Another newbie seeking first telescope advice!

[Sunday (Lee)]

Hi everyone, I'm very pleased to be a new member of this great forum. I'll apologise in advance for this quite lengthy first post!

First of all, I'm a complete astronomical novice. Like so many here, I've been interested in the night sky, the wonder of the stars & planets, the incredulity of so many celestial bodies out there just waiting to be discovered etc. for as long as I can remember! Trouble is, every day life has always got in the way of taking serious steps to be hands-on with this (ever) burning interest.

I now subscribe to Australian Sky & Telescope, I note the current planetary rise & set times in The Australian every week or so & I sometimes have a peek at Jupiter (& a few of it's moons) with my cheap & cheerful Tasco 7x50 binoculars but that's really about it.... until now!

I've decided to take the plunge & buy a telescope, become a member of this forum (to learn & hopefully contribute) & seek out like-minded people in my neck of the woods (Central Queensland, slim pickings here).

From my (fairly limited) research & funding base I've pretty much decided on a Dobsonian scope, probably 8-10". It certainly seems to provide the best aperture-for-buck and a good starting base for a complete beginner. Firstly, am I right about this scope choice as an appropriate entry point?

I'll initially spend a fair bit of time familiarising myself with the moon & planets. I guess I'm seeking reassurance that the Dobsonian will do this well & I won't be discouraged by fuzzy images of these (relatively) near-space objects. I've read somewhere that some people don't consider Dobs to be very good at this (?)

In coming months, I'm sure I'll take more & more notice of deep space objects & I believe the Dobsonian is well suited to this use. Am I also on the right track in that regard?

Although I'm a keen amateur D-SLR photographer (& film SLR before that) with some pretty serious Canon equipment, everything I've read suggests I'm best putting that aside right now until I develop some astronomical expertise & seek out some purpose-built scoping equipment for that later on.

So, I've determined there's some damn good deals going on Skywatcher Dobs right now. Specifically I'm considering the collapsible 8" or 10" version. I'll initially be doing my viewing from my suburban back-yard in Rockhampton. It's a typical back yard with some light pollution from nearby homes but I hope I'll be able to get a reasonable view. I guess I want the scope to be reasonably portable & I'm prepared to put it in the back seat of the vehicle (Totota Prado) to drive a few kms out of town to set up in a paddock for even clearer views. For this reason I'm wondering just how portable the 10" might be compared to the 8". Or is it really a case of "sure it's a bit bigger but much of a muchness to move one as compared to the other"?

Also, are the Meade Lightbridges worth the extra money (e.g. better optics, eye pieces etc.)?

Is it a case of bigger aperture ALWAYS better or are there some advantages to starting with the 8", other than slightly better portability?

Am I on the right track at all???

I really would appreciate any insights this knowledgeable bunch can provide.

Oh, and yes I've already read many of the similar threads here but I'm not sure I've really got a good handle on all this yet (!)

Kind regards,
Sunday

[wavelandscott (Scott)]

Welcome Aboard!

A dobsonian mounted reflecting telescope will work well to see the things that you are interested in. In general, aperature rules but do keep in mind that the right scope is the one that you will use. A huge light bucket that is too big for you to move around easily is one that might not be often used. In my book that makes it the wrong choice.

A couple of things to keep in mind to get great views from a reflecting telescope is that the mirrors will need to be cooled and aligned (collimated).

A poorly collimated scope that does not have an "ambient" temperature mirror will not give particularly pleasing views. Learn how to collimate (it is not hard with some practice) and allow your scope to cool before use.

You noted that you may have an interest in astrophotography. A reflecting telescope can also work for this use if it is properly mounted. A Dobsonian mount is great for visual use but not as good for photography.

If that is your "end game" you might consider a solid tube reflecting scope over one of the popular collapsable types. A solid tube can very effectively be placed on a mount suitable for tracking which is needed for astrophotographs.

I'd strongly encourage you to go to a viewing night or two before you buy a scope. It is a good way to understand some of the tradeoffs between scope types and will help give you some ideas about which scope will best fit your style and interests.

There are many good clubs around Australia filled with helpful and knowledgable people...don't hesistate to take advantage of that resource in addition to good folks here at IIS.

Clear Dark Skies to you!

