Good telescope for almost-beginner?

[sesmo_k]

I have a Skywatcher 130M, bought last year just before Xmas. It has a 5.1" mirror, EQ2 mount and a motor drive. Think I paid about £150 for it. I've never had an opportunity to have a go with a better scope, so I can't compare, but for what I like viewing (planets) it works perfectly well. It also gives decent views of DSO objects. I find it reasonably good to transport, I think anything much bigger would be difficult. I do a little bit of astrophotography and found it easy enough to set up and use. I think you can now get a Skywatcher 130 with a parabolic mirror (better than a spherical mirror I'm told) and motorised mount for about £200 here in the UK.

 

[TriangleMan]

Cheers.

You're welcome. And for the record I use 10x50 binocs. I had a telescope once but I got tired of lugging it around when it was much easier to just bring the binocs with me.

Only downside to 10x50 is occasionally needing to brace against something when to hold them still if you don't have a tripod (which unfortunately I don't).

 

[Beady]

You're welcome. And for the record I use 10x50 binocs. I had a telescope once but I got tired of lugging it around when it was much easier to just bring the binocs with me.

Only downside to 10x50 is occasionally needing to brace against something when to hold them still if you don't have a tripod (which unfortunately I don't).

I've seen some really elaborate and over-the-top binocular setups, made out of cushioned recliners on motorized turntables, with counterbalanced locking support arms. I think these are even commercially produced, but I have no idea whether they come with cup holders..

 

[Indolent Wretch]

Have you considered building your own?

Thats a tasty project and there are loads of good guides on the net. Anything from small ones up to quite big dob reflectors.

Think of the pride you'll have when your computerised sky survey picks up a new comet through your home made telescope!

 

[Beady]

Have you considered building your own?

Warning, Will Robinson! Danger! Danger!

Everybody think very carefully before hitting "Reply."

 

[Charlie in Dayton]

Again, I are in contrast...

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

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.
That will happen...it's not an if, it's a when...our dark sky site is becoming more and more light polluted with the urban sprawl along the highway corridor...nothing we can do...

Right, okay - what I've got now is what I believe to be a refractor - here's the little fellow:
Yes, it's a nice little Tasco refractor. Not a bad little starter scope, but can be rapidly outgrown.

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.
There are some things that can be done to assist. "Sinking" I'm going to assume means it won't stay pointed up where you had it. OK, time for a handful of lockwashers or nylon insert nuts to help keep things tight. For stability, a 2 liter jug with a handle, half full of dry sand, hanging straight down from the tripod head adds downforce and stability.

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.
700mm focal length, correct. AZ/EL, meaning AZimuth/ELevation = left-right/up-down, doesn't track the stars. No automation.

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?
H=Huygenian style eyepiece, named after Christian Huygens back in the 1600's, not much more than a glorified magnifying glass. Go here for a quickie eyepiece/optics primer, and go here for some diagrams of the difference in eyepiece construction. 12.5 mm refers to the focal length of the eyepiece itself -- the smaller the number, the greater the overall magnification power. I'm betting the eyepiece barrels of what you have (the barrel is the part that slides into the focuser) is .965" in diameter. That was the 'traditional' size for beginner kiddie bargain store scopes. 1.25" barrels are for us adolescents (although just about every bargain shop scope around now is coming with 1.25's, because of improvements in manufacturing technique and cheaper prices), and the big boys all run 2" barrels. They can afford 'em...

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

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?
The only dumb question is the unasked one...
Tradeoff #1 -- price. The SC/MC will be drastically more expensive than the newt, because of the intricacy of construction and mechanism. Tradeoff #2 -- the Newt will probably have a much shorter focal length, which lends it more to widefield views than to planet/DSO (Deep Sky Object) work. Now, this can be taken care of to a major degree with care in the choice of eyepiece, so you more or less get double duty out of the Newt. You can look narrow out of wide, but ya can't look wide out of narrow...

