Newbie's first serious scope

"zanes" wrote in message
om...
Hi,

I have never used this group, so sorry if I have flouted some faq or
rules or summat.

Question:

What kind of telescope and size should i get?

I am looking to spend £150-£250 ($200-$350.) Looking around it looks
like i would be best with a 80ishmm refractor or a 114mm reflector.
Are there any dud brands I should avoid. what about false colour in
the refractor and the central blind spot in the reflector. I live in
the countryside and so light pollution isn't a prob. Space isn't an
issue.
Should i spend the extra cash and get a 6-inch reflector?

I bought a 114mm reflector...the Celestron PowerSeeker, for 150 USD. I
still
can't figure out what that tellie is supposed to do. It came with a 20mm,
4mm, and a 3x barlow. The 4mm simply cannot function on that scopes focal
length, and the barlow's lense shakes around. The only thing that scope can
do is look at the moon with the 20mm eyepiece. The finder scope is 100%
useless. I am new to this hobby, but I learned one great thing tonight. A
cheap pair of binoculars beats a cheap telescope everytime. I put that
telescope away (for good), and spent the night looking through the binos.
In Scottsdale, a bit aways from the Phx valley light, it wasn't so bad. I
remembered the southerly location of the Milky Ways core from my books, so I
used the binos to scan around that area of the night sky, and I found a huge
cluster of stars that could not be seen with the naked eye, at all. I
assume that is the core that I saw. The whole mass pretty much fit into my
binos field of view. I'm sure a lot more could be seen with a some 70+mm
binos. Heck, I am even thinking of getting some 20*100 binos and a tripod.
As for you, avoid the 114mm reflector on the eq. mount like the plauge.
Research quality refractors and Dobs. Oh, and stay away from any scope that
boasts the magnifaction power on the box, next to a photo of Jupiter that
could only have come from the Hubble.
-Tom

Sorry to hear about your experience. I agree with you 100% A good pair
of binoculars is hard to beat for grab and go. A 6" or 8" dob is a much
better choice IMHO than an ST80 or 114 reflector on a shaky mount ...

--

Clear Skies,

Chuck

"Tom" wrote in message
...




"zanes" wrote in message
om...
Hi,

I have never used this group, so sorry if I have flouted some faq or
rules or summat.

Question:

What kind of telescope and size should i get?

I am looking to spend £150-£250 ($200-$350.) Looking around it looks
like i would be best with a 80ishmm refractor or a 114mm reflector.
Are there any dud brands I should avoid. what about false colour in
the refractor and the central blind spot in the reflector. I live in
the countryside and so light pollution isn't a prob. Space isn't an
issue.
Should i spend the extra cash and get a 6-inch reflector?

I bought a 114mm reflector...the Celestron PowerSeeker, for 150 USD. I
still
can't figure out what that tellie is supposed to do. It came with a 20mm,
4mm, and a 3x barlow. The 4mm simply cannot function on that scopes focal
length, and the barlow's lense shakes around. The only thing that scope
can
do is look at the moon with the 20mm eyepiece. The finder scope is 100%
useless. I am new to this hobby, but I learned one great thing tonight.
A
cheap pair of binoculars beats a cheap telescope everytime. I put that
telescope away (for good), and spent the night looking through the binos.
In Scottsdale, a bit aways from the Phx valley light, it wasn't so bad. I
remembered the southerly location of the Milky Ways core from my books, so
I
used the binos to scan around that area of the night sky, and I found a
huge
cluster of stars that could not be seen with the naked eye, at all. I
assume that is the core that I saw. The whole mass pretty much fit into
my
binos field of view. I'm sure a lot more could be seen with a some 70+mm
binos. Heck, I am even thinking of getting some 20*100 binos and a
tripod.
As for you, avoid the 114mm reflector on the eq. mount like the plauge.
Research quality refractors and Dobs. Oh, and stay away from any scope
that
boasts the magnifaction power on the box, next to a photo of Jupiter that
could only have come from the Hubble.
-Tom

LarryG wrote in message ...

On 7 Aug 2004 10:40:52 -0700, zanes wrote:

What kind of telescope and size should i get?

If you haven't already, start by reading the following FAQs/guides:

http://www.astronomycentre.org.uk/UKSA/faq.htm
http://www.astunit.com/tutorials/firstscope.htm

You might also want to check out the uk.sci.astronomy newsgroup.

I am looking to spend £150-£250 ($200-$350.) Looking around it looks
like i would be best with a 80ishmm refractor or a 114mm reflector.

One of the ironies of buying telescopes is that small, inexpensive
ones are the least appropriate for beginners. For one thing, many of
them come with inadequate finders that make it difficult to locate
objects, even for seasoned observers. As you probably expect, you'll
get more satisfaction at the higher end of your budget range. A few
quid can make a big difference in this price range--you're far from
the point of diminishing returns.

Are there any dud brands I should avoid.

