So You Wanna Buy a Telescope: Advice for Beginners (2015)
scopereviews.com
scopereviews.com
Even with a telescope your human eyes are limited to planets and the moon, that's it. Forget about seeing galaxies with the naked eye, unless you have a 1-meter diameter telescope. All other objects are basically points of light. Artificial satellites are really fun to see, but also points of light.
But a 2006 DSLR (EOS400) that I found in the garbage, connected to a cheap newtonian telescope can capture 1000X the detail your own eyes can see. Is your telescope too small? no problem. Just increase the exposure or ISO, you cannot do that with your eyes.
I've seen comets moving in real time. Tracking satellites, resolving detail on the ISS, the moons of Jupiter and Mars, incredibly detailed nebula, and a freaking quasar, all this from my window in the middle of the city, with the highest light-pollution.
One advice I have is, try to get a scope that's no more than 15 kg. More than that, and it's a hassle to move.
And get a computerized robotic mount. They are expensive (~800 us$), but awesome. No point of getting a 15-century instrument today.
A very good robot mount plus telescope can be had for 800 us$ (Nexstar 6SE)
Andromeda, M42, star clusters, can all be seen with the naked eye, but only from a dark location, and unfortunately not in most cities. I've seen scores of galaxies with just a 8.75" reflector. The virgo cluster that's available at this time of year is amazing.
I agree with most of the rest of your post though, especially the weight thing.
I'd also suggest that learning to star-hop from one object to another is a great way to learn the sky, but it does put newcomers off sometimes.
I could get NGC 7635 in my meade LX90 from my light polluted suburban backyard.
Really dunno where this moon and planets only thing comes from.
N.B. if you have the money to buy a 1 meter scope and motorized mount sufficient for it you have the money to take a lot of trips with pair of binoculars to the Chilean desert.
An 20cm reflector is a very reasonable telescope that won't break the bank, will fit into most cars, and will enable you to see a large number of galaxies and nebulae with the naked eye. The claim that you need a 100cm telescope to do so is ludicrous and contradicted by all of established astronomy.
You are seriously moving the goalposts. You're somehow claiming that it makes more sense to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a huge telescope that you can't even transport in a consumer-sized vehicle than it does to simply drive somewhere that light pollution isn't a problem?
Astronomy is one of those things that you simply can't do well in an urban environment. Hiking or mountain climbing is another. You just have to accept it as one of the trade-offs of living in the city. No one forced you to live in a city. If astronomy is important to you, you can either put up with traveling for dark skies, or go move somewhere that doesn't suffer from bad light pollution. And if you are willing to spend the money to buy a one-meter scope, then astronomy is obviously very important to you.
I have a few scopes, but mostly use an 8" celestron schmidt-cassegrain - it's a decent all-rounder for astrophotography, particularly as I mostly do deep sky stuff.
I started with a simple T-adapter and a DSLR, and of course, you start as you describe playing with the exposure, the iso - but then you want to see fainter objects, and the noise starts being a problem, so you learn about computational techniques for frame stacking and noise reduction, but those have their limits, and the results you're getting are so-so, so...
You buy a peltier cooled CCD. You upgrade your mount because you aren't satisfied with the level of backlash you're getting. You get a star tracker. You learn several suites of astrophotographic software before settling on three.
Now you're taking images of deep sky objects, but they just don't have that certain something - so you go and buy filters - hydrogen alpha, OIII, RGB, and more, and you start getting some images you're impressed by - but... wouldn't it be great if you could just capture a bit more of that dim halo... maybe I should buy a bigger telescope. Maybe I need a dome to keep conditions more constant. Perhaps I should go on holiday and lug my telescope, counterweights and all, to the other side of the planet, and hang out up a mountain.
No, this is madness. So long as you stick with what you describe and don't go down the slippery slope as I did. With the setup you describe you can still do neat stuff like observing the Galilean moons and plotting their ephemerides, and take stunning photos of the moon and even the sun with a simple solar filter.