Right. So is it sensible do you think to buy the stand separately to the scope? Many seem to come already with a stand.Generally, these days, the tripod that comes with the scope is marginally sufficient. People who are serious, though, upgrade at an early opportunity. As I said earlier, for you right now, just a couple of stability tricks will get you going well. Some 6" wood squares with some sort of brace across the surface for the tripod leg to sit against will work wonders for stability, soft surfaces, and some vibration dampening. The half-gallon jug of sand trick helps a lot too. If you decide to upgrade, and have a reasonably priced choice between wood or metal for a tripod, go for wood every time.

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?This refers to tracking mounts. Non-computerized mounts must be aimed to start out (it's called 'polar alignment', as one rotation axis of the mount is aligned with Polaris). Computerized mounts of today ask you to aime them at two bright (navigational) stars, tell 'em what they were, and then the internal computer does that voodoo that it do so well. The less expensive beginner mounts are fine for the backyard astronomer. The budding astrophotographer would do well practicing writing zeros in a compact manner so they fit neatly onto the cheque...

Righto. So work out what I want, then work out what I can afford, got it.
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.
What you NEED to get going and what you can AFFORD are light years away from what you WANT...

Right; so are the main considerations more practical then - room and heftiness? Or do different things happen when the light is 'folded'?
Practical considerations at this time are simplicity, weight, and size. Can you haul it around by yourself, or do you need to draft a couple neighborhood urchins? Will it fit in the car? Is there still room in there for the eyepiece box, warm clothes, red flashlight, star maps, snacks, significant other? These are important considerations...

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.
This one you have to go see. There's no way to describe it.

So say you get a scope which =f7, would that be a good all-rounder, or rubbish at both?
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.
A nice f7 Newt of 6" aperture or so is an excellent starter. f7 is usually the informal dividing line between fast and slow scopes. Its view is wide enough to make the beginner go "...ooo...", but can easily be powered up with the proper eyepiece to make planetary/DSO viewing possible and enjoyable.

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

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.
Commitment or equipment not necessary at this stage. There's nothing wrong with hitting stargazes and learning. Identify yourself as a newbie, and let 'em know you want to learn (i'm going to assume you know how to do this without being a pest...). Have several specific questions at hand so you're not hemming and hawing trying to figure out what to say. Write down the info you're given (using a red light to illuminate the notebook...show 'em ya got yer stuff together that much). There's nothing wrong with going to several different groups and asking the same questions -- consensus of opinion will make itself known rapidly. We'd rather you take some extra time, save up some bucks, and pick our brains so you KNOW what you're doing and what you want. That way, you'll be enthusiastic enough to stick around and pass the fun on to the next bunch.
I showed up at our club stargazes/show'n'tells for TWO YEARS with nothing more than a couple books and a crate full of eBay special binoculars -- and I was the hit of the evening, because I could show kids how simple and easy it was to get started with something they probably already had at home...Alcor and Mizar...M31...Collinder 399 (aka The CoatHanger)...five minutes is all it took...don't think you have to start out with a portable version of Herstmonceux...

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?
This refers to the scopes I have at the house, and why I'm getting rid of some of them. Put simply, I tried to do everything at once without learning. Too much, too soon. I bit off more than I could chew. I wanted to do it all NOW...
...good freakin' luck...

Now, I'm taking my time, learning the sky. I show up with my choice of binos for the night, a book (could be a star map, could be just a guide book to the sky, could be the latest magazine issue), and a list of two or three new things I wanna check out tonite. I'll zip by some of the stuff I already know, just to learn its relationship to the new stuff (and to check that the universe hasn't ended without my being told). Of course, if I see something particularly interesting or attractive (happens every single time...), I've been known to stand there staring at it for 15-20 minutes. Nothing wrong with that.

I think I'm in the latter group
Welcome to the club, sport. Pull up an observing stool and let's see what's up there tonite...

