Post BF Upgrade Feedback - Click Here

Remove this Banner Ad

Consumer Electronics Telescopes

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

keepzitreal

keepzitreal

Club Legend
Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2003
Posts
1,580
Reaction score
132
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Essendon Bombers
Am looking for an awesome telescope for some observations.

Went in to Australian Geographic who have a few, but I can't really work out what's required to see things like the moon and Mars clearly.

There was one that had software where you could type in the co-ordinates and the telescope would find it and allow you to digitally record etc.

That sounded good.

Anyone with any knowledge of telescopes care to shed some light on what features/lens capacity I should be looking for and where some good places are to find some good quality cost effective telescopes..

Much appreciated..
 
Hi keep,

See some of my posts in this thread

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=838562

If you are completely new to astronomy, I wouldn't bother with the fancy scopes that you move with hand controllers. The scope you probably saw was a GoTo scope which enable you to type something in and the scope will find the object of interest for you. However, there's a steep learning curve when using such a scope. These scopes/mounts are generally quite expensive and frustrating if you are a beginner. Your best bet would be to go to a viewing night held by astronomical societies in your state. This will give you a better idea as to what's available and members will be more than happy for you to look through their telescopes.

As I said in the previous thread, I highly recommend a dobsonian telescope as they really are the "best-bang-for-your-buck" telescopes. Either a 6" or 8" are ideal for beginners. They have many positives such as:


  1. Big enough, aperature wise, to give you pleasing views of the planets, bright deep space objects, nebulae, globular clusters etc
  2. No computers involved to move the telescope
  3. Not too heavy that you need more than one person to lift it
  4. Small enough to fit in the car if you want to transport it somewhere else
  5. Easy to set up
These scopes sell for around $300-$600. If you want something cheaper, a good pair of binoculars would suit you.

Many beginners get disappointed because they expect to see "Hubble-like" images of galaxies, nebulae and the planets. These just aren't possible unless you have really big scopes. Plus the atmosphere can impact upon how crisp the views are. This is why I suggest you go to a viewing night so you know what the expect.

Feel free to ask anything else :)
 
Hey mate, thanks for the info..

I'm kinda keen to have a pretty capable one so I won't have to upgrade down the track.. I don't want one that is too limited..

I'm keen to try and see some clarity of the moon (to see what's really there :) ) and also just of stars and perhaps record a certain area of the sky overnight.. are these things possible?

How does the recording functions on these telescopes work? Can you just set it to record whatever you want?

The telescope I was looking at was around $500.. looked kinda like a cannon... had that software built in... it wasn't humongous where I couldn't take it anywhere..

Do you know of any of these viewing nights or societies in Melbourne?
 
keepzitreal said:
Hey mate, thanks for the info..

I'm kinda keen to have a pretty capable one so I won't have to upgrade down the track.. I don't want one that is too limited..
Click to expand...

Fair enough. It really depends on what you want to do. Do you just want to be a visual astronomer? Or do you want to take photographs? Do you want a GoTo type telescope?

keepzitreal said:
I'm keen to try and see some clarity of the moon (to see what's really there :) ) and also just of stars and perhaps record a certain area of the sky overnight.. are these things possible?
Click to expand...

Well, a 60mm refractor will show details on the moon. My 8" dobsonian shows even more. You could go bigger but the problem is that the atmosphere will dictate how crisp the image will be. You can rarely get above 200-300X magnification unless the atmosphere is steady. This all relates to the seeing conditions. You need good seeing for high magnification which is relevant when it comes to looking at the planets.

People buy big telescopes (up to 30") not for the planets but to see deep space objects. As I said, the bigger the scope, the more light it collects (see http://www.obsessiontelescopes.com/telescopes/25/index.php)

keepzitreal said:
How does the recording functions on these telescopes work? Can you just set it to record whatever you want?

The telescope I was looking at was around $500.. looked kinda like a cannon... had that software built in... it wasn't humongous where I couldn't take it anywhere..
Click to expand...

Do you have a link or a picture of this type of scope? You can image via several methods. Either using a webcam or a digital SLR camera. People tend to use a webcam to image the planets while SLR cameras are used more so for deep space stuff. The good thing about using a webcam for planetary work is that a video is just made up of several pictures. There are programs out there which can stack these individual images, which helps to bring out details that you would not normally be able to see.

