Have I chosen the right scope

[Saturn1]

Good evening stargazers, I am the proud owner of a new telescope, but have doubts on it,s capabilities after reading some reviews on my particular model.

I have a National Geographic telescope, specs below.

Manufacturer's Description

National Geographic 76mm Newtonian Telescope

76mm Primary Mirror, 3 interchangable eyepieces, Aluminium full height tripod, Altazimuth mount with vertical fine adjustment and lock

Box Contents

76mm Primary Mirror

3 interchangable eyepieces

Aluminium full height tripod

Altazimuth mount with vertical fine adjustment and lock.

Can anyone help with some advice on this scopes capabilities with regards to the claims of performance etc.

Hope that all makes sence.

Regards

Tony

[arad85]

Hi Tony,

Welcome to SGL. What claims are being made?

[Saturn1]

The claims I have read earlier today are that the scopeis not up to the task of it's claims of 525 magnification.

I am new to stargazing, and would welcome any help in firstly determining if I have bought the right type of scope, if not, then what would be the best type for best results?

[Saturn1]

The claims I have read earlier today are that the scopeis not up to the task of it's claims of 525 magnification.

I am new to stargazing, and would welcome any help in firstly determining if I have bought the right type of scope, if not, then what would be the best type for best results?

[Herakles]

I have a 200mm Newt that wont get any where near that mag mate .

What do you want to see/ image ?

[arad85]

Hi Tony,

The general rule is max magnification is 50 x diameter in inches, but more achievable is 30ish. Whatever mag you get, you are then limited by atmospherics to around 200-300 (depending on the weather - although in excellent conditions you can push it further). Given you have a 3 inch 'scope, max practical mags are likely to be 100-150.

Whilst it is probably true the eyepieces together with the 'scope will physically do 525x, but you will find that they give horrible views that show you nothing.

At a guess, the scope will give you views of the moon and a couple of the nearer planets as well as some double stars. You'll probably be able to see the brighter deep space objects, but don't expect miracles - they're grey fuzzy blobs in all but the biggest amateur 'scopes!

[Saturn1]

Arad85,

What would you suggest as the best scope both for the begginere but also for getting the best images etc?

I liked the claims of being able to see the rings of saturn, Neptunes moons, & the Orion Nebula, but after some attempts last night to view the stars, I have serious doubts about the abilities of this scope.

[Saturn1]

Herakles,

I'm looking for the best results from a begginers point of view, but don't want just any old rubbish giving the very basic of views etc.

Do you have any suggestions??

Tony

[Locky]

Hi, you have the same scope as me, except mine is jessops branded. its a good scope to start, but I cannot see many of the claims that the advertisers make. rather disapointing.

[arad85]

Herakles,

I'm looking for the best results from a begginers point of view, but don't want just any old rubbish giving the very basic of views etc.

Do you have any suggestions??

Tony

What's your budget

Two major things to decide here - do you want it computerised (goto) and what sort of 'scope do you want. Goto will enable you to select what you want to view then goto it (after you've aligned the system - taked 10-15 mins). Second thing is to decide what sort of 'scope you want. There are 3 types - reflectors, refractors and catadioptrics. Best "bang for buck" at the lower end are the reflectors as they are cheapest to make. Personally, I'd be looking for something as big as possible aperture wise (the numbers in the 'scope titles tend to be the mm diameter of the aperture. For example, the Skywatcher Explorer 130PM has a 130mm (5inch) mirror. The second thing to look for is the focal ratio (f number) of the scope (f ratio = focal length/aperture). This is often written as f/5 or f/7.5 etc... Lower f numbers mean brighter images, but those around f5-6 tend to show up cheap eyepieces by causing distortions around the edges. It's all a tradeoff at the end of the day.

