yourself be talked into something else?

      At the end of the day it’s your telescope (and your daughters) so you make the decision not well intentioned others.

I would suggest taking a look around FLOs site again and choose a few scopes you really like and forget cost for now. Once you’ve identified a few lets us know and then we can make suggestions of scopes that are in your  budget based on what you really like. 

 

Edited December 17, 2021 by johninderby

[mikemarotta]

10 hours ago, bosun21 said:

SR stands for Symmetric Ramsden 

I wrote: "The SR is a "Symmetric Ramadan" two Plano-convex lenses. "

Yes, of course! It was not me. It was the type-ahead. I hate it and shut it off whenever I can just because of such infused idiocy. 

Thanks for catching that lest someone be confused by an obvious blunder.

Mike M.

 

Edited December 17, 2021 by mikemarotta

[bosun21]

4 hours ago, mikemarotta said:

I wrote: "The SR is a "Symmetric Ramadan" two Plano-convex lenses. "

Yes, of course! It was not me. It was the type-ahead. I hate it and shut it off whenever I can just because of such infused idiocy. 

Thanks for catching that lest someone be confused by an obvious blunder.

Mike M.

 

Ha ha I knew it would be that pesky auto correct. It’s done me over numerous times.

[Geoff Lister]

6 hours ago, Saggy said:

with either a 45 or 90 degree star diagonal

I have both. The 45 I use for birdwatching, and other terrestrial objects - to get the birds the right way up, and viewing horizontally; the 90 for astronomy - it transmits slightly more light, and is more comfortable when viewing objects high in the sky.

I am very pleased with my Heritage 130 Dobsonian. It is quick to set up - I usually use mine on a glass-top patio table. I checked the collimation after a few months of use, and it only needed a very small adjustment.

I wear glasses as I am short-sighted and have mild astigmatism. I find that the widest eyepiece view is without glasses, and there is less reflection of stray images. I still need my glasses handy to find, and change, eyepieces; and when using the finder (small telescope or red dot).

Best of luck with your final decision.

Geoff

[Saggy]

8 hours ago, cajen2 said:

Ok, Sarah, chill...!

It's not too difficult, honestly.

Inches or cm? Well, the Americans have never trusted the nasty foreign metric system and so still often use inches to measure aperture (yes, the diameter of the scope), focal length, etc. For some reason, inches are still commonly used for reflectors, though many manufacturers now use cm. A rough rule of thumb is 25cm = 1 inch, so 150cm is about 6". Generally, a wider aperture will allow in more light, which is why people who want to see distant galaxies, nebulae, etc often choose Dobsonian reflectors.

Refractors are preferred by astro photographers and people who want to concentrate on planets.

Both types of scope can be used for these different targets, of course.

So the answer to your search depends on what kind of things you'd like to observe. I got the Heritage Flextube dob because it's portable enough to store, carry to and from the garden and will catch more light than any affordable refractor.

If you want something to carry around when travelling, a smallish refractor like the ST80 (or smaller) is better.

Oh and 90 degree diagonals are often preferred for astronomy, where the scope is often nearly vertical. The 45 degree ones are handy for daylight use but can lead to odd positions when stargazing!

Note to experts: I'm trying to keep it simple and as jargon-free as possible, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks so much

So 90 degree diagonals better to start but can always swap it out worst case scenario - great.

Oh I was under the impression the heritage flextube dob was more portable than the ST80 😄

It will always be away from my house because I live in the middle of Portsmouth without a garden on main through road with even shops that open until near midnight so way too much light pollution at home. I don't drive either so opportunities very restricted. 

I'm not so interested in  Photography as never think to take pics so for me, more about live viewing. My daughter will likely get a little more out of taking photos as likes to record things more than myself and would get a little more out of a photo that might be taken of something she saw but still no budding photographer - brought her a camera last year as didn't have a phone and never used once!

Thanks again, Sarah

 

 

[Saggy]

8 hours ago, johninderby said:

Information overload is rearing it’s ugly head. 😕

I think you need to go back to the beginning and redefine your needs. Pressing the reset button so to speak.🙂

OK to redefine your needs.

      New budget?  

      Ease of use?

      Do you WANT a traditional refractor or are you letting yourself be talked into something else?

      At the end of the day it’s your telescope (and your daughters) so you make the decision not well intentioned others.

I would suggest taking a look around FLOs site again and choose a few scopes you really like and forget cost for now. Once you’ve identified a few lets us know and then we can make suggestions of scopes that are in your  budget based on what you really like. 

 

Yes definitely and scared to get it wrong so panicking as need it ordered as from Santa! The panic is making me question everything more than usual 😄

It wouldn't be so much a problem at any other time of year as could read up on it but I left it too late thinking it wouldn't be difficult - thought maybe a bit like binoculars which the further you can see and the stronger magnification, the better. Or assumed there would be an obvious choice based on reviews on amazon and such with a five star review that everyone raves about. Then realised there's so much differences between and so many things to contemplate. Also normally could read up a bit more and learn and then decide but I have a billion other things to do as Christmas, being a single mum plus work is a nightmare so have a billion other things to do at the same time!

 

Budget - revised around £200 as seemingly can't get what I want for much less.

Ease of Use - must be easy and quick to set up. it's for my 11 year old although not so important as will always be doing it with me but  but mostly because of restricted access. For the reasons given above, too much light pollution where I live and added to that, I don't drive. I have a beach close by with much lower light pollution but other opportunities might be on top of the hill overlooking Portsmouth as right by mum's house or in her garden and otherwise on the few camping trips we go to locally where we come back and forth to feed pets so fitting in car possible. Plus my Dad's house on occasion here and there which is in a tiny village near the beach in Cornwall with his garden up a cliff with no light issues. However time is also restricted, busy single working mum and school and she's often at her Dad's house at weekends. So yes very easy to use and set up for the times we can grab - otherwise it's probably only viable when camping.

Type of scope - I'm not sure I particularly care for which type so have no real preference apart from I don't want to collimate and what not every single use and don't want it to be overly fiddly simply because of the lack of time we have to use it and because we're new to it and don't want to start off with frustration. The more portable the better I suppose though! I'm more interested in what can be viewed rather than type? I want to see the moon and some planets well enough even if not all as never looked at them but more interested in the more deep space objects as kinda think they may be more exciting. so must be able to see some of the deep space stuff well enough but fully aware it won't be all. An all rounder although know it won't be perfect for all. Also because I don't know if the hobby will take off or go further to even consider a better one later so want to be able  to at least experience both the nearer stuff and further deep space stuff even if just some of it - and well enough even if not ideal and far from perfect. Having no experience of this as never looked through a telescope, the thing I'm struggling with is relating all the technical stuff/options to what I will be able to view. The tripod I've decided is adequate is the AZ3 - seemingly less faffy to begin with over EQ and good enough to not be an issue as I can see why lack of stability would be an issue.

That's why I came to ST80 as apparently will do both well enough and the dobs as I believe they also do both well enough but can't quite determine what the difference will be between the two options?

Many thanks again 🙂

Edited December 17, 2021 by Saggy

[Saggy]

3 hours ago, Geoff Lister said:

I have both. The 45 I use for birdwatching, and other terrestrial objects - to get the birds the right way up, and viewing horizontally; the 90 for astronomy - it transmits slightly more light, and is more comfortable when viewing objects high in the sky.

I am very pleased with my Heritage 130 Dobsonian. It is quick to set up - I usually use mine on a glass-top patio table. I checked the collimation after a few months of use, and it only needed a very small adjustment.

I wear glasses as I am short-sighted and have mild astigmatism. I find that the widest eyepiece view is without glasses, and there is less reflection of stray images. I still need my glasses handy to find, and change, eyepieces; and when using the finder (small telescope or red dot).

Best of luck with your final decision.

Geoff

Many thanks.

You mention your garden, can I ask if you would think of the heritage 130 good for taking out with you and travelling with it?

THanks for the other info too 🙂

 

[johninderby]

So it looks like a choice between the Heritage 130 and an 80mm refractor on a simple AZ mount.

I’ll have a look around for an 80mm refractor and see what is available within the budget and let ypu know what I find.

Edited December 17, 2021 by johninderby

[cajen2]

Hi again.

It isn't so much the weight of the setup which controls portability (though the 130 dob does come in at a not inconsiderable 6.2kg), it's how awkward it is to carry. A refractor of that size is easy to shove in a bag or backpack and the mount/tripod similarly. With the dob, even with the scope removed, you have an awkward wooden assembly for the base to cart around.