As others have pointed out, brands like Tasco and Bushnell should be
avoided. Avoid eBay telescopes at all costs. Avoid any telescope
advertising magnifications over 300x--even that's too high under most
circumstances, but poor telescopes are often touted as having
magnifications as high as 675x. This is a sure sign of low quality,
as is the inclusion of a Barlow lens in the package. Also avoid
anything with a 5x24 finder--these are of little help in finding
objects to observe, and are usually a reliable indicator of low
quality (not necessarily true, but why take the chance?). This is not
because of the stated specifications, but how this class of finder is
typically designed. Similarly, some decent telescopes come with awful
accessories, and are therefore a waste of money. That's what these
indicators I've mentioned are about. Caveat emptor.

what about false colour in
the refractor

It's not too bad with relatively long telescopes, but can be in the
short ones under medium-to-high magnification, especially with bright
objects. Whether this will bother you is a purely personal matter,
which you'll only be able to figure out by looking through different
kinds of telescopes, like at a public star party.

and the central blind spot in the reflector.

Well, it won't appear as an actual blind spot under normal
circumstances. The central obstruction will be out-of-focus, so the
effect is mostly a slight reduction in contrast. Very, very low
magnifications may make the obstruction visibly annoying for some
people, but it's nothing to be concerned about under real world
conditions.

I live in
the countryside and so light pollution isn't a prob. Space isn't an
issue.
Should i spend the extra cash and get a 6-inch reflector?

In my opinion, yes.

Generally speaking, the larger the telescope (within the range you
provided)
the more you will be able to see. The 6-inch would probably be the better
choice for the Moon, planets, star clusters and nebulae.

It's a better choice for everything except extremely wide fields and
viewing things on Earth. That's what small, short refractors excel
at, but their light grasp (in this budget range) is less than what I'd
recommend for a beginner.

If you are under
a
budget, forgo the electronics in favor of aperture. Also make sure that
you
get decent quality eyepieces. 1-1/4" Plossls if possible, Kellners
(Modified
Achromats) if the scope is f/8 or longer.

Some inexpensive telescopes actually come with decent eyepieces, so it
may not be necessary to buy replacements right away.

Avoid .965" (japanese) eyepieces
if
they are part of the kit.

I think you mean avoid telescopes that come with .965" eyepieces,
which is good advice. That was (is?) a popular size in Japan, but
otherwise there is no reason to avoid Japanese optics in general--some
of the best are produced there.


- Robert Cook

"eric" wrote in message ...

To correct false error color on any achromatic refractor, use Minus Violet
filter (MV1), that should remove lot of them (approx 80 $US).

This is not a cheap filter, so buying one would further constrain the
size of the telescope one can afford. If you cannot increase your
budget, you should spend it on aperture first.

You can buy a little bit smaller,
and buy a good set of eyepieces 10mm and 25mm

Some telescopes actually come with decent 10mm and 25mm eyepieces.

+ 2x barlow (the one you get
with any scope is really basic, low FOV, and bad or low quality)

Any such telescope should be avoided altogether. A good Barlow can be
a worthwhile investment for some people, and can be purchased later if
there is a need.

In low cost, but good quality for the price, look for GSO, Skywatcher
Telescope (any Synta brand),

Sky-Watcher seems to be a decent choice in the UK--their line has some
of the better Synta telescopes, along with a couple of the bad ones.
You can find them in the UK at the following site:

http://www.opticalvision.co.uk

There are probably other outlets, so shop around. The "bad"
telescopes I mentioned are the Newtonians that are about half as long
as their specified focal length--in general, avoid this design.

A 6" Newtonian on a Dobsonian mount is the most capable telescope (for
astronomy only) that will fit within zanes' budget (unless you can
find a really good deal on an 8" Dob). Anything else would have a
smaller aperture and a shakier mount. Other telescopes are certainly
valid options, but they'd need some justification, such as: aesthetic
preference for the image provided by refractors, terrestrial observing
(e.g. birds), extreme portability, astrophotography, or spending even
less money.


- Robert Cook

"David G. Nagel" wrote in message ...

Ratboy99 wrote:

How do you get your computer to make those funny "L"s?

You use the British English keyboard layour.

On other Western European/US keyboards, you can also hold down the Alt
key, type 0163, and release the Alt key.


- Robert Cook

"eric" wrote in message ...

"Tom" a écrit dans le message de
...

I bought a 114mm reflector...the Celestron PowerSeeker, for 150 USD. I
still can't figure out what that tellie is supposed to do.

It was intended to allow the company to take your money and run. :-(
It's unfortunate that Celestron would do something like this, but they
want a piece of the business that usually goes to Tasco, Bushnell, and
the like. They don't even list the PowerSeeker line on their website,
so maybe they still have a small sense of shame left in them
somewhere.

Their FirstScope line consists of basically the same telescopes at
comparable prices, but with usable eyepieces and finders. These are
sold by reputable telescope retailers, but they cannot compete in
department stores and general online retailers because they don't
provide the uselessly high magnifications by which telescopes are sold
at these locations.

Meade is guilty of doing the same thing, by the way.

It came with a 20mm,
4mm, and a 3x barlow. The 4mm simply cannot function on that scopes focal
length,

It can't even function on its own focal length (so to speak)--it's
just a poor eyepiece.

and the barlow's lense shakes around.

