It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
https://stargazerslounge.com/
In general, it helps to start with what you want to look at. Planets are tiny and need a lot of magnification to get them bigger than a little dot. Lots of magnification tends to need a wide aperture (objective lens diameter) to get the resolution to see better detail. For example, my scope has an aperture of 127mm and when used at 150x mag, I can make out the rings on Saturn, but not much detail beyond that. If you want to look at nebulae and large star clusters, a lower magnification is better because they're quite wide in terms of angle of view. The max angle of view I can realistically get from my scope is about 1° (60x mag), which is a bit too tight for larger nebulae and clusters, but very good for the moon (0.5° wide). By changing eyepieces (to increase mag), I can get in pretty close to the moon's details.
Most of the stuff at Orion Optics is very expensive, although they have some options that are within your budget...
https://www.orionoptics.co.uk/OMC/omc140maksutovca.html
https://www.orionoptics.co.uk/VX/vx6-6l.html
https://www.orionoptics.co.uk/VX/vx8-8l.html
https://www.orionoptics.co.uk/VX/vx10-10l.html
(Prices are ex-VAT.)
You'll need to add eyepieces, and for the OMC model, a star diagonal (90° mirror or prism that goes between the scope and the eyepiece to get a comfortable viewing angle). It's not clear if a finder scope is included, so possibly budget for that as well (especially with a manual mount).
Goto mounts (computer controlled) are generally very reliable, and are very convenient if you just want to look at stuff, so I wouldn't dismiss them. To put it another way, the typical mounts (like EQ3, EQ5, etc) can be retrofitted with the motors and other bits, but that works out more expensive than buying the goto version up-front - and you can still use the goto mount manually if you want. If you get a goto, you'll need to supply it with 12V at a decent current (various battery packs are available).
Definitely do your research before spending. Work out what scopes suit the main things you want to look at, and consider things like bulk and weight - scopes can be bulky, and mounts can be heavy. There are loads to choose from, especially if you don't limit yourself to made in the UK. As you home in on candidate equipment, narrow the list down to stuff that is consistently well spoken of and recommended.
Nomad
Nobody loves me but my mother... and she could be jivin' too...
Nomad
Nobody loves me but my mother... and she could be jivin' too...
A Dobsonian, as mentioned by Dodge, is a bigger scope, but the mount is integral to the design and the overall package should be lighter than the above for a similar aperture and focal length. In terms of packing volume, it's probably not that different from a Cat with mount and tripod, but potentially more awkward due to its length and the fact that you can't split it into bits to fit into spaces in the vehicle. Some Dobsonians can be semi-collapsed (look for Skywatcher Flextube models) which would help a lot with packing.
For planetary viewing, you need lots of magnification, which means some combination of long focal length scope and short focal length eyepieces (mag = scope FL divided by eyepiece FL), and strong magnification needs a larger aperture to work well. A small aperture scope set up for high mag will limit the amount of light coming in (it's darker, basically), and every aperture imposes a theoretical maximum resolution (bigger aperture = better resolution), meaning high mag on a small aperture scope just gets you a larger fuzzy blob...
...which leads to what is known as aperture fever - the desire to get bigger and bigger apertures in the hope of seeing the alien attack forces massng on the moon.
The flipside is that larger aperture scopes are bigger and heavier, and that means a heavier mount to keep a Catadioptric steady, or a bigger, more muckle Dobsonian to lug about. It's always a compromise involving choosing something between the Hubble and a pair of binoculars, and that's why it's important to do plenty of research - there's a learning curve to get over before you're informed enough to make a choice that suits you.
A visit to Rother Valley is a good idea. Not to buy just yet, but to chat and get a look at scopes to gauge what your limits are in terms of size and weight. For example, this might look like it fits the bill...
https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-skyliner-300p-flex-tube-dobsonian-telescope.html
Good focal length for planets, big aperture for a brighter and more detailed image, and at a price that leaves plenty of budget for eyepieces and other accessories. However, it's nearly 1m long when collapsed, and the diameter of the base will be around 450mm. It might be good, but it's still a lump of a thing, and some sort of case is probably sensible if it's to be transported in a vehicle loaded up with other kit. For a given situation, the best scope tends to be one that you're willing to cart about with you as well as having technical specs that suit what you want to use it for.
Nomad
Nobody loves me but my mother... and she could be jivin' too...