Quite a few people here start with some version of the Skywatcher 130 series (see: Reflectors) or go for a "dobsonian" - essentially a larger aperture newtonian on a floor mounted box (such as those shown here: Dobsonians although I'd probably give the smallest a miss due to the single sided support). Dobsonians are popular as you get a LOT of aperture for your money and seeing anything more than the bright objects in the sky and aperture is your friend

You will also need some eyepieces (the scopes generally come with one or perhaps two) and you can get some good second hand items here or buy new - either as a good value kit like the celestron or revelation ones or individually.

First thing to do is decide your budget - come back when you have that and we can advise more...

Beware - it gets very expensive very quickly - especially if you want to do any imaging as unless it is of the planets, you'll end up spending thousands on mounts/guides better quality optics etc..!!

[Mikea]

Welcome, Saturn1! You have found the best forum for lots of advice from other beginners (like me) and more experienced amateurs too. It's a shame you didn't find us before you made that purchase - but it's done now, so let's move on. Available cash usually has a bearing on what most people buy, so if you are looking to spend the same amount of money (can you get a refund do you think?), I would go for this Reflectors - Skywatcher Skyhawk 1145PM . Bigger aperture, so more light gathering, enabling brighter images, much better mount and two favourable reviews. Wait for some more opinions - they will come!

[Doc]

Hi Tony and welcome to SGL.

Unfortunatley this telescope along with others such as the Seben, Jessops, Argos and E-bay ones that seem to make outrageous claims and adorn the outside of the boxes with photo's of Hubble type images to confuse the buyer into buying are not very good.

The magnification of x525 as others have said is possible using the eyepieces supplied but believe me you will not see anything great at that mag.

I have no doubt it will show Jupiter and Saturn but the image will not be great.

Again no doubt the M42 will make an appearence but it will be extremely small and no nublosity will show.

And the claim to see Neptune's moons. LOL I can only just see one in my 16" dob and thats with averted vision.

This sort of advertising really annoys me as astronomy is a fantastic hobby but these cheap scopes put people off. Look through a good scope and Tony you will be hooked, look through a bad scope and you will be gone.

As others have said try and get your money back and post us a budget and I'm sure people here will easily spend your money wisely.

[Saturn1]

Thanks Guys,

Firstly, I have only purchased this past weekend, so refund is no problem, (good old Argos) lol.

I have approx £150 to spend, but there is some movement for the right scope etc.

I must admit, having been interested in stargazing all my life did not prepare me in the least for the way your entheusiasm grabs you once started. 3 days with a telescope & I just want to look at the stars, planets etc. [removed word] work, this is more fun, lol.

[Doc]

Sorry Tony we posted the same time.

Any of these two will show a million times better views then your Argos scope.

Reflectors - Skywatcher Skyhawk 1145PM

Dobsonians - Skywatcher Skyliner 150P Dobsonian

[arad85]

Crikey - didn't realise the 1145 had a RA motor for that price! What that means Tony is that if you set the scope up correctly, you can just switch the drive on and it will track the object you are looking at (it will drift out as you can't set the mount up perfectly, but it will avoid you having to move the mount every minute or so...).

[MikeP]

Hello Tony and welcome. The scope you have purchased is not one that would have been recommended. As advised already, better to start again.

Budget is always top of the list but next immediately after comes the decision of what the kit is to be used for. You have mentioned seeing Saturn's rings, Neptune's moons and the Orion nebula but you have also mentioned imaging.

For imaging (apart from cameras and loads of other bits) you need a sturdy mount that uses motors to keep the object you are imaging centred. That mount will cost considerable more than you have already spent.

Now, what scope would you put on the mount? For visual, the bigger the scope the more light you get in - this allows more magnification or enables you to see fainter objects. Unfortunately, for a beginning imager, a much smaller scope is better. The advice I was given was to buy two scopes - it took me a year to discover how good that advice was.

So, if you follow my advice, you'll need to buy a mount, two scopes and a camera. You'd soon discover that would not be the end of it - you'd want better eyepieces, finders, diagonals, dew shields, etc etc etc

You now see why budget and deciding what you want to achieve are so important.

