Good telescope for almost-beginner?

[Nucular]

I'm about to move to a house which backs onto lovely dark fenland, and I'm thinking of replacing my Tasco rubbishy, rickety, okay-for-a-ten-year-old 'my first telescope' telescope with something a little more respectable. But I don't know much about telescopes.

So does anyone have any advice about a decent sort of beginner's telecope which won't break the bank? Web searches have vaguely clued me in, and although I've often bought magazines like Sky & Telescope, I still don't feel like I can reliably tell the difference between different sorts of scope, particularly in the light of having almost bought what seemed like jolly good equipment from eBay which gets rubbish reviews elsewhere on the web.

I've heard Meade are rather good, but there are so many other makes I don't really know if you're just paying for a name, or if there really is an advantage.

I'm looking for something that:

1) You can get a good image from (i.e. through my present scope, I actually managed to discern some of the surface detail of Jupiter and the Galilean moons, but only through squinting at what is initially a point of light, and is only visible to that degree about once every 10 goes, however clear the night, so something better would be nice)

2) Has a good stand

3) Preferably has one of those computery GPS thingamajigs that points the scope at the thing you want to see

4) Is in the range of £200-300 (I initially decided upon a Very Large Array of interconnected radiotelecopes, but the people at the bank seemed uncertain, and the council seemed to think my back garden wouldn't really be adequate)

5) Could possibly be used for astrophotography, if I buy the right extra equipment later

6) Would last me quite a long time before I become so expert I scoff at the very idea of such a primitive piece of equipment

7) Is easily available in the UK.

Are these specs unreasonable? Is there such a thing?

Despite reading and trying to understand, I still don't really know the pros and cons of different sorts of scope like Schmidt-Cassegrain vs reflector or any other sort of thing.

So does anyone in this Delphic oracular forum have any advice for a novice like myself?

I'm tired of being a wannabe astronomer - I wanna be an astronomer!

I promise to write a full horoscope for anyone who gives good advice, using my new kit

 

[Charlie in Dayton]

My replies are in italics...

...But I don't know much about telescopes.
Don't feel bad -- everyone has to learn sometime

So does anyone have any advice about a decent sort of beginner's telecope which won't break the bank?
The best telescope is one that gets used. We're talking portability, ease of setup, weight...

Web searches have vaguely clued me in, and although I've often bought magazines like Sky & Telescope, I still don't feel like I can reliably tell the difference between different sorts of scope, particularly in the light of having almost bought what seemed like jolly good equipment from eBay which gets rubbish reviews elsewhere on the web.
Let's get some details here -- what do you have for a scope NOW? This will indicate a start point for upgrades. Details = type (SCT, Newtonian, Dobsonian, refractor, reflector), focal length and ratio, what size eyepiece barrels (1.25" or .965"), AZ/EL, equatorial tracking mount...

Let's get the basics down...brands can be discussed later. But I'd seriously check out some of Jolly Olde's astronomy magazines for ads (even as a Yank, I subscribe to Astronomy Now...that's if I'm reading a few things right, and you're a subject of Her Majesty...

I'm looking for something that:

1) You can get a good image from (i.e. through my present scope, I actually managed to discern some of the surface detail of Jupiter and the Galilean moons, but only through squinting at what is initially a point of light, and is only visible to that degree about once every 10 goes, however clear the night, so something better would be nice)
We're talking aperture here...that does not give you greater magnification, but will gather more light, which lends itself to greater detail. A 6" Newtonian reflector is a good inexpensive start. A 5" or so Schmidt-Cassegrain or Maksutov-Cassegrain is a good start, but noticeably more pricey. A 4" or greater refractor price tag will give you the screamin' meemies...
In any reflector, main mirror accuracy of 1/6 wavelength PV (or less) is nice (1/4 will do in a lower priced pinch). This refers to the smoothness and accuracy to which the main mirror is ground/polished -- 1/6 wavelength PV means any inaccuracies in the curve of the mirror are less than 1/6 of a wavelength of light at common visual wavelengths/colors. The more accurate the mirror, the more expensive (but not outrageously so).

