Self-serve ads are available again! Check out our new advertising page here.
anyone here own a telescope or stargaze on the regular? I was thinking about getting into it but don't know where to start
>>1980831not much to look at where i liveliterally all you gotta do is sit somewhere and look up. find a book on the cosmos and read up, learn about them. learn to identify planets and stars. doesn't seem like a hard thing to start doing
>>1980843I live near the Appalachian trail and could go out there for good visibility. Already can recognize most constellations. do you just use sight of eye? no telescope?To be honest, I live in the Hudson Valley which is a UFO hotspot, and have already seen weird shit at night. I thought a scope might come in handy
I do astronomy and astrophotography as a main hobby. What's your budget and how far are you from dark skies? If you really want to get into it check out the cloudy nights website, they have a ton of info.
>>1980848Binoculars. A pair of 7x40 or close to is great. I currently own 4 telescopes and I still use my 10x50 binoculars a ton for stargazing. If you recognize most constellations get a star atlas and find star clusters.
I get decent darkness where I live, but all I have is a cheap pair of binoculars for now. This year I'll probably try to get something better, stargazing is very entertaining.
>>1981479Nice setup anon
>>1981522Thanks, that's one of my several setups. Winter astronomy is best astronomy
>>1981479I have little light pollution where I live, and if I hike out, probably none.I'm willing to drop a couple hundred bucks, maybe $400 max can I see some of your photos btw?
>>1981658If you can easily transport a telescope get a 6 or 8" dobsonian for viewing. They give great views and are pretty affordable. Don't both with imaging or electronics unless you're going to drop more money. I can post some of my pics later. All I have on my phone are the full size photos which are way too big to post.
>>1981479Do you have a TEC by any chance?
>>1981705No, I wish I did. Someday I'll treat myself to a TEC 140. I do have a Stellarvue with a tested strehl of 0.98 though.
>>1981577I see you have a polemaster adapter. Polar aligning the mount is a breeze with it.
>>1980831I do have one and used it once or twice to look at jupiter but I live in a large urban area so I can’t really use it to it’s full potential. Maybe I’ll finally be able to watch the stars when I move out in a few months.
>>1980831Get a pair of 7x50 or 10x50 binoculars. Go look at the orion nebula and andromeda That's where you start.
>>1981479Did you get any images from the jupiter-saturn convergence on dec. 21?I took my tiny scope out to look, it was pretty sick.
>>1982501Sadly no, we've had clouds almost nonstop for a month or so in my area.
These are three of my more used scopes. A little brown case is a tiny little mac stop about three and a half inch diameter made by Ad Astra. Should give away who made it as in later years it was made by the Kimball Organ Company, which explains the weird finish on the case.The long one on the left is a 7in maksutov Newtonian, and the one on the right is and 8 inch maksutov cassegrain, both made by Intes.The shorter squat one is more suitable for astrophotography or viewing fairly small objects or planets
>>1982627The telescope is very small weighs about a pound and a half. You focus by screwing or unscrewing the front corrector. You can do photography with it as the rears unscrews to reveal an M 42 threaded mount to which you can adopt virtually any modern SLR or mirrorless camera
>>1982586Too bad, it was way cool. I could just make out some color on both planets, and the galilean moons were lined up so sweetly.
Start by spending $800 on a new scope, identify the summer triangle, then the northern cross, then find the double star in the cross. Find nebulas
I wish I knew things about telescopes :\
>>1982836You live in the age of the internet. Go to cloudy nights and learn something people there are very willing to share their knowledge and their time if you live close enough to one of them.
>>1980831>i don't know where to start>download stellarium on your phone>go on night walks.Learn the Big Dipper. It's part of the constellation Ursa Major . The lip of the bowl points to the north star.Learn the North Star. It's in the constellation Ursa Minor.Learn Cassiopeia. She is roughly on the other side of ursa minor from ursa major. She makes a clear M or W in the sky. The central point of which, points, roughly, to the north star.Now that you know those 3. You can orient yourself with the night sky and branch out from there to learn the other constellations around it. I use them and Orion to find most everything. You know Orion's belt right? And that he has a dong? That helps you orient off of that constellation. So you can learn what's above it, below it, etc.You should also look up meteor shower dates and plan on viewing them if you can. https://www.amsmeteors.org/meteor-showers/meteor-shower-calendar/And by then you'll know the basic constellations and where to look. And you didn't have to spend a dime.
