Watching sky: Price and Prejudice

I acquired my first telescope quite recently so I don't have enough
knowledge about watching sky let alone telescope. When the telescope
arrived, I was surprised that there was front lens. I always thought that it
was like camera. I was that ignorant. Slowly I have gained knowledge about
it. I think I have a long way to go to be called an 'amateur astronomer.'
However my experiences with lenses go far beyond that with some binoculars
and decent collection of good cameras.

With limited knowledge of astronomy and some experienced
knowledge(though I wouldn't call myself an expert) of optical instruments, I
have raised some doubt on the soundness of advise given to the beginner by
some experienced amateur astronomers.

I understand the experienced astronomer's advice to buy expensive
gadgets. Admittedly there is reason for that advice and it's quite
legitimate because the ads on the box of cheap telescope is misleading and
you don't get much of the images with the low cost instruments.

With my limited experience, I gather that sky watching has three
very important elements. These are sky, observation instrument and person.
Certain amount of knowledge can be achieved without observation instrument
if it's purely confined to astronomy. The ideal step would be to have some
basic knowledge about the universe before venturing into binoculars and
further into telescope. It is quite right, from astronomer's point of view
that you'd better have binoculars than cheap telescope. It is a logical step
by step guide.

However, from the purely optical point of view, you can't see MORE
with binoculars such as 10x than low cost telescope, say, 80 pound refractor
scope sold at Argos. Of course you may have wider field of view with
binoculars but best quality binoculars with low magnifying power will never
go beyond the low cost telescope with higher magnifying power.

Having acquired my first telescope, I needed low power eyepiece about
40mm so that I could get whole view of the moon. I didn't buy the eyepiece.
I just made one with plastic lenses taken out from my daughter's old toy and
a film can. The other day I saw the moon with great pleasure with this toy
eye piece that I have never experienced with good quality 7x, 8x binoculars.

Some people here say that you can't see anything with telescope while
10x binoculars are better. I was really flabbergasted by this purely
misleading statement. I want to buy those 10x binoculars that can give you
better details than 80 pounds Argos telescope. It is as misleading as the
nicely printed pictures on cheap telescope. Astronomically right but
optically nonsense.

At the request for advise on first telescope, some people suggest good
quality 7x or 10x binoculars for the money they have got. These binoculars
may be useful some day once he or she has become an avid amateur astronomer
since they have their own role in watching the sky. Again this advice is
astronomically right but optically wrong.

Some people here say it's best to join the astronomy club and learn
something before they own their own telescope, and suggest that young people
should be discouraged from buying cheap low quality telescope because they
would be disappointed at what they will see through the telescope. They
should be bought binoculars instead with that money. This is quite
contradictory because it also base upon same false premise that you can see
MORE with binoculars than telescope with higher power of magnification. This
is again astronomically right but optically wrong.

Small SLR cameras can't beat medium format camera and medium format
camera can't beat large format camera in picture quality except for quite
exceptional case. I know that there are huge difference between cheap camera
and expensive one. Camera buyers are not all photographers. The same goes to
telescope buyers. They are not all astronomers. In the world of
commercialism, you get what you pay for. In the internet world, there are
not many people who got carried away with pictures printed on TV on Argos
catalogue.

My conclusion is that if over 100 pounds worth of binoculars doesn't do
any harm to children's yearn to see a little more, then 40 pounds worth of
telescope wouldn't do any harm to them either. With cheap telescope you can
have all kind of experiments. You can dissemble and assemble them over and
over again you may not do with precious 300 pounds expensive gadget. From
this child playing process, there are lots of things they can learn.

I made a first telescope with reading glasses for my daughter simply
teach how the telescope works. It is sort of refractor scope. You can learn
basic principle of optics though not serious astronomy. I learned my basic
of camera when I was little with a cheap multi-hand SLR camera, which gave
me long time hobby. Knowing what you are looking through is quite
important. You can learn basics of photography with a cardboard box and a
roll of film.

Many of 'Amateur Astronomers' may frown upon people carrying around cheap
department store toys but in my humble opinion the more you have these kind
of people the brighter the amateur astronomy will be. Don't let them go
hiding in the dark and rub off the labels marked on their telescopes,
tacitly labeling them 'idle hobbyists fiddling with toys.' The careless
and uncultured languages are actually killing their blossoming interest in
the sky. They may never be called astronomers in your category, they are
still watching the sky just as you are brooding their great ambition in
their heart.

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 22:49:05 +0000 (UTC), "Bluewater"
wrote:

I acquired my first telescope quite recently [....]

The arguments you're using for beginners to aquire a cheap telescope
are not unkown to the more experienced amateur, and most have used
cheap instruments, expensive instruments, and also binoculars. My
first scope as a kid was the usual cheap 60mm Alt-Az refractor and I
had fun with it, I was amazed by the multi-coloured sparkly stars -
but I never actually did any useful observing with it. It was many
years later before my interest was re-kindled and I bought a solidly
mounted 3" refractor (I already had the binoculars).