2) Has a good stand
The more robust the tripod the better. Figure out the weight of the scope, and go for something with 50% more weight bearing capability. For vibration dampening, wood beats metal any time. A surplus surveyor's wooden tripod with the appropriate mounting on it is a good way to go. There are custom telescope tripod makers out there, and there are numerous websites out there on how to build your own. In a pinch, if you're going commercial, weight capability is #1.

3) Preferably has one of those computery GPS thingamajigs that points the scope at the thing you want to see
Automatically adds £100 to £150 to your price. Consider a good star manual and take some time to learn the sky.

4) Is in the range of £200-300 (I initially decided upon a Very Large Array of interconnected radiotelecopes, but the people at the bank seemed uncertain, and the council seemed to think my back garden wouldn't really be adequate)
Go for specifications first...then start working price.

5) Could possibly be used for astrophotography, if I buy the right extra equipment later.
For tracking photos, an equatorial mount with the motors are almost mandatory. NOTE -- most smaller computerized GO-TO scopes' motors are not hefty enough to take the added weight of a camera -- use caution here.
There are simple photo setups where you can manually guide for photos, or take pictures of things that are bright enough not to need long time exposure/tracking. If your camera has a 1/4-20 thread on the bottom (that's a standard photo tripod thread), this little beastie allows you to point your camera into the eyepiece without any other equipment. I have one of these, and have seen them used. It's a good inexpensive start, especially for lunar photography.

6) Would last me quite a long time before I become so expert I scoff at the very idea of such a primitive piece of equipment
A quality piece of gear will last a long time. You may scoff at it's abilities eventually because of its physical limitations, but someone else may think it's the second coming of Hubble. Besides which, a good piece of gear retains its resale value.

7) Is easily available in the UK.
That is going to be up to you to winkle out.

Are these specs unreasonable? Is there such a thing?
These specs are very reasonable. There probably is such a thing out there. You just have to look for it.

Despite reading and trying to understand, I still don't really know the pros and cons of different sorts of scope like Schmidt-Cassegrain vs reflector or any other sort of thing.
PHYSICALLY, basic refractors are LONG, because the light path is straight-line. Newtonian style reflectors are shorter, because the light path is folded in half. SC's/MC's are shorter still because the light path is folded multiple times.
There are other pros/cons to each style. Some people swear by 'em, some swear at 'em.

I promise to write a full horoscope for anyone who gives good advice, using my new kit
It's a deal

[/italics mode]
Let's talk a few simple things.

Don't be swayed by those claims or photos on the box at the local UltraStupendoMegaMart. 575X out of a 4" reflector, or pictures that rival Hubble, just ain't gonna happen...
USABLE magnification basic rule of thumb -- 2x per mm/25x per inch of aperture. Anything higher than that will either give too faint an image, or a washed-out undetailed image. Some people even go lower -- 1.5x per mm/35x per inch.

Focal ratios -- the scope's focal length (distance it takes the scope to focus light down to a point) divided by the aperture gives focal ratio.
f7 or thereabouts appears to be an informal dividing line -- <f7 are 'fast' scopes, with wider fields of view (better for viewing multiple objects in a field -- the Trapezium in Orion, for example). f7> are 'slower' scopes, with narrower fields of view for DSO's (Deep Sky Objects) -- these are the ones for viewing the Rings of Saturn, Jupiter's red spots or moons, specific stars/galaxies.

Let's you'n'me hammer out a few things more concerning uses/needs/specs before we concern ourselves with brand names.

Now...my bona fides...
I'm the informal binocular astronomy dude for the local astronomy club. I have a box full of junker (but usable) 7x35 binoculars to hand out for use at our show'n'tells at the state campground for the campers (we have an observatory up there, and we trade our services to the campground authority in return for site rent). I have MY set of GOOD (read: MINT) 7x50s which no one touches for these events...
I have some other sets too, usually found in a deal on eBay or AstroMart...10x50 (with solar filters, for sunspot viewing -- the binos I got about thirty years ago in the service, and the filters are homemade), 9x63 (trade bait specials), 12x60 with built in nebula filters (introductory specials, exceedingly inexpensive yet quality), and 20x80 binocular telescope (won at a convention).

Here's the setup at the last of the season public stargaze in September (the funny looking square things on the table are my 10x50's with solar filters installed -- we were up and running to the public before sundown).