>>1980831Get a mirror (newtonian) telescope if you're getting into it. Galilean telescopes have chromatic aberration which sucks assa
>>1982379>some day I will treat myself to a 140You should! Amazing scopes. I'm one of the opticians at TEC, working mostly on the bigger offerings, 180s, 200s, 250s and special projects. Pic related is a 300mm bsl7 lens I'm working on for our 300 VT astrograph.
>tfw my telescope is locked in the bed of my ute 11000 miles away. It might as well be on Saturn.
>>1983474Give my regards to Yuri. I managed to locate enough molded NOS Maksutov corrector to make possibly two dozen 11" Maksutovs of various focal ratios. I also found some more 8 1/2" Water white crown made by Chance Pilkington. These one were to be used by Quantum for a second and third run of 8" f15
>tfw want to get into astrology but my eyes are fuckyFeels bad man.
>>1983529Astrology, astronomy, stargazing, all the same things. My point is staring at little dots in the sky doesn't work well for me
>>1983530Astrology is magic crystal bullshit that doesn't involve actual looking at the stars, stop being defective please.
>>1983536Ahh you're just using different fancy words, it all means the same thing.
>>1983530Looking into the Milky Way with a small scope and looking into a sea of stars.
>>1983352For me? It’s Sky Guide. It also helps me for my sun line calculations
>>1980831Get a pair of good binoculars. Nothing fancy, just something along the lines of 7x50. That's honestly what you're going to be using most often.
>>1981665post some pics of planets!!!!!!!!!!
>>1980831Which night sky phone app do you guys recommend?I just wanted make sure I get the one either with the most features or the one that takes up the least storage space.
>>1983352>Be from Southern hemisphere>We don't have any of those constellations>Orion's 'dong' actually points up instead of down>In also fairly sure the moon rotates backwards down here as wellTrying to get into astronomy here sucks
>>1987705>moon rotates backwardswat
>>1987893From our perspective we see the moon upside down, so the lunar cycle starts off with the left side lighting up first.Look at lunar cycle on wiki and it has two different animations for the two hemispheres
>>1982436i done this the other week with some 7x60 theyre not bad, but what am a looking at to really get a decent view at deep space stuff, nebulae galaxies etc? for lets say 5/600 dollary do dahs
>>1988472Oh yeah, that. I thought you meant it actually rotated backwards on its own axis, which would be weird, as we don't really perceive the moon's rotation like that.
>>1989203You can't get a good vew of deep space objects with optics alone. You'd need to take long exposure photographs of them. The vast majority of them will just look like smudges through binoculars or a telescope. The only thing I can think of that kind of looks like itself through optics is the Orion nebula.
The only downside of the southern hemisphere is that the southern constellations don't have any mythology and are either boring forms or linked up together in counter-intuitive ways.Like who the fuck though argo navis was a good idea>MASSIVE>expects people to not see the false cross>need to go through a labyrinth of third magnitude stars before connecting Canopus to the rest of the easily visible stars>is supposed to look like a ship but don't expect it to sail across the sky, the abomination rises completely upside down with the front facing east and goes backwards tilting its way across the sky until it finally sets in a proper orientation>some 5 hours between the first and brightest star rising and the constellation becoming entirely visible.
>>1980831There’s a /p/ thread on this right now I think. A few guys there use them for astrophoto.
>>1982836>I wish I knew things about telescopes :\They allow you to slay enemies at great distance.
>>1983474>300mm bsl7 lens I'm working on for our 300 VT astrograph.You sell this with an L-mount adapter?
Not reading the thread.Resources I use for planning:stellarium-web.org (Seeing where shit will be at what time, learning constellations)clearoutside.com (visibility forecasts)lightpollution.info (light pollution for your area--to find other dark sites)cleardarksky.com (finding already-claimed-to-be-dark sites and seeing their visibility forecasts; also gives you the names of local astronomy clubs to e-mail)i also just search "npf calculation" before i go shooting shit with my camera.attached image is some shitty garbage i took using the process.i heavily encourage building your own dobsonian by getting together with people from a makerspace or from someone you know has some basic tools.
>>1989669i have a pair of 10x25s that i like to scan the sky with. cheap 8x42s are available for ludicrously low prices these days if you're patient, so don't let yourself be held back by "i don't have $300 for a telescope."if society ever forgets how nice it is to be alone in your own house again, you can go to astronomy club meetups and they're all fucking tits.clear skies.