 

[Schneibster]

As a long time amateur astronomer, and sometime astrophotographer (I had to move to the US Pacific Northwest from the California Central Coast, I wound up dragging all my equipment back to CA so I can use it on vacation, luckily I didn't sell my house down there), I have the following suggestions:

1. Dobsonian mounted Newtonian reflectors are the best "bang for the buck" in terms of what you can see for the money. However, they are useless for astrophotography. And never forget that you can get a lot of cheapies with thin mirrors (which flex and distort the image). Buy at least middle-of-the-road in terms of how expensive it is, compared to other Dobs of the same aperture. Choose a reputable maker, and try to procure a friend who knows a lot to help you evaluate it- every maker makes mistakes sometimes, and you want to find out before the warranty expires. Orion was doing pretty well when I was looking into it. They're generally not the nastiest (as long as you don't buy the bottom-of-the-line). Don't get caught up in their catalog too much; a lot of their stuff is over-hyped. But they have a good reputation for making nice Dobs (as long as that hasn't changed in the last couple of years- check around before you buy).

2. The 8" Schmidt-Cassegrain reflector on a go-to fork or German equatorial mount is the most flexible telescope around, but suffers from a certain amount of inherent field distortion away from the center of the Field of View. It's more expensive than the same-size Dob, but also more flexible, and often has more focal length. Certainly, it is a heck of a lot more portable. And you'll find this is a MAJOR consideration.

3. Try to check out various 'scopes and mounts at an astronomy club outing a couple times before you settle on a 'scope. Be sure to not only look through, but ask them to put the 'scopes through their paces- how hard is it to:
change eyepieces?
find something in the sky?
keep what you're looking at centered?
put it up and take it down?
Don't go to public star parties for information like this- the owners will be more interested in showing as many viewers something cool than in showing off their equipment. Go to the club's private outings, if you can wrangle it. Be very, very polite, smile a lot, touch nothing without invitation, and remember that what seems a simple small setup to you is not only its owner's pride and joy but potentially worth tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, and in many cases heavily customized and essentially irreplaceable.

4. Don't get cheap eyepieces. It's a waste of money. Get the nice ones. If you intend to get into it for a long time to come, it's like buying really nice speakers. 'Scopes may come and go, but a really fine set of eyepieces really will last you a lifetime. In addition, should you give the hobby up, eyepieces are the items you are most likely to be able to sell and get most if not all of your money back. Discard the Plossl eyepieces that come with most 'scopes, or pay a little less and get the 'scope without the eyepieces if you can. The eyepieces that come with the 'scopes are ALWAYS pieces of crap. The best made are either Brandon or Tele-View's Al Nagler. IMHO, the Naglers just edge the Brandons; YMMV. Top-of-the-line Celestron, Meade, and Orion eyepieces are OK, but anything less is a waste. The Meade Ultras are the best of the second tier, IMHO; again, YMMV. Because, you see, your EYES may vary.

5. Wait to decide on astrophotography until you've messed with the 'scope for a while (at least ten outings- that will probably take you at least six months, if you're going anywhere worthwhile). If you decide to go for it, figure to spend AT LEAST as much on the mount as on the 'scope. And that's a cheap mount. I've dropped over $30K US (mount, 'scope, astrocamera, and accessories) and I'm just getting good and started. Of that, I estimate I've wasted over $2K US, and at that, considering what I've seen, I'm doing exceptionally well. It may well turn out that I've wasted another $3K if a project to replace some bearings that I've been putting off for quite a while doesn't go well. And if I get really serious, I may sell a great deal of it off at a substantial loss and start entirely over. There are few more expensive hobbies, perhaps underwater photography, or racing sports cars. =

6. SERIOUSLY consider avoiding film astrophotography altogether, and going straight to CCD. Don't even consider getting some normal digital camera, either point-n-shoot or even a digital SLR; you'll need a serious, specialized, dedicated, designed-for-astrophotography CCD astrocamera, because the CCD sensors in ordinary digital cameras are too noisy. Real astrocameras have a cooling system that brings them down to as much as 80 degrees C below the ambient temperature. Yes, they cost $3K. Believe me, it's worth it. You can waste a lot of money finding out why.

7. Figure to spend a grand ($1000 US) finding out if you like astronomy; any less and you've not really done much worth doing. You should have a nice 'scope, a nice mount, a couple nice eyepieces, and a nice pair of binoculars.