Binoculars work well because the image is bright, it's easy to find
objects, and you learn the sky much more easily using them. It's very
easy to nip outside with a pair of binoculars for half an hour -
there's no setup time or polar alignment to worry about. Many objects
(star clusters, large bright galaxies, bright nebulae) are better seen
in binoculars than in any 60mm refractor - let alone a cheap one. When
you need to move up to higher magnification (for example, to resolve
globular clusters or view detail on planetary disks) then you require
more aperture, good quality optics, and a stable mount to put them on.
Without those additional features the extra magnification is useless,
and a £40 toy telescope simple doesn't cut it. A 4-1/2" reflector
(another favourite 'starter scope') is not much better and also less
intuitive to use because of the angle you look through it, and the
finders, and often the mount, are both generally useless.

I wouldn't take away that for a kid (and adults for that matter) any
sort of telescope is perhaps better than none - if for no other reason
than part of the 'astronomical experience' is simply messing around in
the dark with a telescope on a clear starry night. However, once the
novelty wears off - and this is the key point - frustration rapidly
sets in as the owner of the cheap scope can't identify anything
he/she's looking at, and neither can they find any of the objects
described in a book. With no success at finding things interest wanes.
That is less of a problem with binoculars for the reasons stated, and
money spent on these is more likely to result in viewing success.

The next step is obtaining a decent telescope, and new this would cost
400-500 pounds. Can't afford that I hear you say - but what happened
to ingenuity? If you can't afford to spend that much then buy the
optics and make one.

ChrisH



UK Astro Ads: http://www.UKAstroAds.co.uk

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 22:49:05 +0000 (UTC), "Bluewater"
wrote:

I acquired my first telescope quite recently so I don't have enough
knowledge about watching sky let alone telescope. When the telescope
arrived, I was surprised that there was front lens. I always thought that it
was like camera. I was that ignorant. Slowly I have gained knowledge about
it. I think I have a long way to go to be called an 'amateur astronomer.'
However my experiences with lenses go far beyond that with some binoculars
and decent collection of good cameras.



I think you may be confusing learning about optics with learning about
astronomy. Sure you can build your own telescope out of bits of stuff
lying around the house. you may even be able to see something through
it. Many people enjoy building telescopes for their own sake, but
that's not the same as observational astronomy which is I think what
you're asking.

My advice to any newcomer is the same as that detailed elsewhere in
innumerable threads, start wiith the basics, learn the constellations,
learn your way around the sky, have a look at the brighter planets
with a pair of binoculars and if you're still interested then upgrade
to a decent telescope. There's no point in buying a telescope to look
at planets then wondering why you can't see them from your north
facing garden.

You will find people in this group who got the bug with a cheap
supermarket scope

What you will not find in this group are those who had their
enthusisam blown away by similar cheap telescopes.

I don't suppose anyone's done the research to find out whether more
are turned off than on, but I know how I'd bet.

-----------------------------
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
-----------------------------

I started with a cheap 60mm (IIRC) scope with a table top tripod,
often balanced on a stool. Loved it to bits and I was always taking
it apart and putting it back together again in a vain attempt to make
it perform better.

I didn't like using binoculars that much and don't necessarily agree
with the advice to go out and get a good pair of bins instead of a
cheap scope. Binoculars do give lovely wide field views but they lack
a certain something. Difficult to define.

I do use my binoculars (7x50 and 11x80) during certain observing
sessions and they are very useful. But for learning astronomy and
hooking a newbie... they're a bit dull IMHO! A telescope holds that
'promise' factor, even if it can't deliver ;-)

However, you must appreciate that when someone is asked for advice
about purchasing a scope, in no way should they recommend a cheap
scope. If they do they will leave themselves (and their reputation)
open for criticism when/if the purchaser outgrows the scope and
realises it's limitations (and they generally *do* have limitations
when compared with larger astronomical scopes). The general advice
given for not purchasing department store scopes is sound and correct.

I hate being asked advice about purchasing telescopes (and computers,
because of my job). Often, the prospective purchaser has already made
up their mind. You can tell this because as you describe the benefits
of your choice, they don't listen. Numerous times, people have gone
off and bought what they were going to buy anyway, completely ignoring
the points that have been made. The up side of this is that I have
given the right advice (so I'm happy) and they have taken the choice
that they had already made (so they're happy). Also, if their choice
ultimately fails, I don't get it in the neck ;-)

Another factor is that a piece of equipment is often fantastic until
it's compared, side-by-side with a better piece of equipment. To this
end, most of the people who are asked about which scope to purchase
will have the benefit of this comparison. Those who haven't purchased
yet, could make any purchase and be happy with it.

That is until they meet a better piece of equipment...
--
Pete
Homepage at http://www.pbl33.co.uk
CCD/digicam astronomy

"ChrisH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 22:49:05 +0000 (UTC), "Bluewater"
wrote:

I acquired my first telescope quite recently [....]

The arguments you're using for beginners to aquire a cheap telescope
are not unkown to the more experienced amateur, and most have used
cheap instruments, expensive instruments, and also binoculars. My
first scope as a kid was the usual cheap 60mm Alt-Az refractor and I
had fun with it, I was amazed by the multi-coloured sparkly stars -
but I never actually did any useful observing with it. It was many
years later before my interest was re-kindled and I bought a solidly
mounted 3" refractor (I already had the binoculars).

Binoculars work well because the image is bright, it's easy to find
objects, and you learn the sky much more easily using them. It's very
easy to nip outside with a pair of binoculars for half an hour -
there's no setup time or polar alignment to worry about. Many objects
(star clusters, large bright galaxies, bright nebulae) are better seen
in binoculars than in any 60mm refractor - let alone a cheap one. When
you need to move up to higher magnification (for example, to resolve
globular clusters or view detail on planetary disks) then you require
more aperture, good quality optics, and a stable mount to put them on.
Without those additional features the extra magnification is useless,
and a £40 toy telescope simple doesn't cut it. A 4-1/2" reflector
(another favourite 'starter scope') is not much better and also less
intuitive to use because of the angle you look through it, and the
finders, and often the mount, are both generally useless.

Learning about the polar alignment itself is an enourmous achivement as a
beginner especially for kids. When I first took out my daughter to see the
sky, I had explain all about things associated with it. You may forget it
and take it for granted but to kids, you must teach how to locate the
polaris. To do this you mush teach how to locate Cassiopeia, Great Bear and
Little Bear. Then you must teach the difference between Magnetic North and
Real North. To Teach this you must explain about the earth and the fact that
the earth is tilted. Actually I regret having equatorial mount on my
telescope because it's a little too complicated than alt-az.

Again binoculars are useful but it has it's own limitation. Even with 10x
binoculars you need some sort of support for ever shaking images. Could you
give me the examples in the sky that you can see with 10x binos but not with
60mm? I want do some experiments by comparing them.

I wouldn't take away that for a kid (and adults for that matter) any
sort of telescope is perhaps better than none - if for no other reason
than part of the 'astronomical experience' is simply messing around in
the dark with a telescope on a clear starry night. However, once the
novelty wears off - and this is the key point - frustration rapidly
sets in as the owner of the cheap scope can't identify anything
he/she's looking at, and neither can they find any of the objects
described in a book. With no success at finding things interest wanes.
That is less of a problem with binoculars for the reasons stated, and
money spent on these is more likely to result in viewing success.

I wonder if you have any other hobby. It's all the same for every sort of
hobbies. Camera, for example, starts with sanp shot camera, then zoom
camera, then SLR camera, Leica with zeiss lens, then inexpensive midium
format camera then Hasselblad. That 's the nature of hobby.

The next step is obtaining a decent telescope, and new this would cost
400-500 pounds. Can't afford that I hear you say - but what happened
to ingenuity? If you can't afford to spend that much then buy the
optics and make one.

I don't want to make a telescope. My daughter and I are happy for now with
department store telescope. There are whole lot more to see with the gadget
some people here claim that you see nothing. Watching the universe is not a
quick stop tour, you know. The moon has got a lot of features that you can
explore unless you camp out in the garden days and nights.


Regards.

ChrisH



UK Astro Ads: http://www.UKAstroAds.co.uk

"Garry" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 22:49:05 +0000 (UTC), "Bluewater"
wrote:

I acquired my first telescope quite recently so I don't have enough
knowledge about watching sky let alone telescope. When the telescope
arrived, I was surprised that there was front lens. I always thought that
it
was like camera. I was that ignorant. Slowly I have gained knowledge
about
it. I think I have a long way to go to be called an 'amateur astronomer.'
However my experiences with lenses go far beyond that with some
binoculars
and decent collection of good cameras.

I think you may be confusing learning about optics with learning about
astronomy. Sure you can build your own telescope out of bits of stuff
lying around the house. you may even be able to see something through
it. Many people enjoy building telescopes for their own sake, but
that's not the same as observational astronomy which is I think what
you're asking.

Astronomy can be done even without telescope. That's what the ancient people
did. Certainly it's not divided by cheap telescope and expensive one.
Telescope is just a tool for astronomy in my humble opinion but essencial
tool nowadays. Knowing and playing with this essential tool is the very
first step. You can't master the photography without any knowledge of camera
at all.


What is the dividing line between observational astronomy and the rest. What
do you do as an astronomer?


