Beginner looking for advice.

[Sunwind]

Hi!

I'm trying to decide between an 8" SkyWatcher Skyliner 200P dobsonian and the 10" 250PX version, I can find the 8" for £270 and the 10" for £390, is the price difference worth it, will it be a lot better for me?

I'm also looking for some advice on what eyepeices I need to be getting for this as I have no idea, but I am told that for good ones they can cost £80-150 each, and i'm not even sure why I need extra eyepeices and what different things I would use them for!

Thanks in advance if anyone can help me

[Breakintheclouds]

I can't help you with choosing a telescope model, but as a recent convert to astronomy I've read a great deal about eyepieces recently and might be able to help there.

The reason you usually want several eyepieces (EPs) is that each will give you a different amount of magnification. So you'll probably want at least three (most people here will no doubt have about 46!), so you can look at the sky in different levels of detail. You'll want a pretty wide-angle EP, which will give you low magnification and so will let you see quite a large amount of the sky all at once. This is useful for looking at large objects such as galaxies and some clusters. Then you'll want a medium magnification EP for looking at smaller deep space objects (nebulae, etc.) and finally an EP with a high magnification to look in detail at small objects - the lunar surface, planets and double stars, for example. A high-magnification EP will be showing you only a really small part of the sky, and so whilst it's great for planets it's no use for larger objects like galaxies.

What constitutes high and low magnification? It depends on your telescope's focal length. You can find this in the telescope's specs, or written on the side of the scope. My telescope is 650 mm focal length. If you divide this number by the focal length of an eyepiece then this gives you the magnification. So, for example, I have a 25mm eyepiece. The 650 mm telescope length divided by the 25 mm eyepiece length gives 650/25=26x magnification: a fairly low magnifcation suitable for looking at quite large areas of the sky. My 6mm eyepiece, on the other hand, gives 650/6=108x magnification, and so 'zooms in' much closer on whatever I'm viewing.

Hope that helps a bit. No doubt other people will be able to help more.

Edit: I just noticed the website you were looking at is based in Burnley. Are you there too? That's my original neck of the woods...!

[Sunwind]

I can't help you with choosing a telescope model, but as a recent convert to astronomy I've read a great deal about eyepieces recently and might be able to help there.

The reason you usually want several eyepieces (EPs) is that each will give you a different amount of magnification. So you'll probably want at least three (most people here will no doubt have about 46!), so you can look at the sky in different levels of detail. You'll want a pretty wide-angle EP, which will give you low magnification and so will let you see quite a large amount of the sky all at once. This is useful for looking at large objects such as galaxies and some clusters. Then you'll want a medium magnification EP for looking at smaller deep space objects (nebulae, etc.) and finally an EP with a high magnification to look in detail at small objects - the lunar surface, planets and double stars, for example. A high-magnification EP will be showing you only a really small part of the sky, and so whilst it's great for planets it's no use for larger objects like galaxies.

What constitutes high and low magnification? It depends on your telescope's focal length. You can find this in the telescope's specs, or written on the side of the scope. My telescope is 650 mm focal length. If you divide this number by the focal length of an eyepiece then this gives you the magnification. So, for example, I have a 25mm eyepiece. The 650 mm telescope length divided by the 25 mm eyepiece length gives 650/25=26x magnification: a fairly low magnifcation suitable for looking at quite large areas of the sky. My 6mm eyepiece, on the other hand, gives 650/6=108x magnification, and so 'zooms in' much closer on whatever I'm viewing.

Hope that helps a bit. No doubt other people will be able to help more.

Edit: I just noticed the website you were looking at is based in Burnley. Are you there too? That's my original neck of the woods...!

Thanks for the info, I started reading the info thread here on eyepeices but it's really a lot of info to take in.

I have no idea where Burnley is I just found that site using google I'm in the north-west, Birkenhead to be precise.

I was hoping someone could give me a more concise "get these eyepeices for that scope" and tell me the names etc because I don't want to spend too much on a eyepeice and it's not a "good brand" one and gives bad viewing compared to another I could have bought or something.

I think I understand why you need different ones now however, the scope says it comes with 2 eyepeices supplied "Eyepieces Supplied (1.25"): 10mm & 25mm" I imagine they are not great quality so I need to replace these right away or what? Could use some expert advice from someone who has experience with this scope maybe? I don't know

thanks again

[Merlin66]

Either of the telescopes would be a great start.

