| |
Main
Date: 23 Aug 2006 08:34:19
From: Chris
Subject: requesting opinions
|
Hello,
After years of naked eye stargazing :), I'm thinking about buying my
first telescope. I narrowed down the technical specifications to a
refractor around f/10, with good portability, and I was thinking about
Meade's NG-70 or Bresser Skylux.
Can someone please give me some personal opinions on these two?
(Aspects you liked/didn't like, what its limits are etc)
I've read the official descriptions and all that stuff, but I'd like to
hear some things from people who have actually used these telescopes.
Thank you,
Cristina.
PS: If you have another telescope in mind that fits the specs, please
suggest it!
|
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 09:47:56
From: Mij Adyaw
Subject: Re: requesting opinions
|
Cristina,
What is your budget? There is a lot of truth in the old saying that "you get
what you pay for". There is also a telescope FAQ that I believe is
maintained by Starlord. Maybe he could post it here.
"Chris" <metamorphiq@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156347259.843785.131080@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
>
> After years of naked eye stargazing :), I'm thinking about buying my
> first telescope. I narrowed down the technical specifications to a
> refractor around f/10, with good portability, and I was thinking about
> Meade's NG-70 or Bresser Skylux.
>
> Can someone please give me some personal opinions on these two?
> (Aspects you liked/didn't like, what its limits are etc)
> I've read the official descriptions and all that stuff, but I'd like to
> hear some things from people who have actually used these telescopes.
>
> Thank you,
> Cristina.
>
> PS: If you have another telescope in mind that fits the specs, please
> suggest it!
>
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 13:04:41
From: Martin R. Howell
Subject: Re: requesting opinions
|
On 23 Aug 2006 08:34:19 -0700, Chris wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After years of naked eye stargazing :), I'm thinking about buying my
> first telescope. I narrowed down the technical specifications to a
> refractor around f/10, with good portability, and I was thinking about
> Meade's NG-70 or Bresser Skylux.
>
> Can someone please give me some personal opinions on these two?
> (Aspects you liked/didn't like, what its limits are etc)
> I've read the official descriptions and all that stuff, but I'd like to
> hear some things from people who have actually used these telescopes.
The little known and rarely consulted website excelsis.com offers the type
of information you are looking for. I looked at the reviews of Bresser
telescopes and found only three, all of which were discontinued models.
Still, there is some general good information to be found in the reviews of
these three discontinued scopes. It would seem to me that Bresser would
not do too many things differently from one scope to the next. Here is the
url for the page with the Bresser reviews:
http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/section.php?findtext=Bresser&find=Find§ionid=12
When you get to that page, click on any of the three telescope names for
good user reviews from common folks.
Here is the link to the Meade telescope reviews by common folks sent to
excelsis:
http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/section.php?findtext=Meade&find=Find§ionid=12
The Meade NG-70 is not reviewed but a 70mm model is; the DS - 70. Check
out the reviews on it. Once again, though not the exact scope you are
after, the review of these Meade scopes should give you an idea of how
people feel about owning them and what Meade puts into them.
--
Martin R. Howell
"The Astro Post"
www.theastropost.com
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 19:10:39
From: AstroApp
Subject: Re: requesting opinions
|
On 23 Aug 2006 08:34:19 -0700, "Chris" <metamorphiq@gmail.com > wrote:
>Hello,
>
>After years of naked eye stargazing :), I'm thinking about buying my
>first telescope. I narrowed down the technical specifications to a
>refractor around f/10, with good portability, and I was thinking about
>Meade's NG-70 or Bresser Skylux.
If you live in a city, the light pollution will make these small
aperture scopes useless for many types of objects that they could
otherwise show in a dark sky. That will limit you to, say, some of
the very brightest globular clusters, to the planets, the Moon, and
some double stars -- LOTS of things to look at and learn from!
I gave a similar scope to my father-in-law, who lives in rural
Arkansas. We tried it out and he was more than delighted with it.