I have a couple of scopes at home, both purchased really before I knew what I was getting into. One was a good starter, but too small for what I wanted to do (3" Tasco reflector, .965" eyepieces, f7). The other was bought on an impulse because it was on sale, which is absolutely the wrong reason to buy ANYTHING (Orion 130mm SpaceProbe EQ reflector, 1.25" eyepieces, f6.9).
Both scopes would do very well for someone who required scopes of these specifications, but they were/are wrong for me. They're currently up for sale -- the Tasco is going to a kid for his very first scope, and the Orion is going to an experienced stargazer who wants to upgrade in size and mount.

I've pretty much settled on binocular astronomy. I'm still learning the sky, and the widefield images of binoculars help me determine where stars are in relation to each other. The BT (Binocular Telescope -- that's what the monster on the tripod is -- it has replaceable eyepieces [1.25"] to change magnifications, so it's not truly a binocular) serves me well for that with 20x eyepieces. If I want something stronger, I have eyepieces that will give me up to 65x right now -- and the camera mount I referenced earlier will work on it -- so all my needs right now are met by what's the equivalent of an 80mm f6.5 refractor...

Some people come out with all sorts of optical foofoorarw, and spend half the night getting set up and adjusted and collimated and polar aligned...others have a list as long as your arm of what they want to look at that night.

I have stuff you can set up and be looking thru in five minutes or less, and maybe two or three new things to look for in addition to a couple of old favorites. I'm the type that will run across something new and/or really pretty, and sit there for half an hour just looking at it...there's room in this hobby for all kinds.

Post. Let's cuss'n'discuss here...

 

[TriangleMan]

Might I also suggest looking at the Bad Astronomy forums for information. There's a forum specifically to discuss equipment and even a separate forum for astrophotography where people post their pictures.

 

[The Atheist]

I promise to write a full horoscope for anyone who gives good advice, using my new kit

Good on ya! My kids and I get loads of fun using a 4" Newtonian Telescope which cost $140 NZ (about $2.25 US). Very similar to this one:


Look around - you should be able to pick up a good one second hand for very little. At least with a second-hand 'scope you don't need to ask too many questions - if it works, it's fine. Just watch out for any distortion or marks which may mean that mirror's kaput. The mirror's the most expensive bit, so a new one isn't something you want to buy.

This size will give you amazing moon shots - you honestly will not believe the definition. Planets are ok, nebulae good.

Enjoy! Great pastime.

 

[Terry]

Six inch (aperture) newtonian reflector is the classic "beginner" scope. Personally, I'd go for an alt-az mount in the dobsonian style, but that doesn't meet your "go-to" and "astrophotography" goals. On the plus side, you'll learn the sky better, and it will be less expensive.

Something like this.

 

[ChrisC]

I second everyhing already said.
The mounting system is super, super important, and even more so if you want to take photographs through your scope. The vast majority of scopes beyond the toy-store level have good to excellent optics, but many are on just barely adequate or downright crappy mounts. This turns an otherwise good instrument into something that vibrates forever after you touch it and tracks poorly. The downside to the heavy, sturdy mount is that you need to lug it out to your veiwing location. If it's too much work to use, your scope will become an expensive closet filler.
Binoculars are great for stargazing. A pair of cheap 8x25's (actually 8*21 - ha!) were my first astronomical instrument and I still remember how incredible it was when I thought to turn them upwards. Now I use a nice pair of 7x50's most of the time. Best way to get into astronomy, IMO, and my overall favorite way to enjoy the sky.

 

[Beady]

Heresy Alert!!!

Screw the astrophotogaraphy. You can see all the pictures you want online, and they're better than anything you'll be able to take for years, at your stated present level of expertise. It's an added complication and expense you don't need right now.

Stay away from non-computerized equatorial mounts. They look sexy as hell, but they can be bloody difficult to use. By the time you have the tube lined up properly, the eyepiece is in a position that requires you to bend your neck into some ungodly shapes. Also, half the cost is in the mount, which represents money that is not going into the final image.

