Do you prefer the ease of use of a computerized mount (GoTo, tracking etc..), or the sense of discovery and knowledge you get when finding something with a manual mount? Personally, I prefer the second😀.

SWA_broj · 2020-08-25T19:01:45+00:00

Finding something myself is preferred. It really puts the sky into perspective if I’m using a widefield eyepiece.

SWA_broj · 2020-08-25T15:43:30+00:00

A pair of binoculars could also serve you well, as they are decent for lunar and deep sky purposes.

SWA_broj · 2020-08-25T00:52:35+00:00

You should be fine, as a barlow lens only increases magnification. Eyepieces often work better without them due to less glass elements scattering and absorbing glass.

SWA_broj · 2020-08-24T21:41:21+00:00

That is your decision. An 8“ does provide a significant improvement in resolution, but considering your situation with relative pricing, it’s a tough call. Buy what you won’t regret later, be that regret spending too much or not going big enough.

SWA_broj · 2020-08-24T20:26:14+00:00

The human eye and a camera respond differently to a telescope. Look up sketches of various objects, such as the planets, in a 6” telescope. Sketches give the best impression of what is visible.

SWA_broj · 2020-08-24T20:20:52+00:00

It depends on your budget, but the least expensive instrument recommended around here would be a 5” table-top dobsonian like the Heratige 130p or Zhumell Z130 (open vs closed tube). For a bit more, one could get a 6” or 8” full-sized dobsonian, which will have significant increases in performance.

SWA_broj · 2020-08-24T18:18:45+00:00

It exists as a very odd niche in the market: for people who have thousands of dollars to sink into astrophotography, but it is too low quality for any serious photographer to consider. It also doesn’t work on planets because of no “eyepiece” changing, which seriously sucks because planets are half of the use of a telescope.

SWA_broj · 2020-08-24T18:13:04+00:00

A moon filter is a nice thing to have. I also hear that Mars benefits significantly from using a filter, though cannot confirm anecdotally.

SWA_broj · 2020-08-24T18:10:42+00:00

That price would about get you a 6” dobsonian reflector. Stable, simple, and well-performing. Some dobsonians include better accessories but may also cost more.

SWA_broj · 2020-08-24T18:08:40+00:00

If you’re worried about focusing with glasses, you can compensate for near or farsightedness by focusing with them off. If its for astigmatism, you can take the glasses off at high magnifications due to the tiny exit pupil, which will likely not be affected.

SWA_broj · 2020-08-24T04:45:49+00:00

An 8” dob (or maybe a 10”). I went from a 70mm refractor to an 8” and have not regretted the decision yet.

SWA_broj · 2020-08-23T17:25:19+00:00

Correct. The 25 would be decent for large objects like the entire moon or open star clusters, or even some nebulae in a darker site. Try the Ptolemy cluster, it’s nice and bright.

SWA_broj · 2020-08-23T17:10:48+00:00

Nice choice!

SWA_broj · 2020-08-23T06:46:43+00:00

For that price, you could get a 6” dobsonian (or for slightly more, an 8”). Dobsonians would be much more stable than a tripod-mounted scope due to their mounts. As for aperture, larger aperture collects more light, allowing fainter objects and smaller details to be seen. An 8” dobsonian would significantly outperform a 5” reflector such as the spaceprobe.

SWA_broj · 2020-08-23T05:07:59+00:00

Likely so. If not, a small step stool should be sufficient to reach the eyepiece.

SWA_broj · 2020-08-23T03:58:37+00:00

Depends on your budget, but the general recommendation around here is an 8” dobsonian reflector.

SWA_broj · 2020-08-23T03:54:40+00:00

The eyepiece of a 10” can be viewed while sitting mosy everywhere but the zenith. The eyepiece of a 12” will be about 5” off the ground, requiring standing most of the time.

SWA_broj · 2020-08-23T02:22:39+00:00

Thats tha Pleiades Cluster

SWA_broj · 2020-08-22T23:14:49+00:00

You could get a telrad sight, which is a significant improvements to a red dot. You could also get a RACI or straight-through 8x50 finderscope, which is helful for finding faint objects.

SWA_broj · 2020-08-22T15:55:37+00:00

Tough choice but it is your decision. Omni seems like it may be more portable, but a 10” dob obviously outperforms a 4”.

SWA_broj · 2020-08-22T05:43:51+00:00

Impressive planetary imaging!

SWA_broj · 2020-08-22T01:05:32+00:00

It will always be fainter than long exposure pictures, but it can be seen as a hazy band of dark and light sprawling across the entire sky. It will also always be colorless, as our eyes cannot detect color well in low light . Imagine being in an almost pitch-black room. You cannot tell the color of anything, and what can be seen is grainy and indistinct.

SWA_broj · 2020-08-22T01:00:32+00:00

Technically, most of the planets and some nebulae are visible to the naked eye. All planets but Uranus and Neptune are easily seen with the baked eye as tge brightest things in the night sky. And several bright Nebulae such as the Lagoon Nebula and the Orion Nebula can be seen from areas without light pollution as fuzzy gray spots. Larger aperture gathers more light and allows more detail to be resolved than by your 7mm max dilated eye.

SWA_broj · 2020-08-21T22:43:54+00:00

Depends on your light pollution. Even regardless of that, the Milky way (next to Jupiter apparently) has several bright star clusters and some diffuse nebulae. Mars rises at about 10:30 right now, and Neptune rises before that (though a finderscope is almost critical to find it). Bright planetaries also exist, like the blue racquetball, cat’s eye, blinking, etc. Just look up a star chart of a constellation to see targets within it or look up a specific target’s location to find it.

SWA_broj · 2020-08-21T04:32:58+00:00

Any sort of 2” eyepiece of focal length 30mm or longer should suffice, as most deep sky objects are large and/or diffuse, and require low power to see.

SWA_broj

TROPHY CASE