beginner info needed about scopes and binoculars

Richard wrote:
All advice is greatly appreciated.

See:
http://www.astunit.com/tutorials/firstscope.htm
http://www.astunit.com/tutorials/evaluating.htm

As far as your quest for magnification is concerned, do try to remember that
the main purpose of an astronomical telescope is light-gathering. Always
distrust supposed astronomical telescopes that are sold with claims of very
high magnification. You do need magnification to see planetary detail, but to
be able to reliably use x200 you are going to need a lot more than you'll get
wiht £200!

--
Best,
Stephen
http://www.astunit.com

"Stephen Tonkin" wrote in message
...
Richard wrote:
All advice is greatly appreciated.

See:
http://www.astunit.com/tutorials/firstscope.htm
http://www.astunit.com/tutorials/evaluating.htm

As far as your quest for magnification is concerned, do try to remember
that
the main purpose of an astronomical telescope is light-gathering. Always
distrust supposed astronomical telescopes that are sold with claims of
very
high magnification. You do need magnification to see planetary detail, but
to
be able to reliably use x200 you are going to need a lot more than you'll
get
wiht £200!

--
Best,
Stephen
http://www.astunit.com

so why am I getting recommended binoculars instead when they don't show that
much?

Richard wrote:
so why am I getting recommended binoculars instead

You will need to verify this with whoever gave you that recommendation,
but I suspect that the main reason he or she gave you that advice is
because it is better to have a good binocular than a bad telescope.
There are many good binoculars available within your £200 budget and
very few good telescopes.

when they don't show that much?

A common misconception. Binoculars show you *more* in some senses (e.g.
try M33 in £70 10x50 binoculars and in just about any £70 telescope).

Perhaps you may benefit from reading the tutorial on telescope function:
http://astunit.com/tutorials/telescope.htm
From that you will see that, in order to increase magnification and
resolution, you also need to increase aperture. As a rule of thumb, the
optimum resolution of planetary detail comes when the magnification is
approximately equal to the aperture in millimetres (any increased
magnification is merely making up for imperfect visual acuity). Thus for
your desired x200, you need a telescope of approx. 200mm aperture.
Unless you get a good deal on a used scope, any 200mm scope for under
£200 will almost certainly be optical and mechanical rubbish.

You must also remember that, with a telescope, you may also need to buy
eyepieces, probably at around £50 apiece for a reasonable one (and at
over your £200 budget for an excellent one).

So, probably the reason you were advised to get a binocular is that you
are more likely to see more interesting stuff with it than you are with
a telescope of similar low price. It is generally good advice. However,
if you are determined that you want a telescope costing under £200 that
you will use at x200, ask again here and maybe someone will be able to
give you some recommendation for a *good* option -- I can't because I
have yet to find one that meets your criteria.

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://www.astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

"Stephen Tonkin" wrote in message
...
Richard wrote:
so why am I getting recommended binoculars instead

You will need to verify this with whoever gave you that recommendation,
but I suspect that the main reason he or she gave you that advice is
because it is better to have a good binocular than a bad telescope.
There are many good binoculars available within your £200 budget and
very few good telescopes.

when they don't show that much?

A common misconception. Binoculars show you *more* in some senses (e.g.
try M33 in £70 10x50 binoculars and in just about any £70 telescope).

Perhaps you may benefit from reading the tutorial on telescope function:
http://astunit.com/tutorials/telescope.htm
From that you will see that, in order to increase magnification and
resolution, you also need to increase aperture. As a rule of thumb, the
optimum resolution of planetary detail comes when the magnification is
approximately equal to the aperture in millimetres (any increased
magnification is merely making up for imperfect visual acuity). Thus for
your desired x200, you need a telescope of approx. 200mm aperture.
Unless you get a good deal on a used scope, any 200mm scope for under
£200 will almost certainly be optical and mechanical rubbish.

You must also remember that, with a telescope, you may also need to buy
eyepieces, probably at around £50 apiece for a reasonable one (and at
over your £200 budget for an excellent one).

So, probably the reason you were advised to get a binocular is that you
are more likely to see more interesting stuff with it than you are with
a telescope of similar low price. It is generally good advice. However,
if you are determined that you want a telescope costing under £200 that
you will use at x200, ask again here and maybe someone will be able to
give you some recommendation for a *good* option -- I can't because I
have yet to find one that meets your criteria.

I don't have much experience with telescope so I am not qualified to comment
on this.

However personally, I doubt that you can see more with 10x50 binoculars. I
own 7 binoculars altogethers rangiing from theatrical use to 60x50. Of
course you can see more with 10x magnification but it's quite limited. The
most interesting objects young people like to see are planets and the moon.
With 10x50 you can see some craters on the moon using your imagination. You
can't spot them though you can think they are craters with the information
alredy given It's all the way same up to about 20 manigification but from
then on you can't hold it. You need an awkard position through the tripod.
Most binoculars are designed to view still terrestrial objects. Though I
could have viewd the saturn with 60x binoculars I have never attempt to look
up into the sky.

I think for educational purpose for young children and get them into
astrnomical views, it seems to me that 10x50 let alone 7x50 binoculars for
the purpose of viewing the sky is not such a good idea. If that is for
educational purpose, it's best to view the sky without any magnifying
glassess. There are lots of objects to be seen with naked eyes. most
constellations are visible under good condtions plus some deep sky objects.

200mm aperture for young children? It's simply no way. In my humble opinion,
mechanical or optical rubbish might be best suited to the education of young
children who yearn for more than 10x50 binoculars.


Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://www.astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Bluewater wrote:
[...]
However personally, I doubt that you can see more with 10x50 binoculars.

You appear not to have seen the phrase "in some senses" that I used, and
have probably never tried to observe M33 (the example I gave) with a
cheap telescope.

Of
course you can see more with 10x magnification but it's quite limited.

Really? That may be your experience, but it is not mine.


The
most interesting objects young people like to see are planets and the moon.

I wasn't aware that we were discussing the use of a telescope by young
people (perhaps you could point me to the prior post in this thread,
which I appear to have missed, where this was stated). I agree that they
are the objects that most young people like to see, but I disagree that
they are the most interesting (eye of the beholder, I guess). However,
let's take your newly introduced limitation: we have three planets that
show some surface detail with a small scope, plus the Moon. The moon is
an interesting object in its own right, but how many young people do you
know that are likely to systematically observe (say) the changing lunar
terminator? And how long do you think the planets will hold interest
unless the user has sufficient aperture to see reasonable detail?


[...]
I think for educational purpose for young children and get them into
astrnomical views, it seems to me that 10x50 let alone 7x50 binoculars for
the purpose of viewing the sky is not such a good idea.

I started my lad off on a 10x50 binocular when he was 8. He's now over
twice that age, and the first thing he grabs if we go observing together
is the 10x50. He has *lots* of stuff that he enjoys with the 10x50.

200mm aperture for young children?

So we've now moved from "young people" to "young children"? Again, I was
unaware of this new limitation.

It's simply no way.

I agree. I wasn't aware that we were now limited to "young children".

In my humble opinion,
mechanical or optical rubbish might be best suited to the education of young
children who yearn for more than 10x50 binoculars.

You may not have had the experience of trying to get such rubbish, given
to the children of friends as a Christmas present, into a condition that
it is actually usable. I have. So have many others. Despite that, to the
best of my knowledge that scope is only used when I visit because it is
just too damned frustrating for the kids or their parents to use on a
consistent basis. YMMV.

The best instrument for observing the sky is one that is used.
Youngsters may need to be educated as to how to get the best out of
their binocs, but those who write them off are, IMNSVHO, not doing so
from a position of knowledge. Again, YMMV.

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://www.astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Stephen Tonkin wrote in message ...
Richard wrote:
All advice is greatly appreciated.

See:
http://www.astunit.com/tutorials/firstscope.htm
http://www.astunit.com/tutorials/evaluating.htm

As far as your quest for magnification is concerned, do try to remember that
the main purpose of an astronomical telescope is light-gathering. Always
distrust supposed astronomical telescopes that are sold with claims of very
high magnification. You do need magnification to see planetary detail, but to
be able to reliably use x200 you are going to need a lot more than you'll get
wiht £200!

Richard,

I can only advise you with the same advice I was given years ago when
attaining an interest in astronomy observations.

I was advised that if I wished to make detailed study of planets etc,
I would have to accept that a reasonable quality instrument should be
purchased for this purpose.

I was advised that with a budget of about the same as you have to
purchase a good pair of binoculars. I purchased a pair of Bresser
binoculars 9X63 which have served me well over the past ten years or
so.

Although I cannot resolve planetary details, I can monitor the
positions of Jupiters moons easily, and visualise many beautiful
starfields easily.

You say "I'm wanting one to be able to see the planets mainly and also
stars
providing the detail involved is worth seeing."

I am sorry but even with the largest telescope available you will not
see any detail of stars only pin points of light!!

Really if you want to seriously study planet details you will have to
accept that a reasonable quality telescope will be necessary for this
purpose.

Again my advise would be if you are serious about astronomy as a hobby
would be to buy a good pair of binoculars which then when you have the
money to purchase a telescope which you know will do what you want you
will still have the binoculars.

I have seen posts and read many internet postings of people who have
bought cheaper telescopes who either given up the hobby completely or
been lumbered with a telescope which they never use.

I have been interested in astronomy since I was a young boy, I am now
51 and it is only now I can afford to buy a half reasonable telescope,
as I have fought the temptation to purchase a cheap telescope. However
I have had many happy nights studyng the night sky with my simple
binoculars (which also are used for daytime viewing).