I'm a huge photo-nerd but I took one look at AP and was like "nope!" for the exact above reasons + extremely long capture times. We're talking hours of frames to see some things.
My feeling is that there is a point in equipment in which you are simply better off getting a new rig (to work in paralell) than trying to get slightly bigger aperture (let's face it, 16" vs 14" is not as dramatic in light gathering and image quality as 8" vs 6"), but I'm not sure where that point lies.
20" diameter, ~315 squared inches of area[0], $36k
2x 16 inches diameter, ~402 squared inches of area, $20k
This prices did include mounts, but back then (more than 10 years ago) I wasn't very knowledgeable and I honestly don't know if they were good mounts. So there was margin to increase the light gathering and having spare money for the new camera.
Still, the most interesting use for multiple telescopes would be building and interferometer. I'll keep looking into that, with the procesing power available in todays machines it should be doable.
[0] I know the secondary mirror obstructs the light gathering, but I don't have precise figures, so let's go with it the area of the main mirror.
I've seen at least 6-7 galaxies/nebulae from my 8" Dobsonian and plan to try and find more this year. You just need to get out to an area with low light pollution. FWIW this is from the deck of my house(one of the benefits of living in a rural area) but totally possible to do.
There's also something surreal about seeing the milky way streaking across the sky with the naked eye. Worth it to get away from the city for that alone.
"I don't see anything, just a blurry spot"
"That's it! That's the galaxy."
"You sure? I think it might just be a smudge on the lense."
"No, no. Try moving where you're focusing your vision, around it, instead of looking at it directly. So you're viewing it mostly with your peripheral vision."
"Woah."
1. Install an astronomy app on your mobile phone. Start with free ones, and see where it leads you. I recommend Skeye. This is good for going out by yourself and looking up things you see in the sky. For a PC, Stellarium is the best I have seen.
2. Get a camera capable of taking long exposure RAW photos, and get a tripod. There is so much hidden within the range of our FOV, that a telescope or binoculars are overkill. You'll use the camera for other things, so that won't be a special-nights-only investment. A basic DSLR should be fine, though I am curious about how well generic travel-zoom cameras do. If you have such a camera already, and played around with it, let me know.
Telescopes come after this stage.
> What about Astrophotography?
> Don't.
Sorry, this is shitty advice. His friend blew thousands of dollars on the hobby. I didn't.
> and untold thousands of rejected images
In the days of DSLRs? That's like saying I'm no good at computer games because of all the "bullets" that didn't hit my intended target. Lame. To put it bluntly.
> 8) Avoid any thoughts of astrophotography.
Fuck off.
I agree that a beginner can't jump into astrophotography with a telescope. I'm of the opinion that learning with a camera and a tripod will teach a beginner to have reasonable expectations.
(Bonus points for a deconvolution filter. (Is it useful here?))
https://www.flickr.com/photos/119551085@N06/15418169222/in/a...
Just Sony NEX-6, a tripod and 30 seconds on the (carefully selected) convenient place.
Using image stacking software is also a fantastic tip, big thanks to the sibling comments.
Excellent photo, though. I'd love to visit a site with such dark skies and good seeing.
I could believe it's just ISO 1600 and 30 seconds, as the EXIF says?
And you don't need to travel to Chile, just be away from the light pollution and be prepared to make the photos during the moonless night. Use the shooting timer and then you can even have a video of the stars moving, the Milky Way is always impressive:
My advice is meant for the beginner as well. All the other things you pointed out, well, you need to learn those things for astrophotography, even if you don't have a telescope. Given how many of us have DSLRs, this is something we can start today.
> He essentially advises you not to take part in a tech arms race as a beginner.
I did not advice getting into the arms race either. My advice was on getting started for free. But here's the thing. I did not ignore recent advances in hardware and software (i.e. cameras, smartphones, apps).
Compare the simulated picture of M31 in the article and the one shot with a 50mm kit lens: http://petapixel.com/2014/07/30/sony-a7s-astrophotography-re.... One can do much better with lenses that go to 200mm, which the stock zoom lens on some cameras already do.
