First Telescope

[Waratah]

Hello,

Well I have been learning the constellations, reading beginner text books, and using my binoculars.

I'm starting to research telescopes and have been completely overwhelmed by choice. I have a few questions if you could help:

1. Is there real world comparison's I can make online? I would like to be able to see for example what Saturn, the Jewel Box and M7 look like through various scopes given the same seeing conditions. I think Stellarium mentions something about this, but it requires the mobile upgrade.

2. How hard are EQ mounts? I can see that they take more set up time, but the hardest part seems to be finding the celestial South Pole. I am confident I can get close using Crux and the pointers, but how exact do I have to be?

Thanks for any advice you can provide me. :thanx:

Chris

[OzEclipse]

Hi Chris,

I'm starting to research telescopes and have been completely overwhelmed by choice. I have a few questions if you could help:

1. Is there real world comparison's I can make online? I would like to be able to see for example what Saturn, the Jewel Box and M7 look like through various scopes given the same seeing conditions. I think Stellarium mentions something about this, but it requires the mobile upgrade.

Anything 'online' is able to show you what the field of view (angle) of a given telescope/eyepiece combination is but won't show you what it actually looks like to the eye because it's based on photography. Join an astronomy club and go to a club field night. compare scopes

In general:
The bigger the aperture, the better, more light gathering for dark sky, more resolution for planets. However, bigger scopes are less portable. You need to find the right fit.


2. How hard are EQ mounts? I can see that they take more set up time, but the hardest part seems to be finding the celestial South Pole. I am confident I can get close using Crux and the pointers, but how exact do I have to be?


EQ mounts: I can accurately polar align my eq mount in 4 minutes, but I am in my 45th year of astronomy. It's very easy with practice. The equatorial head of a solid mount like an EQ6 can be heavy(16-18kg). If you want to use a goto, the alignment needs to be pretty accurate for it to work well.

Pros and cons
If you choose a newtonian, the eyepiece can end up in some awkward positions on an EQ mount unless you rotate the tube. Newts give you the most aperture for the buck.

A large refractor can be very heavy and the eyepiece can get very low to the ground unless the tripod is very high. Aperture for aperture, refractors give the best image resolution but they are also the most expensive.

The various cassegrain designs sit somewhere in between, portable and priced between a newtonian and a refractor per inch of aperture.

There is no perfect all-round telescope that does everything well. Most long term astronomers develop special interests and buy one or usually more telescopes best suited to those interests.

You need to find the happy medium that fits your needs and interests.

Joe

[Waratah]

Appreciate the reply Joe, very helpful.

I'm in the process of joining a local club.

Chris

[The_bluester]

The generic advice for a long time has been to buy the biggest Dobsonian mounted Newtonian scope you can afford and reasonably handle and IMO it is still pretty good advice. Something around the 8 to 10" mark will give some great all round views, from large objects like M42/Orion nebula, to some pretty decent views of Jupiter and Saturn at higher magnifications.

Nowadays goto dobs are getting to be reasonably priced as well, though for most of those you need to learn a few star names for the initial alignment.

I would second the suggestion (Which it looks like you are doing anyway) to join a local club and have a look through some members scopes to get an idea of what appeals to you.

[EpickCrom]

Hi, welcome to IIS :welcome:

In my opinion, the best beginner scope is a dobsonian mounted reflector, 8 or 10 inches aperture. This is from my own experience starting in this great hobby in 2020 with my first ever scope, a 10 inch dobsonian. However I spent my first year learning the sky in 2019 with a pair of 10x50mm binoculars. I still use and cherish both instruments. The views even from my light polluted back yard are spectacular in my 10 inch dob.

A dobsonian is very intuitive as you aim where you want to go in the sky and point! They are also the best value for the aperture. Good luck with your decision!

[Tulloch]

Personally (and I realise I will be in the minority here), I believe the best starter scope is a Celestron Evolution 6" SCT.

Advantages:
- It is an alt/az mount so it's easy to set up and look through
- It is easy to align, just point at 3 bright objects in the sky and you are done (you don't even need to know what they are)
- It is has goto functionality, so once you're aligned you can type in the object you want and it will automatically slew to the object with good (but not perfect) accuracy. No time wasted hunting for objects, although you can do this easily if you want.
- It has a great balance of size and weight, not too large, not too heavy
- It can be used to image the planets straight out of the box with good results
- It is upgradeable. Use an SCT reducer ($100 used) to use at f/6, a barlow ($100) to image at f/20, a wedge ($400) for moderate quality DSO imaging, a Hyperstar ($1000) to image at f/3.
- You can also mount an 8" (or even a 9.25 at a pinch) SCT on the same mount for added resolving/light gathering power.

Disadvantages:
- You can't do long exposure DSO imaging on it, for that you will need an EQ mount
- It's expensive. $3300 for the 6" at Bintel, $4400 for the 8". However, there's currently an 8" in the Classifieds for $2900 with a bunch of accessories...
https://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=205654

Andrew

[OzEclipse]

I would add one piece of advice. Don't skimp on eyepieces. Set aside a large chunk of your budget for eyepieces. They make a huge difference.

You don't need a lot. One or two well-chosen quality eyepieces will give you much more viewing pleasure than a bucket full of mediocre eyepieces.

Joe

[kris85au]

Because there are alot of people, who wants to sell you stuff you dont need. So they need to pamper you what you want.



A lot of advises here.

How about simple 5'' dobsonian, cheap but good to put your finger in the pie without risking much (thousands of $$$)? You can see a lot with it. You can move around easily, you can walk far with it. You can play a lot with it.

Then once you learn something, you can decide where and how much more to spends. And chances are you will keep it as a secondary scope. Or re-sell with low $$$ loss. This hobby can put you quickly into thousand dollars bills.

$374 for 5''

https://skywatcheraustralia.com.au/product/5-table-dobsonian-2/

[shennian0130]

In my opinion, the most suitable one for beginners is the 150mm Newtonian. Like skywatcher 15075EQ3. A 6-inch F5 Newtonian is suitable for both visual and astrophotography. You can upgrade it according to your needs later. You can change the focuser, spider supports, and get a better equatorial mount (such as NEQ6 GEM45) and a coma corrector to get excellent images

[anthony2302749]

My advice would be either a 8” or 10” Dob as some have already mentioned, bang for your dollars. I work on the KISS principle, a good first telescope is the one that is easy to setup and use, hence the Dob.

Secondly a set of good quality eyepieces, my personal favourite is a 17mm Nagler for DS viewing. The total cost of eyepieces generally outweighs the cost of your first telescope.

Good luck 👍

[The Mekon]

This advice seems to be fairly common, but I disagree with it. I have well over 50 years of experience in Astronomy and right now I am storing a 10" F5 dob for a friend. Standard Skywatcher scope and I must say it is a pain to use once you get over 45 degree elevation. The straight through finder is so difficult to use when high in the sky - which is where most backyarders must look these days. Sure a Telrad may help but would a beginner work this out?
I am more in agreement with the previous poster who proposed a 6" F5 which would be so much easier to handle.