You also say you want to see things which are impressive! I am not
quite sure what you mean by this. I know there are many who have the
impression that with a 4" telescope you will see views similar to the
Hubble Space Telescope, if you are expecting this, then I would not
bother buying any telescope as you will not see this type of
impressive views.

Read some of the observation logs on the Internet, you will then see
that even with a large telescope, come objects simply appear as a
smudge or patch of light perhaps even requiring averted vision to
comprehend.

I am no expert on telescopes unlike some others on this newsgroup, but
I can only give you the advice I was given when starting out. Have you
visited an astronomical society or club which would give you a chance
to try out some telescopes?

Anyhow I wish you luck in obtaining a suitable telescope in the
future!

I understand Argos are selling a telescope branded somewhere in the region of
X260.

It retails for £7:50

Since you ask for advice and then complain about those helpful people who offer
it, maybe the Argos scope would suit you needs, whilst still leaving you
£192:50 to spend on accessories!

Patrick Moore has been recorded as saying that the minimum aperture which
should be considered for someone taking up serious amateur astronomy is 6" in a
Newtonian reflector.

I am sure Sir Patrick has ample experience to justify his statement.

Therefore if you want a newtonian reflector of 6" aperture, I have heard many
good comments regarding Orion Optics Telescopes, the Europa range has a 6"
Newtonian.

Again I am no expert but if I were looking a telescope to begin with I think I
would consider something like this, however it is below the £200 budget you
have to play with, unless you can pick up a good second hand one.

I understand that buying second hand telescopes also has pitfalls of which you
must be aware.

Given your budget and the previous advice given by others, I would rather
invest in a good pair of binoculars and put off planetary observations to such
a date when I could afford a telescope which would be suited to this purpose.

Hope this helps.

"Stephen Tonkin" wrote in message
...
Bluewater wrote:
[...]
course you can see more with 10x magnification but it's quite limited.

Really? That may be your experience, but it is not mine.

What was your experience with them?

The
most interesting objects young people like to see are planets and the
moon.

I wasn't aware that we were discussing the use of a telescope by young
people (perhaps you could point me to the prior post in this thread,
which I appear to have missed, where this was stated). I agree that they
are the objects that most young people like to see, but I disagree that
they are the most interesting (eye of the beholder, I guess). However,
let's take your newly introduced limitation: we have three planets that
show some surface detail with a small scope, plus the Moon. The moon is
an interesting object in its own right, but how many young people do you
know that are likely to systematically observe (say) the changing lunar
terminator? And how long do you think the planets will hold interest
unless the user has sufficient aperture to see reasonable detail?

In fact the same goes to the 10x50 binoculars. If the purpose is to serve
the people to just watch the sky without sufficient details not seen at all,
it doesn't make any sense to buy expensive binoculars with the budget they
can afford. You go to car boot sale there are loads of second ahnd or third
hand binoculars lying around. You don't need 100 hundred pounds worth of
10x50 binoculars that has limited magnification.



In my humble opinion,
mechanical or optical rubbish might be best suited to the education of
young
children who yearn for more than 10x50 binoculars.

You may not have had the experience of trying to get such rubbish, given
to the children of friends as a Christmas present, into a condition that
it is actually usable. I have. So have many others. Despite that, to the
best of my knowledge that scope is only used when I visit because it is
just too damned frustrating for the kids or their parents to use on a
consistent basis. YMMV.

According to your classification, mine is also within the group of rubbish.
Tasco 114mm(900mm) focal length that can be purchased for less than 200
pounds at department store. I got it for 30 pounds.

The best instrument for observing the sky is one that is used.
Youngsters may need to be educated as to how to get the best out of
their binocs, but those who write them off are, IMNSVHO, not doing so
from a position of knowledge. Again, YMMV.

I know I have no enough knowledge but I know what they are expecting with
the telescope. I will advise them to get one of those that have been packed
unused in someone else's garage not to invest 300 pounds. The rule of thumb
is quite simple : you get what you pay for. Generally the more you spend the
better gadget you will get but not all of those, young children or young,
people interested in the sky can afford 300 pounds. In my humble opinion,
the experienced amateur astronomer's job is not to put off newly blossoming
ambition with the suggestion with over 300 pounds rubishing the rest of all
without carefull consideration of their finacial situation but encourage
them to make most out of their money. Everyone wants to brandish with their
shiny brand new expensive gadgets but we are not living in such a world. 10
year old second-hand mini has it's own purpose as well as delux Mercedes.

Regards.


Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://www.astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

"Laurencelman" wrote in message
...
I understand Argos are selling a telescope branded somewhere in the region
of
X260.

It retails for £7:50

Since you ask for advice and then complain about those helpful people who
offer
it, maybe the Argos scope would suit you needs, whilst still leaving you
£192:50 to spend on accessories!

What is your problem? I get indepth, informative replies from everyone else,
but all you can do is come out with a load of bitter and twisted ****e.