Just consider the physical size and weight of the scopes. They have to be manhandled around. Neither are really suitable for imaging or tracking the stars.

If this is going to be your first telescope you may want to consider a smaller refractor ( easier to use and maintain) something like an ED80 will stand you in good stead.

Can be used on the planets, deep sky etc etc and a s/hand (?) equatorial mounting with drives will allow to track and even consider imaging with a webcam, or similar.

Think about it.... the best telescope you can buy, is the one you will use... there's already too many scopes sitting gathering dust in garages....

[Sunwind]

Either of the telescopes would be a great start.

Just consider the physical size and weight of the scopes. They have to be manhandled around. Neither are really suitable for imaging or tracking the stars.

If this is going to be your first telescope you may want to consider a smaller refractor ( easier to use and maintain) something like an ED80 will stand you in good stead.

Can be used on the planets, deep sky etc etc and a s/hand (?) equatorial mounting with drives will allow to track and even consider imaging with a webcam, or similar.

Think about it.... the best telescope you can buy, is the one you will use... there's already too many scopes sitting gathering dust in garages....

as I understand it it's possible to put either of these dobsonians on a better mount which tracks and you can use for imaging that way when the time comes, is that right?

I am interested in imaging but it's not an immediate concern (I don't even have a camera and my budget isn't that big for all the astrophotography stuff) - is it really that bad having to manually follow objects in the sky just nudging the scope every few minutes?

I definetly don't want a "GoTo" scope I want to learn the sky and find things on my own.

thanks

[MikeP]

The best advice I can offer is to separate observing and imaging.

If you want to learn the sky and see DSOs a dobsonian is the way to go. As much aperture as you can afford / lift / store.

If you want to image the fainter stuff, a small refractor is the place to start. You may not want a go to but finding the little rascals will be very difficult without it, particularly when you have a camera rather than an eyepiece attached.

Imaging with a big aperture is difficult for many reasons and is not the place to start. Observing with a small refractor in a light polluted area will disappoint. You need two scopes.

As for eyepieces, the ones supplied are normally OK. The 1.25" is the size of the barrel (the other common one is 2"). The 25mm and the 10mm are the focal lengths of the eyepieces - divide them into the focal length of the scope to get magnification, so the smaller one magnifies more.

For looking at DSO's you do not want magnification - the 25mm will be better. I'd try the supplied eyepieces and see how they go first.

Mike

[Merlin66]

Putting a dobbie on a tracking mount is an expensive and limited option!!

You can have mounts which will track without the expense of the GOTO; you still need star maps and learn the sky!!

[Sunwind]

thanks for the help, I think i'll get the 10" dob then and leave astrophotography for somewhere down the road, after all the cosmos isn't going anywhere

my main concern is being able to see planets and deep space things like nebulae and galaxies and such. so I guess I should just get the scope and start with the supplied eyepeices and buy more later then?

[MikeP]

The SkyWatcher 10" dob with the supplied eyepieces will be a great start.

I'd suggest you buy a Star Map e.g. Sky & Telescope's Pocket Sky Atlas (Paperback) By (author) Roger W. Sinnott ISBN 13: 9781931559317 at The Book Depository and / or download a planetarium program like Cartes du Ciel or Stellarium.

You'll need a red light so you can read without impacting your night vision.

Mr Moon is a great target but sooooo bright, you'll need a filter - either a moon filter or a polarizing filter (just a variable moon filter really).

Jupiter is around at present and on a clear night your scope would probably manage more magnification than the 10mm will provide, so consider buying a 2x barlow lens, which has the effect of doubling your scopes focal length - hence the 25mm will behave like a 12.5mm and the 10mm like a 5mm.

If your back is anything like mine, you'll probably want to consider replacing the finder scope on the dob with a right angled equivalent or a red dot finder.

Just buying the bits suggested above will provide you with a bit more retail therapy. Just wait till you get to imaging, the list is longer and the prices are higher - enjoy the dob. I do.

Do try calling the forum's sponsors First Light Optics and chatting to Steve or James - they will offer you good advice.

HTH

Mike

[Astro_Baby]

I'd not rush into eyepieces. The scope will come with a 10mm, 25mm and a Barlowe (maybe the Sky-Watcher De-luxe Barlow).