If you have access to a somewhat darker sky than a city, a telescope
like the Orion StarBlaster (4.1 inch aperture) costs just a little
more, but will show a LOT more. Even in a city sky the scope is
useful for some types of objects -- for instance, I had some decent
views of Comet Schwassman-Wachmann earlier this year, right in my San
Jose yard. But the relatively low power and wide field that this
scope is optimal for will show a LOT of background sky glow. In a
very dark sky, this scope is a fabulous performer. I have seen some
very faint and obscure nebulae, like the "Cocoon" nebula, and even the
Horsehead, with this scope!
But, the planets are not as sharp as with a refractor, and are hard to
magnify due to the short focal ratio.
If you could spend a bit more, you might be able to get much better
sharpness, brightness, and resolution on planets or the Moon, as well
as superb results for deep-sky objects away from city lights. I put
up a preliminary page for my Orion Sky View Pro 127 mm (f/8) refractor
here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~steve_waldee/digital/webcam-solar.htm
I used it to take a sunpot image, shown at the end of the article. I
get marvelous planetary and lunar views with this scope and seldom
feel the need, at home, to drag out my much larger Celestron C-11 if I
want to look at, say, Jupiter.
When I have taken it to dark sky sites, I was just amazed at the
wonderful high resolution, high contrast images I got of nebulae
(especially of DARK nebulae in the Milky Way!)
I've even managed to convince myself that I could see the bridge
between M-51 and its companion galaxy; most authorities claim that it
takes a lot larger aperture to detect it.
Unfortunately this will cost you between 4 and 5 times the best price
of a Meade 70mm refractor. This might be worth it if you "live" with
the same scope for quite a few years; people who really get into
astronomy fairly quickly outgrow 50-70mm aperture telescopes.
I have no experience with Bresser but have read some favorable reports
in both professional reviews and amateur critiques. Similarly, I have
had lots of experience with the smallest, cheapest scopes made by
Meade, Orion, and Celestron and can't really fault any of them -- as
far as their limits go. And, let's face it: beginners most often
enjoy the planets; such small scopes don't accomodate high
magnifications well. The best you can typically do without degrading
the resolution is a planet magnified from 80 to 120 times; it will be
quite dim and a little fuzzy, and the mount will be pretty shaky.
That being said, at least the reputable makers are likely to put in
parts that are all fairly well integrated and matched. The cheaper
scopes often have accessories that are absolutely useless junk.
AstroApp
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 15:09:24
From: Dennis Woos
Subject: Re: requesting opinions
|
> After years of naked eye stargazing :), I'm thinking about buying my
> first telescope. I narrowed down the technical specifications to a
> refractor around f/10, with good portability, and I was thinking about
> Meade's NG-70 or Bresser Skylux.
I have nothing against a nice refractor, but I would seriously consider a
small (4.5"-8") dob of moderate focal ratio (f/6-f/8) as a first scope. If
you are careful to get one with good optics, you will have a scope capable
of providing great views of the moon, planets and deep space objects at a
price that can't be beat and that is very portable.
Dennis
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 11:11:06
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: requesting opinions
|
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
"Chris" <metamorphiq@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156347259.843785.131080@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
>
> After years of naked eye stargazing :), I'm thinking about buying my
> first telescope. I narrowed down the technical specifications to a
> refractor around f/10, with good portability, and I was thinking about
> Meade's NG-70 or Bresser Skylux.
>
> Can someone please give me some personal opinions on these two?
> (Aspects you liked/didn't like, what its limits are etc)
> I've read the official descriptions and all that stuff, but I'd like to
> hear some things from people who have actually used these telescopes.
>
> Thank you,
> Cristina.
>
> PS: If you have another telescope in mind that fits the specs, please
> suggest it!
>
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 06:15:25
From: Chris
Subject: Re: requesting opinions
|
> Ah, I did not realize you were in Deutschland!
Well, I forgot to mention that, so don't worry :)
(Actually I'm from Eastern Europe, but I'm working here at an
institute)
>
> All of these concepts I have mentioned will seem abstruse and
> complicated and wordy; apologies for that.
