Posts Made By: David Wasch

It's all straightened out now. Thanks Hugh!

-David

Daniel Carrone said:

hi, i am new. my name is Dan. I am buying my first telescope.

Dan,

Here's my two cents: make sure you get something easy to use. The most aperture can end up getting you a scope that you will use less often (a 6" dob can be pretty heavy and is not apartment friendly). One of my most used scopes is a small refractor.

Also keep in mind that the wider the field of view, the easier it will be to find your way around the night sky. Not to be too technical, but if you can find a 'fast' scope (F6 or lower) you may spend less time hunting around for objects.

Now with the accumulated 'cents' from all these posts, you should be able to afford a great scope.

-David

Brad,

Since money isn't too much of an object, I would say that all comes down to what will get you out of the house on a cold night. If you love electronic gadgets, you will really enjoy a Schmidt Cassegrain. If you must see the faintest fuzzies, than a dob will give you a great time. If you crave crisp views of the planets, than a refractor is up your alley.

The market does work pretty efficiently, so all other things being equal, $2000 will get you a great scope of any type. YOU have to determine what you value.

One piece of advice given recently on this forum was to visit an Astronomy Star Party and try out a variety of scopes. This is very worth it, especially if you are risking matrimonial discord.

One word of caution. Both of the scopes you mention have ok mounts, but you might find them frustrating for ccd work. Folks who are into astrophotography will often spend considerably more $ on the mount than the scope. You can always upgrade later, but if you are sure you want to do ccd work, you should consider a smaller scope on a sturdier mount (eg. Meade LX200 or Celestron CGE).

Jerry,

I agree with others here that you are running a bit tight on your budget. I would highly recommend that you pick up a solid book on the topic before you spend any money, like Ron Wodaski's "The New CCD Astronomy". This book actually discusses different set-ups within different budget ranges, and I found it very helpful.

If you are willing to work with web cams and such, the cost can be a lot less. Wodaski's book emphasizes the high end, so take some of his recommendations with a grain of salt.

-David

Rey,

I do not (yet) use it on my scopes, but the Argo Navis product has received numerous positive reviews and is a solid product. The company contact (I think he's the owner), Gary Kopff, is a great guy-- knowledgeable and very helpful.

www.wildcard-innovations.com.au

I can say that good digital setting circles, properly mounted, will consistently put objects near the center of a medium powered eyepiece (even in your C5). You should be able to find different models at star parties; try some of them out. The Argo Navis is more expensive than most other models, but offers the greatest flexibility.

-David

Being that I live in a light polluted area (Connecticut), light gathering power is not at a premium, and transportbility is key.

Optics are important, but proper collimation and adequate baffling can even make a so-so mirror look good.

One of the most important qualities to me is the combination of all the little things (fit and finish?): ease of adjustment, the smoothness of the focuser, clean movement of the mount, resistance to wind and vibration, etc.

-David

Craig,

One option that hasn't been mentioned yet is the 100ED Borg. It's designed to readily break down for airline travel and gives extra aperture. Extra aperture can have a greater affect on crisp views than paying the extra $$ for a triplet.

Reviews of the scope have been quite good, and I'm thinking of picking one up myself.

Right now, I use a Stellarvue Nighthawk paired with a Unistar Light and love it. The small amount of CA doesn't bother me on wider views, though it can be a little distracting at high powers. The mount is smooth enough that slow-motion control is not missed. Equatorial mounts take up space, and take more time to set up, which makes less suited to 'grab and go' status.

-my two cents.

-David

Dan,

You might want to consider taking the scope out to a dark site and seeing what it can do. Then you'll have realistic expectations of what the scope COULD achieve in your back yard.

If your neighbor is using incandescent bulbs, no filter will help you block it out. Incandescent bulbs emit at most wavelengths. Maybe invite the fellow over for a view and then say, "This would look sooo much better if it were darker here." Try a bit of carrot before taking a stick to his lights.

-David

Greg,

In response to your question about exit pupil...

It may seem counterintuitive, but the longer focal length of the Mak will actually inhibit your ability to reach high magnification vs. a 14.5" dob in the f/4.5 range. The reason: the long f ratio gives such a small exit pupil that it is harder to reach high magnifications.

9" f13.5 Mak with 1mm exit pupil -> 13.5mm eyepiece -> ~228x

14.5" f4.5 Dob with 1mm exit pupil -> 4.5mm eyepiece -> ~368x

-David

Thanks for posting this. I was pleased to see that my area of Connecticut is actually trending down in light pollution. We may be over taxed and have a terrible economy, but there's a 'bright side' to out-migration, I suppose.

-David