Telescope question
Discussion
Something the size of Hubble (and also placed outside the Earth's atmosphere) would struggle to resolve something the size of Canary Wharf if viewed from directly above.
Not sure about some of the bigger Earth bound telescopes. Whatever the answer, you won't be able to buy it on your local high street.
Not sure about some of the bigger Earth bound telescopes. Whatever the answer, you won't be able to buy it on your local high street.
A Canon 86x lens will fill the frame with about half the moon.
That's 86x9.3mm, with the 2x extender in, around 1600mm max.
This lens weighs around 24Kg and requires both arms to pick up.
Just to give you an idea
I dread to think of the price but I would imagine £100,000 wouldn't be too far off.
That's 86x9.3mm, with the 2x extender in, around 1600mm max.
This lens weighs around 24Kg and requires both arms to pick up.
Just to give you an idea
I dread to think of the price but I would imagine £100,000 wouldn't be too far off.
Parrot of Doom said:
A Canon 86x lens will fill the frame with about half the moon.
That's 86x9.3mm, with the 2x extender in, around 1600mm max.
This lens weighs around 24Kg and requires both arms to pick up.
Just to give you an idea I dread to think of the price but I would imagine £100,000 wouldn't be too far off.
Never quite knew what that meant. Does it mean it shows the image 86 times larger? If so , one could calculate the size lens needed for this task.That's 86x9.3mm, with the 2x extender in, around 1600mm max.
This lens weighs around 24Kg and requires both arms to pick up.
Just to give you an idea
I dread to think of the price but I would imagine £100,000 wouldn't be too far off.for reference, I took this quickly using a £250 ebay special (127mm 1200mm fl acromat refractor and an aging digital SLR). This is pretty much what you'd see in most normal scopes. You can zoom in a bit more, but the changing refraction effects of the atmosphere mean the image "swims" in the viewfinder, so you don't see a great deal.
VxDuncan said:
If you want to be able to resolve the larger craters on the moon almost any telescope will do - though the easiest / cheapest way is a pair of 10x 50 binoculars next time they are on £9.99 special offer at lidl (seriously, they're decent quality meade (bushnell)).
Iv'e heard of these binos on other forums. But they won't bring the craters into view as if i were 1/2 a mile away which is what i am looking for. Obviously i can never afford such aperatus but i was wondering if it is possible and by what means.As I said, the limiting issue is the "seeing", that is the swimming of the image due to the atmosphere (and one of the reasons why the big telescopes are mounted at the top of mountains on the equator), so no telescope will resolve that detail. Adaptive optics (just available to amateurs if you're loaded) cope with this and bend the optics to counter, but it's still not enough. Only real way to do it would be to mount something in space...
On the Lidl thread... Now and then they sell a small 70mm refractor for £50 or so. Which happens to be made by Bresser, and come with a tripod which normally retails in telescope shops for £80 or so. So long as you don't use the stupidly high magnification alternative eyepiece, it is a gizmo that shoots way above it's weight.
http://www.astroman.fsnet.co.uk/skylux.htm
It is possible to get sharp, detailed image of the moon, but it requires that you take many thousands of very short exposures.
http://www.astroman.fsnet.co.uk/skylux.htm
It is possible to get sharp, detailed image of the moon, but it requires that you take many thousands of very short exposures.
bilko2 said:
Parrot of Doom said:
A Canon 86x lens will fill the frame with about half the moon.
That's 86x9.3mm, with the 2x extender in, around 1600mm max.
This lens weighs around 24Kg and requires both arms to pick up.
Just to give you an idea I dread to think of the price but I would imagine £100,000 wouldn't be too far off.
Never quite knew what that meant. Does it mean it shows the image 86 times larger? If so , one could calculate the size lens needed for this task.That's 86x9.3mm, with the 2x extender in, around 1600mm max.
This lens weighs around 24Kg and requires both arms to pick up.
Just to give you an idea
I dread to think of the price but I would imagine £100,000 wouldn't be too far off.You get diminishing returns, you'd think that a 100x lens would be massively better than a 50x lens but it really doesn't work out that way.
Basically to see the level of detail you want, you'd have to have something the size of a building.
Got a few Q's and rather then start a new thread i'll just use this one 
I have two telescopes, one looks your average size and the other is a big fat thing
Normall: (114mmx900mm)
Both Telescopes are the same as the pictures but not the actual, both are green and on manual mounts
Chunky: (254mmx1100mm)
Both are Tasco and a good few years old, although i have good eye peices for them. I just wondered, what do they do different from each other?
The smaller see's the moon in better quality imo, and it also seems to view the orion nebula a bit better too!, but the stand is knackered, it needs a new main gear and tbh, its seen better days.
The big one, the stand for that is starting to go, one of the knobs is broken so i cant tilt it properly, the focus is really stiff and its impossible to fine tune it because you need alot of force, and it normally jumps.
Just wondering which would be best to invest in? Both the aiming sights are well out which makes it fun to find stuff, im amazed i found Venus twice and mars. Only got the planets on the smaller of the telescopes, and it needed the x2 with the 0.3 eye peice to get a nice view of it!
I have two telescopes, one looks your average size and the other is a big fat thing
Normall: (114mmx900mm)
Both Telescopes are the same as the pictures but not the actual, both are green and on manual mounts
Chunky: (254mmx1100mm)
Both are Tasco and a good few years old, although i have good eye peices for them. I just wondered, what do they do different from each other?
The smaller see's the moon in better quality imo, and it also seems to view the orion nebula a bit better too!, but the stand is knackered, it needs a new main gear and tbh, its seen better days.
The big one, the stand for that is starting to go, one of the knobs is broken so i cant tilt it properly, the focus is really stiff and its impossible to fine tune it because you need alot of force, and it normally jumps.
Just wondering which would be best to invest in? Both the aiming sights are well out which makes it fun to find stuff, im amazed i found Venus twice and mars. Only got the planets on the smaller of the telescopes, and it needed the x2 with the 0.3 eye peice to get a nice view of it!
Edited by Logie on Monday 13th October 12:07
Parrot of Doom said:
Whichever one is optically superior is the one I'd go for. A stiff focus mechanism could be a very simple repair.
Good point - above post was assuming quality of optics were equal. What you could do is make a telescope. Not too hard and it's rather good when you try it out and can see saturn very clearly. Quite a few resources available and you can buy all the optical parts seperately. Some hardcore types grind their own mirror but given you're trying to get a disc of glass to a perfect parabolic shape, accurate to 70-odd nm (yes, really!) I'd buy one.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff