Hello! I'm new to all this...

[mr. moon]

Hello all,

Firstly, please let me say what a fantastic site you chaps (and ladies) have here. I've been following posts on here for a while and have seen some truly spectacular photos posted on here, which I am deeply in awe of and thank you all for bringing them to me.

Secondly, I'm looking for a bit of advice regarding that evergreen topic "which telescope should I go for?". I appreciate that there are several other posts to this effect already on here, and if I have doubled up at all I can only apologise.

Previously I have only observed the moon with the naked eye and through my 300mm camera lens and 8mp DSLR, which has captured a reasonable, if not spectacular amount of detail, and has energised me to observe further.

I'm really keen to observe the moon close-up, as well as see some of the planets with my own eyes and also maybe dabble with some deep-sky viewing. Crucially, I'd like to be able to photograph everything that I can see. I have a Canon 350D digital SLR and would like to be able to hook this up to the telescope if possible.

I've been looking at a couple of the SkyWatcher telescopes, which have come highly recommended to me. This is where it gets interesting. I've seen the Skywatcher Explorer 130P SupaTrak AUTO (priced at £195) and the Skywatcher Skymax 127 SupaTrak Maksutov-Cassegrain (£295), both of which look great. The 300x magnification on the Maksutov-Cassegrain appeals to me, but I really don't know enough to say whether it's worth the extra £100.

One thing to bear in mind is that my other half has already voiced her disapproval, so the more money I spend, the more likely I am to be sleeping on the sofa!

Any thoughts on the suitability of either of those 'scopes?

Thanks in advice,

Mr. Moon.

[barkis]

Well Mr Moon, first, there is no apologies required on SGL from anyone asking questions. It is one of our prime functions, answering questions.

We certainly don't want to help drive any wedges in your relationship with your good lady wife either.

Your name would suggest one of your main interests is the Moon, both for observation and Imaging. No problem there, but if you also intend Deep Sky Photography, that may have the consequence of increasing the demand on your finances. A sure fire way of upsetting the love of your life.

There will be a setup somewhere that will fulfill your requirements, but it might be a used one that crop up now and again on Astro For Sale forums, including SGL.

I almost always alert potential buyers to the second hand market, especially if there is a limit on finances. Some great bargains do happen, so you could wait and watch.If you see anything that grabs your attention, you can seek further advice here. You will get more responses to your post soon I'm sure.

Welcome to SGL by the way.

Ron.

[mr. moon]

Hello Ron, and thanks for your post and advice. Yes, I would say that observing the moon is more important to me initially than deep-sky observing, so a telescope which satisfies that requirement nicely would certainly be a good starting point.

[MikeP]

Hello Mr Moon and welcome to SGL. There are a couple of things to bear in mind.

Magnification is important for the moon and planets because it lets you see detail. For DSOs it is usually counter-productive because most are quite dim and many are quite large and hence better viewed in a "wide field" with a small amount of magnification.

Magnification when imaging is "different" to when observing. When you observe, you use an eyepiece and the design and focal length of the eyepiece (along with the scope's focal length) dictates the field of view and magnification. When imaging, you can attach a camera while an eyepiece is in place (afocal), in which case the camera will see the magnified image. Alternatively, the camera can be attached without the eyepiece (prime focus) in which case the magnification is fixed and is defined by the scope and the camera. Afocal will be fine for the moon and planets.

The moon is bright and DSOs are dim, so the length of time required to collect enough light is much greater for DSOs. Unfortunately the earth rotates and long exposures for DSOs will show star trailing. The usual solution is a mount that will track and counteract the rotation.

With your budget, you'll be able to amuse yourself for a long time with the moon and planets. However, you'll probably need to spend a little bit more to image DSOs.

Can I suggest you consider buying a copy of "Making Every Photon Count" written by one of our members. You could also do worse than phoning Steve or James at First Light Optics.

Hope this helps a little bit.

Mike

[ronin]

I will start by saying don't believe everything that you read. 300x from a 127 seems a bit high. 250x may be possible on a good night and with the astronomy gods smiling on you and your equipment. But 150-200 is a more realistic maximum magnification.

Also the Mak will have a long focal length, this may enable greater magnification but it cuts down the field of view. And field of view is needed to locate the object and if small then it is more critical/difficult to maintain the object in the field of view.

For DSO's I will agree that neither mentioned are the ideal DSO imaging scope/mount but there are possibilities, Orion Nebulae being the obvious one. A wide FOV will enable you to get a good shot of the Pleadies. Hunt the web for a list of Messier objects and pick those that are say mag 8 or better. Guessing at 15+ fall into this catagory.

[mr. moon]

Thanks very much folks for all of your brilliant advice. I will certainly pick up a copy of "Making Every Photon Count", and I've contacted First Light Optics via email to see what they recommend.

I hadn't considered the relationship between magnification and field of view. Presumably as a beginner it's useful to have a wide field of view in order to locate objects with slightly more ease.

Thanks again, I'll be sure to let you know what I decide to go for.

Craig.