This is what I started with, an 8" dob-mounted Newtonian. Excellent views, low cost, slightly difficult to use near the zenith (directly overhead), fast set-up and very portable. After much trial and error, this is what I have now. Moderate price ($1k), ~15-minute setup out of the carrying case, very easy to use, good views. The latter is the type I'll stay with, but I might go up to an 8" aperture, as soon as I can afford the $3k price tag.

 

[Nucular]

Wow, thanks everyone for your amazing input - I'll try to respond to all points, I already feel more confident, but obviously have more questions than I started with too

 

[Soapy Sam]

I'm about to move to a house which backs onto lovely dark fenland, and I'm thinking of replacing my Tasco rubbishy, rickety, okay-for-a-ten-year-old 'my first telescope' telescope with something a little more respectable. But I don't know much about telescopes.

Whatever else, get a good pair of tripod mountable 10 x 50 binoculars, just to watch the wildlife on the fens.

 

[Nucular]

Charlie in Dayton, thanks so much for your contribution - this is fantastic, and thanks for taking an interest

The best telescope is one that gets used. We're talking portability, ease of setup, weight...

Yes, these are all things that I can see being issues - and another one actually is ease of storage: my girlfriend will moan if it takes up half the living room, and our new house, whilst very nice, isn't exactly a palace...

That said, as I mentioned, the house backs onto fields, so I don't picture, hopefully, having to lug it too far. But, the fields will probably be built on before long, and so I'd better anticipate having to drive out further.

Let's get some details here -- what do you have for a scope NOW? This will indicate a start point for upgrades. Details = type (SCT, Newtonian, Dobsonian, refractor, reflector), focal length and ratio, what size eyepiece barrels (1.25" or .965"), AZ/EL, equatorial tracking mount...

Right, okay - what I've got now is what I believe to be a refractor - here's the little fellow:

As you can see, the mount is a wobbly, slightly rusty tripod with zero bells and whistles. Apart from a feeling that I'd like something with a little more under the bonnet, so to speak, this was a second hand scope to begin with, and wasn't in a brilliant state of repair even when I got it probably 15 years ago. The main problem is definitely the mount: however much I tighten the nuts and bolts, the scope sinks after aiming, which means ages of just trying to aim. The spotter scope thing on the side seems to bear little relation to what the telescope sees, and a gentle breeze, or brushing the eyepiece as you look into it, means ages of readjustment.

Re: actual specs, this is what's on the side (I got no documentation with the scope, so this is all I know):

So, focal length 700mm? Certainly no tracking mount (unless you count the 'automatic' sinking of the scope after setting ); AZ/EL, I get that this is azimuth/elevation, but if it refers to an automated mount thing on a scope, then again, none of those.

Eyepiece barrel (the thing you look in, right?): it came with only one that 'worked' (the other seemed to be smeared with something), and the number on that is either H 12.5mm or HI 2.5mm, depending on which way you read it - neither of these seem to translate in inches to the sizes you said though, so have I got something wrong?

Let's get the basics down...brands can be discussed later.

Seems sensible. I suppose in mentioning Meade I had something about build quality in mind, but yes, coming at it from all angles at once is probably adding to my confusion.

But I'd seriously check out some of Jolly Olde's astronomy magazines for ads (even as a Yank, I subscribe to Astronomy Now...that's if I'm reading a few things right, and you're a subject of Her Majesty...

I am indeed, though not such a loyal subject as some

I have bought Astronomy Now several times; I'll pop out later and grab the most recent for the ads. Before now, I've bought it for the pictures and some of the articles, and looked at the ads more as an 'if only' sort of fantasy than in a serious way - and not knowing what all the numbers and terms mean, meant my discrimination between scopes went mostly on how swish they looked, and how cool the gadgets seemed

We're talking aperture here...that does not give you greater magnification, but will gather more light, which lends itself to greater detail.

Right! A mystery solved for me straight off!

A 6" Newtonian reflector is a good inexpensive start. A 5" or so Schmidt-Cassegrain or Maksutov-Cassegrain is a good start, but noticeably more pricey. A 4" or greater refractor price tag will give you the screamin' meemies...

So... right, forgive my dumb questions, but what would be the trade-off, if any, between a 6" Newtonian reflector and a 5" S-C or M-C? Is it that the aperture of the latter is smaller, but something else about it is better?

In any reflector, main mirror accuracy of 1/6 wavelength PV (or less) is nice (1/4 will do in a lower priced pinch). This refers to the smoothness and accuracy to which the main mirror is ground/polished -- 1/6 wavelength PV means any inaccuracies in the curve of the mirror are less than 1/6 of a wavelength of light at common visual wavelengths/colors. The more accurate the mirror, the more expensive (but not outrageously so).

Fantastic advice, thanks. Again, I've seen these terms floated around, but had no clue what they'd mean, or how they'd affect viewing.

The more robust the tripod the better. Figure out the weight of the scope, and go for something with 50% more weight bearing capability. For vibration dampening, wood beats metal any time. A surplus surveyor's wooden tripod with the appropriate mounting on it is a good way to go. There are custom telescope tripod makers out there, and there are numerous websites out there on how to build your own. In a pinch, if you're going commercial, weight capability is #1.

Right. So is it sensible do you think to buy the stand separately to the scope? Many seem to come already with a stand.

Automatically adds £100 to £150 to your price. Consider a good star manual and take some time to learn the sky.

I see. That's a lot of money. I suppose it's less the aiming so much as the tracking I'd rather like that gadget for, do they do that as well? Or is there another thing that does that? Or am I just being lazy and extravagant?

Go for specifications first...then start working price.

Righto. So work out what I want, then work out what I can afford, got it.

For tracking photos, an equatorial mount with the motors are almost mandatory. NOTE -- most smaller computerized GO-TO scopes' motors are not hefty enough to take the added weight of a camera -- use caution here.
There are simple photo setups where you can manually guide for photos, or take pictures of things that are bright enough not to need long time exposure/tracking. If your camera has a 1/4-20 thread on the bottom (that's a standard photo tripod thread), this little beastie allows you to point your camera into the eyepiece without any other equipment. I have one of these, and have seen them used. It's a good inexpensive start, especially for lunar photography.

Sounds like a good place to start. I don't have decent photographic equipment at all yet anyway, I'm sort of thinking in the future, maybe when my bank account's recovered from the scope itself.

PHYSICALLY, basic refractors are LONG, because the light path is straight-line. Newtonian style reflectors are shorter, because the light path is folded in half. SC's/MC's are shorter still because the light path is folded multiple times.

Right; so are the main considerations more practical then - room and heftiness? Or do different things happen when the light is 'folded'?

Let's talk a few simple things.

Don't be swayed by those claims or photos on the box at the local UltraStupendoMegaMart. 575X out of a 4" reflector, or pictures that rival Hubble, just ain't gonna happen...
USABLE magnification basic rule of thumb -- 2x per mm/25x per inch of aperture. Anything higher than that will either give too faint an image, or a washed-out undetailed image. Some people even go lower -- 1.5x per mm/35x per inch.

So... say a 6" Newtonian reflector would give a usable magnification of 150X ish? Whereas the 5" S-C or M-C might give 125X? Is there any way to know what these magnifications look like? I don't really have a frame of reference.

Focal ratios -- the scope's focal length (distance it takes the scope to focus light down to a point) divided by the aperture gives focal ratio.
f7 or thereabouts appears to be an informal dividing line -- <f7 are 'fast' scopes, with wider fields of view (better for viewing multiple objects in a field -- the Trapezium in Orion, for example). f7> are 'slower' scopes, with narrower fields of view for DSO's (Deep Sky Objects) -- these are the ones for viewing the Rings of Saturn, Jupiter's red spots or moons, specific stars/galaxies.

So say you get a scope which =f7, would that be a good all-rounder, or rubbish at both?

Let's you'n'me hammer out a few things more concerning uses/needs/specs before we concern ourselves with brand names.

Given what you just said about focal ratio, I'm not sure about uses. It would be nice to be able to view both multiple objects in a field, and DSOs and planets; but if pushed, my tantalising glimpses of Jupiter wouold probably put me firmly in the "I wanna see planets" camp.

I'm the informal binocular astronomy dude for the local astronomy club.

God I love this board, post a 'help me I'm a beginner' question and the first response is from an astronomy club dude

I'd love to join a club - except I'm rubbish at committing - but if I manage to scrape together enough to get new equipment, I'll definitely see if there are local groups.