My advice to any newcomer is the same as that detailed elsewhere in
innumerable threads, start wiith the basics, learn the constellations,
learn your way around the sky, have a look at the brighter planets
with a pair of binoculars and if you're still interested then upgrade
to a decent telescope. There's no point in buying a telescope to look
at planets then wondering why you can't see them from your north
facing garden.

"Pete Lawrence" wrote in message
...
I started with a cheap 60mm (IIRC) scope with a table top tripod,
often balanced on a stool. Loved it to bits and I was always taking
it apart and putting it back together again in a vain attempt to make
it perform better.

I didn't like using binoculars that much and don't necessarily agree
with the advice to go out and get a good pair of bins instead of a
cheap scope. Binoculars do give lovely wide field views but they lack
a certain something. Difficult to define.

I do use my binoculars (7x50 and 11x80) during certain observing
sessions and they are very useful. But for learning astronomy and
hooking a newbie... they're a bit dull IMHO! A telescope holds that
'promise' factor, even if it can't deliver ;-)

However, you must appreciate that when someone is asked for advice
about purchasing a scope, in no way should they recommend a cheap
scope. If they do they will leave themselves (and their reputation)
open for criticism when/if the purchaser outgrows the scope and
realises it's limitations (and they generally *do* have limitations
when compared with larger astronomical scopes). The general advice
given for not purchasing department store scopes is sound and correct.

I do appreciate their advice of course. I just want to cast doubt on the
soundness of their adivce in logical way. My impression here is that some
people have age hardened automatical prejudice wiith messianic message "
Spend 300 pounds or thou shall see nothing." Simply it's not true.


I hate being asked advice about purchasing telescopes (and computers,
because of my job). Often, the prospective purchaser has already made
up their mind. You can tell this because as you describe the benefits
of your choice, they don't listen. Numerous times, people have gone
off and bought what they were going to buy anyway, completely ignoring
the points that have been made. The up side of this is that I have
given the right advice (so I'm happy) and they have taken the choice
that they had already made (so they're happy). Also, if their choice
ultimately fails, I don't get it in the neck ;-)

Another factor is that a piece of equipment is often fantastic until
it's compared, side-by-side with a better piece of equipment. To this
end, most of the people who are asked about which scope to purchase
will have the benefit of this comparison. Those who haven't purchased
yet, could make any purchase and be happy with it.

That is until they meet a better piece of equipment...
--
Pete
Homepage at http://www.pbl33.co.uk
CCD/digicam astronomy

"Bluewater" wrote in message ...

Some people here say that you can't see anything with telescope while
10x binoculars are better. I was really flabbergasted by this purely
misleading statement.


Some people here say it's best to join the astronomy club and learn
something before they own their own telescope, and suggest that young people
should be discouraged from buying cheap low quality telescope because they
would be disappointed at what they will see through the telescope. They
should be bought binoculars instead with that money. This is quite
contradictory because it also base upon same false premise that you can see
MORE with binoculars than telescope with higher power of magnification. This
is again astronomically right but optically wrong.

I really would be interested to know where the post is where it has
been suggested you can see more with binoculars. I have searched quite
a while and cannot find this post.

From what you say I should perhaps sell my 10" Newt for a toy plastic
scope...which one do you suggest?

As for your suggestion that peiople are saying they should join an AS
and learn something I cannot find any posts like this either.,

If your writing is anything to go buy are you sure when you look
through your plastic toy telescope you are not simply imaginging
seeing things with it? Your imagination is certainly very fertile
indeed.

PS If you are trying to put words into others peoples mouthsb you'll
have to try harder than this.

Sinci I seem to be the most recent person to have suggested binoculars
and joining AS are you trying to call me a cad Sir?


Do I get a prize for guessing your profession?

Let me see....ummm....aghh...would you be.......A TOY SHOP OWNER?

Mr Stephen Tonkin sir I think your fist scope tutorial needs a little
revision according to Bluewater.....rule one buy a real chaep plasticy
telescope, preferably from Bluewater House of Scientic Toys and
Codswallup


Bernie

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 11:17:54 +0000 (UTC), "Bluewater"
wrote:
The general advice
given for not purchasing department store scopes is sound and correct.

I do appreciate their advice of course. I just want to cast doubt on the
soundness of their adivce in logical way. My impression here is that some
people have age hardened automatical prejudice wiith messianic message "
Spend 300 pounds or thou shall see nothing." Simply it's not true.

Any examples of this? I think most people are actually quite balanced
on their advice.

There's a wealth of experience in this newsgroup. I must admit, I've
not seen anyone wield it messianically or dictatorially at anyone
seeking information. The majority of the advice given is sane and
friendly.

--
Pete
Homepage at http://www.pbl33.co.uk
CCD/digicam astronomy