If you make huge investments on viewing equipment and try to get into astrophotography later on, it might turn out that your equipment is completely unsuitable. Ignore it at your own peril.
The OP is of the former type: before you go there and photograph, first take time and enjoy the simple, dark sky.
There is nothing wrong with buying a telescope with an equatorial mount instead of a dobson. But buying a dobson (and thus not having the possibility of deep sky photography) might still be a valid endeavour to really connect you mind to your new hobby. And a dobson can be had so cheap it is a no-brainer.
I for one would recommend going with an equatorial mounted Newton telescope with 6"+ . Then you have a lot to see and learn. And one day, when you are ready, take it to go for the photos. There were those great russian Sirius-Telescopes in the 90", equipped even with a motor. Do they still exist?
Contrast that with what I wrote:
> 1. Install an astronomy app on your mobile phone. Start with free ones, and see where it leads you. I recommend Skeye. This is good for going out by yourself and looking up things you see in the sky.
Please don't make assumptions about me. For the record, my photographs are not for the social media. They are for me. I did not post any of my own here.
With the author's method, one might get to see M31 as a gray fuzz after they acquire a 10" telescope. With my method, they get to see M31 with a fair bit of color, when it is viewable at their location. While it's fine to go the author's route if that's what satisfies them, the reason I have such little regard for the author is his arrogance about a field that he is completely ignorant of. A beginner learning from just his article would walk away with a distorted sense of the field. I'd advice learning from someone who is more well-rounded.
0. Get a decent pair of binoculars. If you have money, get image-stabilized binoculars. Learn your way around the night sky, and learn what's up there during the seasons.
I get more pure astronomical enjoyment from my binoculars than from my telescopes and AP rigs, honest.
That's a good point.
I haven't used binoculars myself, so I wouldn't know whether to recommend it or not. But generally, when people ask me, I drive them in the direction of learning as much as they can before buying specialized equipment.
Please don't spoil your otherwise substantive comments by breaking the HN guidelines like this.
2) Subscribe? Er, see if you can buy individual copies first. I dropped my subs because, well, the articles all started to become pablum. Probably worth picking up a few issues when you start out.
3) Yes, join a club or tag along. There's no better way to get an idea of what it's about than to meet some enthusiasts and look through their scopes. And a really friendly and helpful crowd, in my experience.
Binocs: I bought 10x50s, and I wish I had bought 7x50s. The higher magnification is nice and all, and I can hold them steady enough...for a little bit. You can use 7x50 without strain for a lot longer. Also, yes, do buy binocs. You'd be amazed what you can see with a pair of 7x50s that you can't see with naked eyes. It's a great, cheap, convenient way to get started.
Telescopes: buy one that you can afford and that you will use. Like my binoc choice above, I bought something actually nice but big enough that it was a pain to haul around and set up. Save that for later. Buy something that you will pull out on a whim and have a nice evening. This is a very individual choice, of course. If you live in a fairly dark place and the farthest you will take your scope is to your back yard, by all means get that light bucket. :)
Overall very solid advice in the article.
Its so important to make people realize , one does not need to have telescope right way. A decent pair of binocular (and probably a book with sky charts) is enough to spot the 1st few objects in the sky. If the hunger for celestial objects then one can go for the telescope else there is high chance the telescope will eat dust at home.
The other problem with hastily buy a telescope is that we end up buying a beginners one with low budget which is is usually no better than good binoculars of same power. (magnification and light gathering). It is netter wait and have a decent budget to buy a good telescope later on.
You seem to be giving good advice to newbees, but the language is incomprehensible to that audience.
- The magnification you get from a telescope/eyepiece combination is F_t/F_ep, where F_t is the telescope's focal length, and F_ep is the eyepiece's focal length.
- There are different kinds of eyepieces, and not all of them perform equally well on all targets. Broadly, you have "Planetary" targets, which are the planets, and DSOs, or "Deep-Sky Objects". The latter category includes galaxies, nebulae, and the like.
---
Essentially, what GP is saying is, "Don't rush into buying equipment, look around and pick the right tool for the job".