8. The best beginners' book is Nightwatch by Terence Dickson. It's got plasticized pages so it won't be ruined by the first time you let a little dew get on it. It's got good equipment advice. It's got good starcharts for beginners. It's got a lot of really excellent advice. And it's well written. You should seriously consider obtaining and reading this book before you do anything else.

9. Have FUN! That's what it's REALLY all about. Don't forget it!

 

[Beady]

9. Have FUN! That's what it's REALLY all about. Don't forget it!

But you just got through saying it's all about the money!

Seriously, like I said ealier, at the stage Nucular is at right now (raw beginner), he should forget astrophotography and buy a coffeetable book of photos. For him, for at least the first year if he finds he likes the hobby, it's all going to be about the view through the eyepiece. The best view will be had at the lowest cost in terms of money, set-up time and learning curve with, say, a 6" Dob. Virtually all of the money goes into the 'scope (as opposed to the mount), learning to use it is simply a matter of pointing it at what you want to look at, and set-up time and effort are virtually nil.

 

[Schneibster]

But you just got through saying it's all about the money!

LOL, it can seem that way, if astrophotography is where you intend to go. Good luck persuading someone they don't want to; it wouldn't have worked on me.

Seriously, like I said ealier, at the stage Nucular is at right now (raw beginner), he should forget astrophotography and buy a coffeetable book of photos. For him, for at least the first year if he finds he likes the hobby, it's all going to be about the view through the eyepiece. The best view will be had at the lowest cost in terms of money, set-up time and learning curve with, say, a 6" Dob. Virtually all of the money goes into the 'scope (as opposed to the mount), learning to use it is simply a matter of pointing it at what you want to look at, and set-up time and effort are virtually nil.

The Dob does have those advantages- but on a limited budget, if one is fairly certain that one will wind up doing astrophotography, one might save money in the long run getting a goto 8" SCT on a fork or German eq mount.

I'd say for a beginner, it's probably between those two, and I'd start with something a bit more than a 6" Dob- 8" at least, perhaps even a 10" (which can be had in decent or better quality for under $500, leaving plenty for the accessories that make it worthwhile). Many feel that the 8" OTA, in either Newtonian or SCT configuration, is the ideal beginner's scope. Dobs have the advantage that you learn the sky quickly- goto SCTs have the advantage you don't need to. There are schools that favor either approach. I'd say that Nucular's viewing interests are the most important thing, and I'd think that Nightwatch would be good for him to decide what he wants to do. We could argue the merits of the two approaches all day (and all night ) and not help Nucular much at all.

 

[Beady]

...if one is fairly certain that one will wind up doing astrophotography

From raw beginner to astrophotography is one really big "if". Besides, have you ever known an astronomer to buy one, and only one, telescope? I'm on my 4th, and I'll tell you right now I'm never going to get into astrophotography. Hell, I just found the kind of scope I like.

 

[Schneibster]

From raw beginner to astrophotography is one really big "if".

Hey, he said it. And it's what I did, too, so I don't doubt him.

Besides, have you ever known an astronomer to buy one, and only one, telescope? I'm on my 4th, and I'll tell you right now I'm never going to get into astrophotography. Hell, I just found the kind of scope I like.

LOL, Nucular, you have been warned; and I add my explicit warning to Beady's implicit one.

On a more serious note, it is worth telling you that the precision with which the surface of a mirror in a reflecting telescope can be measured using the star test is one of the most precise tests humans have ever made, and that the surfaces of such mirrors one of the most accurate objects. The deviation you can detect with the star test is as if you could see a one-inch mound on a field a mile wide, or some equally stunning quantification. The higher the magnification you use, the more important such defects become. But that is not all you should know.

Our atmosphere is in constant motion. And I'm not just talking about wind; there are cells of air at different temperatures, and in different states of motion, moving around all the time and changing the refraction of light in the atmosphere. In most places, at most times, you'll be lucky if a star moves less than an arcsecond due to this (an arcsecond is a sixtieth of a sixtieth of a degree). If you go to special places, you can find regular quarter-arcsecond seeing ("seeing" is the word that astronomers use to describe this steadiness of the air; "good" seeing is generally better than a half arcsecond, "bad" seeing worse than an arcsecond). And you'll find that if you push the magnification beyond about 250x or 300x, you'll encounter seeing problems long before you start to see problems with your telescope. Some astronomers will tell you it's even less magnification than that.