[Jeeps (Sam)]

I've recently purchased the 10" skywatcher collapsible dob and it's pretty big, and heavy. If you're planning on taking it in the car regularly you might want to think about the 8" version.

They're a great scope, well built and easy to use. Very quick to setup.


cheers

[casstony]

To add to the comments above, an 8" from a dark sky will be better than a 10" from suburban skies; if you'll mostly be observing from the backyard the 10" is the one to strive for - if you have a flat run from storage to observing spot the scope is easy to move on a trolley. The optical tube is around 30 pounds and not hard to lift or carry if you have no bad joints, etc.

In the smaller scope sizes (up to 10") the solid tube is more convenient than mucking around with trusses and shrouds - easier to keep the interior of the scope clean - but opinions will differ here.

Welcome to IIS Lee

[norm]

Hi Sunday,

Good advise from all so far....

So far, your on track with your questions. The optics between say a Lightbridge to that of a Skywatcher is probably negligible terms of solid tube vs truss/collapsible for portability - each have there merits and weaksnesses.

Scenario 1. viewing from home:
- both can be placed on a board with castors and wheeled somewhere in the yard. With this, at least you don't need to setup the collapsible each time and you can leave it fully extended. So in this instance, the score is the same.

Scenario 2. Portability:
If planning to do a lot of observing outside the home using the car. The collapsible probably edges out in favour. A 10" full tube scope will most likely need to have one of the seats laid flat. Think whether passengers will be compromised here or not. Especially if your planning to bring them along.
Further to this, its usually not just the scope that you will take, you will end up with a case or 2 full of misc. accessories (eyepieces, collimation tools, maps etc).
8" vs 10" I think there is a much of a muchness in terms of weight.

Scenario 3. Astrophotophy:
Certainly easier to mount a solid tube dob (8 and 10") on a EQ mount down the track than a collapsible, but having said that it has been done.

Scenario 4. misc.
With a collapsible, you will probably want a shroud to cover any stray light from the open 'cage' design. Also helps with dew.
You may need to collimate more frequently than a solid tube, but having said that, collimation will be 2nd nature and should not be a deterrent in your choice.

Choice?
If you were to never take the scope outside the boundaries of your yard, the 10" solid wins. However on the odd occassion where you want to take it to dark skies, then go the collapsible - soley for the size reduction and extra portability.

LB versas Skywatcher collapsible - either scopes will do the job fine.
Check the specs, eg, fans, dual focusers, viewfinder type etc.

I'll throw in another one, the Orion Intelliscope 10" - its dearer and may not be bang for your buck, but I reckon it looks the best to date.

That my 3 cents worth
Keep asking questions.

Cheers Norm

[NorthernLight (Max)]

Hi Lee,

welcome to IIS!

the dob is always a good starter and apperture does rule.
But if you really want to become an astrophotographer in the long run, get used to eqatorial mounts! they are not as intuitive as altitude/azimuth mounts (up down-left right), pretty hard to set up in the southern hemisphaere especially w/out polfinder and pretty expensive, though they are the only ones allowing accurate tracking of celestial objects and once you got an understanding of mapping the night sky, you can find objects by using the setting circles (celestial maps work in RightAscension/DEClination NOT horizontal/vertical) [though I´ve seen guys on starparties that somehow used base mounted cetting circles on homemade dobs].
Here a list of what to consider when going for a GEM (german equatorial mount) / EQ-mounted Telescope:
the mount should be at least an EQ3 or CG-4 with steel leg tripod and un-illuminated or adjustable luminated polfinder scope. the smaller mounts are basically toys and the illumination is just hindering in the s. hemis.
don´t put more weight on an eq3 than 6-7kg plus counterweights to balance it. So go for a scope in this dimension (less weight is always better). Motors to track in RA and DEC are usually available if want them later.
In the weightclass for an EQ3 you can usually choose between 150mm reflector, 100mm refractor, 120mm Maksutov-Cassegrain and whatever else is available. The latter 2 do not require collimation but are not as bright, are more expensive and do not have the wide field of view as the reflector (newton). Therefore they are superior on planets but not as good on extended deep space objects. Every scope is a trade off!
Don´t buy a big scope on a shaky mount as every touch of the focuser will let the view of your object shake for more than a few seconds and will drive you nuts in return, that includes huge scopes on underdimensioned mounts.
If you are terribly sure to become an astrophotographer and want to spend money progressively rather than see how it goes and buy the right gear later: get a HEQ5 or go straight for the very heavy EQ6 and mount a 200mm/F5 newton on top. Later you get a guidescope and autoguider, attach your slr and start shooting nebulae and galaxies - with a later bought astro CCD and lots of filters even in H-alpha wavelengths. BTW: a Dobson and a modded webcam makes for great moon crater and even planet shots!
Never forget, the scope is only as good the eyepiece you use and most importantly: CHECK IF YOU ARE NOCTURNAL ENOUGH to justify your spendings!!! It is one of the most expensive hobbies available and offers nothing in return - like fitness if you play tennis instead. You will probably not be able to make money out of it as with daytime photography, the chance for you to discover new things is small and requires probably a lot of expensive gear after a PhD-like learning curve in astronomy. But it surely broadens your mind.
Hope I haven´t put you off! Have fun choosing your first gear (perhaps a pair of 8x50 binocculars and a book about the universe will do for a start?).

[Suzy]

Originally Posted by Sunday

Is it a case of bigger aperture ALWAYS better or are there some advantages to starting with the 8", other than slightly better portability?
Sunday

Hi & Lee

You've got some really great advice so far and Norm nailed it really nicely with his easy to understand list.

Get the biggest apperture you can afford/handle/transport. Dobs are great in that they are easy to use and fairly cheap for a scope, thereby great scopes to start with it. Though I love the ease and simplicity so much, I doubt I will ever move away from dobs. First I started with a 6" dob, then 6 months later upgraded to a 10" (I had them both put on wheels). I didn't expect it to give such great views and be so thoroughly addictive! I also enjoy the challenge of manually finding and tracking objects whilst learning the sky. Though one day I will get an Argo Narvis installed, right now, I'm enjoying the rewards of learning with myself as commander. Though, some nights I have trouble finding things and it can get frustrating, but then I point the scope at something amazing which immediately replaces my frustration with excitement and wonder.

By the way, compare the weight of solid tube vs collapsible, you might be surprised that they are just as heavy. It's more about portability really.

If you haven't already got it, may I suggest you grab a hold of the "Astronomy 2010" book. For only $20 it gives a great amount of information and maps (and a list of objects for you to see). It even tells you month by month the upcoming events in the sky. It's a great book to have on hand. Go on, go get it now, grab those keys, off you go!

Lee, I don't know what you're talking about with dobs giving fuzzy images. Even my 6" gave me great views. Perhaps you're talking about the term "feint fuzzies" being used for DSO's? They're called that because they are so far away, and that's not specific to a dob. Anyway, don't worry, you won't be disappointed (unless you expect Hubble like views). Best not to have high expectations (I didn't), that way, what you see will always blow you away. And remember, it's really all about the wow factor of actually being able to see something that far away. If you read up on the objects you select for your viewing, it will add to the wow factor.

Welcome to this wonderful hobby Lee, there is so much support and such wonderful people here eager to help - you are on the right track already

Enjoy!
Suzy.

P.S. In response to Northern Lights post regarding lack of fitness, I do find I burn plenty crossing and re-crossing my legs on my stool, oh, and the two foot walk to access my gear is a real cruncher. My eyeballs do a lot of circles, does that count?!

[Sunday (Lee)]

Originally Posted by wavelandscott

Welcome Aboard!

Thanks Scott, comments by way of reply are in italics below:


A poorly collimated scope that does not have an "ambient" temperature mirror will not give particularly pleasing views. Learn how to collimate (it is not hard with some practice) and allow your scope to cool before use.

Yes, I gathered collimation is extremely important, though fairly straightforward. I also understand there are a couple of different devices to carry this out (e.g. laser collimator, can't remember the other device I read about somewhere in this forum), is there consensus on the best device for a complete beginner?

You noted that you may have an interest in astrophotography.

If that is your "end game" you might consider a solid tube reflecting scope over one of the popular collapsable types. A solid tube can very effectively be placed on a mount suitable for tracking which is needed for astrophotographs.

I did wonder about this, still not sure about relative merits & related compromise. I may delay my astrophotograhpy ambitions until I can get something a little more ambitious (e.g. a Scmidt Cassegrain)

I'd strongly encourage you to go to a viewing night or two before you buy a scope. It is a good way to understand some of the tradeoffs between scope types and will help give you some ideas about which scope will best fit your style and interests.