Imaging deep space stuff is difficult. Here's a list of things to consider:


  1. There are several ways which you can image with a digital SLR camera. The most common way is to take out the camera lens and attach the camera to the scope where the eyepiece would normally be. This basically allows for your telescope to act as a large telephoto lens.
  2. A big scope is not essential. You can get fairly good pictures with a 80mm scope. Most people tend to use between 8"-11".
  3. You need a good mount that tracks the stars. The mount is probably more important than the scope. You can have the best scope but it's nothing but dead weight if the mount isn't sturdy enough.
  4. You need to accurately polar align the mount. That is the mount needs to point exactly towards the south celestial pole (for us southern hemisphere people). This is the point in the sky where the stars rotate around. It takes time to learn how to polar align the mount
  5. You need to get really good focus. There are several ways at doing this. If you want to know, I can provide some links.
  6. Now, when it comes to taking shots with this type of setup, you might be able to get about 1-2mins exposure before stars begin to trail. This is called unguided imaging and will be enough to bring out some detail and colour but you really need to get out to about 5-10mins exposure time to bring out the spiral arms of galaxies etc. The problem is that no matter how accurately your polar alignment is and no matter how good your mount is, stars will never stay in the exact same spot. They will move slightly over time and it will screw up your image. To overcome this you need to guide you telescope which basically means you have to make small corrections for errors in polar alignment and the motors which move the mount to track the stars. There are several techniques to do this. If you want to know, ask and I'll explain them.
  7. To get really good pictures, you want to take multiple shots, say at least 20-30 x 5-10mins. Again, there are programs which you use to stack these images which helps to improve the SNR, enabling you to reduce noise and bring out detail. I have seen a picture from a guy where he's collected about 35hrs worth of data on the one object. This was done over several years! Crazy! You probably want to get around 2-3hrs worth of data
  8. Image processing. This is a book in itself so I'm not going to go into details. You could spend hours processing pictures.
I'm just getting into taking pictures of galaxies, nebulae etc. I have only been doing unguided imaging but just about to start guided imaging.

keepzitreal said:
Do you know of any of these viewing nights or societies in Melbourne?
Click to expand...

Check out some of the Victorian societies on this page

http://www.quasarastronomy.com.au/society.htm

I would also suggest going to visit http://www.iceinspace.com.au This is a great site.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

The problem with dobs is that they can be a real bugger to colluminate which may not be a problem with the moon but will be a problem with the planets and their moons.
 
Jafa said:
The problem with dobs is that they can be a real bugger to colluminate which may not be a problem with the moon but will be a problem with the planets and their moons.
Click to expand...

It's actually not that hard to collimate dobs. I generally just do a star test but there are several ways of doing this. Probably the best is to use a laser collimation tool. But yes, the optics need to be perfectly aligned to give you the best image.

Star test

[youtube]FrpldHJFABo&feature=related[/youtube]
 
Here are a couple of unguided pics I have taken. These are a stack of ~20 x 90sec images. Like I said, I have only just started deep space imaging. I am in the process of setting up for guided imaging. This will enable me to go up to around 5mins which will bring out a lot more detail, colour etc. Light pollution is a big limiting factor. You can get light pollution filters but there is no substitute for dark country skies!

Trifid Nebula

trifidnebuladoentlarge.jpg


Centaurus A galaxy

centaurusagradientremov.jpg
 
that's awesome dude.. thanks for the info..

You gave me so much that it seems ridiculously complicated..

Perhaps i can just buy one and take it to one of these astronomy nights and someone can run me through it?
 
keepzitreal said:
that's awesome dude.. thanks for the info..

You gave me so much that it seems ridiculously complicated..

Perhaps i can just buy one and take it to one of these astronomy nights and someone can run me through it?
Click to expand...

haha, I have heard of so many beginners that fall in the trap of wanting to get the best telescope, with all the fancy gadgets, only for it to quickly sit in the corner collecting dust because they have no idea how to use it.

It you just want to be a visual user, a dobsonian isn't that complicated and you will be pleased with the views. You can use a dobsonian to image using a webcam and even the moon but you will need a mount that tracks to do some serious astrophotography. There are loads of different scope/mount combinations with pros and cons for each.

While it's up to you, I highly recommend you go to a viewing night before buying a scope. You don't want to waste money on something that may not suit your needs. How close are you to Camberwell? If close, go visit Bintel (519 Burke Road Camberwell VIC) https://www.bintelshop.com.au/welcome.htm I wouldn't buy something from the geographic shop. Best to deal with people that only sell telescopes such as Bintel.

Astronomy can be an expensive hobby. The eyepieces that come with scopes are generally cheap quality so you should think about getting some higher quality ones. You can easily spend over $100 for a good eyepiece. Filters bring out details in different regions. A webcam for planetary imaging will set you back about $150.