By the way, the scope you already have will reveal Saturn's rings but you probably would not be impressed with the view. It will also let you see the Orion nebula and give quite a good view. Neptune's moons? Forget it.

Mike

[MikeP]

Crkey, multiple posts while I was writing mine.

Mike

[Saturn1]

Thanks again guys, which of the 2 would you recomend as best?

Am I likely to get the images of Saturn & rings, The orion nubula etc?

And, just to really show what a newbie I am, What is thesignificance of the red dot finder?

[crovax]

I've started with sky-watcher 1309 (130mm) and I am totally happy with it. I don't have much observing experience yet but judging from what I saw magnification is not that important. It only makes sense when viewing planets and when atmosphere is ideal. For planets, yeah, it rocks. Viewing Saturn and Jupiter at 277x was truly awesome. But actually I saw Saturn rings and Jupiter banding even at 36x. For DSOs that 277x I am able to reach doesn't mean anything. So for example M51 and M57 look as grey barely visible smudges at 36x. When I put them at 90x all I get are a little larger but almost invisible smudges. The same goes for all other DSOs. The only type of DSO I was able to magnify so far is Open Cluster. Yeah, it brings out more stars but I actually they look more awesome at 36x so I ended up looking at them at 36x only.

[Doc]

Those two scopes are very different in design.

The dob has no motors and does not track. You manually push it. But it does have a nice 6" mirror which will gather alot of light to allow you to see more distant objects.

The Newt on the other hand has a RA motor which will track an object if set uup correctly but only has a 114mm mirror so will not go as deep but will still show views of the targets you want.

[arad85]

Am I likely to get the images of Saturn & rings, The orion nubula etc?

What camera do you have... Planet photos are generally taken with webcam style systems and nebula via dSLRs. You will need the ability to attach it to the 'scope and for anything that is a "faint fuzzy" the scope to actually track the object as it moves in the skies. Be careful - it gets expensive very quickly.

Have a loiok in the imaging section on here and see what photos people are getting using what kit (I seem to remember someone doing a stunning shot of Jupiter with a 130PM a few days ago).

And, just to really show what a newbie I am, What is thesignificance of the red dot finder?

Allows you to see what you are pointing at in the sky. looking down a magnified tube, you have NO idea what you are pointing at...

[Saturn1]

arad85,

Sorry, I think I may have confused you a little on the side of imaging. What I meant was the images I would see through the scope. I think that just for now, with my obvious novice at this, I should leave the actual images for a while and get used to the scope and finding the stars etc first lol.

[Saturn1]

Mick,

I have been looking at your suggestions, in particular the Skywatcher Skyhawk 1145PM.

It looks to me to be a pretty good scope. Can you tell me though, what is the Red dot finder for?

And is it a good idea to maybe have an autofocuser with this if applicable?

Tony

[Doc]

Mick,

I have been looking at your suggestions, in particular the Skywatcher Skyhawk 1145PM.

It looks to me to be a pretty good scope. Can you tell me though, what is the Red dot finder for?

And is it a good idea to maybe have an autofocuser with this if applicable?

Tony

The red dot finder is simply a device that sits on top of your scope. When you look through it you will see a little illuminated red dot. You then have to align this red dot on an object so both the view through your eyepiece and the red dot matches.

Then what ever you centre in your red dot device will be centred in your eyepiece.

I don't think you need an autofocuser.

[arad85]

Can you tell me though, what is the Red dot finder for?

Locating whereabouts you are in the sky.. You can't do it accurately by either looking through an eyepiece or judging where the scope is pointing. It's a replacement for a finder scope...

And is it a good idea to maybe have an autofocuser with this if applicable?

Tony

Not applicable at all....

The 1145 does look good value

Phone Steve/James at First Light Optics (see banner at the top of the forums) they'll help you out