Thats enough to get started with. The 10mm isnt great but its not as bad as people suggest and will give you a good start. The 25mm is better and a pretty fair eyepiece really. The de-luxe Barlow if thats what comes with the scope is pretty good.

Reason for not rushing with EPs would be until you really know what you want to observe and you have some eyetime in you could buy something thats a complete waste of money. I'd get some eyeball time and look to get out with other people at some point and have a look through their EPs to get a feel for what you like.

EPs are very personal things and whats acceptable to one person may be completely unuseable to someone else.

[Sunwind]

thanks for the advice, I have a couple more questions:

filters - do they attach to any size eyepeice or do you need different sets of filters for different eyepeices?

should I just get a £10 moon filter or go for a more expensive 'set' of filters?

the scope says it just comes with "Eyepieces Supplied (1.25"): 10mm & 25mm" so i'm not sure what you mean about this other "barlow" EP? is barlow a brand of eyepeices or is it a type?

should I pick up a http://firstlightoptics.com/proddetail.php?prod=AZflexdewshield dew shield while i'm at it? it says they can also help keep light from nearby if its a light polluted area out(?)

i've also read about some kind of attachments for eyepeices which help the eyepeice to fit around your eye better to stop stray light getting in, what's the proper name for these things, should I get one and, do they fit on multiple EP's or do you need multiple's to attach to different size EP's?

thanks again

[Sunwind]

sorry to double post but I can't seem to edit that one anymore; I downloaded stellarium and while it works great on my PC it runs at only 2FPS on my laptop so it's not suitable for taking out in the back garden with me to use, does this "Cartes du Ciel" work as well as stellarium? it doesn't seem to be as hardware demanding as stellarium

[alfi]

hi

a barlow is a lens that goes infront of the eyepiece, it doubles the magnification of the eyepiece.

you also get barlows that gives 3X, 4X, 5X, etc.

the filters normally comes in 2 sizes, 1,25" and 2".

they can be screwed in on the bottom of most eyepieces and diagonals.

i have bought mine in 2" since i have both 1,25" and 2" eyepieces, and when i use 1,25" eyepieces, i screw the filters in the diagonal, or the barlow, if i use that.

alfi

[Sunwind]

thanks that explains a lot about the barlow, so its not actually an eyepiece it's a magnifier type thing.

just went out again now at 4am, sat down in the back yard with my laptop and Stellarium up, I managed to spot the "heads" of gemini, and even Mars I think just below them! or was it some star? there was nothing else there except mars in Stellarium so I don't know what else it could have been.

I also found Cassiopeia, Orion (of course), I saw Aldebaran but not the constellation taurus, too much light pollution I think, my neighbours all had their lights on in their houses etc..I saw Canis Minor too.

I also saw Auriga, it was difficult at first because I wasn't expecting it to be that large, I was looking "smaller" until I lined up the dots so to speak and realised it was a huge constellation I was looking at

really happy it was lots of fun

[Sunwind]

this scope just caught my eye: Homepage - Skywatcher Explorer 200P EQ5

can someone clarfiy for me, the mount that comes with this scope, is it motorized? so you can easily track things by pressing a button or something which nudges the scope 1 degree in a direction or something, or is it not motorized at all? it doesn't really say, but I did some research on it and I found something like that.

this other scope interests me because if it is motorized like I think, then it should be easier to get into astrophotography later on than the dobsonian mount?

it is only a modest 8" as opposed to the 10" dob, yet costs roughly the same price, I can't really weigh the pro's and cons between the two scopes because I just don't know what they will be like, can someone tell me what I should go for? the 10" dob or the 8" reflector - what will be the difference in things that I can see, basically?

thanks again and apologies for asking so many things, there's a lot to take in and i'm just trying to absorb everything.

[yeti monster]

As an aside, I live close to Burnley and hadn't been able to find a local retailer until I followed that lint in the OP. So thanks for that, I'll try to pop in when I get home.

[Merlin66]

The EQ mount illustrated shows a RA drive fitted, so I'd say it has tracking capabilities. A good starting point for imaging.