Cost for imaging? Depends how deep your pockets go. There are loads of accessories that will be required if you want to get really good pictures. Obviously need a SLR camera. ~$1000 right there. Adapters to connect the camera to the telescope: ~$50. Coma correctors, focal reducers, filters (light pollution filter, other filters to bring out details in nebulae), guiding imaging requires another small telescope (called a guidescope) piggybacked on your larger telescope or you can use an off-axis guider. You will need an illuminated recticle to polar align: $100-$150.....on and on and on.....

A good scope plus mount will set you back around $2000-$3000. You can easily double that if you are wanting to seriously get into imaging.

Is this something like that scope you were looking at? http://www.ozscopes.com.au/celestron-114-lcm-computerised-reflector-telescope.html
 
yeah it was actually just like that one... no good..

I guess the main purpose I want one is to try and see if I can capture any UFO if I just leave it on recording or perhaps even get some decent perspectives of the moon so I can see if any structures are on there.

Don't really care for photo's and stars and all that..

Can a telescope be used for these purposes or am I dreaming?

If so, what would you recommend.

Thanks for all your insight, much appreciated.
 
MaccaKnowsBest said:
Centaurus A galaxy

centaurusagradientremov.jpg
Click to expand...

Whats the go with the fairly open passage through the middle of the galaxy?

It looks as though the thing drifted through a black hole and had it's guts gobbled up.
 
keepzitreal said:
yeah it was actually just like that one... no good..

I guess the main purpose I want one is to try and see if I can capture any UFO if I just leave it on recording or perhaps even get some decent perspectives of the moon so I can see if any structures are on there.

Don't really care for photo's and stars and all that..

Can a telescope be used for these purposes or am I dreaming?

If so, what would you recommend.

Thanks for all your insight, much appreciated.
Click to expand...

If you want to perhaps capture a UFO, I wouldn't use a telescope as you can only see a small field of view i.e. small portion of the sky. You would have to be very lucky for a UFO to pass in front of the telescope. Best to stick with a video camera, something with wide angle lenses.

Re structures on the moon: No chance unless you have a massive telescope. Even then you would require extreme magnification to see anything. The atmosphere just would be stable enough to support these high magnifications. Maybe if you have a few $billion you could buy Hubble ;)

Teffy said:
Whats the go with the fairly open passage through the middle of the galaxy?

It looks as though the thing drifted through a black hole and had it's guts gobbled up.
Click to expand...

It's just dust and other particles that blocks light from behind.
 
MaccaKnowsBest said:
Re structures on the moon: No chance unless you have a massive telescope. Even then you would require extreme magnification to see anything. The atmosphere just would be stable enough to support these high magnifications. Maybe if you have a few $billion you could buy Hubble ;)



It's just dust and other particles that blocks light from behind.
Click to expand...

Maybe Hubble with a time machine would be good. Then again, I doubt even that would be enough for some conspiracy theorists.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Some good info here.

My suggestion would be to go along to the Victorian Astronomical Society - they have lots of open nights and public viewings. Have a look at what they have (members all bring their own scopes) and ask these questions.

If you are not into that yet, just take your binoculars out at night and give them a try - you will be amazed at how much more you can see just with those. A good trick is to lie flat on your back on the lawn (banana lounges are popular!) and 'brace' your arms against your body to stop the shaking.

I agree, that for your first scope, an 6-8" (15-20-cm) Dobsonian is cheap, easy to transport and operate. About $5-600 once you get a good couple of eyepieces.

Oh, and I guarantee that once you start looking at the night sky regularly, you will never see a UFO. It's funny how people who just occasionally glance up at the sky will see UFOs, while those people who watch the heavens regularly for their hobby, have great equipment for observations, and know about planets, satellite schedules, Iridium flares, meteor showers, light refraction effects and such NEVER see UFOs.
 
Wallaby said:
Some good info here.

My suggestion would be to go along to the Victorian Astronomical Society - they have lots of open nights and public viewings. Have a look at what they have (members all bring their own scopes) and ask these questions.

If you are not into that yet, just take your binoculars out at night and give them a try - you will be amazed at how much more you can see just with those. A good trick is to lie flat on your back on the lawn (banana lounges are popular!) and 'brace' your arms against your body to stop the shaking.

I agree, that for your first scope, an 6-8" (15-20-cm) Dobsonian is cheap, easy to transport and operate. About $5-600 once you get a good couple of eyepieces.

Oh, and I guarantee that once you start looking at the night sky regularly, you will never see a UFO. It's funny how people who just occasionally glance up at the sky will see UFOs, while those people who watch the heavens regularly for their hobby, have great equipment for observations, and know about planets, satellite schedules, Iridium flares, meteor showers, light refraction effects and such NEVER see UFOs.
Click to expand...


Could it be because Victoria or Australia in general isn't necessarily a hotspot for sightings.. would astronomers from South America, Belgium, Germany, Mexico and Antarctica all say the same thing?

Not saying your wrong but perspective is everything in this world..
 
keepzitreal said:
Could it be because Victoria or Australia in general isn't necessarily a hotspot for sightings.. would astronomers from South America, Belgium, Germany, Mexico and Antarctica all say the same thing?

Not saying your wrong but perspective is everything in this world..
Click to expand...

No.

UFOs are NEVER seen by people who are experienced at looking at strange objects in the sky. They know there are plenty of strange things to see, and they see them all the time. they also know there are perfectly sound, mundane explanations for them all.
And this is the case all around the world.

Sorry to be so negative, but the UFO craze is not a topic amateur atronomers care much about - and that's based on their own experiences.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

HarryTiger said:
8 inch Newtonian

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=528197

DC7FDCEF4FEC48598B9500C90B5D43F7.jpg

I think he might have grabbed the photo from NASA :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No, that image of m42 can definitely be achieved using an 8" Newt, even a smaller telescope can show detail in the Orion Nebula.

This is rather a crude example, but here is a single raw 30 sec image taken through my 8" Newt using a canon 400D camera. This was my first ever attempt at m42 and I didn't even properly focus, nor was this a guided image.

m42w.jpg



Now, even a little adjustment in Photoshop can produce this

m42ps.jpg


Obviously nowhere near as good as the one you posted, but a couple of things to consider:

1) Mine is a single shot. The one you posted was a combination of 20 x 6 sec images. For astrophotography, your aim is to try and take many shots and then combine them using software. By "stacking" many shots, you improve the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). It's better to take 12 x 10min shots than 1 x 120 min shot. Depending on the target, most people aim for around 5-10min exposures, accumulating up to about a total of 2 hours (longer for very faint objects). Many things will dictate the length of each exposure such as light pollution, how good your guiding is, how bright the object is. M42 is a tricky object to image because some areas are faint while other areas are bright. You can see the centre of my image is already overexposed. What people do is take shots of varying lengths and then combine them, so that the centre isn't overexposed but the outer regions can be seen.

2) This person used a CCD camera. These types of cameras are much more sensitive than a DSLR camera. So they will always show more detail.

Check over on Iceinspace to see what pics can be taken.
 
MaccaKnowsBest said:
No, that image of m42 can definitely be achieved using an 8" Newt, even a smaller telescope can show detail in the Orion Nebula.
Click to expand...

Yeah it was tongue in cheek, didn't think he really stole it just that it is pretty good.

Thanks for the pics. I know the Orion Nebula (m42) can be seen through binoculars even, not much of course but there's a small blobby thing visible. For a moment I was wondering if I wasn't looking at the whole Orion constellation in your pic as there's 3 horizontal stars present but obviously they're elsewhere out of the picture, and much bigger.
 
Here's the Tarantula Nebula. Unfortunately, there's not much colour visible in the picture. The nebula does have some nice red (Hydrogen alpha) to it but stock standard dslr cameras have an inbuilt filter that blocks this part of the spectrum (IR). You can have these filters removed, but it screws up the white balance and you need to adjust this yourself if you want to use it for ordinary photography.

tarantulac.jpg
 
My first "serious" attempt at collecting data from one object. So far, all I wanted to do was image as many things as I could in a few hours. However, to get those really fantastic shots, you need to capture several hours of data.

This is the Sculptor Galaxy. It's a combination of 28 x 5min images (total 2hrs 20mins of data).

sculptorgalaxyv3.jpg
 
I have a Newtonian Telescope which is around 6" ( I think) , which I muck around with on occasion.
I'm fascinated by the above shots, because, while I see the planets and their moons, there is no way i can see anything like the detail above.

Could it be that I'm in an area with too much ambient light?

I dont think the UFO guy realises how hard it can be just to focus on an object that you can see with the naked eye, let alone something moving across the sky.

One thing I did find earlier on ( and may still be available ) is a free bit of software called "Skyglobe" which is good for working out what should be visible in your vicinity.
 
SS, you have to remember that all the images I have posted have been taken using a dslr camera. The Sculptor Galaxy image is a combination of 28x5min exposures. That's over 2 hours of light collected. I can only just see the Sculptor Galaxy through an eyepiece and it looks like a smudge of light. M42 (Orion Nebula) looks like a green glow. Our eyes are not sensitive to colour at low light conditions. Only imaging can detect colour.

None of the things I have posted look like that through the eyepiece. The larger the telescope, the more light it will gather. If you want jaw dropping views, you will need 20"-30" telescopes. You got $15,000+ to spare?;) http://www.obsessiontelescopes.com/telescopes/25/index.php
 

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top