Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Another newbie needs first scope advice.

Ben Cole

By Ben Cole
in Welcome

Recommended Posts

Ben Cole

Ben Cole

Posted
Posted

Hi.....

Been researching for a first scope (apart from binos and my 50mm Tasco from 20yrs ago ) for a few weeks now and have nearly taken the plunge a few times but chickened out due to numerous factors.

I realised I should have just joined a society or forum and asked for personal advice in the first place like I would with anything else.

I am currently thinking of dismissing my original choice of a Meade ETX because of the performance you get for the price. However the compact dimensions of the design is a big plus.

I am interested in planets but more so deep sky objects and getting into astrophotography to improve on my previous efforts like this(M42) taken with my Canon 350D with a 300mm lens.

M42.jpg

I've read stacks of info about other peoples choices for a first scope but now need to post my requirements in the hope of getting some more specific advice.

My factors are....

Acutely aware that an often used poorer scope is better than a rarely used quality scope.

Budget maybe £500 for the right stuff but really looking for optimum price vs results.

I have a wife so a big scope would be a negative as I think I'd probably "store" it in the conservatory.

For photgraphy I realise I need an Equatorial mount NOT Alt/Az to avoid field rotation.

Would want tracking but not necessarily a GOTO feature as I'm quite happy to learn the skies.

Don't mind doing some scope maintenance but would like to avoid major hassle.

Meade, Celestron and Skywatcher are the makes that seem sensible but Meade is turning out NOT necessarily to be the "daddy" that I thought it was especially when value is considered.

So as an optimum I'm thinking currently a 6" reflector (Celestron) as the best balance between portability and perfomance.

Any and all opionions would be deeply appreciated,

Thanks,

Ben.

P.S. Sorry about the lengthy post!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Kaptain Klevtsov

Kaptain Klevtsov

Posted
Posted

Hi Ben and welcome. You're in the place I was a year ago, moving from camera lenses to a proper telescope, so I know where you're coming from as it were. I ended up with the 200mm f/5 Newtonian Skywatcher after a lot of thought. I also bought several other 'scopes but the on I use most now is the Skywatcher. For me storage space wasn't a big issue so it's different for you. There are several issues that you probably know about when photographing the sky, but I'll reiterate for the sake of completeness anyway.

Firstly you will need tracking as you said. There are mounts that track and mounts that track really well, so you have to het round the problem if your tracking isn't spot on. The faster f/ ratio 'scopes will allow shorter exposures with the consequent reduction in star trails. A shorter focal length will give a lower magnification and therefore less trailing of the stars, so the bottom line is you want fast and you want short. With 'scopes they are usually measured in aperture and f/ ratio so go for around f/5 or less and remember that the bigger aperture will have a longer focal length so will give more trails.

The storage area thing is a problem as the whole idea of a telescope is to funnel the light into the camera so you need as much aperture as you can afford for photography, more is better. Perhaps a shed would give you the storage you need?

If you get just an EQ mount , you can stick your Canon and lens on it and go from there. The very popular ED80 'scopes are more or less a 600mm f/8 camera lens with the option of adding eyepieces when it comes down to it. I expect that the Canon lens is good with false colour so you can go from there. If you have a problem with the Canon lens, grab a cheap 500mm f/8 mirror lens. The auto focus on your camera won't work so there's no loss there, the mirrors won't give you colour fringing and they're not expensive.

The picture that you posted is excellent for an example of what can be done without tracking, you should be very pleased with that.

Captain Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lunator

lunator

Posted
Posted

Hi Ben

Welcome to SGL.

If your main interests are taking astro images and not visual then aperture is not such a factor if you have a mount that can track well.

If you want to do some visual observing then aperture become much more of a factor.

Do you want to scope that is usable on planets?

Is weight as well as siv#ze important?

Cheers

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kaptain Klevtsov

Kaptain Klevtsov

Posted
Posted

I obviously was not clear in the earlier post, and having re-read it I can see why.

As Ian points out, aperture isn't important if you have a mount that can track well.

If you don't have a good mount, then, well, it is important.

Most mounts (the affordable ones anyway) have a mechanical accuracy that limits the exposure time. The stars trail if this time is exceeded, it's calculated by taking the mass of the mount and multiplying it by the square of the cash spent. E=MC2, as they say.

