new to astronomy/buying first telescope?

[Swane]

:confused:
G'day all,
I am buying my first telescope.
I am looking at a either a Saxon 900 X130mm on eq2 mounts or a Saxon 1400 X 150 mm on EQ3 mounts ,both have motor drive .
The 130 has the motor and hand controller supplied as a package but I have to buy the motor drive for the 150.
The 150 including the motordrive is $200 dearer than the complete 130 .
How does the Saxon brand stack up against other telescopes ?
Also would the 150 give me any benifit for the extra bucks?
I also want to do bird and wild life photgraphy with the telescope
as well as astrophotography.
I have good quality SLR & digital cameras.
To me the Saxon looks quite well engineered but I have not had any telescope experience as yet.
Regards . Derek

[atalas]

Hi Derek!and:welcome: to the site.
First of all whats your budget?


Louie :)

[Iddon]

might need EQ5 as minimum with a light scope for imagery...

[trufflehunter]

Hi Derek. The 130mm at F7 (900 divided by 130) is fairly 'fast' and I would expect a fair bit of false colour on bright objects. The extra aperture of the 150 would normally create more chromatic abberation problems, but in this case it would be offset somewhat by its slower F ratio. I would imagine they'd be neck and neck in that regard.

The thing is, the 150 is a BIG scope and would definitely need something like an EQ5 minimum, as Iddon said. I used to own a Meade 150 (the AR6), very similar optically but, at F8, was a little shorter than the Saxon. Still it was big! And the supplied LXD55 mount was barely adequate. If you're serious about astrophotography, you will definitely have to reconsider the mount. Even just for visual use.

The 150 achromats perform very nicely on deep space. Nothing beats an unobstructed light path. At high powers (planets, moon, double stars etc) some can get a bit 'iffy' in terms of chromatic abberation. It can be improved quite a bit with the addition of a violet reduction filter. William Optics make a good one at a reasonable price. If you're lucky and you get a good one, you'll be surprised at how well they can perform on really good nights.

But think about that mount.

As to any advantage of the extra 20mm in the case of the 150, I'd say it'd be minimal, all things being 'equal'. However my gut tells me that, both being simple achromats of considerable aperture, and the 150 being slower (larger focal length to aperture ratio), the 150 would have the edge in overall performance.

[atalas]

I think his talking about reflectors Wayne.


Louie:D

[Starkler]

The 150x1400 Saxon sounds like one of the short tube newts with a spherical primary and a built in plastic barlow.

Avoid this scope like the plague ! They are optical trash.

Im sure others will kick in here, but for the price class you are looking at with these scopes, you wont get an eq mounted scope stable enough for good visual use, let alone astrophotography!
Astronomical scopes invert the view upside down, so no good for terrestrial photography either.

If you really must get a low end eq mounted scope I would suggest the Guan Sheng GS-280 for $399.00 from Andrews Comms. For the same price as the 130x900 but with a beefier mount. Even so be aware that the tripod will shake and wobble everytime you touch it.

For the same price, you could have a 200mm dob mounted newtonian that could keep you happy in visual observing for years.

[atalas]

Yes Geoff very true,the scopes Derek is talking about are not good choices. There are many better for sure ,If we knew his budget we could help the guy out with much better choices thats for sure!


Louie :)

[acropolite]

Buy the best you can possibly afford, the bigger the better; you'll never say you wished you had bought a cheaper one...:D

[iceman]

Hi Swane!

:welcome: to the forum, how did you find out about us?

You will need to decide on 2 things:

a) What's your budget?
b) Is terrestrial viewing/photography more or less important than astronomical viewing?

oh and
c) Do you want to do astrophotography?

For terrestrial viewing and photography, you don't want a reflector. As Geoff said, the view will be upside down. That's just how reflectors work. You might be better off with a good quality spotting scope in an alt/az setup - or a good quality astronomical refractor also in an alt/az setup. I'm thinking of an Orion/Saxon 80mm ED, which cost about $600 for the OTA. You can put this on a good quality alt/az camera tripod and allow you to do bird/terrestrial photography with your SLR/Digicams.

If you want more of an astronomical fix, you might consider an EQ mount with drives, like the EQ5 which would be ok for the 80mm scope, but for something more solid, the EQ6 is the preferred. Of course you're then looking at > $1500-$2000 to get setup.

For astrophotography, the 80mm ED refractors perform great. Seeker has some shots in the Deep Space photography forum that you can see. For serious astrophotography, you will want the EQ6.

A newt on an EQ mount for astrophotography will work, but you may need to do some DIY such as moving the mirror forward in the OTA as you may not be able to reach focus with your SLR.

For your astrophotography, are you more concerned with planets/moon, or deep-space objects?

Sorry for all the questions, but to get the right advice we need to know more about your budget, your pursuits and your plans! :)

Hope to hear from you again soon!

[Swane]

:confuse3: G.day Louie.
I have only around $650 AUD to spend on my progect.
regards Derek

[ving]

if you are going for astro pics derek, you cant really ahve a mount that is too sturdy. go for an EQ5 as people have sugested.

welcome to the forum by the way and enjoy your stay :)

[atalas]

Ving that just blew his budget!