I have a couple of scopes at home, both purchased really before I knew what I was getting into. One was a good starter, but too small for what I wanted to do (3" Tasco reflector, .965" eyepieces, f7). The other was bought on an impulse because it was on sale, which is absolutely the wrong reason to buy ANYTHING (Orion 130mm SpaceProbe EQ reflector, 1.25" eyepieces, f6.9).
Both scopes would do very well for someone who required scopes of these specifications, but they were/are wrong for me.

So... what was wrong for you, if you don't mind my asking? As a case study, what was it about these specs which didn't meet your needs?

Some people come out with all sorts of optical foofoorarw, and spend half the night getting set up and adjusted and collimated and polar aligned...others have a list as long as your arm of what they want to look at that night.

I think I'm in the latter group

Thanks again Charlie for that amazing post, very much appreciated

 

[Nucular]

Might I also suggest looking at the Bad Astronomy forums for information. There's a forum specifically to discuss equipment and even a separate forum for astrophotography where people post their pictures.

Good point TM, I've been taken to task before on this board - and even taken others to task - for not checking on BAUT first. I'm currently reading through the astronomical equipment forum on there, most informative. Cheers.

 

[Nucular]

Good on ya! My kids and I get loads of fun using a 4" Newtonian Telescope which cost $140 NZ (about $2.25 US). Very similar to this one:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_10377455801e9645f3.jpg[/qimg]

Cool, so okay a 4" Newtonian is still fairly respectable, and from the sounds of it quite inexpensive. What's the thing sticking out of the top? Not the eyepiece, the other thing?

Look around - you should be able to pick up a good one second hand for very little. At least with a second-hand 'scope you don't need to ask too many questions - if it works, it's fine.

Yes, I suppose... to be honest, the fact that my current scope was bought second hand and is somewhat ropey has put me off a little - I think I'll be wondering just how well it's been looked after, whether that's atmospherics I'm seeing or a smudge, and whether it should be better in some way. But I am usually quite easily led when I notice the price difference, so I'll bear it in mind: probably something that's advertised in an astronomy mag would have been looked after, one might assume.

This size will give you amazing moon shots - you honestly will not believe the definition. Planets are ok, nebulae good.

Brilliant. That's my kind of language!

 

[Nucular]

Six inch (aperture) newtonian reflector is the classic "beginner" scope.

Right, another mention of this type duly noted.

Personally, I'd go for an alt-az mount in the dobsonian style, but that doesn't meet your "go-to" and "astrophotography" goals.

Hmmm, is alt-az a way of aiming manually? And dobsonian, that's like a Newtonian, except... the mount?

Something like this.

I couldn't make the link work, but browsing telescope.com is very interesting - the dobsonsians look mighty hefty! But impressive with it, mind

 

[Nucular]

The mounting system is super, super important, and even more so if you want to take photographs through your scope. The vast majority of scopes beyond the toy-store level have good to excellent optics, but many are on just barely adequate or downright crappy mounts. This turns an otherwise good instrument into something that vibrates forever after you touch it and tracks poorly. The downside to the heavy, sturdy mount is that you need to lug it out to your veiwing location.

Food for thought. Again, is the mount best bought separately do you think? After my rubbishy stand on my present scope, I'd really like something nice and sturdy.

Binoculars are great for stargazing. A pair of cheap 8x25's (actually 8*21 - ha!) were my first astronomical instrument and I still remember how incredible it was when I thought to turn them upwards. Now I use a nice pair of 7x50's most of the time. Best way to get into astronomy, IMO, and my overall favorite way to enjoy the sky.

Another binocularist! Intriguing. Never really properly occurred to me before. I confess I'm one of those people who reads advice like "you'd be surprised how much you can see even with a good pair of binoculars", and the competitive jerk in me takes issue with the word "even" and decides that they're already beneath me I'll keep an eye out for binoculars whilst I'm searching for a scope.

 

[Nucular]

Screw the astrophotogaraphy. You can see all the pictures you want online, and they're better than anything you'll be able to take for years, at your stated present level of expertise. It's an added complication and expense you don't need right now.