>>1980831buy a questar 3.5"the telescope, not the spotting scope
>>1989664The fuck are you whining about? You get the best view of the milky way, probably one of the single coolest things a human can see nowadays when it comes to stargazing
>>1990020I'm aware of that, which is why I mentioned the ONLY downside of this hemisphere is that the southern constellations, the imaginary lines drawn by humans, have no history and just look terrible. The sky itself looks amazing and I can easily see the denser parts of the milky even from my roof, despite the light pollution of a 60k pop. city.
>>1987702I got the complete version of starwalk2 for 5 bucks on a sale last year. Its not a hardcore tool, but it offers 3d constellations/models for celestial bodies, satellite/comet tracking, a calendar for tracking moon phases, rise and set of planets, information for what youre looking at and notices for cool stuff to look for, such as meteor showers. It also does gyro tracking.
>>1990059sounds good. it's not one of those apps that relies on data to work though does it?i lose reception the moment i go a mile out of town so I want to be sure it'll work when i'm out camping.
>>1990448It appears to function with wifi and mobile data disabled, but you might try the gimped free version before you spend money. If you decide to purchase, get the all in one bundle so future expansions are free. The latest updates to it add missions, core structures, atlases and image galleries for planets, and only uses 0.91 gigs of space. It was taking only 526 megs earlier.
>>1990659>a fucking gignah hard pass. i'm looking for an app maybe 15~50megs. MAYBE 100megs if it's farking amazing.
>>1990673You're talking about storage space like it's fucking currency. You do know you can delete things or just get a bigger SD card, right?
>>1990673Dunno how much it is but Skyguide is stellar
>>1989365>Orion nebulayes, that does look good. the rest are just smudges. i know it isnt going to look like touched up huble images, but what is the best scope for deep space stuff do you recon? under a grand.
>>1980831Is it common to see UFOs?
>>1991134klingons on uranus pretty common
>>1980831I've just been out in the garden with a kids toy scope. It's literally only good for viewing the moon but I got Mars through it tonight. Actually resolved it to a red/brown disc in the viewer but no further detail.If you have absolutely nothing then I would recommend the Sky Watcher Heritage 100p. It is a table top dobsonian, meaning you don't need a tripod or anything. Just plonk it on a sturdy garden table and get looking. I believe that Orion do a similar product in the US
>>1991096The best telescope is one that you will use regularly. Why not consider a flexi-tube dobsonian that's easy to store and transport?If you're dead set on spending that kind of money then there are loads of options. A reflector will always offer better bang for the buck but refractors have their positives too especially if you want to do terrestrial viewing in the day time.
>>1991096>i know it isnt going to look like the touched up huble imagesTrue, but you can see its shape very well. It's just in monochrome.>but what is the best scope for deep space stuff do you recon?I don't know any specific telescopes, but you'll want to look at the bigger newtonian reflectors. With deep space objects, the wider the tube, the better results you're going to get. The thinner ones are generally better for sniping planets, etc. I only have a 650mm newtonian reflector, and while I can see some of the deep space objects in ok-ish clarity, I sometimes wish it was a bit bigger.
>>1991096Scopes are like rocking horse shit at the moment. Everything's made in China and its all just sitting in storage because of the container crisis.You really need to have a think about your application. Dobsonians and altazimuth mounts are quicker to set up but you need to use 2 axis to follow what you are tracking.An equatorial mount needs a bit of setting up but can track across 1 axis. Its not hard to do, just needs to be done so is better suited for longer sessions of stargazing.Do you think you will be dabbling in photography, like attaching a DSLR to the scope? If so then you may want to consider going straight for doublet or triplet refractor.That's not to say you can't do all that with a reflector either, just that a refractor is the "pros choice" for photography.Do you want a motorised mount? Do you want goto tracking? What about WiFi and smart phone connections that are available now? Honestly, I thinknthe best option is to go for a tabletop dobsonian like the Sky Watcher 150p Flexi-tube. It's nowhere near as expensive as your budget allows for but it is portable, fast to set up and will give you a really good idea of what you can do and what you might like. After that you can think about something bigger and better but everyone who has a tabletop always raves about them due to their portability and super fast and easy set up time.
>>1991723>>1991574>>1991209thanks, some things to think about. in no rush. but sometimes its worth paying a bit more for something if it makes a difference. i probably wont buy another ever again. doesnt need any gadgets. i use sky safari on an old smart phone to get a rough idea where stuff is then look at it with the binos, doesnt have a sim card in it,just 2 apps, sky safari and radio ottanta. i probably wont add a camera, simply because you can download much better images of the same things in seconds. but when you get into it perhaps you want to upgrade.
>>1990852you cant install apps on an SD. apps can only be installed on the device's default storage. t. I have a 128gig SD in my phone but cant install any apps or run any updates because the SD is only useful for photos and mp3s.
>>1992771>what the fuck is connected storage
>>1992771The fuck are you talking about? You may not be able to install it on the SD, but you can definitely move it to the SD after the fact. Learn how your shit works.
>>1992401My scope arrived today. There is a massive shortage of scopes in England so I could only get a Memestron Explorer refractor. I haven't used it in anger yet due to bad weather but hope to get it out over the weekend.I notice the eyepieces aren't plossls so it looks like I'll be needing to upgrade those at some point
I do visual astronomy and astrophotography as one of my main activities. Gonna post a few pictures I took with about 2k worth of equipment and only a couple of months of experience. If you got any questionset me know.
>>1989668We can source or maybe even in-house any kind of adapter you might need. The 300 vt is typically sold to institutions or very serious hobbyists so we just make the scope and come up with a custom solution for mounting if needed per the customer's needs.
>>1995013they are very decent actually, thought you might need a good amount more than 2k to get those kind of shots. ive really no idea about scopes, as posted earlier, ive just got some 8x60s and was until recently living in an area with decent skies. what set up do you have, would you do anything differently if you could?how much did the camera cost etc.
>>1992877Iunno man, phones are faggot Zoomer shit anyway.Normally sits in my bag for 2 weeks until it needs charging again.Only reason I even have one is cuz my boss makes me.
>>1995013>>1995016>>1995018>>1995020I'd like to see these with my own eyes and equipment, but I'm too jewish to pay that much. Seeing those images made me happy though anon and I thank you for that. It's like being able to see God.
>>1980831Wish I had even the opportunity to stargaze more often. It fucking sucks to live in a cosmopolitan city where you can only see 3 stars at night. If I had the opportunity to have a telescope, I'd enjoy it.
Thank you, I'm quite happy with them, especially considering I only started in summer last year. Thing is, you don't really need a lot of equipment to start with astrophotography. If you buy used you can find a tracker and an already modified camera with an okayish lens for less than a thousand dollars. Spending more money will mostly get you clear images faster because noise in images will get less with dedicated astro cameras and with better tracking/guiding you wont have to rule out many of the subframes because of star trailing.Atm I use an iOptron CEM25P, with a high quality 250mm lens at F/4.9 and a modified Sony a6000, so no dedicated camera yet. All that with a small autoguiding setup. For the nebula images I usually use a Ha-filter.Because 250mm is not a very long focal length I ordered a new telescope at 600mm because I realized I like capturing details more than those widefield images. Next thing will be a dedicated, cooled astro camera, but they are extremely expensive, so I have to save up for a decent one.The camera itself didn't cost me anything. Got it as a gift from my dad a while ago. When I started with this hobby, I modified it myself, so I only had to pay like 60 bucks for a new UV-IR block filter. You can get that done by someone else if you're too afraid to kill your camera but I found a decent tutorial online so I did it on my own.>>1996148Thank you for your kind words anon. For me it's an extremely rewarding hobby, its really incredible what you can capture from your backyard. Some people will say you could just look at the same images in better quality online, which is true, but taking them yourself is a totally different feeling. Also it's very challenging so being rewarded with a finished picture after 20+ hours of work is absolutely fantastic. I can understand how astronomy might seem expensive and the photography part truly is, but visual is quite affordable.
>>1996245First part was meant for >>1995738
>>1989669sweet, what gear ?
>>1996265nvm I'm retarded.>>1996245Any planet pictures ?
