Anyone know about telescopes?
Discussion
Thinking of one of these as a gift for a 12 yr old. Which is best and why, please, or much of a much at this price point ?
https://www.therange.co.uk/leisure/camping/telesco...
https://urbangizzmo.com/products/copy-of-best-kids...
Thanks!!
https://www.therange.co.uk/leisure/camping/telesco...
https://urbangizzmo.com/products/copy-of-best-kids...
Thanks!!
Talking with a reputable supplier has to be a good move. Some pointers beforehand...
If the telescope is to be used for observing relatively bright objects such as the Moon and planets, then the aperture (lens diameter for a refractor, mirror diameter for a reflector) isn't as important as it would be if it was going to be used for so-called 'deep sky' objects (which are faint) such as nebulae and most star clusters, certainly most external galaxies apart from the Andromeda galaxy M31 which can be seen as a fuzzy blob with the naked eye in a dark sky - assuming you know where to look. Because good quality large achromatic lenses in large refractors are more expensive generally than larger parabolic mirrors in reflecting telescopes, you'll get more 'light grasp' for your buck from a Newtonian, reflector, but whereas refractors rarely need adjustment, reflectors can go out of alignment and lining up the main mirror with the secondary mirror is, with respect, something an experienced amateur astronomer could do relatively quickly but it's not easy for a newcomer.
Due to typical focal ratios, refractors allow for ease of magnification, as long as the aperture provides enough light to cope, and the mounting is sturdy enough. On refractor aperture, check to see if there's what looks like a large washer inside the tube below the lens, this stops down the light coming from the edge of the objective (main) lens and strongly suggests it's low quality, it also convert e.g. a 3.5 inch refractor into say a 2.5 inch refractor.
For ease of observing an equatorial mounting is better than alt-azimuth as it's easier to follow the apparent motion of objects across the sky due to the earth's rotation, and it's good advice (honest) not to scrimp on the mount. If the mount isn't firm/solid enough to cope with its telescope then the views will be of objects zig-zagging in the field of view due to undamped vibration of the tube or parts of it. Equatorial mounts can be driven by e.g. a stepper motor so an object other than e.g. the Moon - which has its own motion across the sky in its orbit - will be held in the field of view. This is also essential for any form of astrophotogtaphy or imaging including planets. More needs to be said about that, but it's not likely to be an initial priority.
The more expensive Schmidt-Cassegrain type of telescopes e.g. Meade are very popular with amateur astronomers and they do a good job with both lunar-planetary observing and deep sky observing, they have a reasonably good mount and can be used for a wide variety of observing.
This (below) was from a time when I had my own observatory, the main instrument is a 10-inch reflector with a 3.5 inch refractor mounted on it and used for guiding during astrophotography / CCD imaging. Some astrophotos follow, some colour some b/w, taken using it in one way or another. It was swapped for a Meade 10-inch SCT before the observatory was deconstructed on selling the house, and was put to use for supernova monitoring and QSO / BL Lac observations, boring to most people. The Moon isn't. In essence it boils down to budget and the preferred type of observing, and i'd leave solar observing alone for now. If you've got any particular queries before approaching a supplier I'd be happy to answer them, and there are doubtless others on PH who can do likewise. As you may have guessed, I enjoyed all sorts of observing / imaging over many years.
Observatory and telescope, it had a rotating octagonal upper half on a square base.
M31 Andromeda galaxy
Star clusters M38 (bigger) and NGC1907 (smaller)
Lunar highlands
External galaxy M99 with and without supernova (indicated)
|https://thumbsnap.com/9BCoWnF5[/url]
If the telescope is to be used for observing relatively bright objects such as the Moon and planets, then the aperture (lens diameter for a refractor, mirror diameter for a reflector) isn't as important as it would be if it was going to be used for so-called 'deep sky' objects (which are faint) such as nebulae and most star clusters, certainly most external galaxies apart from the Andromeda galaxy M31 which can be seen as a fuzzy blob with the naked eye in a dark sky - assuming you know where to look. Because good quality large achromatic lenses in large refractors are more expensive generally than larger parabolic mirrors in reflecting telescopes, you'll get more 'light grasp' for your buck from a Newtonian, reflector, but whereas refractors rarely need adjustment, reflectors can go out of alignment and lining up the main mirror with the secondary mirror is, with respect, something an experienced amateur astronomer could do relatively quickly but it's not easy for a newcomer.