[ollypenrice]

Hang on, the EQ5 comes in various versions and while that is a lot of scope and mount for your money (really a lot!) you would need some serious upgrades to get it ready for imaging, maybe. It's not clear from the ad but you could check with FLO about what electronics you'd need to add for imaging. You were given some very good advice earlier from Mike, INMHO, saying 'separate the imaging from the visual.' I would heartily second that. Imaging is very complicted and for good results requires specially chosen kit, not all of which needs to be horribly expensive. Just unpleasantly so!

For visual observing a 10 inch outguns ann 8 inch by some way and with a Dob you don't have to polar align or contort yourself around wherever a German Equatorial decides to put the eyepiece. Actually getting them to point where you want to look is not just dead easy. With a Dob it is.

Olly

[neil phillips]

I think us die hards that have been doing it for years would lugg a elephant in and out of the house if it gave us better veiws lol.

But a begginer may object to anything that isnt fairly portable depending on the person i guess. a 10" is a great size for both visual and imaging but a 8 inch is certainly more freindly in that regard. not as nice as a 10" but pretty darn good both for visual and imaging. It all depends how much light gathering power, and resolution means to a begginer opposed to lugging a large scope around night after night ( ok in the uk month after month )

Dont forget the frustrations of collimation guys, to a begginer it can spell doom for what should be first enjoyable new hobby would hate to see that happen here. so dont underestimate a little bit of learning trial and error getting a newtonian working well. at first it will seem like learning how to fly a aeroplane.

i think a 6" refractor is a good compromise in this regard with a bit of false colour though

better still a 6 or 7" inch maksutov for great planetary views. or a 8" SCT for planets and the moon. collimation is easier and more portable than a newtonian, for deepsky a focal reducer can be used. for planets just remove it.

Do you want a all round scope ? one for the moon and planets and deepsky like galaxys. or do you want a specialized scope one thats best for either planets or deep sky

Things to consider for a begginer. I started out doing visual but got the imaging bug for the moon and planets, that i hardly look at them at all now. unless its on my computer screen, getting ready to capture a image.Still enjoy a occassional look though.

Neil phillips lunar and planetary images

[Sunwind]

I think us die hards that have been doing it for years would lugg a elephant in and out of the house if it gave us better veiws lol.

But a begginer may object to anything that isnt fairly portable depending on the person i guess. a 10" is a great size for both visual and imaging but a 8 inch is certainly more freindly in that regard. not as nice as a 10" but pretty darn good both for visual and imaging. It all depends how much light gathering power, and resolution means to a begginer opposed to lugging a large scope around night after night ( ok in the uk month after month )

Dont forget the frustrations of collimation guys, to a begginer it can spell doom for what should be first enjoyable new hobby would hate to see that happen here. so dont underestimate a little bit of learning trial and error getting a newtonian working well. at first it will seem like learning how to fly a aeroplane.

i think a 6" refractor is a good compromise in this regard with a bit of false colour though

better still a 6 or 7" inch maksutov for great planetary views. or a 8" SCT for planets and the moon. collimation is easier and more portable than a newtonian, for deepsky a focal reducer can be used. for planets just remove it.

Do you want a all round scope ? one for the moon and planets and deepsky like galaxys. or do you want a specialized scope one thats best for either planets or deep sky

Things to consider for a begginer. I started out doing visual but got the imaging bug for the moon and planets, that i hardly look at them at all now. unless its on my computer screen, getting ready to capture a image.Still enjoy a occassional look though.

Neil phillips lunar and planetary images

as I understand it, from reading a lot of reviews and such of the skywatcher dobsonians, is that they "hold" collimation very well, and people have said they only had to do it once when they got it and then not for a long time after that, is that true can anyone here attest to that?

I want an all round scope yes, I would like to look at the planets but also my real interest is in things like galaxies and nebulae, I want the best possible view for those, I think my 10" Dob is a good choice, the size, as long as it fits in a car is fine for me, if I took it somewhere, and as for getting it in and out the house, it would simply mean picking it up and carrying it about 10 feet and then putting it down again cause I can keep it next to these 2 big patio doors which open out to the back yard so it's nice and convenient.

[alfi]

hi

the secondary mirror dont need to be colliminated often, do it once, and it may be a long time before you need to do it again.

the primary needs to be taken more often, but when you find out how to do it, its no problem. dont let that hold you back.

i got a 200mm f/5 on a eq mount, to have the possibilitys of imaging.

alfi