>>1996285No worries, was quite a wall of text I wrote. Unfortunately not, to capture good pictures of planets you need a totally different setup than for capturing deep sky objects. You need a really high focal length to capture planets, somewhere in the 2000+mm range and a camera that can record with a high framerate. To make good planetary images you record a video of the planet and a software will take the best frames of that video and produce a clear and detailed picture. Thats done to eliminate the blurines caused by air turbulence.My setup is for a very wide field of the sky the full moon would actually fit in the frame a few dozen times, so planets would pretty much look like stars aswell.But have a picture of the moon I took with my phone and my 8" dobsonian I use for visual astronomy. But desu it's not great, you can see it even better if you're looking at it directly, the human eye does a great job at filtering out the air wobbling, cameras not so much.>Tl;dr>don't have the right equipment for planetary photography, but have a bad pic of the moon
I wish I own a telescope, currently saving some money so I can gift my dad one he is big into stargazing and shit, he is the one that got me into it too, so i want to give him a telescope before he is too old
>>1996351I don't know if you have done any research yet, but go for a newtonian reflector with a dobsonian mount. This will get you the most aperture for your money and it's about as easy to use as it gets with a telescope.
>>1995020Fuck, that is gorgeous anon
>>1997211Thanks anon>>1997213Thank you, its actually a crop of a much larger area, here you go
>>1997348I'm also trying to get into the stargazing gig.After a bit of research on different sites I noticed Celestron was always being mentioned as a solid brand and I'm thinking of getting a Power Seeker 127Eq.Since /g/ has taught me that Anon always knows best. I'm wondering if this is a solid pick.
>>1999024Don't get the power seeker. They have really poor mounts that make using them not very enjoyable.Instead buy a decent alt az mount with twice the payload capacity you think you need, then toss an entry level refractor on it.Or just get a 6-8" dobsonian.
>>1981479That's an interesting setup, anon. Mind telling me what it is, or where I can figure out how to set up something like that?I got my first Milky Way shot last summer with a 24mm lens. It was pretty cool, but I'm still learning about stacking images.
>>1999497The mount is an Orion Atlas that I hypertuned. Sitting on it is my Stellarvue SV102 triplet refractor with a feather touch focuser. I piggyback an AT72edii on top of that. For that particular setup I was shooting and viewing comet Neowise. My old Canon T2i was connected to the AT72, and then I put a visual back and used eyepieces with the SV102t.I also have reducer/flatteners for both scopes as well as varying barlows. Usually it's setup for imaging with an ASI1600pro and a filter wheel on the SV102, and then an ASI385 with the AT72 as a guide scope. Pic related is my last outing right before I tore down.
>>1999497I have a question starbros, i remember i used to try and go to zero light pollution parts of Colorado a few summers ago, and when i would look up in the sky on CLEAR nights ive never seen anything similar to pictures like this. I can see just the faintest band of the milky way but never like this picture. Are there places that actually look exactly like this picture? Am i doing something wrong? Or do i have to be in the MIDDLE OF BUTTFUCK NOWHERE?
>>2000089Unfortunately you'll never be able to see the milky way like you can in pictures. Cameras are way more sensitive and can capture light for multiple seconds or even minutes, your eye can't. When doing visual astronomy you'll almost never see any colour, except for some stars, the part of your eye responsible for seeing in the dark can only see black and white. If you went to a spot with actually zero light pollution, you should be able to see the milky way quite well, with some dust bands clearly visible. But there are multiple things that can impact how good you can see it. Did your eyes fully dark adapt, so no looking at any kind of light for 20 minutes. Did you go during summer when the bright core of the milky way rises to its highest spot? Are there any cities in the south from your viewing spot, that create a light dome? Also remember, you're in the northern hemispere and the brightest part of the milky way never goes up near zenith, so to get the best views you need to be in the southern hemisphere
>>2000089There are registered national dark sites. Just see if you’re near one.
>>1999024Don't get that 127, I bought one off amazon it ok but do to its size its a bird-jones style reflector not a true newtonian. Apparently bird Jones are shit unless they are made extremely well which the power seeker isn't and hard to perfectly collimate. Get regular full length newtonian
>>1989669links are good, this is what i would recommend too>>1980831stargazing aint particularly difficult, just look at the sky and remember which stars made which pictures on your phoneeast half of us much harder to find darkskies
Recently loved to a class 2 borderline class 1 area. What is a good first telescope? Wouldn’t mind spending a couple hundred bucks. Would like to be able to see Jupiter’s red spot and saturns rings at the least.
>>2003552A dobson is usually the best bang for your buck. With a couple of hundred you can get a 8" scope with a few good eye pieces. Brand doesn't really matter, they are pretty much the same, so go for the best offer. 8" will keep you entertained for quite a while, especially in Bortle 1 or 2. Just remember taking pictures is pretty much impossible with a dobson, but for any kind of photography you'd want a completely different setup anyway.