Due to typical focal ratios, refractors allow for ease of magnification, as long as the aperture provides enough light to cope, and the mounting is sturdy enough. On refractor aperture, check to see if there's what looks like a large washer inside the tube below the lens, this stops down the light coming from the edge of the objective (main) lens and strongly suggests it's low quality, it also convert e.g. a 3.5 inch refractor into say a 2.5 inch refractor.
For ease of observing an equatorial mounting is better than alt-azimuth as it's easier to follow the apparent motion of objects across the sky due to the earth's rotation, and it's good advice (honest) not to scrimp on the mount. If the mount isn't firm/solid enough to cope with its telescope then the views will be of objects zig-zagging in the field of view due to undamped vibration of the tube or parts of it. Equatorial mounts can be driven by e.g. a stepper motor so an object other than e.g. the Moon - which has its own motion across the sky in its orbit - will be held in the field of view. This is also essential for any form of astrophotogtaphy or imaging including planets. More needs to be said about that, but it's not likely to be an initial priority.
The more expensive Schmidt-Cassegrain type of telescopes e.g. Meade are very popular with amateur astronomers and they do a good job with both lunar-planetary observing and deep sky observing, they have a reasonably good mount and can be used for a wide variety of observing.
This (below) was from a time when I had my own observatory, the main instrument is a 10-inch reflector with a 3.5 inch refractor mounted on it and used for guiding during astrophotography / CCD imaging. Some astrophotos follow, some colour some b/w, taken using it in one way or another. It was swapped for a Meade 10-inch SCT before the observatory was deconstructed on selling the house, and was put to use for supernova monitoring and QSO / BL Lac observations, boring to most people. The Moon isn't. In essence it boils down to budget and the preferred type of observing, and i'd leave solar observing alone for now. If you've got any particular queries before approaching a supplier I'd be happy to answer them, and there are doubtless others on PH who can do likewise. As you may have guessed, I enjoyed all sorts of observing / imaging over many years.
Observatory and telescope, it had a rotating octagonal upper half on a square base.
M31 Andromeda galaxy
Star clusters M38 (bigger) and NGC1907 (smaller)
Lunar highlands
External galaxy M99 with and without supernova (indicated)
|https://thumbsnap.com/9BCoWnF5[/url]bmwmike said:
Just a £50 starter telescope so he can look at stuff in the sky tbh, hence asking which of the two is likely to be better if indeed there is anything in it at that price
Yes, budget. A good pair of second hand binoculars 10x8 may be worth considering, as starter scopes can be disappointing tbh. Bino stands are out there to hold the view steady.Another good idea would be for the young observer to join the local astronomical society and try out the telescopes of friendly members. Contacts and advice will be valuable and they'll know where to look to find and observe the less obvious objects, helping a beginner to learn the sky each season.
ETA the harsh reality is, frankly, the initial and potentially exciting view of lunar craters and e.g. the rings of Saturn / Jupiter's larger satellites can be disppointing and thus an enthusiasm killer with anything less powerful than a good 3-inch refractor or 6-inch reflector. They won't be able to be hand-held. This makes trying out kit used by local society members a very good idea I'd say.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 3rd December 19:20
I fear that the starter scopes you're looking at might result in disappointment.
My O/H had a Bresser Galaxia (~£320 now I think) with a focal length of 900mm and it was possible to see craters on the moon, but anything beyond the moon was just in frame.
If you're prepared to buy second hand, you might pick up a bargain, as seemingly people buy them, use them a few times and then sell them.
Ideally you want a Newtonian scope (reflector type)
Here's a 700mm* scope for £120 + shipping
And there's this 1000mm* scope for £159 + shipping
Note: I realise these are beyond your stated budget - but I just want to give you some idea.
My O/H had a Bresser Galaxia (~£320 now I think) with a focal length of 900mm and it was possible to see craters on the moon, but anything beyond the moon was just in frame.
If you're prepared to buy second hand, you might pick up a bargain, as seemingly people buy them, use them a few times and then sell them.
Ideally you want a Newtonian scope (reflector type)
Here's a 700mm* scope for £120 + shipping
And there's this 1000mm* scope for £159 + shipping
- this is the focal length which is most important - followed by the diameter, and of course the optics (and eyepiece).
Note: I realise these are beyond your stated budget - but I just want to give you some idea.
Knowng where you'd like to end up is helpful when setting out! I at least followed my own advice - when still at school I had use of my dad's 10x8 binos and he bought me a stand to mount them and stop everything shaking and zig-zagging as happens when you hold them and try to look at e.g. a double star. I joined the local astro society and went along to observing sessions in members' gardens which gave me an idea of whether I wanted to take it further, in which direction, and how. For me, the Moon and planets were very exciting at first, but the wider variety and challenge of faint fuzzy blobs got me wanting to see them better and, after one talk by a member at the local society, take images of them. The member in question had arranged as a holiday an exchange visit with an amateur down under. The astrophotos he took at his own place when the ozzie came over, and those he took in Australia, were the subject of his talk, and I knew then that this was what I wanted to do. Eventually.
When I bought my first home I got wifely permission for a 6-inch reflector on an oversized equatorial mount. This is in the pic below. I added the guidescope refractor at a later stage, after moving on to a motorised mount on one axis.
That served me well before acquiring an 8.75-inch reflector and then the 10-inch reflector in the observatory (home made) as photo posted earlier. Eventually I learned how to take half-decent photographs and enjoyed doing so for decades, eventually selling up due to moving house just after CCD imaging became available to amateurs and when I had a Meade 10-inch SCT.
Without attending the local society and seening how starter scopes were generally disappointing, and learning that I would be better off with a larger reflector than a smaller refractor for the same money, I may well have wasted more time and more cash. I'd got the disappointment of starter scope use out of the way at school and at somebody else's expense iyswim.
I appreciate that the detail in my first reply was going to go beyond a young observer's needs but I was mindful that it may also be of use to other older people at some point. The photos I saw at the local society when I was a teenager captured my interest and imagination so I wanted to share some of my own. It's all been and gone for me now so I have nothing to beat a drum over.
When I bought my first home I got wifely permission for a 6-inch reflector on an oversized equatorial mount. This is in the pic below. I added the guidescope refractor at a later stage, after moving on to a motorised mount on one axis.
That served me well before acquiring an 8.75-inch reflector and then the 10-inch reflector in the observatory (home made) as photo posted earlier. Eventually I learned how to take half-decent photographs and enjoyed doing so for decades, eventually selling up due to moving house just after CCD imaging became available to amateurs and when I had a Meade 10-inch SCT.
Without attending the local society and seening how starter scopes were generally disappointing, and learning that I would be better off with a larger reflector than a smaller refractor for the same money, I may well have wasted more time and more cash. I'd got the disappointment of starter scope use out of the way at school and at somebody else's expense iyswim.
I appreciate that the detail in my first reply was going to go beyond a young observer's needs but I was mindful that it may also be of use to other older people at some point. The photos I saw at the local society when I was a teenager captured my interest and imagination so I wanted to share some of my own. It's all been and gone for me now so I have nothing to beat a drum over.
Thanks for all the detailed answers !
Just to frame my question a little more, the original suggestion by the parent was for this:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Monocular-Telescope-Water...
Might that be better than the two I selected in the OP?
We are on a strict £50 budget but I could be sneaky and go to £100 but definitely no more than that.
It's not worth getting anything too expensive or breakable at this stage.
Just to frame my question a little more, the original suggestion by the parent was for this:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Monocular-Telescope-Water...
Might that be better than the two I selected in the OP?
We are on a strict £50 budget but I could be sneaky and go to £100 but definitely no more than that.
It's not worth getting anything too expensive or breakable at this stage.
turbobloke said:
At first sight it doesn't look like it's intended for astronomical use? ETA the Amazon link.
Yep, I know. The intent is to look at the night sky. So out of the 3, given the budget, I'm nudging toward one of the 2 links I posted.Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 3rd December 20:54
bmwmike said:
turbobloke said:
At first sight it doesn't look like it's intended for astronomical use? ETA the Amazon link.
Yep, I know. The intent is to look at the night sky. So out of the 3, given the budget, I'm nudging toward one of the 2 links I posted.Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 3rd December 20:54
geeks said:
bmwmike said:
turbobloke said:
At first sight it doesn't look like it's intended for astronomical use? ETA the Amazon link.
Yep, I know. The intent is to look at the night sky. So out of the 3, given the budget, I'm nudging toward one of the 2 links I posted.Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 3rd December 20:54
geeks said:
https://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-astroma...
or
https://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-astroma...
Thanks for the recommendation, this post was very timely and we’ve gone with one of these. Hopefully will go down well with out 7 year old, and if not then I might get some use of of it!or
https://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-astroma...
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff