Which telescope should I choose for terrestrial and stargazing?
April 24, 2009 10:16 AM Subscribe
Which telescope should I choose for terrestrial and stargazing?
I know diddly about telescopes, but have done some research and it appears that I need a refracting scope that will easily allow me to look at the landscape as well as the sky.
I saw previous advice that at entry-level prices binocs are preferred to a telescope, but I really want a telescope on a tripod:
> Primary use will be looking at ships and the city
> Secondary use will be stargazing (I live in the city with a lot of light so this may not be something I do much at home, but I would taking camping, etc)
> If there is something with a camera attachment that would be super cool, but
> I don't want to break the bank (say <>Meade NG-70SPR 70mm . . . any reason I should not purchase this? What would doubling my spend give me?
Thanks!
I know diddly about telescopes, but have done some research and it appears that I need a refracting scope that will easily allow me to look at the landscape as well as the sky.
I saw previous advice that at entry-level prices binocs are preferred to a telescope, but I really want a telescope on a tripod:
> Primary use will be looking at ships and the city
> Secondary use will be stargazing (I live in the city with a lot of light so this may not be something I do much at home, but I would taking camping, etc)
> If there is something with a camera attachment that would be super cool, but
> I don't want to break the bank (say <>Meade NG-70SPR 70mm . . . any reason I should not purchase this? What would doubling my spend give me?
Thanks!
Pretty much anyting worth buying is going to be capable of the magnification you need, so don't let anyone use that as a sales point. If you can change the eye-piece, you're golden in that regard.
For terrestrial use your big concern is going to be your ability to aim it. If you get something with an equatorial mount that's going to be a pain sometimes. But, if you're trying to do astro-photography you're going to want that equitoral mount since things wander out of your field of view with the rotation of the Earth.
What it's mounted on is more important than you might think. If you set a telescope up on a wooden deck, for example, and put in a really strong eyepiece you won't be able to see what your looking at any time someone takes a step until the vibrations dampen out.
Apature diameter is the big thing for stargazing. Thats why the sky crowd is so big into the various reflector configurations. A six inch (in diameter) scope is what most back yard astronomers consider the minimum.
If I were you I'd look for a small schmidt-cassegrain since they're compact, which makes them a LOT more portable. Unfortunately, most of what's on that site seems to come with the automatic aiming technology which has got to drive up the price.
It might be worth your while to track down your local stargazing comunity and see if anyone there has upgraded recently and has an older scope they want to sell.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 11:21 AM on April 24, 2009
For terrestrial use your big concern is going to be your ability to aim it. If you get something with an equatorial mount that's going to be a pain sometimes. But, if you're trying to do astro-photography you're going to want that equitoral mount since things wander out of your field of view with the rotation of the Earth.
What it's mounted on is more important than you might think. If you set a telescope up on a wooden deck, for example, and put in a really strong eyepiece you won't be able to see what your looking at any time someone takes a step until the vibrations dampen out.
Apature diameter is the big thing for stargazing. Thats why the sky crowd is so big into the various reflector configurations. A six inch (in diameter) scope is what most back yard astronomers consider the minimum.
If I were you I'd look for a small schmidt-cassegrain since they're compact, which makes them a LOT more portable. Unfortunately, most of what's on that site seems to come with the automatic aiming technology which has got to drive up the price.
It might be worth your while to track down your local stargazing comunity and see if anyone there has upgraded recently and has an older scope they want to sell.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 11:21 AM on April 24, 2009
at entry-level prices binocs are preferred to a telescope, but I really want a telescope on a tripod
Just briefly, I have nice binocs. I get tired of aiming them at sky objects by hand. You are correct, you do want something on a tripod.
posted by gimonca at 1:10 PM on April 24, 2009
Just briefly, I have nice binocs. I get tired of aiming them at sky objects by hand. You are correct, you do want something on a tripod.
posted by gimonca at 1:10 PM on April 24, 2009
Response by poster: I ended up going with the Meade NG-70SPR and it's definitely provided $80 worth of fun since it arrived a couple of weeks ago. We're using it almost exclusively for terrestrial viewing, scoping out boats and building details from our apartment. It's plenty powerful for what we wanted it for and as expected it's nice to have something on a tripod to aim and hold at something of interest. I've not spent the time figuring out how to find stars, but the moon looks good.
posted by donovan at 10:33 AM on May 26, 2009
posted by donovan at 10:33 AM on May 26, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
However, Meade is the market leader in name meaning that the other players in the market will get you considerably more bang for the (small) bucks. For scopes in this price range, the big three brands are essentially equal in quality. Trying to shoot for your objectives I see a Celestron 114 EQ at your 2x price which would afford you a camera mount.
You may find the information at telescopes.com useful as they seem targeted to the entry level buyer and not so likely to bury you in incomprehensible data. Disclaimer: no connection with telescopes.com, even as a customer.
posted by fydfyd at 11:08 AM on April 24, 2009