1. Objects are distant so you only have so many photons from them that reach your current location. This means they appear "faint". The solution to that is a large aperture scope which collects more light.
2. Objects still appear relatively small even after collecting more photons. This can be improved somewhat by using an eyepiece to "zoom up" the image.
But just like magnifying a lower resolution image on a computer, the image through your scope gets fuzzy as you blow it up since you are still only collecting so many photons. So a good eyepiece doesn't help as much as beginners think it will.
Kellner, EP: I think these are kinds of eyepieces, defined by the stacking of convex and concave lenses. DSO: Deep space object. FOV: field of view 2": the larger of two standard eyepiece form factors
I obviously can't speak to the OP's light pollution, but if they were above to observe Messier objects, seeing the rings of Saturn, Galilean moons and the red spot of Jupiter would be no problem.
Binoculars are definitely the way to go for a beginner. Spend 12 months using the naked eye and binoculars to learn the entire night sky that's visible from your location. With the aid of an astronomy book and star charts, you'll learn all the constellations and the names of the major stars in each, plus other interesting objects in each constellation (Messier objects, variable stars). Binoculars also bring out the different colours of many stars. Supplement this with background reading on the targets of your observations and other nearby objects.
During this time, you'll also be able to learn many of the most prominent features of the moon's surface, as well as easily being able to identify the planets (although Mercury can be a challenge and Neptune requires large binoculars and even then will just be a speck of light), and you'll get a feel for which constellations are visible in which seasons. Learning the sky like this is very satisfying and is a great precursor to buying a telescope. Your binoculars can of course be used for other purposes too.
As casual astronomers are generally most interested in the moon and planets, I'd recommend buying a medium-sized apochromatic refractor as a first scope. A high-quality 4" (100mm) one with a good mount can be had for under $1000, and will give stunning views of Saturn, Jupiter and the Moon, even in the middle of a large city. Other planets and the brighter star clusters and nebulae will also look good.
For astronomy, you want a large objective lens:magnification ratio, because the higher the magnification, the dimmer the view. For daytime use, this doesn't matter, but for looking at faint objects at night, light-gathering power is everything. Get this ratio at least up around 5, or ideally 7, so 7x50mm binoculars would therefore be better (and lighter) than 10x50mm. I'd start with those before possibly getting some larger (e.g. 15-16x70mm) ones, or just moving straight to a telescope.
The best advice I can give beginners is to get out to a dark sky on a moonless clear night and enjoy the wonders above you. Maybe watch for meteors for awhile. That only costs you time and effort. No equipment needed.
I've got mixed feelings about astro apps and phones/tablets. Sure their handy but I often see people looking at it instead of the night sky. While your looking down or trying to move your device around to orient it a meteor goes overhead. But you missed it jacking with your phone.
Also your night vision is affected by that phone/tablet screen - every time you look at it your pupils constrict letting in less light (unless you put a red filter over the screen). generally it takes 20 minutes for your eyes to become adapted to the dark. And 3 seconds looking at a bright screen wipes out that adaptation.
I just have one low power eye piece, I think the 26mm plossl. Saturn looks pretty much like the simulated 100x photo.
I'd like to get a Barlow and a higher mag eye piece for looking at craters on the moon.
I've messed with photography. It's a lot of trouble. Most of the time the easiest thing is to use my phone to take a picture through the eye piece.
A small refractor on a camera tripod is too frustrating, and a small cassegrain on a computerized mount often is too much fuss to align and set up.
Plossel eyepieces have 4 lenses, vs the 3 in a "Kelner". Minimal "rainbows" (chromatic aberration), and you don't have to smash your eyeball (or worse, glasses) onto the lens to see (eye relief). There are better eyepieces. Be prepared to spend at least 4 times as much, though.
The 35 mm focal length gives you the widest field of view in a standard 1 1/4" wide eyepiece, so you can actually find anything at all (and brightens dimmer objects), then, you can swap other eyepieces in the same series ("parfocal") without refocusing (much) to get higher magnification - 10 mm is the highest in my set.