>>1980831what about that nikon camera that has the far zoom?
>>1980831I just recently got into the hobby. Here's what I would've suggested to myself:First, accumulate a library of books and charts. If you're excited to just be able find all the different constellations and objects of special interest with the naked eye, then that's a sign that you'll enjoy astronomy.Second, use binoculars you already own or purchase some. I truly believe that you will buy binoculars eventually whether or not you buy a telescope. The whole point of the binoculars is not to see higher magnification, it is to boost the brightness of the stars. I recommend getting something 8x40, small and light. Using the binoculars in conjunction with your planisphere and atlases will help you figure out the sky and where everything is better.I personally use my Pentax 6.5x21 binos I already had laying around. You might be thinking to yourself, ain't those too small? No! They boost my eye's ability to see faint stars by 3~4x. Think about it this way, your pupils probably dilate to about 5mm wide and if you're young and perfectly dark-adapted, you'll get 7mm max. Well these tiny binos of mine have a 21mm aperture. Imagine if your pupil dilated to 21mm, that's how good your night vision would be. So yes, don't knock small binos for serious star gazing.My first day of using my telescope, I was like what the fuck is all this shit. I didn't even know what to point my telescope at. My first session I spent looking at the sky with the naked eye, having FUN just figuring out which constellation was which. I didn't even need my telescope. The telescope magnification is just too much and trying to center an object in the sky was difficult because mine didn't come with a finder scope. (had to use the built-in peep sights)So that's my last piece of advice, make sure your telescope comes with a decent, wide field finder scope.
>>2008017My post was too long, so here's some other stuff/My book recommendations:- Binocular Astronomy by Craig Crossen and Wil Tirion- The Photographic Atlas of the Stars by H. J. P. Arnold and Patrick Moore (this books is particularly awesome because the dude literally took 35mm color positive film photographs of the sky with a 35mm nikon lens, just goes to show you that high magnification is not the true pursuit of astronomy. not only that, the star maps are literally black-and-white exposures of the positives and are therefore, perfectly aligned and to scale)The telescope I personally purchased was a Starbase 80 with 80mm aperture and 880mm focal length for about $600. This is kinda overkill, but if you have the cash to spend and you want something that isn't cheap plastic (the entire telescope and mount and tripod are fully metal), I'd recommend this one. It's Made in Japan, so you know it's good :^)My personal recommendation for telescopes in general, apart from my aforementioned luxury purchase, is to get something that isn't under $200. From my research, no entry level scope that's actually good is sold for less than $200 unless it's just the tube and it's on special or something. At the bare minimum range, I would highly consider the Orion StarBlast 4.5, comes in both tabletop and EQ mount options (for the same price).I would likewise recommend binoculars from reputable optics manufacturers such as Pentax, Nikon, or Canon. Based on my research, other lesser bino manufacturers fudge their binoc numbers. Oberwerk, despite being a highly rated brand among astronomer community, is particularly egregious. Their 8x52 is actually 8x40 and their 8x40 is actually 8x32.And finally, the best reason to start with the binocs first is that ALL the good telescopes on online stores are SOLD OUT. They probably won't start coming back in stock until March or April at worst.
I saw Sirius out my window last month and saw it blinking like a disco ball traffic light and it made me start watching the skies for the first time with binoculars. I know where Mars is every night and I can tell the Winter Hexagon. I also saw Mercury too as the sun was setting. Seeing Mercury is my greatest accomplishment so far in my month long career of doing this.
>>1983536>>1983529The greatest astronomer in human history, Ptolemy, was an astrologer who wrote the most influential work on astrology ever. Anti-astrology is just some modern NASA bullshit. Most people who are against it don't even know what's contained in the Tetrabiblos or what they would even say to counter it.
What is a reason people still buy refractors? The only thing people say is muh distortion but they're still available, I presume they still have a role to fill
>>2013894that's.... a good question. I can tell you why I personally went refractor. If you want a nice, high quality, MADE IN JAPAN telescope that's within reach of your budget, refractor is the way to go. Scopetech and Mizar are still making entry-level refractors with Japanese glass optics. Vixen offers mid-level Jap glass, and of course, Takahashi will let you empty your wallet on all the high-end Japanese refractor glass you'd ever want.They're generally useful for planetary observation in not-so-dark-skies where you'd want long focal length but not necessarily super wide aperture. In this instance a long tube achromat can do the job.Also, short tube refractors are pretty cool as rich field telescopes. You'll see some of the popular astrophotography-specific scopes are just that.