I certainly intend to do this. As best as I can ascertain, there's only one astronomical society locally & I'm having trouble contacting them.

There are many good clubs around Australia filled with helpful and knowledgable people...don't hesistate to take advantage of that resource in addition to good folks here at IIS.

Clear Dark Skies to you!

Thanks Scott, appreciate your advice.

Sunday (Lee)

[Sunday (Lee)]

Originally Posted by Jeeps

I've recently purchased the 10" skywatcher collapsible dob and it's pretty big, and heavy. If you're planning on taking it in the car regularly you might want to think about the 8" version.

They're a great scope, well built and easy to use. Very quick to setup.


cheers

I'm still very undecided about the 8" versus the 10".

Thanks for your reply Jeeps.

Sunday (Lee)

[Sunday (Lee)]

Originally Posted by norm

Hi Sunday,

Good advise from all so far....

So far, your on track with your questions. The optics between say a Lightbridge to that of a Skywatcher is probably negligible terms of solid tube vs truss/collapsible for portability - each have there merits and weaksnesses.

Scenario 1. viewing from home:
- both can be placed on a board with castors and wheeled somewhere in the yard. With this, at least you don't need to setup the collapsible each time and you can leave it fully extended. So in this instance, the score is the same.

Scenario 2. Portability:
If planning to do a lot of observing outside the home using the car. The collapsible probably edges out in favour. A 10" full tube scope will most likely need to have one of the seats laid flat. Think whether passengers will be compromised here or not. Especially if your planning to bring them along.
Further to this, its usually not just the scope that you will take, you will end up with a case or 2 full of misc. accessories (eyepieces, collimation tools, maps etc).
8" vs 10" I think there is a much of a muchness in terms of weight.

Scenario 3. Astrophotophy:
Certainly easier to mount a solid tube dob (8 and 10") on a EQ mount down the track than a collapsible, but having said that it has been done.

Scenario 4. misc.
With a collapsible, you will probably want a shroud to cover any stray light from the open 'cage' design. Also helps with dew.
You may need to collimate more frequently than a solid tube, but having said that, collimation will be 2nd nature and should not be a deterrent in your choice.

Choice?
If you were to never take the scope outside the boundaries of your yard, the 10" solid wins. However on the odd occassion where you want to take it to dark skies, then go the collapsible - soley for the size reduction and extra portability.

LB versas Skywatcher collapsible - either scopes will do the job fine.
Check the specs, eg, fans, dual focusers, viewfinder type etc.

I'll throw in another one, the Orion Intelliscope 10" - its dearer and may not be bang for your buck, but I reckon it looks the best to date.

That my 3 cents worth
Keep asking questions.

Cheers Norm

Norm, thank you for your thorough response! Is the shroud a must-have on a collapsible? I'm still unsure how often I would actually move the scope for dark sky views (thus the merits of a collapsible), I guess I won't know until I give it a go & see if the results make it all worthwhile. Would hate to forever curse the fact I went for the solid tube over the collapsible. On the other hand, the extra collimation effort, chance of stray light & dust etc. with the collapsible may mean the solid tube is worth a bit more trouble to move (?).

Lee

[Sunday (Lee)]

Originally Posted by NorthernLight

Hi Lee,

welcome to IIS!