Ah, I'm a computer engineer, they've drilled enough optics and physics
into me, so I'm not afraid of telescope concepts :D
> from the posts to the newsgroup, there is great discordance amongst
> amateur astronomers on almost any issue! So, no matter what any
That I've noticed! :))
That's why I wanted second opinions, to be able to make a reasonable
average ;-)
Thank you for taking the time to share all this wealth of information!
Studying the market takes time, and your insight is invaluable :)
With respect,
--Cristina.
PS. Regarding Orion telescopes: apparently the Orion Short Tube
Refractor with 80mm aperture and 400mm focal length can be bought in
Germany. And the price is reasonable for me, so it's entering my list :)
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 01:11:10
From: Chris
Subject: Re: requesting opinions
|
Thank you very much for the detailed considerations!
I've thought about Orion telescopes, but I could only find a very
limited selection at astro shops here (I live in Europe, Germany). I
must check whether they ship to Europe (and whether the cost of
shipping isn't equal to that of the telescope itself ;-)
Thank you again!
--Cristina.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 10:47:24
From: Llanzlan Klazmon
Subject: Re: requesting opinions
|
"Chris" <metamorphiq@gmail.com > wrote in news:1156407070.339193.169280
@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
> Thank you very much for the detailed considerations!
>
> I've thought about Orion telescopes, but I could only find a very
> limited selection at astro shops here (I live in Europe, Germany). I
> must check whether they ship to Europe (and whether the cost of
> shipping isn't equal to that of the telescope itself ;-)
>
> Thank you again!
> --Cristina.
>
>
Hi Christina,
Orion US isn't the same company as Orion UK (or Europe). They may sell some
of the same scopes though. I believe that Orion US source most of their
scopes from Synta Optical, a Taiwanese manufacturer (although their factory
is in China). I am pretty sure that Orion US don't on sell outside of the
US and Canada. In Europe the Synta scopes are probably sold under a
different brand name. Here down under they are sold as "Skywatcher".
The far east has two main producers of consumer type scopes suitable for
amateur astronomy, namely Synta Optical Company and Guang Sheng Optics.
There are bound to be retailers of their products in Europe but as I said
they may be sold under different brand names. I know of only one retailer
in Germany as the proprietor, Marcus Ludes, used to be a regular
contributer to this news group. Here is his web site:
http://www.apm-telescopes.de/index3.php
As far as Meade goes, their scopes sell at very good value for money with
US and Canadian retailers, It's a different story in other countries. You
will get a nasty shock if you compare the price that you will pay for a
Meade scope from a US retailer versus a retailer in Europe. There are
regular complaints that come up about this on the newsgroup
uk.sci.astronomy. I suspect that the reason is that there is an extra
middle man involved in addition to the shipping costs, import duties and
taxes.
Klazmon.
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 00:48:59
From: Chris
Subject: Re: requesting opinions
|
This leads me to another question: how problematic is adjusting the
lens for reflectors?
This is another aspect that I feel one can't get a good grasp on until
one has actually owned a reflector ;)
--Cristina.
> I have nothing against a nice refractor, but I would seriously consider a
> small (4.5"-8") dob of moderate focal ratio (f/6-f/8) as a first scope. If
> you are careful to get one with good optics, you will have a scope capable
> of providing great views of the moon, planets and deep space objects at a
> price that can't be beat and that is very portable.
>
> Dennis
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 11:32:59
From: AstroApp
Subject: Re: requesting opinions
|
On 24 Aug 2006 00:48:59 -0700, "Chris" <metamorphiq@gmail.com > wrote:
>This leads me to another question: how problematic is adjusting the
>lens for reflectors?
>This is another aspect that I feel one can't get a good grasp on until
>one has actually owned a reflector ;)
>--Cristina.
Ah, I did not realize you were in Deutschland!
Orion (USA) telescopes are mostly -- with the exception of their new
Schmidt-Cassegrains -- made in China and are also marketed in Europe
and the UK under varying brand names. These are likely to be cheaper
than purchasing Orion products from the United States, so you might
look at the Orion US website --
http://www.telescope.com/jump.jsp?itemID=0&itemType=HOME_PAGE
-- and see what various models are like; and then find similar ones
closer to you. I used to work at Orion in the 1980s and am a constant
customer of their Cupertino, CA. store -- I have tried out most of
their telescopes myself.
The Orion small reflectors, such as the StarBlaster 4" and the regular
Dobsonian models that are physically larger, are EXCELLENT starter to
intermediate telescopes. I can say with absolute confidence and
experience that nothing of this quality was available at the price
fifteen to twenty years ago, when I was working in the field of
marketing and selling scopes. Since these are fairly standard
mass-produced devices, sold all over the world under various brand
names, you should be able to find their equivalent without great
difficulty.
The reflector telescope -- in this particular case, a Newtonian-type
reflector -- is slightly harder to maintain than a refractor. Unless
you either buy a badly adjusted one, or drop it, your refractor --
when well treated -- will last for years and years without the
slightest need EVER to adjust the optical system. It is a stable
design.
The reflector telescope is more complex. A Newtonian has two mirrors,
not a lens. (The "lens" is, in this case, the eyepiece, which is
comprised of several lenses.) A refractor is for all practical
purposes a compound lens (in the cheapest configuration a two element
"achromat") in a tube. That's all there is to it!
The reflector scope's two mirrors must be adjusted PERFECTLY to be in
alignment with the scope's optical axis. I have purchased many scopes
over the years and in every case, the reflectors I bought, even
obtained by mail order, were in pretty good alignment when I got them
-- they worked well. I could see an acceptable image through them,
and nothing was amiss. But, all reflector telescopes will benefit
from a PERFECT alignment. The scopes made by reputable makers will
surely have instructions about the alignment -- if necessary. In the
case of the Orion scopes, the instructions are very well written, and
even the simplest ones come with a small tool -- an "alignment
eye-sight" -- that you insert into the focuser so that you can see
when the alignment is reasonably correct.
The Orion scopes have a central dot, or ring, on the primary mirror;
you adjust three screws on the back of the mirror until this "dot" is
in the center of the alignment tool eye-hole. It takes a minute or so
to do that. More complicated alignment might be required if the
secondary mirror got loose, or if the scope was bent, damaged, or
otherwise fooled with by somebody. Again: it is not an insurmountable
challenge to understand how to do this.
The alignment can be imperfect and yet the scope can still yield quite
acceptable images at lower power or on objects that are diffuse in
nature. But, for the sharpest views of stars and planets, it is
always helpful to tweak the alignment.
In my Orion 4" StarBlaster I have occasionally had to adjust the three
primary mirror screws after a few months. Again: it takes a minute or
two at most.
I did not have to make the slightest adjustment to the alignment of my
Orion 10" Dobsonian, nor my Orion 120mm aperture refractor (apologies:
I mistyped this earlier as "127", an oversight.) Their alignment out
of the box was virtually perfect -- in contrast to this, the alignment
of my $3500 Celestron C-11 was rather badly out of adjustment out of
the box!
The more expensive "compound" reflector telescopes, such as
Schmidt-Cassegrains, can require quite a bit of fussing to keep in
alignment. And, sad to say: I have had experience with two or three
of the Orion Maksutov-Cassegrain 127mm aperture scopes, and found
their primary mirror mounting assemblies to be QUITE unstable,
requiring a lot of fussing.
But the very simplest reflector scopes -- the Newtonian designs --
are, if made properly, quite stable (for reflectors), if not offering
exactly the trouble-free performance of a well-made refractor.
Now, the price you pay for the refractor's mechanical simplicity and
elegance is two-fold:
1. The simplest, cheapest ones -- the two-element achromats -- ALWAYS
add some false color to bright images, such as the Moon, the edges of
planets, and the brightest stars. Visual users learn to adjust to
this and tolerate it, but the false color is a DREADFUL problem if you
want to take a digital celestial photo through the scope.