>>1996245fuck thats a nice picbut it always disheartens me, telephoto astro pics, because those features of the night sky always remain the same.So that means with enough frames and enough image stacking, all the pictures will approach the same quality and appearance. I think that takes away a lot of the creatvitiy. I know milky way shots are cliche, but at least you can play with the foreground with those
>>2013894Optical equivalent of audiophiles basically. No diffraction spikes (CATs can do that too of course), only refractions no reflections (who cares? Also they all use mirror diagonals anyway lol), that sort of thing. Also they just look cool, it's the classic telescope. I wish I had the money and space for a big ass yard cannon APO.
>>2014582astrophotography is less creativity and more technical prowess. You know those people that get a kick out of shooting fully manual? astrophotography is like that, but x100. you're supposed to get a kick out of having the technical knowledge and expertise to image something so remote and difficult to see.Now if you were really hardcore, you'd do astrophotography on film, develop it, and print it in your own darkroom. Those prints would actually be beautiful, I imagine.
i own a telescope , never used it much. Growing up seeing all the pics and videos of space it interested me so i bought one. Then after combing the sky's myself i realized that i had been lied too.Earth is flat.
>>2014582Thanks anon.The other reply >>2015048 said it quite well, the enjoyment from taking those pics comes from the challenge. As I wrote before its incredibly rewarding to see pictures like this come together after sometimes dozens of hours. It's true, a lot of the images do look alike, but it's the process that matters. And that is different for everybody. For me personally it's just incredible what you can capture from you backyard with some know-how and even non-scientific equipment.>>2015069Weak bait, but made me reply. 3/10
>>1996148you can 100% see andromeda without anything specialit looks like gray-white disk, it's a lot larger than you expect too
First one ever got was an Orion StarBlast reflector Telescope.
Been looking since January bros and I have yet to see either Venus, Jupiter or Saturn. Every morning they supposedly come out just as the Sun rises but it always gets too bright and by the time it's dark they're already under the horizon.
>>1981479let's say 500 Euros, there is a dark area near me with not so much light. also in my neighborhood there is not much light pollution beside street lights which are faint.
>>1989669>pic rel is my areaguess i will never be able to star gaze properly :(
>>1996340if we ignore the photography part, would you be able to see the planets clearly though? i am only interested in gazing, not photographing.
>>1996340fellow photofag here Looks pretty good. I only do moon photos with a 1000mm zoom. Got the “flower moon” when it was around.Do I need a star tracker to stack? I’ve gotten Milky Way pictures before, but I’d like to stack to make them better.
>>2008017>>2008046extremely helpful posts, thanks, so i found Pentax 8x40 and 10x50 for the same price, which one would you recommend? And the Starbase 80 isn't available on my local amazon, instead i found pic rel. What do you think?
>>2024916Thanks, it's okay considering the equipment I guess.Not at all, if you can take images without star trailing you can stack them easily. You just have to consider that if you want to go for very long total exposure (+30min) the field of view in the stacked image will get smaller, as the milky way drifts out of your frame. You have to crop the image to get rid of the area that isnt on all images. The longer the total exposure, the more you have to crop the final stack.But if you just want to stack lets say 30x 10sec exposures there should be no problems at all.
>>2025015The Meade UWAs I have are 24mm, 14mm, 8.8mm, and 5.5mm. Don't want a barlow since I'd only be using it on one eyepiece and the focuser is already pretty far out for visual, it would be prohibitively long with a barlow.
>>2025075Oops, wrong comment.
>>2025075Fuck for some reason the comment I thought I posted that I meant to reply to I guess I didn't post. Point was I have a Meade SN-6 and need a good eyepiece for a reasonable maximum magnification, something around 4.5mm good quality, inexpensive. Any reccommendations for something like that?
>>2024926for hand-holding binocs I'd go with 8x40 because lighter and less magnified handshaking.XT8 is a solid choice. 8 inch big aperture, long focal length. i can see you maybe being frustrated by only one eyepiece and 2x barlow. consider a longer eyepiece (25+mm) as a follow-up purchase (bigger number = less magnification). but yeah, dobsonians are rarely bad buys.
>>2025496>less magnified handshaking.very good point, haven't thought of this to be honest. I'll keep weight in mind when purchasing. >consider a longer eyepiece (25+mm) as a follow-up purchasethanks for the advice