Seriously though, the better mounts will let you track for a couple of minutes without a problem, others will not.

Captain Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AndyM

AndyM

Posted
Posted

Hi Ben and welcome.

As others have said here the Skywatcher explorer 200 is a good choice. I bought one from First Light Optics a few weeks ago and have been more than pleased with it.

When it arrives the boxes look huge and unpacked and set up indoors you do think "what have I gone and done?!" but it is pretty easy to take down and set up again so don't let the imagined (or for that matter actual) size put you off.

I was interested to see the picture - I've just aquired a Canon 350D but have yet to get it on a tripod or 'scope - something to look forward to. :)

Andy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MartinB

MartinB

Posted
Posted

Ben, not being a control freak or anything but this is what you need! A second hand motorised Vixen Super Polaris or GPDX - no need to pay more than £300. Scope - Skywatcher ED80 (again second hand). If you tweak the mount carefully (not hard and plenty of info on how to do this) 2 mins and more is easily achievable.

Super Polaris mounts are silly cheap second hand cos they are pretty old now but they should last forever. A new GPDX wouldn't be as good value as an HEQ5 though.

You should be able to get your self a high quality imaging set up for £500 which will be ok for visual as well.

Here's a good place to look http://www.astrobuysell.com/uk/index.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brass n glass

Brass n glass

Posted
Posted

Welcome aboard Ben. A Super Polaris mount would be a very good idea and might well be in your price range. I've had a GP, the successor to the Super Polaris, for nine years, and it shows no signs of wear. But the GPDX is made to take much greater weight and so is probably more than you need.It's also much more expensive secondhand because it costs about £700 new while the present "economy" version of the GP, which can carry 7kg of telescope, costs less than £300 new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andrew*

Andrew*

Posted
Posted

If these suggestions are too big for your storage space, my suggestion would be to pick up an EQ5 mount with RA axis motor (and steel legs if poss) and a 6" reflector to sit on top. This shouldn't cost any more than £400, if not £300, which will give you plenty for the necessary accessories to get the photos rolling off. The mount should be heavy enough for decent exposures, and 6" will give some good views besides. Astro buy/sell is a site that should be regularly browsed, as the best deals are the quickest to slip out of your fingers. I managed to get a motorised EQ5 on a heavy steel tripod (a tatty one, but one nevertheless) for £130 delivered, and I might be obtaining aforementioned SkyWatcher Explorer 200 for £150 delivered both from said site. It's the place for the best 2nd hand deals (after SGL of course!) Post a wanted ad here and on AB/S and keep browsing. You might get the perfect deal falling in your lap.

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ben Cole

Ben Cole

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Great replies thanks folks.

I should clarify my situation with telescope size. I have a garage that is now only used to store gardening stuff etc. but I had considered a garage too cold and damp for year round storage. Any opinions on that?

The main reason I'm worried about buying big is that I might use it less. I guess that comes down to my enthusiasm which you guys can't really comment on.

For reference sake I would say I am 60/40 for viewing/imaging.

I had almost settled on the Celestron C6 with dual axis drive and the necessary bits for photgraphy which all comes in at under £500 which I was impressed with.

How do you think that compares with the afore mentioned scopes?

Thanks again for the advice...keep it coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MartinB

MartinB

Posted
Posted

Sorry to stick a spanner in the works but when thinking about a scope for imaging the most important things to think about are the focal length and the ratio of focal length to aperture. So aperture is a factor but not as much as it is for visual. Focal length will determine magnification/image scale. The higher the magnification the more challenging it is to image because every little shake and tracking error is also magnified. So a shorter focal length is easier to manage.

At any given focal length an increase in aperture reduces the F ratio and corresponding exposure time.

An F8 8" SCT will need the same exposure time as an F8 3" refractor but the refractor will be much more forgiving because of its shorter length so can be run for longer exposures. Hope that makes sense.

An SCT is a great visual scope and the 8" would definitely be the better choice for visual. However the shorter focal length of the C6 would IMHO make it a better intro to imaging because of the shorter focal length. Coupled with a 0.67 or better still (if using a small chip camera such as and SC3) a 0.33 focal reducer you would have a fast manageable instrument that will perform better visually than a small refractor. However a small refractor is probably the better choice serious imaging - they are light so small mounts can manage them, and with their short focal lengths it is easier to produce good results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.