2. Achromat lenses are, per inch of aperture, much more expensive to
make to high optical standards than simple mirrors. So, while you can
get -- say -- a wonderful, sharp, clear, 6" aperture reflector
telescope for just a few hundred dollars, a comparable refractor of
that size of aperture would cost many times that amount.
Unless you become a dedicated, extremely sensitive and experienced
observer, chances are that you will find that the reflector telescope
will give the best value for the money at any given price: because in
any specific price range, you can ALWAYS get a larger aperture
reflector than refractor. And, therefore, you can SEE MORE. Objects
will be brighter; there will be no false color; the detail on planets
will be greater; etc.
Yet, people STILL buy "small" aperture refractors, and some of the
most advanced observers always prefer them to reflectors, even if they
have to settle for affordable apertures of 3-6 inches, instead of the
10-17 inches of comparably priced reflectors. Why?
Well: a "perfect" refractor, and a "perfect" reflector (if there IS
such a thing!) will have significantly different visual performance.
Star images are almost always superior in a high quality refractor
(especially the highly corrected "apochromatic" models with 3 or 4
element objective lenses.) So, open and globular clusters, and double
stars, are simply more beautiful, sharp, and clear in a refractor! In
some cases, planetary images are better.
And since refractor telescopes have no "central obstruction" -- while
reflectors almost always do have them -- the refracting telescope can
be made to yield somewhat higher contrast images. It is sometimes
asserted that a 7" refractor will perform as well on some deep sky
objects as a 9 or 10" aperture reflector.
I am a refractor fan, having spent many hundreds of hours viewing
through high quality American Astro-Physics 6 and 7 inch aperture
telescopes. At the same time I have owned reflectors up to 17.5
inches of aperture; and aside from the fact that they were BRIGHTER,
the images were always poorer in aesthetic quality than those of the
refractors. I simply cannot afford myself to spend $8000 or more for
such a refractor telescope; so I buy reflector types instead. But, I
felt that I had to own at least a couple of *inexpensive* refractors
to complement them: one for wide field, low power viewing (the Orion
80mm aperture ShortTube) and one for more general purpose use (the Sky
View Pro 120mm.) Neither of these will deliver the ultimate light
gathering power of my 10" Orion Dob, but to tell the truth, I rather
prefer the smaller refractors, at least on many sky objects.
There are many dedicated, skilled, and highly advanced observers who
use small aperture refractors. A west coast USA amateur astronomer,
the esteemed Jay Reynolds Freeman, has observed 400 of the Herschel
deep-sky objects with a *55 millimeter aperture* refractor! Here is
his article:
http://astro.isi.edu/reference/herschel.html
He points out that while the catalogue values of brightness of many of
these objects would suggest that they would require a LARGE telescope
to be seen, the ACTUAL brightness values are often mis-measured. Some
of the objects are much, much brighter than their "official" ratings.
So, he has been able to see them with a very small aperture scope, not
because of some odd human visual anomaly, but because a good observer
CAN see them in a small scope!
I have confirmed many of these myself. And, I have seen objects with
my 120mm refractor that "can't be seen with a small aperture" --
because I tried very, very hard (in a dark sky), and because the
claims for the dimness of many of the objects were incorrect.
Now, when you go from a 120mm aperture down to a 70mm aperture, you
are getting a lot less light collection. The 120 mm aperture
telescope will show certain types of objects as being almost three
times brighter than a 70 mm scope -- but this is hard to quantify
consistently as there are numerous considerations one has to control
for to make an accurate comparison. Let us just say that if you had
both of them side by side, the 120 mm scope would look a LOT brighter.
And, a 150mm scope would be brighter still. With more light, comes
the ability to view "deeper" into space, getting many more objects.
I cannot really say exactly how much more you will be able to use a
larger aperture scope, but in general, beginners might find and learn
more objects with a larger scope than with a smaller one. Ironically,
the most skilled and experienced observers are really the ones who can
use small telescopes effectively! They already KNOW where the objects
are; what they look like ideally; and all about using the optimal
magnifications for viewing them. But, the beginner might overlook
them completely.
I started out as a youngster with a 60mm aperture scope, and kept it
for the next 35 years. It still had utility even though it ended up
stuck in the trunk of my car, rattling around with the spare tire and
tools. Every once in a while I took it out and looked at something;
it was old, cheap, and expendable by then, and I did not care if it
got dirty or damaged by being treated so cavalierly! I then gave it
away; it is probably STILL being used by somebody!
So, even if you graduate from the 70 mm scope to another larger one in
a relatively short period of time, you might well want to keep the
refractor.
About 18 years ago I was asked by the Orion company to field test a
new line of small refractors that were made in Japan. They had
EXQUISITE objective lenses that were among the finest optics of the
size that I have ever used. I took one to the store manager's house
in Cupertino, California -- right in the middle of the light pollution
of the famed silicon valley -- and we looked at about 20 of the
Messier objects in an hour or two. It was really quite a satisfactory
and fun observing session, and we were both absolutely delighted by
the scope's performance; the nice high contrast eyepieces, the decent
field of view and eye relief, and the solid construction. I think the
telescopes sold -- with three oculars and tripod -- for about $160, in
the late 1980s. Frankly, they were slightly better than any of the
comparably priced Chinese refractors made today -- though they used
the old-style 0.965" eyepieces. Today's models have "standard" 1.25"
eyepieces, which means that they can be easily upgraded and improved
with standard accessories.
The odd thing is that when the store manager or I would tell a
prospective customer how DELIGHTED we both were with these telescopes,
and eagerly recommend them, snooty advanced amateur astronomers in the
store would turn up their noses. Once, one of them came over and
interrupted and WARNED the customer not to buy one! The reason?
Merely because "small cheap refractors are all lousy". This was his
prejudiced opinion, NOT based on actual experience with THAT model
telescope. I was sorry to see the attitude of snobbishness.
Everybody is entitled to "start" a hobby at an affordable price range,
in order to find out if it is something they want to pursue. To be
"warned" that you "had" to spend $500 because anything cheaper would
be "useless junk that you can't see anything with" is not only
discouraging, but also simply WRONG.
Now, prices have come way down since the 1980s. Chinese telescopes
are made much cheaper than the older Japanese optical products. In
some cases, they aren't QUITE as good; in others, they are either
almost as good, or JUST as good, as the best Japanese optics. And
now, Russian optics must be added to the category of good value for
the price. Despite the growth of light pollution in the past decades,
today's amateur astronomers have NEVER had it so good: never before,
in recent years, have you been able to buy starter telescopes of good
quality with so many useful features at such low prices.
In my opinion, the thing to prioritize is not so much the *type* of
telescope, as what you think you are going to do with it in the next
year or two. A Newtonian reflector is, for all practical purposes,
useless for terrestrial spotting. It is for sky views, the image
being reversed and inverted. If you want your scope to have dual duty
for sky and earth viewing, get a refractor! If you NEVER intend to
look at earthly views, get a reflector and buy more aperture per mark,
pound, dollar, franc, shekel, drachma, etc. etc.
If you think you will really like looking at stars, star clusters, and
planets, consider a good quality refractor of about 100 mm or larger
aperture: you will NEVER outgrow it and might keep it for a lifetime!
If you want to seek out galaxies and faint nebulae, spend the same
amount of money on an 8-10" reflector.
If you just want a starter scope, and cannot possibly spend more than
$200 (US), mount and eyepieces inclusive, consider a 70-80 mm
refractor or a small tabletop reflector like the Orion StarBlaster.
You won't go wrong, and will learn a LOT from such an instrument.
(This particular reflector scope has a valuable property, being
designed as a "richest field scope" that yields the widest possible
field of view: highly prized by deep-sky nebula chasers; so this scope
will likely have a long useful life, even if you upgrade to larger
instruments.)
Now: in the beginner refractor category, you basically have three
general types: the f/5-f/6 wide field; the f/8 general purpose; and
the f/11-f/15 long focal length. The first type gives wide fields for
viewing large scale objects in a deep sky, or for yielding wonderful
terrestrial vistas. The f/8 model is a compromise: it has a lot less
"false color" on bright stars and planets; will do higher
magnification; and yet can still work fine on deep sky objects that
fit into its narrower field. The f/11-f/15 models are long, and do
high magnifications easily. They might have even less false color --
helpful for stars and planets, or the limb of the Moon -- but they
have relatively narrow fields, making you work harder to find objects.
Now, ALL of these scopes can yield similar performance if you use
different, appropriate eyepieces in relation to their focal lengths.
But, it is often best to avoid buying the really inexpensive oculars
that have very *high* magnification, or very *low* magnification. In
the first instance, the "eye relief" will be poor: it will be hard to
find the right spot to place your eye, and the field of view will be
narrow. In the second place, low power eyepieces in the 1.25" barrel
size are limited by the diameter of the barrel, and may not yield the
actual potential widest field of the instrument due to vignetting.
So, if you want a very wide field, buy the f/5-f/6 models; if you
really need high magnification for scrutinizing lunar details or
planets, get the long focal length model.
All of these concepts I have mentioned will seem abstruse and
complicated and wordy; apologies for that. But a good telescope
salesman can SHOW you these things in just a few minutes,
demonstrating a couple of telescopes side by side and allowing you to
see the differences. So, if it is possible, you might want to visit
an optics dealer and get a demonstration, as well as to go to a public
astronomy viewing event and look through enthusiasts' telescopes.
Just buying "theoretically" off the Net (based on the advice of us
anonymous, strange Usenet characters!) might be risky.
I have sold hundreds and hundreds of telescopes. I must say that in
the companies I worked for, sales persons were allowed not only to
tell the TRUTH about products (!) but also to act like PEOPLE and not
propagandists. This is the only sales field I have ever been involved
with that permitted this. I think it is due to the fact that optics
and optical preferences are so INDIVIDUAL: no two people ever see
things the same way, or seem to agree about them! As you can perceive
from the posts to the newsgroup, there is great discordance amongst
amateur astronomers on almost any issue! So, no matter what any
person here urges you to do, it is always prudent -- there; I'm
*urging* this! -- to give relatively little credence to any particular
recommendation UNTIL you have verified that with your own eyes!
AstroApp
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 00:38:15
From: Chris
Subject: Re: requesting opinions
|
Thank you for the excelsis link :)
(I had browsed that site before posting here, but the reviews seemed a
little bit contradictory :D)
--Cristina.
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 00:26:40
From: Chris
Subject: Re: requesting opinions
|
Thank you for the link ;)
--Cristina.
Starlord wrote:
> Telescope Buyers FAQ
> http://home.inreach.com/starlord
> >
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 00:25:02
From: Chris
Subject: Re: requesting opinions
|
Hmm, I was thinking under =80300 or so, so I don't expect to see the
little green men from Sirius through my telescope ;)
--Cristina.
Mij Adyaw wrote:
> Cristina,
>
> What is your budget? There is a lot of truth in the old saying that "you =
get
> what you pay for". There is also a telescope FAQ that I believe is
> maintained by Starlord. Maybe he could post it here.
>
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 10:40:25
From: Herbert Mair
Subject: Re: requesting opinions
|
Hello Christina,
Chris wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After years of naked eye stargazing :), I'm thinking about buying my
> first telescope.
Perhaps it is also a good idea to go to a telescope meeting, there are
some in Germany. There you can compare the different telescope types and
check what you can see with a given aperture. There is a list of
meetings at: http://www.teleskoptreffen.info, of course it depends on
your city and mobility
Regards
Herbert
|
|