I take your point, Beady; it's definitely not something for now, I completely agree. But, it is something I'd like to have a go at in the future. I'm extremely well aware that anything I make will have a thousand better versions online for free; but then there's something about having taken the pics one's self, that really appeals to me. I probably won't be saying that whilst peering at my blurry, grainy snaps whilst contemplating what I could have spent that £500 on, so I'll definitely bear that in mind!

Stay away from non-computerized equatorial mounts. They look sexy as hell, but they can be bloody difficult to use. By the time you have the tube lined up properly, the eyepiece is in a position that requires you to bend your neck into some ungodly shapes. Also, half the cost is in the mount, which represents money that is not going into the final image.

Right, computerised equatorial mounts essential, got it.

This is what I started with, an 8" dob-mounted Newtonian. Excellent views, low cost, slightly difficult to use near the zenith (directly overhead), fast set-up and very portable. After much trial and error, this is what I have now. Moderate price ($1k), ~15-minute setup out of the carrying case, very easy to use, good views. The latter is the type I'll stay with, but I might go up to an 8" aperture, as soon as I can afford the $3k price tag.[/QUOTE]

Brilliant links (your own work, I see!) - duly bookmarked for devouring, thanks!

 

[Nucular]

Whatever else, get a good pair of tripod mountable 10 x 50 binoculars, just to watch the wildlife on the fens.

I'm really looking forward to the earthly stuff about living in the fens too. Hope this house deal doesn't fall through! We're first-time buyers, and everyone I mention it to has florid horror stories about house deals falling through at the 11th hour and costing thousands.

But yes, binoculars to watch wildlife with, of course! So another reason to get a decent pair. Cheers Sam

 

[Beady]

Hope this house deal doesn't fall through! We're first-time buyers, and everyone I mention it to has florid horror stories about house deals falling through at the 11th hour and costing thousands.

Buying a house is like being pregnant. You're all excited and happy and imagining how great it's going to be, but the first thing everyone else wants to do is tell you all about how it hurt like hell passing that bowling ball out of your crotch. Screw 'em, that's what you're paying a lawyer to handle. Go out and be happy. Imagine yourself running naked across your own grass. Fly! Be free!

 

[Nucular]

Screw 'em, that's what you're paying a lawyer to handle. Go out and be happy. Imagine yourself running naked across your own grass. Fly! Be free!

I'm going to write that on a piece of paper and hand it to the next person who tells me a horror story

Now how do you spell ''...

 

[MalvernHills]

Aperture fever

My two pence worth.

I spent about a year planning to buy a scope starting at a humble £200 4" scope and having devoured as much info as i could (wwwcloudynightscom is a very useful source of info) i realised that i was planning to remortgage the house to buy something over 30"!

Scopes above 8" can start to get unwieldy (the mount and tripod are pretty weighty) so if you're going to be a casual user don't go for anything larger (unless you have the space/cash to set up your own observatory! ).

In summary, beware "aperture fever" and e-bay (although there are relative bargains to be had if you're careful) and buy something that you'll actually use - ideally telescopes are for looking at the night sky not for gathering dust.

Good luck.

 

[Nucular]

My two pence worth.

I spent about a year planning to buy a scope starting at a humble £200 4" scope and having devoured as much info as i could (wwwcloudynightscom is a very useful source of info) i realised that i was planning to remortgage the house to buy something over 30"!

Scopes above 8" can start to get unwieldy (the mount and tripod are pretty weighty) so if you're going to be a casual user don't go for anything larger (unless you have the space/cash to set up your own observatory! ).

In summary, beware "aperture fever" and e-bay (although there are relative bargains to be had if you're careful) and buy something that you'll actually use - ideally telescopes are for looking at the night sky not for gathering dust.

Good luck.

Sounds like good advice, MH - I'm very susceptible to a) drifting into unrealistic plans without really thinking it through properly (hence this thread), and b) falling victim to 'for just a little more, you can have this!' syndrome, ad infinitum.

I'd be nicking car radios to fund a satellite launch if I didn't keep myself in check

This is why I'm talking about a beginner scope, and not "what's the best commercially available scope, and what can I buy to make it better?" - enforced moderation.

www.cloudynights.com looks a fantastic resource, thanks!