[HN Gopher] Ask HN: What entry-level telescope should I choose?
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: What entry-level telescope should I choose?
I've always been wanting to get into space observation, what
telescopes and books would you suggest for an absolute beginner?
Author : tolarianwiz
Score : 128 points
Date : 2021-02-22 22:16 UTC (2 days ago)
| sjackso wrote:
| Lots of good suggestions in this thread.
|
| If you have a pair of binoculars already, get some kind of tripod
| for them, or improvise something with a reclining lawn chair --
| anything that can stabilize the binos and let you point them
| upwards comfortably. It's surprising how much you can see with
| medium-quality binocular _if_ you can keep them rock-steady.
|
| A six or eight inch Dobsonian telescope is a good next step. The
| entry-level models are cheaper than they look, and the optical
| reach greatly exceeds that of cheap department-store refractors.
| Last I checked, pandemic reality had made them hard to find new,
| but they occasionally go for a song on Craigslist.
|
| Look up a forum called Cloudy Nights for much, much more info.
| FPGAhacker wrote:
| On the stability point, walking/hiking sticks work well as a
| monopod. Some commercial sticks have threading to mount a
| camera.
|
| I used one similar to this on my honeymoon:
| https://www.rei.com/product/155737/mountainsmith-trekker-fx-...
| manchego wrote:
| I'm a beginner myself, but here's my experience. First of all, as
| the saying goes, the best telescope is the one you have with you.
| That is to say, if you need to move the telescope at all, think
| seriously about portability.
|
| My first scope was a 6" dobsonian that I bought on craiglist for
| $120. It was a great first experience, because I was able to see
| some amazing things. But it's size was a big downside. I couldn't
| fit it and a passenger in my civic coupe. It was also so heavy
| that I often didn't feel like taking it outside. If you're
| already in a dark place and can store it somewhere that's easy to
| get to, then I think it'd be great. If that doesn't apply, I'd
| try for something smaller.
|
| I've recently been thinking about getting an Orion StarBlast 4.5
| inch dobsonian, or ST130 (though this requires a mount). They're
| inexpensive and portable. Not nearly as much power as a 6 or 8
| inch, but the portability trade off is worth it for me.
|
| One other side note: if you get something with a tripod, it's
| gotta be at least decent. I also have a ST80 telescope, which I
| wouldn't really recommend it this case. But it has taught me how
| important the tripod/mount are. The tripod that came with the
| scope was unusable. I got really frustrated on forums, because so
| many recommendations were for $700 tripods, specifically to use
| with this $100 telescope. I've been happy enough with an $80
| Orion Tritech II; it isn't great, but it isn't $700 ;)
| buescher wrote:
| Guilty as charged - my personal favorite setup is a $150 tube
| (Celestron C90 Maksutov-Cassegrain) on a $700+ tripod and
| mount. I wouldn't recommend it to a beginner.
|
| 6" f/8 newtonians like the typical 6" dob are really at a sweet
| spot of aperture, size, optical quality, and cost. They've been
| the classic beginner's telescope for generations for a reason.
| I wish I'd had one on a pier-mounted equatorial when I lived
| under dark skies.
|
| If you are unsatisfied with the f/5 ST80 I don't know if you'd
| be happy with another fast (low focal ratio) telescope. See if
| you can find someone local to you to let you look through a
| telescope similar to the ones you're thinking about.
| manchego wrote:
| Good point that another fast telescope may not be what I'm
| looking for. Though I definitely still need to play with the
| ST80 more before looking for something else. I think it may
| have just compared poorly to the 6" Newtonian (not too
| surprising).
|
| It's interesting to learn just how important tripod and mount
| are. I think the frustrating thing for a beginner is that
| they really just need a setup that works, whereas experienced
| users often describe really finely tuned expensive setups.
| And to the beginner it can sound like this is the only
| option.
| buescher wrote:
| It seems like every telescope kit or bundle comes at best
| marginally mounted if not undermounted. I agree it's very
| frustrating.
|
| A used equatorial (EQ3 type or similar) with a clock drive
| would be a big step up for your ST80, and shouldn't be too
| expensive if you can find one.
| khyryk wrote:
| First get 7x50 or 10x50 binoculars and if you remain interested
| in observation, move onto an 8 inch dob reflector as your first
| telescope. I got the Zhumell Z8 for $400 years ago when it
| considered to be the best deal around, but it might not be sold
| anymore. The usual options would be from Orion, Apertura, Sky-
| Watcher, Explore Scientific, etc. for $400-550.
| jtbayly wrote:
| In my own personal experience, trying to use binoculars without
| a tripod is infuriating.
| mcguire wrote:
| Agreed. I'm not stable enough to look at wildlife through
| binoculars.
| elihu wrote:
| I'll second the suggestion to get a Dobsonian. I'm not any kind
| of astronomy expert, but they seem to be the cheapest, simplest
| way to get a large-aperture telescope.
|
| Besides aperture, the other thing to look at is focal ratio.
| Generally, you'll want a low focal ration like f/5 for looking at
| large, dim objects like nebulas and galaxies, and a high focal
| ratio like f/9 or so for looking at small, bright things like
| planets.
|
| I'm in sort of a weird telescope situation in that over the years
| I've collected three garage sale telescopes of various sizes, and
| they're all right around f/5. I also live in a city, so they're
| all optimized exactly for looking at the things I can't see
| unless I travel pretty far out of town where the sky is dark.
|
| My two bigger scopes are made by Coulter Optical. Coulter is an
| interesting company. As I understand it, back during the 80's or
| so, you just couldn't buy a large aperture telescope for a
| reasonable price. So, Coulter came along and figured, "why don't
| we make a telescope where we put most of the manufacturing effort
| into a high-quality primary mirror, make the rest as cheaply as
| humanly possible, and sell the result? The result was the Odyssey
| 1, with a 13" primary mirror. It looks like large home-made
| waterheater, and is about as portable. Later on they made the
| Odyssey 8, a smaller version with an 8" primary mirror. The tube
| is made of cardboard, and the focusser is just a pvc slip
| fitting. The base is made of painted chipboard. That's the
| telescope I use the most, and it works great. I wouldn't
| recommend the odyssey 1 unless you live out in the country
| somewhere where you can set it up and use it without having to
| load it into a car and drive somewhere else.
| timthorn wrote:
| Our astronomy society tries hard to persuade newcomers not to buy
| a telescope until they're sure they will actually get it out more
| than once, and in the meantime to borrow a club telescope. Your
| local club might also have a stock to lend out.
|
| If you do decide to buy, pay attention to the tripod and mount.
| Get something with heft that won't wobble when you breathe on it
| - no matter how good the optics, if the scope is bouncing about
| you're not going to have a great experience.
| WildParser wrote:
| I liked the Celestron Nexstar 6SE. Weight still ok and not too
| small. Something to tinker with a bit and quite easy to use.
| burundi_coffee wrote:
| For pure observation nothing beats an 8 inch dobsonian reflector
| telescope. If you want to do astrophotography, it's important you
| have a tracking mount, but those can be _very_ expensive.
| burundi_coffee wrote:
| (For the 8inch: In terms of bang/buck that is)
| brg wrote:
| There is a lot of great advice here, but I will add two things to
| consider that haven't been spoken to.
|
| The first is portability and your personal transportation
| options. You will want to travel around to observe.
|
| The second is imaging, what camera can you connect. Looking
| through a telescope is ephemeral and personal, but being able to
| preserve and share your experience makes it better.
| groby_b wrote:
| Not an expert, but I'm delighted with the NexStar 5SE.
|
| Yes, it's a rather small aperture, so you're limited in deep
| space objects. (But I still took pretty amazing pictures of
| various nebula, so it's still pretty cool)
|
| It's compact - which was a large point for me. I don't have a
| giant thing sitting around. It's also able to travel in a
| (slightly large) carry-on, if we ever get to travel on airplanes
| again.
|
| It's not-too-expensive ($650 when I bought it. Not cheap, but not
| a $5K tube either)
|
| The autotracking is good enough for long exposure shots,
| calibration is super easy.
|
| But all that said: Get a good pair of binoculars first. Get a
| star map. Learn your way around the sky. That time investment is
| well worth it.
|
| For one, it means that for many objects you can skip all the
| calibration noise and just dial them in like the ancient pre-2000
| people: By hand. Calibration is more setup, it's boring, I still
| dial in by hand when I can. And it's fun when you can just look
| at the night sky and _know_ where stuff is.
|
| Caveat: Astronomy is ultimately a very opinionated hobby. All of
| the answers I gave might be wrong for you.
| davidcuddeback wrote:
| The best telescope is the one you'll use often. I'd caution
| against the "bigger is better" advice. There are several reasons
| that's not always true. Larger telescopes are heavier, less
| portable, take longer to reach thermal equilibrium, and are more
| susceptible to atmospheric turbulence. They will also require a
| more substantial mount and more counterweights, which adds more
| weight and expense. I have a 4-inch refractor and an 11-inch SCT,
| and I get more use out of the refractor. I get even more use out
| of binoculars.
|
| Which equipment is best for you also depends on what you want to
| get out of the hobby, your budget, and what you have space for.
| I'd recommend joining the forums at cloudynights.com and reading
| through the myriad of threads asking the same question, and
| you'll start to get an idea of what the trade-offs are. Also,
| find a local astronomy club so you can meet like-minded
| individuals who are eager to share their knowledge. Many clubs
| organize public viewing nights. If you can attend one of those,
| you'll be able to look through other people's telescopes to see
| what resonates with you.
|
| If you're really itching to buy some equipment right away, I'd
| recommend a pair of 10x50 binoculars. Binoculars on a
| parallelogram mount and a zero-gravity chair is a very
| comfortable (and inexpensive) way to enjoy the night sky. And the
| equipment is portable enough to take with you on a camping trip.
| Binoculars and a zero-gravity chair is how I was observing the
| moon last night, even though I have the refractor and SCT. The
| setup time is nearly non-existent, which makes it easy to pop
| outside for a quick view.
|
| Edited to add: You asked about books. I think you're smart to ask
| about reading material, because learning about what's in the
| night sky brings more joy to the hobby. (Equipment isn't
| everything.) One thing I'd recommend in addition to books is the
| Astronomy League's Master Observer program:
| https://www.astroleague.org/al/obsclubs/master/master.html. It
| will introduce you to a breadth of objects. I like to read about
| each object (usually on the internet) as I'm checking them off
| the list. I learn more about them when I pair observing with
| reading.
| davidcuddeback wrote:
| You could also look into astronomy classes at a local community
| college. I took an intro to astronomy class at a community
| college when I was about 18. I think it cost about $4 at the
| time, and I learned a lot of basics that way. You'll learn
| about the celestial sphere and constellations. You'll learn
| basic terminology: right ascension, declination, hour angle,
| sidereal time, celestial pole, ecliptic, meridian, transit,
| opposition, conjunction (inferior and superior), quadrature,
| elongation, occultation, and more. You'll learn the basic
| geometry of how things are oriented and move in the night sky,
| lunar phases, orbits, etc. It's a good starting point, and then
| you could subscribe to something like Sky & Telescope and
| understand much of the material.
| buescher wrote:
| The Astronomical League's material is generally excellent. They
| also have a nice introductory manual and observing program for
| beginners called the Universe Sampler:
| https://www.astroleague.org/al/obsclubs/univsamp/univsamp.ht...
| https://store.astroleague.org/index.php?main_page=product_in...
| davidcuddeback wrote:
| I didn't know about the Universe Sampler. Great suggestion!
| Mc_Big_G wrote:
| I don't have much telescope experience, but I flipped one just so
| I could see Neowise and the big takeaway for me was that,
| possibly more important than the telescope is the stand. If the
| stand is unstable or hard to adjust, you will not be happy with
| your experience. Ideally, the controls to move the scope will
| have very fine-grained tuning abilities, with very little wobble
| or difficulty in adjustment.
| benjohnson wrote:
| Whatever you get - get a solar filter. They're not expensive.
|
| You can then see sunspots and can watch eclipses unfold.
| yesenadam wrote:
| As a kid I had a 6.5 inch reflector I got cheap 2nd hand, which
| was awesome. Looking at Saturn and its rings just sitting there
| in the sky was something I'll never forget.
| mhb wrote:
| You should consider what you want to look at. I made a telescope
| (ground the mirror, etc.) and discovered that looking at stars
| isn't interesting to me. But the big planets, moon and sun are
| amazing. If you want to explore the limits of resolving binary
| stars or hunting faint deep sky objects, you will want a
| different device than if you want to see the rings of Saturn
| which are surreal to see with your own eye.
| gjkood wrote:
| Here's my advice to save money on good astronomy equipment. Go to
| 'wwww.astromart.com' and pay $15 for a year's membership that
| gives you access to the classifieds section.
|
| I am a very infrequent hobbyist but have bought quality equipment
| through astromart. Good quality telescopes have very good resale
| value if you take care of it.
|
| The best telescope for the beginner is the one they can take out
| easily into the field and use it often.
|
| A good quality 7x50 binocular is good to start with and then move
| onto something a little bit more substantive like a 3" refractor
| or an 8" reflector like a dobsonian or a newtonian with a tripod.
|
| Also install a good piece of astronomy software like Stellarium
| or similar to virtually navigate your night sky and become
| familiar with constellations and the bright stars that you can
| see with the naked eye.
|
| Beware this can become quite an expensive hobby if you fall into
| the rabbit hole.
| tzs wrote:
| Several people have mentioned binoculars. If you do get
| binoculars, and might also want to use them for watching the
| local wildlife that visits your yard, take into account the
| "close focus distance".
|
| Almost all binoculars can focus on things that are far away,
| which is usually the case for astronomy (and in those cases when
| it isn't, you are too busy running from the asteroid that is
| about to hit you to be making observations...).
|
| But how close they can focus varies a lot. I've seen good
| recommendations for the Celestron Nature DX [1] series as a good
| but not too expensive binocular for critter watching.
|
| The 56 mm models can focus down to 3 m, and the smaller models
| down to 2 m. I have the 8x42 model, and it has been great when
| I'm at my desk in the living room next to a big window, and see a
| critter I want to take a closer look at sitting on the rail of my
| front deck. I can just pick the binoculars up and get a good look
| right from my desk. With my old binoculars (50+ year old Tower
| Optical binoculars that my family had when I was a little kid), I
| had to back up to the opposite side of the room to focus on
| something on the deck rail.
|
| If you want to wear glasses while using binoculars, make sure
| they have an adjustment for that. The rear binocular lens is
| supposed to be a certain distance from your eye. There needs to
| be a mechanism that allows you to get closer to the lens when
| wearing glasses, to compensate for the added distance glasses
| add.
|
| For the Celestron Nature DX, you simply twist the eye cups. They
| are on some sort of threaded mechanism that can move them in or
| out as you twist them. Move them all the way out to use without
| glasses, and move them in when using glasses.
|
| I believe I've seen some where you swap eye cups to switch
| distances, which seems like it would be inconvenient.
|
| [1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00B73JONS/
| sparker72678 wrote:
| The recommendations about binoculars are definitely worth
| considering.
|
| However, if you're ready for the telescope, my advice is to spend
| as much money as your budget has on getting the biggest aperture
| you can buy.
|
| More light = more better.
|
| Auto-tracking is nice, but learning how to find objects in the
| night sky is a fun and worthy exercise, and if you have a big
| aperture you'll actually be able to see the things your telescope
| points to.
|
| A few things to keep in mind:
|
| * You're not going to see DSOs (Deep Sky Objects, like nebulae
| and galaxies) from the middle of a major urban area. You need
| access to a dark site. (Search for "light pollution map") Planets
| are easy to see from anywhere, cities included (though the
| viewing is always better the darker the sky is).
|
| * Many objects in the night sky will look like little fuzzy gray
| spots to your eyes, no matter how awesome your telescope is.
| Don't expect a Hubble experience from a 6" scope (or 8, or 12+).
|
| * Don't expect to take photos through your telescope, either. You
| might manage to get some cool shots of the moon (which looks
| _amazing_ in a telescope, btw), but true astro photography is a
| whole 'nother beast (both fun and expensive).
|
| With all that as background, I'd recommend a 6" or 8" Dobsonian
| if you've got the budget. Something like an Orion Sky Quest XT8
| or XT6.
|
| My favorite book, by a light year, is "Turn Left at Orion". It'll
| help you find thousands of cool things in the night sky, and it's
| great for beginners on up. -- https://www.amazon.com/Turn-Left-
| Orion-Hundreds-Telescope/dp...
|
| P.S. Definitely checkout r/telescopes for additional advice and
| info.
| digitalsushi wrote:
| I'm getting kinda old and miserly but I still am deeply in love
| with stargazing.
|
| I recommend to anyone who wants to try it out: get a phone app
| with VR so that you can easily spot where a star you want to see
| is, by waving it over your head. This will give you a transparent
| Earth and you can start to get a bit of a cadence for when stars
| are rising and setting.
|
| Tracking the sun with a VR app as it sets, even if sitting inside
| your house on a chair, is such a cool way to sew together some
| concepts that sound obvious but only may be after this
| improvement to your vision. Seeing the orbit of Venus dotted
| around the setting Sun, you will quickly understand why we call
| it the Morning/Evening Star as it barely scopes above the visible
| horizon.
|
| Learning why we call it the Dog Days of Summer is also a delight
| that a VR app can sew together for you as well.
|
| I'm a novice, an absolute one - I love this hobby regardless.
| Spend 4.99 on a nice VR app and see if it only entices you
| further to open your wallet for a telescope.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| I've tried one of those apps (Night Sky?), but I always find
| it's well out of alignment, stars being much further to the
| left or right than the app seems to indicate, things being
| closer together than they seem from my own perspective, etc.
|
| Don't think it's the phone, it's a fairly new one etc (has all
| the AR bells and whistles on it).
| ortusdux wrote:
| None of the apps I've seen use AR. As far as I know, they are
| 100% gyro & compass based. These tend to need to be
| calibrated. G-maps has a built in calibration tool, I believe
| there is a calibration option in the android dev tools, and
| there are several apps that claim to calibrate as well.
|
| I've been meaning to dive into ARCore, and on my list was a
| constellation based compass & gyro calibration app.
| digitalsushi wrote:
| That's fair. But what a delightful failure scenario: you end
| up looking for the thing you set out to find.
| yial wrote:
| Perspective is very important. Sometimes - especially when
| looking for a specific item when doing something like
| stargazing, it's amazing what else you find along the way.
| sqldba wrote:
| The bigger the better, so get a 10/12/14" dobsonian. They're
| cheap, dumb, easy to set up, you'll be able to see a lot, and it
| will last forever.
|
| Refractor telescopes are extremely expensive to get a good one,
| otherwise the image quality is awful, and either way they are so
| limited in aperture and weight that you'll be able to see very
| little through them.
|
| Don't buy anything off Facebook saying they've used some computer
| technology to make an amazing telescope. Yes computer technology
| helps some scientific applications but consumer wise it's all BS.
|
| Reflector telescopes can be okay in theory and can be a good
| middle ground between the price/aperture of dobsonians and
| pricier options (my first scope was a reflector so I have a
| special place in my heart for the image they provide!) But you
| may as well save your money and get the dobsonian instead,
| because if you wanted to use a reflector for computer tracking
| and astrophotography you'll spend so much money on the mount and
| cameras and add ons that you may as well have bought the pricier
| option in the first place.
|
| Don't get a fork mounted Celestron CPC. It's the same issue; more
| expensive, not as good as a dobsonian, you get computer tracking
| but can't use it for astrophotography.
|
| That just leaves schmidt-cassegrain telescopes. If you want to do
| imaging you may as well jump here and try to buy a package that
| has it all including a really really good mount. The only
| downsides are that you'll be spending $10k-$20k. If you weren't
| interested in those things... may as well get a dobsonian.
|
| One thing I wanted to mention that everything bar the dobsonian
| is going to be extremely heavy. For the reflector and Schmidt's
| you'll be carting a 25kg mount, 25kg of weights, then trying to
| hoist a 25kg scope onto the mount with one hand and slot it into
| a tiny rail in the dark while your other hand fumbles for a tiny
| screw clamp that holds it in place. There's a reason people get
| into the hobby and then give up.
|
| A dobsonian you basically lift the tube and plop it anywhere onto
| the base and you're good to go. So unless you're fit, don't
| bother even getting started with anything except the dobsonian.
|
| As dobsonians are cheap, they're easy to buy and sell, and so if
| you don't hang around in the hobby then you'll be able to exit
| quietly and not feel much of a loss. If you do become an
| enthusiast and jump to the top end there's no loss either,
| because it'll be such a nightmare to set up, you'll still be
| using the much larger and better dobsonian for all of your normal
| viewing.
| sneeuwpopsneeuw wrote:
| I'm not an expert, just an user, and have the Bresser Spica
| 130/1000 myself. I use it roughly once a month and it works
| great, but it could have bean any other telescope.
|
| The advice I would like to give you is to start your journey with
| the question, what do you want to do with the telescope?
|
| - Look at stars planets etc.. - Buy a Reflector based telescope
|
| - Also want to look at animals - Buy a Refractor based telescope
|
| - Do you want to make it a new hobby and take it with you to
| friends - Buy a Compound based telescope
|
| - Already in photography - Buy a telescope with a camera mount NO
| phone mounts
|
| - More interested in the journey of making things and testing it
| - buy a telescope kit
|
| - Do you have more then 400 dollars to spend - buy a cheap one
| first and then buy a good one with the money that is left after a
| few months.
|
| I hope that will help you with your journey.
| Prey4Jesus wrote:
| The most important thing to look for is the diameter of the
| aperture. Your resolution is proportional to the diameter of the
| telescope (absent atmospheric conditions). I would recommend a
| minimum of 6" in diameter. 8-12" is preferred.
|
| With this in mind, the best telescope you can get for the price
| is a Dobsonian. Dobsonians are extremely mechanically and
| optically simple. This makes them long, and bulky. It also makes
| them cheap. It also makes them rather easy to point. They have a
| lot of mass and inertia, and a large moment of inertia. This
| makes them easy to move and point slowly and carefully.
|
| Dobsonians are ideal beginner telescopes. Easy to point, cheap,
| good resolution.
|
| This is the model I have (8" aperture, $450):
| https://www.amazon.com/Orion-8945-SkyQuest-Dobsonian-Telesco...
|
| They're also rather easy to construct, if you are of a DIY mind.
| Here's a 90 minute youtube video on how to build one, with John
| Dobson himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snz7JJlSZvw
| pkaye wrote:
| Would these be of any use in the bay area or places with high
| population and hence light pollution? I have clear view of my
| sky from my backyard except for the ambient light pollution in
| the sky.
| bodhi_mind wrote:
| Dobsonian 10". Best bang for your buck for deep space casual
| viewing. 10" is a reasonable size, weight, and price combo.
| 74d-fe6-2c6 wrote:
| I bought a telescope for my sister and for that purpose I learned
| a bit about the various options. You'll get a very good telescope
| (meaning you can see the rings of jupiter, saturn) for less than
| 400 Euro.
|
| Buy a Newton (reflector/mirror) telescope with Dobsonian mounting
| - as opposed to the classic refractor with a tripod.
|
| That's my 3 cents.
| cg3p0 wrote:
| First I second the phone app (see what I did there?). The first
| thing you should work on, if you haven't already, familiarizing
| yourself with the sky. It is very frustrating to buy a scope and
| spend hours just trying to find an object, only then to spend
| more time trying to figure out if what you're looking at is
| actually the thing you think is. This on top of learning how to
| use the scope itself.
|
| Next, read books on astronomy/star gazing and watch a some videos
| on stargazing, using a scope, general astronomy, etc. You don't
| need to have a PhD or anything, but a general working knowledge
| will serve you well. Also, before you lay out the $$, see if
| there is a local astronomy club near you (I'll bet there is).
| Clubs usually host a public stargazing night which is a perfect
| opportunity for you to get a little scope time and ask questions
| (and make some friends/connections in the hobby).
|
| If, after all this, you still have the bug it's probably safe to
| plunk down your hard-earned cash on a wonderful 6" or 8"
| dobsonian scope. I bought mine about 30-ish years ago and I still
| have it and use it from time to time. Orion 8" dobs used to be
| the standard for starting out. You can still pick one up for
| about $450.00.
| spdustin wrote:
| As others have said, binoculars are a great option, and high
| quality options are available that are much easier to use for
| astronomical observations...AND hold their resale value. I own a
| pair of Canon image-stabilized binos (10x50s). They were
| expensive compared to a high quality telescope and mount, but I
| take my binoculars out 50 times more frequently than my 8" Meade
| SCT telescope.
| dmfdmf wrote:
| Do a search for "star gazing forum" or similar and join a forum
| that has the most active discussions/users and read past posts to
| get started. They probably have FAQs for beginners and you can
| probably get most of your questions answered before spending any
| money.
|
| I got into star gazing by accident a few years back because I
| found $250 entry-level telescope, unused new-in-box for $60 at a
| garage sale. So look for a used scope for your starter because it
| is cheaper and very common for people to buy expensive equipment
| then get out of the hobby. Once you get your sea legs you can
| upgrade knowing what you want to see and the right equipment to
| do the job.
|
| I also went on line and learned how to use the scope and then
| went to some local "star parties" which were fun. Do a search for
| your area and go because you'll learn a lot faster by talking to
| others. The local club did a field trip/tour of a (small)
| observatory at a local community college which was great. Another
| benefit is some of these gazers have dropped a ton of money on
| advance systems and at the star parties they are more than happy
| to let you take a peek and look at all sorts of objects that a
| beginner scope can't see but it was fun to see the planets and
| the moon, etc. with my own scope too.
| cbfrench wrote:
| I definitely second the recommendation to find a local star
| party. They are also good because they help temper
| expectations. Most people assume that what they're going to see
| when they get a telescope will be similar to what they've seen
| in astrophotography, and many would-be amateur astronomers are
| disappointed to find that those complex, brilliant galaxies
| they've seen in photos actually look like slightly-less-black
| smudges through an average telescope lens.
|
| Going to a star party allows you to meet experienced backyard
| astronomers who can show you these objects[0] and talk to you
| about the hobby. That way you have some idea of what you can
| expect (especially at an entry-level). It's a wonderful hobby,
| but it helps to know what you can expect to see (also realizing
| that the more you look through a lens, the better you'll get at
| actually spotting objects).
|
| [0] The other thing that doesn't always get noted is how damn
| frustrating it can be to find objects without some experience.
| My first hunt for a Messier object was a profanity-laden
| experience. So, having someone present who knows how to
| navigate to those objects can make it more enjoyable!
| jtbayly wrote:
| There are a _lot_ of truly terrible used telescopes out there.
| Mostly small refractors claiming tremendous magnification
| power. Don 't get one of those.
| jp42 wrote:
| I bought Orion SkyQuest XT4.5 classic dobsonian telescope. It
| turned out to be really good first telescope for me. Turn Left at
| Orion(5th ed) by Consolmagno & Davis is really good book that you
| should consider buying.
| buescher wrote:
| You will get all kinds of advice! My short answer is buy quality
| used equipment if you can. Assuming you've outgrown binoculars:
|
| If you're broke, get on craigslist and get a used 6" or 8"
| dobsonian.
|
| If you have the budget, my advice is to get on craigslist and
| look for a used name brand telescope with at least 6" of aperture
| and an equatorial or computerized fork mount, and a pile of
| eyepieces and other accessories. This will probably be a
| Celestron 8" Schmidt-Cassegrain (there are a number of models,
| and there have been even more) and will cost $500-$2000 depending
| on its age, condition, accesories, etc. Yes, new ones more or
| less land in that range but expect to get a good deal on the
| bundle of accessories. It's not what I chose, but they're popular
| because they're at a sweet spot of portability and versatility.
|
| There are many other options. I like the approach in the book
| Real Astronomy with Small Telescopes, but I live where it's
| usually cloudy and like to be able to bring a small telescope
| with me when I travel. https://www.amazon.com/Astronomy-Small-
| Telescopes-Step-Step/...
| arnado wrote:
| r/telescopes has a pinned post about picking a telescope, and
| weekly threads covering this same question. It was a great
| resource when I was looking to make the same jump.
| nelsonic wrote:
| Which Telescope did you end up getting?
| flanbiscuit wrote:
| I just bought my first telescope last night using that guide, a
| Zhummel z114 off of Amazon. It was the last one.
|
| A word of warning, it was really hard to find any of the lower
| price ranges telescopes that they recommend without it being
| overpriced. The demand is high.
|
| I'm going to be in some of the darkest parts of the US very
| soon (Big Bend national park, Grand Canyon, Zion, Bryce) so
| can't wait to use it!
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/telescopes/comments/i0tzkw/_/
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| I know nothing about buying a telescope, but I went stargazing
| last year on La Palma. It was fun-but-janky to try and take
| pictures by holding my phone up to the optical piece. It's super
| interested to me that I was able to capture a picture of a binary
| star on my Google Pixel 3a. If some sort of integration w/ a
| camera or phone is an option on low end telescopes, maybe
| consider that feature!
|
| Also, here's some photos from the stargazing outing =>
| https://photos.app.goo.gl/oCamaWZwfH2HwykBA
|
| La Palma is the 2nd best place in the northern hemisphere to put
| a telescope, and it's well worth a visit. The island itself is
| beautiful, amazing actually. And it's super cool to go on tours
| of the telescopes. I got a chance to visit the Isaac Newton
| Telescope & the Gran Telescopio Canarias.
|
| Telescope visit photos =>
| https://photos.app.goo.gl/JcD1bCUb1asU9VcE8
| FPGAhacker wrote:
| You can find third party mounts for holding your phone at the
| eyepiece of your scope.
|
| This one looks like it works with binoculars too:
| https://www.amazon.com/Photography-LUXUN-Mount-Quick-Smartph...
| perilunar wrote:
| Many people suggest that your first telescope should be a pair of
| binoculars -- if you already have a pair start with those. See:
|
| https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-resources/binoculars-h...
|
| https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/how-to-choose-1st-...
|
| Also, you'll need a planisphere or star atlas (or app), and a red
| torch so you don't ruin you night vision.
| ISL wrote:
| Agreed -- there is so much to see with a great pair of
| binoculars.
|
| The Messier objects and some of the nebulae are just awesome.
| jtbayly wrote:
| I would never recommend binoculars without a tripod,
| personally, which means they aren't nearly as portable, which
| is one of the main selling points.
| davidcuddeback wrote:
| It depends on the magnification of the binoculars. Lower
| magnification binoculars are quite usable hand-held, and they
| can be stabilized pretty easily in a zero-gravity chair. The
| nice thing about smaller binoculars is that you can have them
| on hand in the car. They're great for road trips, because you
| can get them out for a quick view when you stop under dark
| skies.
|
| Binoculars are very nice on a tripod, especially with a
| parallelogram mount, but being able to use them without a
| tripod opens up many more observing opportunities.
| bartman wrote:
| I second the recommendation for the Cloudy Nights forum.
|
| Secondly, I'll go against the grain and suggest you don't start
| with a binocular or manual dobsonian, but with a motorized goto
| telescope. They come in many varieties and for a start, pretty
| much all of them are good. Celestron has a series of telescopes
| called Evolution and if it's in your budget, an Evolution 6 will
| be a good scope for a long time. They also have smaller & cheaper
| scopes with Go-To that will work well too.
|
| What's Go-To? You tell the telescope what you want to look at,
| and it drives right to it and keeps the object centered within
| the eyepiece. The last part is quite important as even at average
| magnifications, objects tend to move out of the center (where
| it's sharpest) quite fast. Many scopes can also be controlled via
| your phone with an app such as SkySafari - sometimes that
| requires an extra adapter for the scope though.
|
| Why this path? I followed the usual advice of getting a
| binocular, then a small dobsonian and barely ever had the drive
| to use them due to finding objects to observe in city skies being
| hard. The scopes just collected dust for the majority of the
| year.
|
| I just made the jump to a bigger scope with Go-To to a) make
| visual observations more interesting for me (more observing, less
| searching), and b) pursue a newly discovered interest of mine
| called Electronically Assisted Astronomy. Think Google's night
| photo mode but for a telescope, allowing you to see galaxies and
| nebulas in all their glory from home!
| buescher wrote:
| Agreed. You can't talk the dobson crowd out of anything, and
| dobsonians _are_ cheap, and they _do_ work. Most beginners,
| though, if they can afford it, would be better off with at
| least an equatorial mount with a clock drive if not a goto
| mount.
| lscotte wrote:
| 8" Chinese light bucket (Dobsonian).
| bokohut wrote:
| If you are just getting started my suggestion is likely outside
| of your budget considerations however I wanted to make you aware
| and share this option should your interest expand in the future.
| I consider this entry "Looking back I wish someone would have
| told me that sooner." With that stated I can highly suggest
| "Questar" as a product to research and consider both from the
| multiple decades of proven quality, they have been involved in
| manufacturing optics for the U.S. government for a very long
| time, as well as the 'investment' in a premium product which
| accrues in value. Having bought many scopes in my day Questar was
| the last scope I bought many years ago. Ymmv however as I have
| personal experience in visiting their facility in New Hope PA and
| meeting multiple people there which exude quality above all else.
| They serviced and modernized my previous single owner scope which
| they still held the full manufacturing and maintenance records on
| which preceded even my existence. I welcome you in joining those
| of us that find extreme value and relaxation in watching the
| original reality show without commercials that has been on 24/7
| even before life as we know it existed. Stay Healthy!
| buescher wrote:
| If you are wondering whether you should buy a Rolex or a
| telescope this year, I recommend the 7" Questar. The classic
| 3.5" model is of course the well-heeled astronomer's travel
| scope. They are a very nice thing from a different era, for
| those that appreciate that.
|
| Of course, quite good Chinese-made Maksutov-Cassegrains are
| available if that's your thing and a Questar is out of the
| budget. They are not beautiful, and they are not exquisitely
| machined, and they are probably not good to lambda/20, but they
| cost about what it will cost you to have a Questar collimated
| and otherwise serviced.
| monster_group wrote:
| Before investing money, make sure you have access to a dark-ish
| place to observe the night sky. If you live in a major city,
| light pollution might be an issue and you may have to drive ways
| out to get decent dark skies to view anything other than nearby
| planets.
| znpy wrote:
| I don't have an answer, but I'd look if there has been some
| related humble bundle in the past. You can either try to "find"
| it or take a look to the individual books.
| [deleted]
| brudgers wrote:
| The cheapest one you can find. Because odds are you won't get
| into space observation. You'll try it and find out it's not for
| you. That's the way interests work.
|
| If space observation is for you, the quality of the telescope
| won't matter because to a first approximation all of the
| limitations will be in your experience. You won't drive far
| enough away from city lights. You won't get the tripod level
| enough. Not closely aligned with the Earth's pole. The clamps
| won't be tightened tight enough. The eyepiece won't be optimal.
|
| I mean, you'll have trouble finding the full moon.
|
| No matter how much you spend.
|
| Want to get good?
|
| Set up the telescope right outside your front door and leave it
| there.
|
| Use it every day.
|
| But what if something happens to it?
|
| It's cheap. Buy another. They're cheap.
|
| Because something will happen to your telescope if you use.
|
| It will fall.
|
| You will drop it.
|
| Knock it over.
|
| You will forget it's leaning on the rear bumper when you back the
| car up.
|
| All better than sitting in a closet.
|
| The way to tell if space observation is for you is by a your
| willingness to be bad at it.
|
| Being bad is being a beginner.
|
| Mastery is reserved for masters.
|
| Being into it is all the space in between.
|
| Good luck.
| rimliu wrote:
| Actually don't buy cheap. That's a sure way to be disappointed
| and to give up hobby before even getting into it.
| brudgers wrote:
| Galileo and Copernicus and Brahe would have coveted today's
| flea market class telescopes. It's been diminishing returns
| for a long time, today's most terrible optics are really damn
| good. Most of the differences among what a beginner buys will
| be what sits in their closet collecting dust.