It's probably plastic, and nowhere near good enough, optically.

The finder scope is 100%
useless.

As are all 5x24 finders on the market today. They don't really have a
24mm aperture (just looks like it), and most of them show you less
than what you can see naked-eye.

I am new to this hobby, but I learned one great thing tonight.
A
cheap pair of binoculars beats a cheap telescope everytime.

A binocular can show you some things that even the best telescopes
cannot, but a small telescope with decent eyepieces and a decent
finder can give you other views that binoculars cannot--one is not a
substitute for the other. I'm sorry that you've had such a bad
experience.

PowerSeeker 114 of celestron is not a so bad scope, I agree it's not a
top of the line, and the ocular and accessories with the scope is not the
good one!

There are similar telescopes that do come with decent accessories, and
that's why product lines like PowerSeeker should be avoided. Remember
the principal warning signs: high magnifications, included Barlow
lenses, 5x24 finders, .965" (diameter) eyepieces, and 4mm (focal
length) eyepieces.

Don't forget, in the year 1600 to 1800, the mirror of the scope was make in
reflective cope or brass, and it was enough for Isaac Newton, Copernic or
Galileo Galilei to discover the begining of modern astronomy.

The bottom line here is finding the best way to spend a limited amount
of money. If we just take one company as an example, Celestron
provides 114mm Newtonian telescopes in (at least) two different
packages--basically one for telescope stores and the other for regular
stores. One package is far better than the other out of the box, but
they both have the same price. Personally, given the choice, I would
purchase the better one. :-)

But, I agree, for around 100$US, a good bino is better... with tripod! ;-)

Yes, I'd agree with you, but the original poster has up to £250 to
work with.


- Robert Cook

I think the Celestron optic is also made in china, but I think the
Quality control for Meade and Celestron is better than a scope where
everything is assy in China (Synta, GSO, Konus).

I am curious what evidence you have for this claim. Celestron Optics are
manufactured by the same companies that make the other scopes and these days
most of them seem to be only different in the paint job. . Many of the Asian
scopes seem to have been first designed by Orion US and Celestron has only
recent picked them up.

Given the troubles with the Meade LXD-55 series, its pretty hard to suggest
they do a good job of quality control with their asian products...

jon

To correct false error color on any achromatic refractor, use Minus Violet
filter (MV1), that should remove lot of them (approx 80 $US).

A Minus Violet filter does not "correct false color." Falso color can only be
"corrected" by focusing it. Filters reduce false color but in doing so they
are discarding information.

This may seem picky but it is an important distinction...

jon

"Robert Cook" wrote in message
om...
"eric" wrote in message
...

"Tom" a écrit dans le message de
...

I bought a 114mm reflector...the Celestron PowerSeeker, for 150 USD.
I
still can't figure out what that tellie is supposed to do.

It was intended to allow the company to take your money and run. :-(
It's unfortunate that Celestron would do something like this, but they
want a piece of the business that usually goes to Tasco, Bushnell, and
the like. They don't even list the PowerSeeker line on their website,
so maybe they still have a small sense of shame left in them
somewhere.

Thanks for all the info, Robert. I do intend to upgrade to another scope
eventually...right now my wandering wishes are set on either a Discovery Dob
or a small refractor (TV, Tak-60, Vixen, or Orion80ed). By what you said,
the PowerSeekers main tube is a keeper. I could use future eyepieces and
throw out the ones I have. Is the Powerseeker's finder scope attachment
accessible to upgrades?
-Tom

"Tom" wrote in message ...

"Robert Cook" wrote in message
om...

They don't even list the PowerSeeker line on their website,
so maybe they still have a small sense of shame left in them
somewhere.

Oops, I spoke too soon--they're under the "Value Priced Scopes"
section. This is truly ironic, considering the better value of their
FirstScope series. I guess they have no shame after all....

By what you said,
the PowerSeekers main tube is a keeper.

Celestron gets most of its less expensive, non-SCT telescopes from
Synta (in China), and these telescopes are typically of adequate or
better quality. This one is most likely an f/8 spherical primary
design, which is not ideal, but it should be just long enough to work
alright. I certainly wouldn't throw it away!

I could use future eyepieces and
throw out the ones I have.

About the only thing these eyepieces might be good for these days is
solar projection, if you ever want to do that, but personally, I
wouldn't subject my telescope to this kind of torture. :-)

Is the Powerseeker's finder scope attachment
accessible to upgrades?

I have no idea. The last time I saw one, I didn't pay attention to
how its finder was attached, and none of the pictures I could find on
the Internet are conclusive. If it has a dovetail base that allows
you to easily remove the current finder and its bracket, you could
probably just slip in another finder with its matching bracket. On
the other hand, if it seems to be directly attached to the telescope,
you'll have to install another finder either next to it or in its
place. How you would do this depends on the new finder. An example
is on the following page:

http://www.telescope.com/jump.jsp?it...GORY&itemID=27

To make things easy for people, all of Orion's finders are attached to
a dovetail base. Some finders, such as the Telrad, have larger bases
that can be glued to the telescope.


- Robert Cook