So, if you've got bad seeing, it doesn't matter how good your 'scope is. But when the seeing is fantastic, you want a 'scope that can take advantage of it. I've had magnification well over 600x on Saturn on one occasion, when the air was incredibly steady and I was in an excellent location; and even then, it was a matter of waiting a few minutes for a second or two of real sharpness, over and over. It was glorious, and I will remember the crepe ring as long as I live. If I'm very lucky, I might see it once more before I die.

What you have to ask yourself, and you'll ask it again and again, is, "Do I really want to spend umpty-thousand simoleans for that few seconds of or is what I've got good enough?" 'Cause that's how it is.

 

[Hamradioguy]

One of the better books out there is "The Backyard Astronomers Guide" by Dickinson and Dyer. Great for for beginner or even an intermediate amateur.
I have an 8" Celestron SCT with a ruggidized fork and precision gears intended for better astrophotography. But by far the best sky photos I've taken have been with a camera piggybacked on the scope tube. If you ever entertain trying astrophotography it's a good way to start.

 

[slow lurker]

Nucular-
A lot of good advice already given. I'm with Charlie for Dayton on getting the binoculars first. Consider them your first astro-accessory. Figure that a 50mm objective is 10 times the diameter of the pupil of your eye. You gain a lot of light gathering in just that one step. Going out, sitting in a lawn chair with a star chart and learning the sky is something you can do right away while you figure out how to come up with the money for your dream telescope. It can be am expensive hobby, especially if you get into the astrophotography. I thought that might be what I wanted to do 30 plus years ago when I got my firrst telescope. But, I found that I did not have the needed patience and got hooked on the observational stuff. Take your time to figure out where your interests are, and aim your money that way. Join a local astronomy club, or at least attend as many meetings as you can for free. Go out observing with as many other star-gazers as you can and ask questions. Most of us are willing to help and love to show off our scopes and binoculars.

Slow Lurker

 

[Schneibster]

One of the better books out there is "The Backyard Astronomers Guide" by Dickinson and Dyer. Great for for beginner or even an intermediate amateur.

Dang it, I mispeled Dickinson's name! Nightwatch is the prequel to The Backyard Astronomer's Guide; Dickinson did it first, then collaborated with Dyer on TBYAG (I think Dyer did a lot of the photography, IIRC). I own both; I think Nightwatch is the better beginner's book, but agree with you on the quality of The Backyard Astronomer's Guide. Following Markarian's Chain using the charts in there was a lot of fun.

I have an 8" Celestron SCT with a ruggidized fork and precision gears intended for better astrophotography. But by far the best sky photos I've taken have been with a camera piggybacked on the scope tube. If you ever entertain trying astrophotography it's a good way to start.

Excellent advice.

 

[Beady]

So, if you've got bad seeing, it doesn't matter how good your 'scope is.

Which brings up another question: Nucular, where do you live? Hamradioguy and I can tell you that northern New England is one of the suckiest places on earth for astronomy. We catch light pollution from all over the place. Besides the big cities like Boston, Montreal, and New York, the light pollution from even small villages wipes out many of the dimmer objects you could otherwise see. If you live in a city of virtually any size at all, your viewing may well be limited to the moon, planets and sun (properly filtered, of course). This can be partially solved if you're willing to drive for a couple of hours out into the countryside, in which case portability and set-up become major issues, which brings us back to a 6" Dob.

The problem with asking questions is some of the answers.

 

[Charlie in Dayton]

So, Nucular, ol' sock...where are we in this here astro-procedure?

And would you believe I'm eyepiece-deep in the same sort of discussion on two other boards? Winter's here (don't believe me? Google " cross-quarter days "), and the skies in the northern hemisphere are dark longer, and clearer...a good time to be had by all...