|
| It's a fascinating hobby for people fascinated by it. Most
| people won't be fascinated enough to turn it into one. The
| idea of shopping for gear is typically more than the idea of
| using it. That's why this page is a shopping question not a
| use question. Shopping is easier.
| acomjean wrote:
| Make sure it has a good tripod. A friend had one and it was
| frustrating because the scope moved pretty easily, so between
| viewings it was out of wack. (It wasn't just the sky moving as it
| does...)
| Buttons840 wrote:
| Dobsonian. And realize that good lenses can easily cost more than
| the telescope.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| https://www.cleardarksky.com/others/FAQs/how_to_buy_a_telesc...
|
| > So, I suggest people don't buy a telescope. (How un-commercial
| of me.) Instead I suggest attending star parties, joining an
| observing group or club and looking through many scopes before
| you spend any money.
|
| > .. But before you buy a scope you never looked through, you
| should probably know the meanings of the words: dobsonian,
| apochromatic, equatorial, servo drive, periodic error, star test,
| collimation and shipping damage claim.
| acomjean wrote:
| I would second this. The Harvard Center for astrophyics had a
| public talk every month[1]. Then after, everyone would go on
| the roof and the telescope club and some grad students/post
| docs would stand by a dozen or so telescopes all pointing at
| items of interest. They're love and knowledge of the universe
| was infectious.
|
| May this pandemic wind down..
|
| [1]https://www.youtube.com/user/ObsNights
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| That was great advice when it was written in 2006.
| Unfortunately, we're in the middle of a pandemic, so parties
| with strangers are right out; I'm booking camping sites for the
| summer and want to bring a scope with me!
| silicon2401 wrote:
| Are you booking camping sites for the summer now? How do you
| handle unforeseen changes like inclement weather? I've been
| trying to get more into camping in recent years, but haven't
| found a way to balance booking early enough and not having
| plans fall through
| ska wrote:
| Inclement weather is part of the charm!
|
| Seriously though, if you have appropriate gear for the
| potential range of conditions, you'll likely always be
| fine. This only gets complicated/expensive/(even risky) at
| the extremes.
| brudgers wrote:
| For me, one of the deep pleasures of camping is the "you'll
| live" revelations. Or travel in general.
|
| Beautiful places are still beautiful in bad weather. Often
| less crowded to boot. If things get really bad, the car is
| dry and has a heater and there are lessons for proper
| equipment needs for next time.
|
| I mean it's a multi-year project. Statistically, the
| weather isn't going get much better, nor is six month
| forecasting tied to a specific weekend.
|
| Camping skill is the only practical area for improvement.
| The only one in a camper's control...and to be cliche, most
| of that skill is mindset.
|
| Short of lightning strikes, grizzly bears, and freezing,
| I'll live through the weather. Good weather is nice, but
| it's not a need unless I need something to worry and
| complain about.
|
| There's satisfaction in a tent that keeps the rain out and
| a bag that keeps the warm in that is harder to find at home
| with its running water, electric range, and shingled roof.
| Maybe it's I don't much think "you'll live" there. Because
| I don't have to pay much attention.
| silicon2401 wrote:
| That's a fair point. I've been wanting to get into more
| hardcore camping (compared to the campsite, gravel-lot
| camping most of the people I know do), and it'll only
| make things easier from the planning/reservation
| perspective. I think I'll take your "you'll live"
| attitude and try to get more serious this year. Thanks
| for the advice!
| brudgers wrote:
| I am not hardcore. I prefer a site with electric in a
| ground with hot showers...all things reasonably
| comparable. What I learned is that they are not bright
| line features.
|
| Same with weather.
|
| Even if it's not wrong, Yellowstone is still
| Yellowstone...so to speak.
|
| Anyway if you go to the Hoh Rainforest, you might get
| rain...I paid the dumb tax on that. I lived.
| danaliv wrote:
| I love that about camping. Really pares life down to the
| essentials, and sometimes you find the essentials aren't
| what you thought they were.
|
| As for weather, turns out it changes a lot! That's sort
| of the nature of weather. :) Unless you're mired in a
| stubborn stationary front, or a deep low that came from
| the ocean, you'll have different weather on night two.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| There is a $20 fee to cancel. Campsites are first come,
| first serve, reserved on a rickety DNR server or over a
| phone. Predictably, on February 8, when it first opened,
| said server was hugged to death:
|
| https://www.mlive.com/news/2021/02/cant-reserve-your-
| favorit...
|
| If you want the good sites, you have to reserve early. The
| system works great for old rich retired folks who have
| nothing better to do than call and find open campsites, and
| for whom the $20 fee for a no-show in their $200,000 RV
| doesn't matter at all, so I think it's unlikely to change
| to a lottery system or similarly more fair alternative any
| time soon.
|
| If you're not willing to deal with the system, more rustic
| sites are often available. No electric (use solar or a
| quiet inverter generator), no water (but often close enough
| to a full-service campground you can fill your fresh tank,
| drive in, and drive out to empty your grey and black tanks
| before making the long drive home), but generally less
| crowded.
| silicon2401 wrote:
| Well, thanks for the info, it's good to get a realistic
| description of the situation. In that case I might just
| start taking a look at good weekends and hope for the
| best. Also good motivation to get more serious about
| backcountry camping!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-24 23:01 UTC)