the dob is always a good starter and apperture does rule.
But if you really want to become an astrophotographer in the long run, get used to eqatorial mounts! they are not as intuitive as altitude/azimuth mounts (up down-left right), pretty hard to set up in the southern hemisphaere especially w/out polfinder and pretty expensive, though they are the only ones allowing accurate tracking of celestial objects and once you got an understanding of mapping the night sky, you can find objects by using the setting circles (celestial maps work in RightAscension/DEClination NOT horizontal/vertical) [though I´ve seen guys on starparties that somehow used base mounted cetting circles on homemade dobs].
Here a list of what to consider when going for a GEM (german equatorial mount) / EQ-mounted Telescope:
the mount should be at least an EQ3 or CG-4 with steel leg tripod and un-illuminated or adjustable luminated polfinder scope. the smaller mounts are basically toys and the illumination is just hindering in the s. hemis.
don´t put more weight on an eq3 than 6-7kg plus counterweights to balance it. So go for a scope in this dimension (less weight is always better). Motors to track in RA and DEC are usually available if want them later.
In the weightclass for an EQ3 you can usually choose between 150mm reflector, 100mm refractor, 120mm Maksutov-Cassegrain and whatever else is available. The latter 2 do not require collimation but are not as bright, are more expensive and do not have the wide field of view as the reflector (newton). Therefore they are superior on planets but not as good on extended deep space objects. Every scope is a trade off!
Don´t buy a big scope on a shaky mount as every touch of the focuser will let the view of your object shake for more than a few seconds and will drive you nuts in return, that includes huge scopes on underdimensioned mounts.
If you are terribly sure to become an astrophotographer and want to spend money progressively rather than see how it goes and buy the right gear later: get a HEQ5 or go straight for the very heavy EQ6 and mount a 200mm/F5 newton on top. Later you get a guidescope and autoguider, attach your slr and start shooting nebulae and galaxies - with a later bought astro CCD and lots of filters even in H-alpha wavelengths. BTW: a Dobson and a modded webcam makes for great moon crater and even planet shots!
Never forget, the scope is only as good the eyepiece you use and most importantly: CHECK IF YOU ARE NOCTURNAL ENOUGH to justify your spendings!!! It is one of the most expensive hobbies available and offers nothing in return - like fitness if you play tennis instead. You will probably not be able to make money out of it as with daytime photography, the chance for you to discover new things is small and requires probably a lot of expensive gear after a PhD-like learning curve in astronomy. But it surely broadens your mind.
Hope I haven´t put you off! Have fun choosing your first gear (perhaps a pair of 8x50 binocculars and a book about the universe will do for a start?).

Max, the very issues you raise are why I'm still not absolutely sure the Dob is the "only" choice for me. I did notice that the Celestron NexStar 4SE is very attractively priced at the moment (under $900). I know it's a much smaller aperture & a totally different proposition to the Dob in application. Is this really just a "toy" with jazzy features in this size?

Lee

[Sunday (Lee)]

Originally Posted by Suzy

Hi & Lee

I also enjoy the challenge of manually finding and tracking objects whilst learning the sky. Though one day I will get an Argo Narvis installed, right now, I'm enjoying the rewards of learning with myself as commander. Though, some nights I have trouble finding things and it can get frustrating, but then I point the scope at something amazing which immediately replaces my frustration with excitement and wonder.


If you haven't already got it, may I suggest you grab a hold of the "Astronomy 2010" book. For only $20 it gives a great amount of information and maps (and a list of objects for you to see). It even tells you month by month the upcoming events in the sky. It's a great book to have on hand. Go on, go get it now, grab those keys, off you go!

Lee, I don't know what you're talking about with dobs giving fuzzy images. Even my 6" gave me great views.
Welcome to this wonderful hobby Lee, there is so much support and such wonderful people here eager to help - you are on the right track already

Enjoy!
Suzy.

P.S. In response to Northern Lights post regarding lack of fitness, I do find I burn plenty crossing and re-crossing my legs on my stool, oh, and the two foot walk to access my gear is a real cruncher. My eyeballs do a lot of circles, does that count?!

Hi Suzy & thanks for your informed reply! I've noted your generosity of spirit & informed perspective in other "beginner" posts here.

Must admit, the hands-on manual discipline & learning-by-doing with the Dob are some of the things that attracted me to them. Will certainly seek out the Astronomy 2010 book, don't think I'll find it locally though. Not sure exactly where I saw some comments about fuzzy Dob images Maybe it was just general comments about them being more of a DSO instrument in scope (um, no pun intended). And I'm sure you're fully fit for viewing night after night

Thanks again, Lee

[norm]

Is the shroud a must-have on a collapsible? I'm still unsure how often I would actually move the scope for dark sky views (thus the merits of a collapsible), I guess I won't know until I give it a go & see if the results make it all worthwhile. Would hate to forever curse the fact I went for the solid tube over the collapsible. On the other hand, the extra collimation effort, chance of stray light & dust etc. with the collapsible may mean the solid tube is worth a bit more trouble to move (?).

Hi Lee,

If there is stray light near where your observing a shroud helps to keep things as dark as possible. Before you buy, you maybe able to knock one up yourself with some sewing skills and black lyrca nylon . However, because of the 3 pole design, you may need to come up with a flexible band of some sort to fit around the poles so the shroud does not get into the light path of the scope. Even try some black cardboard to see if it makes any visible difference.