Today's hobbyist telescope mounts have incredible precise stepper or servo motors, many with optical encoders so precise that they know exactly where they are pointing to. I don't think you can get a clock drive anymore.
Go for a stand AZ/EQ with a motorized GOTO unit if you can afford it. It 'll save you a lot of time looking for objects.
I would love a simple (and very approximate) web page with a few sliders and check boxes that said I have budget range X, and want to do Y and Z. It will say: "you need the following ... and these will be nice ... " And you can click "I have these", and it will go "Okay, then go and add this."
This goes for a few other grouped-purchase hobbies/undertakings. I entered similar befuddlement trying to get a reasonably sound field recording setup. There's a lot of opinion in these areas, perhaps a general "recipe" engine would be good to allow people to submit their codified advice.
http://www.ioptron.com/product-p/3302b.htm
One of the most useful things that I did when I started out in this hobby was get a login to 'AstroMart' and bought used equipment. Amateur Astronomy is like buying Gym equipment. Everybody wants to do it and will buy fancy equipment but most will not use much of that (myself included). So you end up with a lot of very good used equipment available for sale. It can also be a very very expensive hobby, hence reselling some of your equipment to feed your habit is a common event. Astromart is a sort of self regulated auction site for used astronomy equipment. I personally bought a 10 year old telescope 12 years ago which I can still resell today at the price I bought it then.
The most useful advice I see on here is to get something that you will actually take out and use. Binoculars (7x50 or 10x50) or a good small apochromatic refractor (80 mm or less) with a decent alt-azimuth mount. Learning the common constellations, locating the north star (if you are in the northern hemisphere) etc.
The following site will give you the list of dark sky locations in California.
http://www.observingsites.com/ds_ca.htm
For those in the Bay Area, Henry Coe State park near Morgan Hill/Gilroy is an excellent dark sky site. I saw the Milky Way again in all its majestic glory after 30 years here. Camp out there for a night and you can have a great time stargazing. Just try and find a cloudless, moonless night for best experience. Learn to read the Clear Sky chart for each location and plan out your trip.
Its a fun but addictive and expensive hobby. So beware.
I was thinking of something like the coin operated ones that you see at tourist spots. They are pretty expensive. Anyone have any info or done something like this before?
Can someone give me any recommendations?
I recommend a Skywatcher mount, because those mounts can be completely controlled by software and there is a very good opensource project for this, called eq-mod.
Plus, we're all spoiled by photos made by people with multimillion dollar telescopes... so the end product will be shit probably. There's some cool things that can be done wide angle but those have been done to death.
For photography you should plan at least $500 for a tracking mount, you might start even with the cameras lenses or a small refractor telescope. "Barndoor" mounts are a good alternative for not too long focal lengths.
Photographic mounts for the recommended 8 inch newtonian would run at $ 1500+ and require precise setup.
The good news is, that modern digital cameras with interchangeable lenses are pretty capable for astrophotography, so if you own one of those, there is no reason not to try it. So the strong warning in the article was to set the proper expectations.
You will probably need a camera with raw support for this to work, because each individual exposure will be extremely noisy, and any in-camera noise reduction will destroy too much detail. You will probably also need at least two bright stars in frame for alignment to work.
And if you have a huge number of images you can also keep only those with low atmospheric distortion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_imaging
The same principle could be used to keep only those images with little tracking-induced motion blur.
But just like, say, wedding photography the actual execution to create good results requires a lot of experience and expensive kit. You can catch some passable images of the night sky with a basic SLR and lens just like at Aunt Maud's wedding, but beginning star-watchers see those magnificent photos of galaxies in magazines and to avoid huge disappointment it's kinder to set expectations at the outset.
Now, alas, the light pollution is so severe that all my points of light and fuzzy patches are severely washed out.
So I sold my telescope and took up scuba diving. It was all fish and coral, fish and coral, until a few years ago. Now it's no fish and fuzzy white patches that used to be coral.
The former coral looks like nebulae and galaxies through light pollution in my 10" reflector.