Louie:sad:

[Swane]

:confuse3: G'day Grant,
I don't know alot about the various sizing of the mounts I thought that the EQ 3 thats put out by Saxon would be ok. I have only seen the Saxon EQ2 mount aand tripod in the flesh and from a rank beginner it looked resonabley well machined ect. So I thught that their EQ3 would be alot heavier and better than their EQ2 and tripod.
Is the tripod included as part of the mount ,when one talks about EQ2 or 3 /4/5/ 0r 6
Regards Derek
thanks for your answere

[ving]

I think at andrews com it is...
but calling your local shop and find out would be best. where you buying from?

[atalas]

The tripods are included Derek,but they are unstable for imaging on those mounts that you are looking at.

Louie :)

[Swane]

:cheers:
G'day Trufflehunter.
I am talking about a reflector telescope and really don,t have a clue as to mount sizes .I only have approx $650 Aud to spend and am just stating off. in Astronomy.
When an f# is quoted is that the same as in photography ,such as f5 is a faster lense than an f7.5 lense?
When you talk about the mount not being large enough for stability:does that mean that the mount has movement at it's swivel points or does that mean that the associated tripod has movement and vibation because of lack of mass and or contructional bracing.
The Saxon F15014EQ3 is aprox 50 lbs including tripod and has a short tube. with a parabolic mirror.
The Saxon F1309EQ2 weighs approximatly 30 pounds including tripod but has a full lenght tube. They also say it has a parabolic mirror.
Regards Derek
Thankyou for you reply

[trufflehunter]

sorry Swane, I thought you were talking about refractors! So ignore my ramblings up above :P
Yes, the F numbers are the same as the photographic F numbers. Just the focal length divided by the aperture. It's really only significant for astrophotography. Visually it mostly comes down to which eyepieces you use.
Your guesses are spot on regarding the mount problems. As a starter scope for purely visual use the mounts might be adequate, but for serious astrophotography you need all the stability you can get. You also need very accurate tracking, which I doubt those mounts would offer.
As far as the optics of those scopes are concerned I really can't offer any opinions.

[Starkler]

Im sorry but if you want to do tracked astrophotography you need to at least double that budget as an entry point.



All of the above. Remember when you are viewing through the telescope, minute vibrations get greatly magnified at the eyepiece. What may appear at a casual glance to be "reasonably sturdy", can be a wobbly nightmare at the eyepiece. For photography you need "rock solid"

I really think those that market cheap scopes on wobbly mounts to those wanting to do astrophotography need to be shot !

Shopping for telescopes is a minefield for the uninitiated.

[h0ughy]

save up a few dollars more and get yourself a bigger scope, maybe save to $1000 and get a 12" GS dob from andrews and then at a later date get a big mount and tube rings........... and really blow the rest of your money.

Remember one thing about money is that you can never take it with you but you will always retain the memory of what you have seen:whistle:

and buy some gadgets to use with it:D

[Swane]

:tasdevil: G'day mike ,
I found this site by surffing for telescope info.
2: my present budget is only about $650 AUD.
3:Yes I do want to eventually get into astrophotography but am limited a bit by my budget .
What does "OTA" mean? (shows my newness).
I am fairly up there with photography; it has been my main hobby for the last 60 years. (I am 74 years young).I have always wanted to get into astronomy, but have never done anymore than read about it.
Now I have decided it's about time to have a look myself.
I also hope to use the first scope that I get to do terrestial photography with also as well as astro.
I realize that I cannot start off at the top. I hav'nt seen a lot of telescopes other than the Saxon and some others that are right out of my price range .
I am not sure what the Saxon optics are like mainely the mirrors and the tube assembly . The guy in Brisbane where (shop) is in the brisbane astronomical club ,he replaces the original eyepieces with better quality eyepieces (plossl).
Even though I am now retired I have a very good workshop , with lathe/milling machine drills /oxy and lots of other gear and I thought that after I get myself up and running in astronomy. I will make myself a nice large Dobsonian telescope. Possibly around 300mm mirror.
That is if dont crock first.
I do feel that on my first telescope as long as the main optics are good that I would be able to overcome mount problems and improve them.
If you could advise as to the optics on the Saxon compared to other brands and wether a single straight tube or catadioptic telescope (reflector) is better than one or the other.
Regards Derek :tasdevil:

[ving]

generally optics wise saxon are of less quality than guan sheng (or so I have heard). have you considered second hand? generally speaking us sky gazers look after out equipment so second hand stuff is usually in good nic :)

[slice of heaven]

SCT v Newt Swane, That might get the posts flowing....(Newts are better).
They both have their faults and advantages.
SCTs are more compact but you lose some light because of the extra reflective surfaces and their more expensive.
Newts have diffraction spikes because of the spider vanes.Their tubes are larger.
SCTs can be mounted easier because of their size.
A refractor might be more suited for your intended use though.