As for solid vs collapsible - at least with collapsible the option to take it to dark skies is there, even if that were to be once or twice a year. If you go solid, you lose that flexibility.

Collimation - its a funny topic. I know people who have solid tubes who collimate once a year and never seem to complain about the views. On the other hand I have a truss dob and collimate it everytime before I start my viewing session. I could probably get away with not doing it, but its just something I prefer to do every time.

The one thing I will say about collimation is that its not difficult or complex after doing it a few times. Once the knowledge is there, it literally takes less than 2 mins to do.

Dust - I think its negligible between either scopes. The shroud is more for stray light than keeping dust out. When your scope is not in use you'll hsve the primary mirror covered with a lid of some sort. Dust does get on the mirror, but again, not something that should concern you too much or affect the viewing. Most people would only wash their mirrors maybe once every couple of years - if that.

Clear Skies,

Norm

[Suzy]

Hi again Lee,
You can get the book from Andrews (I'm certain they would mail it).
Here's the link, just scroll down to "General Accessories".
http://www.andrewscom.com.au/site-section-10.htm

[erick (Eric)]

Hi Lee

Do plan to get away to dark skies when you can. Then the sky is a wondrous sight, naked eye and through a telescope!

You mention light pollution from nearby homes, but Rockie is a big city, so the real problem is the amount of light thrown skyward, greatly brightening the sky and removing many objects from view - the contrast between them and the well-lit sky, is too poor. Think of driving some 50km from the outskirts if you want to get away from that!

Here are a few easy tests:- Can you see the Epsilon star of the Southern Crux? Can you see the bright stars of the Constellation Musca (just "under" the Cross, in the direction of the south celestial pole). Can you see the band of the Milky Way overhead in the late evening? Can you see the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds to the south (look just before the first glimmerings of dawn (5am) when they are highest for you. What you can see naked eye will give some sense of the brightness of your sky.

Cheers
Eric

[NorthernLight (Max)]

Hi Lee,

RE: C Nexstar4SE

this scope is a Maksutov-Cassegrain type telescope aimed to the beginner. It does most of the hard work for you like aligning procedures, finding objects and tracking. But do not get fooled! The 40.000 objects database is that big because it contains objects from northern and souther hemisphere up to a magnitude of about 20, for some objects even 30. Only a fraction of this is visible in this scope due to your location on this planet and the limiting magnitude of the scope (probably something around 12.5 but maybe more).
Catadioptric systems like Mak´s need some time to cool down before they provide clear images, but once they are cool (with this scope I reckon it takes about 45min) they provide very good images of planets and lunar landscapes. You will see the Orion nebula and a few open or globular clusters - but forget about all the other dim nebulosities and galaxies that are either to big for the long focal length or to faint for the limiting maginitude of this scope especially under suburbian skies. And do not forget, planets and even the moon are only available at certain times of the year.
In my experience, the biggest "hold me or I fall over" effect comes from large apperture- short focal lenght- telescopes. Imagine you could open your very own pupils to 200mm instead of 7mm and consider that per every 20mm more apperture the light gathering capacity increases by roughly 20%. With such big eyes you could see the milky way from horizon to horizon in its full beauty including the huge nebulosities that span areas as big as notebooks held at armlength even from a not-so-far off CBD suburb. More focal lengt reduces your field of view. In case of the 4SE to the size of a cigarette package compared to naked eye and gives you darker but contrast rich visual images.
The other thing is that the mount is simply not made to hold anything more than the scope and an eyepiece and would introduce field rotation in exposures longer than 30seconds anyways due its nature as an alt/az mount.-no go for photography IMO.

[Sunday (Lee)]

Thanks yet again Max, Eric Suzy & Norm for your input. I really appreciate all your advice & welcome all perspectives to help me fully form mine! As a first scope (& I'm thinking a long-term keeper), I'm certainly leaning more & more towards the 10" collabsible Skywatcher Dob. Max: I'd suspected much of what you've offered in relation to the NexStar 4SE. I really want to "do" it myself & I'm now much more reassured about the near space performance of the Dob format, not to mention attracted to the "light bucket" aperture! I'm sure at some point I'll seek out a nice (read pricey) refractor & associated mount for astro-photography...but not just yet.

One thing I'm a bit uncertain about though: does the 8" Dob have a "usefully" shorter focal length than the 10" & therefore potentially offer the benefit of a larger field of view for a beginner seeking the gratification of an expansive "reveal" when seeking out large galaxies etc.? Or can the field of view issue (if it is one) be compensated for with appropriate eyepiece selection? Probably totally wrong about this???

Happy to hear more!

Cheers,
Lee

[NorthernLight (Max)]

Hey Lee,

If you can, go for 10" or more! The difference in focal lenght is almost negletable and a shorter focal lenght at 10" (like F4 e.g.) would introduce other issues that a beginner doesn´t necessarily appreciate i.e.: collimation needs to be more precise, apparent field curvature increases. I am considering buying a big dob myself for visual only as the situations where I just want to have a look happen to apear more often than those where I feel like doing all the preparations necessary to set up the EQ6 and with the dob one doesn´t have to do anyting else than take it out and move the tube in a very intuitive way whereby the eypiece remains at the same position relative to the tube axis. Enjoy finding all the hazy patches you discver by coincidence! A little tip: wait a while in the darkness so your eyes can adjust and look at objects as if to draw them, try looking next to the objects to use peripheral view and get a thingy that covers the eye thats not on the eyepiece (like the pirates) it is tiring after a while when you have to force it closed.

[LeeSMaz (Lee)]

Hi guys,
My name is Lee as well, but from Wollongong.

Just into astronomy as well.
Same questions but after some looking around and seeing samples of
views through the scopes, I went and bought a Mak127 goto from Andrews.

Nice high tech looking scope.
Still experimenting with it, at first was unsure of what I was doing with setting up its alignment but a few nights I now have it functioning
reliably and close to pointing accurately.
Tracking is an issue that I'm sorting out now, has 3 types and then 9 or so rates.

Venus, a nice bright ball of light that u can see is a planet and 3/4 lit up.
No detail though, need a bigger scope.
Jupiter, nearly some detail colour in the banding, see some moons around it as little lights.
Saturn is nice, can see the ring , though its edge on. Some colour, not much.
Mars is a blur orangy ball.
Could do with an electronic fine focuser.

Now if u can get a C6, 6" cassegrain then that'd b great, the 5 is nice.
Is cheap to at $799. $20 delivery. Great views of the moon, dont all scopes get that though. Useful magnification was around 150x was real clear to 300x.
THough 500x was used on the moon real clear.
The 150 newt on goto was $999, been told possibly similar views though.

But I got this, as once u know what ur doing, is quick and easy to browse anything, plus u can just slew it around to what ever. Plus it can identify what ur looking at for fun. Is a light and easily moveable scope n mount.
Small as well, actually toy sized at 35cm long the tube.

Cheers.
Lee.
Ps. Digi camera took some nice video of the moon thru the scope, shaky pics though. Same for jupiter. Just need to sort out the focus and zoom and mount a bit better. Or link up to the laptop and get a webcam ccd camera viewing thru the scope.

[bmitchell82 (Brendan)]

If your looking at astro photography a 10" dob when you have modified a few parts preforms extremely well. to the point where you wouldn't be able to pick that its of a low end dob variety unless you looked at it!

The NEQ6-w would be the absolute minimum that you could go for with a 10" even a 8" Newtonian. If you look at Skywatcher they use Pyrex glass which almost negates cool down time due to the low expansion.

If it was me i wouldn't bother with Go-to celestron scopes, sure they buzz around and sure you can see a few things but like it has already been said. What you pay gets divided between aperture and gizmo's. More aperature less gizmo's less aperature more gizmo's.

I myself own a 10" dobsonian that i have modified to work as a astrograph for astro photography

www.brendanmitchell.net/Project%20254
www.photobucket.com/brendanmitchell

Are examples of the 10" dobsonian (and a ED 80) with a Canon 40d. Also with my experience and though looking at people on this forum, if you are a keen photographer you will move away from visual generally in a speedy fashion. Not that you will forget about visual, just the camera holds a lot more.

Though in saying that, don't be fooled, astro photography isn't easy, as compared with the 1/1000th sec shots for day time, your integration time for a DSLR will generally be 10 min each exposure, and you will do that for 8 hrs. But is very satisfying when you get a good shot!

Good luck