|
|
Member Junky
Posts: 10
Location: Ohio | So I've been interested in getting a scope and done a ton of research in the past little bit to find something. I'm looking for something good under $250, found a scope I'm interested in for various reasons and wanted some input, also some questions.
I'm looking at the Orion Apex 90, it seems to be good enough for me.
http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=orion_telesco...
Now, my questions comes from this. I found an eyepiece of a different brand than the Sirius Plossl that comes with it, the Celestron Omni Plossls, same 1.25" diameter and want a higher magnification out of the scope, so the 6 or 9mm pieces would be what I'm looking at. Would the Celestron pieces work with that scope? I don't know the interchangeability of eyepieces or anything, so can I use eyepieces of different brands as long as the size is correct? I feel pretty dumb not knowing this or being able to find it out on my own haha. The reason I'm looking at the Celestron pieces is because they are currently going for half price compared to the Sirius Plossl pieces!
Now, as for that goes, the scope lists the maximum useful magnification at 212x. The 6mm brings it up to about 208x or so. Would I be better off going with the 9mm to keep from hitting the max of my scope and follow the suggestion I saw of 30-40x per aperture inch or would I be ok with the 6mm bringing it up to 208x?
I'm just getting started with this, the Cassegrains look like the best for me, since I don't really have any goal of what I want to look at and they seem to be good for everything, although a tad more expensive.
Would like to make the buy this week, so I'm serious about this and want to get some good info. Suggestions would be good too.
Another question is can I use any eyepiece in my scope as long as the size is correct? It's the one thing I cannot find any answers to is swapping eyepieces between brands or anything.
Other options I've considered are also the Celestron Powerseeker 127EQ or Astromaster 130EQ.
Edited by mike213 2/8/2010 7:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
Expert Junky
Posts: 2696
   
Location: Marysville,Wa 48.07N-122.21W | Hello and WELCOME to the forum!! 
Thats a cool little scope ! You will be limited to bright objects because of the aperature. These little Maksutov-Cassegrain scopes give nice sharp views, and are great for Lunar observing as well as terrestrial.
You are correct, eyepieces are inter-changeable between brands and any 1.25" EP will work fine. The 6mm will be usable as long as the atmospheric stability is good.( the "seeing")One thing to keep in mind is that some of the most pleasing views often happen at lower magnification. I see that the scope comes with a 25mm plossl.
Adding another EP at about 10mm and perhaps a 2x barlow would give you effectively, 25mm, 12.5mm ( the 25mm + barlow), 10mm, and 5mm.( 10mm+ barlow)
Those Sirius plossls are actually quite good, but the Omnis at half the price seem a good value. |
|
| |
|
Member Junky
Posts: 10
Location: Ohio | Thanks for the info! I've been looking into a Barlow but don't have the money for now (hence the sale hunting on pieces! haha). The barlow is a good point too, if I got a slightly larger piece then later picked up a barlow it would be just like buying two more pieces.
The biggest factor for me is affordability, and having a tripod or some sort of mount (as I don't have one). I'd like something with good value for the price but not limit me too terribly much (which I know might be difficult). The other ones I looked at were reflector, which I know wouldn't give me the greatest view overall, but also have larger apertures.
There's so many options it's hard to know for sure, what I'd be happy with (which I'm sure would be anything).
Future accessories I'm considering along with the barlow would include some general filters and a solar filter. So there's that too.
If there are other scopes in the price range I'm looking at that might be better, I'm open to suggestions on those as well. There are just so many options it's hard to tell without outside thoughts.
Confusing, confusing world of scopes...
Here were the other two, with larger apertures, all of them look good, but the reflectors require a little more (which is fine, as long as it's not too complex for me to get it).
http://www.celestron.com/c3/product.php?CatID=5&ProdID=501
http://www.celestron.com/c3/product.php?CatID=62&ProdID=429
I know that the Powerseeker has about 1.5x the focal length, but don't see why you would choose the Astromaster over the Powerseeker. It's cheaper, longer focal length, looks like it comes with a barlow, has higher magnification pieces with it.
Anyway, these are the three I've been eyeing, just a bit unsure which one is the best choice. I have no goal as far as wanting to look at deep sky objects or planets, just something I can get use out of and really enjoy.
Edited by mike213 2/8/2010 8:40 PM
|
|
| |
|
Expert Junky
Posts: 2696
Location: Marysville,Wa 48.07N-122.21W | You know mike, it is very confusing looking at all the options available! Here are a couple videos that might help shed some light:
http://www.andysshotglass.com/800Dollar.html
http://www.andysshotglass.com/ChoosingScope.html
http://www.andysshotglass.com/Astrophoto101.html
Andy has some good insights to share!
BTW, I would steer clear of the "Powerseeker" scope, and heres why: It is of the "Jones-Bird" design and has a cheap spherical mirror that requires a special corrector
added in the optical path. This makes the required collimation adjustments a royal pain in the ***!! 
The Astromaster on the other hand, has a good parabolic mirror and would be a much better choice. Of course, using a Newtonian reflector on an equatorial mount, is something of a game of twister because the eyepiece ends up in some weird positions!
Have fun! |
|
| |
|
Member Junky
Posts: 10
Location: Ohio | Thanks for the info on the Powerseeker! I knew there was some reason it didn't cost as much as the other. And I ended up finding a review on it that gave me the impression it wasn't the greatest option, unless I was on an extreme budget. I actually went through and checked out a bunch of those little articles.
How would my viewing compare between the Orion and Astromaster, in this case? Looking at a 90mm aperture and 1250mm focal length and a 130mm aperture with a 650mm focal length. Would I be more suited to go with the Astromaster, due to larger aperture, despite a shorter focal length, just for my general viewing? I'm not looking at astrophotography at ALL at this point, since I don't have the gear, nor the money, for it.
The Orion would be more portable, but I don't see either being hard to port around if I chose.
Thanks to Celestron's site, with all their formulas on stuff, I've figured the Orion at ~165x light and the Celestron is at 345x light, which is a massive difference, I know. Would the clarity, light, and everything make up for the lack of focal length and basic calibration in the reflector?
And as for keeping the reflector in good seeing condition, are there any tools I need for alignment or anything like that? That's one thing I have not looked at yet because I was focused on refractors, then found out reflectors and cassegrains are more along the lines of what I'd want.
Another option if focal length would make a difference would be the Astromaster 114. Drops quite a bit on the light magnification, but has 1000mm focal length.
I guess I'm lost right now on the nuances of reflectors and how much of an importance there is on focal length.
Edited by mike213 2/8/2010 11:43 PM
|
|
| |
|
Elite Junky
Posts: 881
Location: Deming, NM | Looked up the 130 in Star Ware and he says the optical tube is good. But what you have is 2 telescopes on the opposite ends of utility. The Mak is great for planets and double stars, the 130EQ is better for DSO's and wide fields of view than planets and double stars. So you would have to decide if which you would rather have. Here is another alternative. It is a Meade ETX 80 computerized goto. These are pretty nice though you do get a little false color due to it's short focal length. With the money you save you can buy a Minus V filter ( I like the Celestron ones) and have a pretty good setup that is portable, gives you almost as much aperture as the 90mm Mak and computerized to boot. Here is a link http://auroraastro.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=13&pr...
The owner of Aurora Astro, Jim Bielega is very reputable and I really have enjoyed dealing with him in the past. That being said there is something to be said about aperture! The 130 will just bring in more light than the Mak or the Meade. Plus reflectors are tried and proven for amateurs. Collimation of the mirror is not hard but it does take a little practice to get it right the first time. I personally get tired of collimating my mirror and find myself using my 90mm Mak, 60mm refractor and the "Big Gun" my 6" refractor most of the time! I rebuilt my 8" dob awhile back, added a 2" focuser and upgraded the mirror. I still use my 90mm ETX more! There is always trade offs when you choose a scope. I personally like the Mak's optics and the ease of the ETX 80 but the aperture of the 130. Just let us know what you decide to do!
Edited by phxbird 2/9/2010 12:05 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member Junky
Posts: 10
Location: Ohio | For the option of the Mak here, how often would I be able to use that to view planets? I know there is the whole deal of revolutions and such, but will I be able to see them often enough to make use of it for that often enough? How about slapping a solar filter on it and doing some sun observing? Would it be sufficient for that as well? If I did go with the Mak, how far out would I be able to see with that? Would basically any planetary observation be doable, or would I be limited to the likes of Mars or Jupiter or something around there?
The Meade looks great and might have to actually consider that as well!
The only real question about the reflector being the same as the Mak, would I be more likely to see DSOs as opposed to planets? How far out would that go? Would I see anything defined like Nebulae and stuff? Or would the Mak be a better choice for that as well? I also just discovered the Orion Astroblast 6 which has a little swivel thing, which is all fine for me starting out, which has a 150mm aperture with 750mm focal length! It also appears to have a better magnitude than the Astromaster, while only a tad more. Are they good enough to do planet scoping with or would the smaller Mak be unquestionably better for that, to make it the better choice in that arena?
I really want whatever I'll get the most out of, whatever I choose. I'm sure I won't go wrong with any of them, but being TOTALLY new to this (not totally, if you want to count checking out the moon and Jupiter on someone's scope a couple years ago) it's just so overwhelming to know all of it. I think the deciding factor might come down to the price with shipping, if I'll have equal opportunities to use both types. The Mak will run me 265 or so with shipping, the other two are a whopping 45 shipping.
The most opportunity to use it is going to be what I lean toward, so if they're equal opportunities I'll probably choose the smaller Mak for portability and just being able to use it more. The moon isn't a huge thing for me as much as other things out there, like other planets and all. Whatever I do though, it's not stopping there, as I'm really looking to get serious about this.
Looks like a Dob is also an option as well, I don't know why I completely dismissed that! There's a massive 1200mm focal length with a 150mm aperture from Orion right in the price range I'm looking at! It seems like I get one answer and have 5 more questions!
I can say so far that from the pictures I'm seeing and what I'm looking at, the possibility of seeing galaxies and all is holding my interest really well. So the possibility of seeing that stuff is appealing to me greatly. But that brings up the issue of setting up reflectors and keeping them in good using condition, but if it's not that hard I'd love to learn. How often does stuff need done to them? I really want to see EVERYTHING, but I don't think I can do that on my budget, so I won't try. I think I just like to see detail in the things that normally appear to be nothing! The stars and stuff out there aren't doing a whole lot for me, so much as seeing what the surface of the sun looks like, what Jupiter looks like close up, the form of a galaxy way out there and all the other stuff. But...seeing recognizable stars would be great too (names I recognize like Sirius and Beatelgeuse or however you spell that).
I'm gonna try to get my hands on a chart or something and see what things are.
I'd really like to know what sort of stuff I'd be likely to see with the reflectors or the Mak. If I could see those stars in the Mak or if that's too far out for such a small scope. Or how much detail from the reflector as opposed to the Mak if both are visible.
I have Stellarium and after looking at it, if it's relatively accurate then I feel fairly confident in being able to identify and locate objects out there.
Edited by mike213 2/9/2010 2:48 AM
|
|
| |
|
Forum Support Admin
Posts: 3574
Location: Mandeville, LA USA 30.38 X 90.07 | Welcome! Always keep in mind that there is not one scope that will do everything perfectly....aperture rules in visual astronomy.....Newts usually have a wider FOV....SCs, Mak Newts, etc have a narrow FOV....refractrors are the best for viewing inch for inch of aperture....refractors are the most expensive inch for inch of aperture....Newts are the best bang for the buck inch for inch....a refractor over 6" is a beast and requires a lot of mount...Newts over 12" are generally best if they come in a truss configuration.
Anyway, these are kind of general rules of that proverbial thumb. Buying a first scope can enter the "paralysis by analysis" syndrome. Don't overthink it. You'll eventually get one of two diseases; aperture fever or imaging fever...well, imaging is more like a plague.  So find something that's within your budget, take it out and first and foremost, find out if you like being sleep deprived and a banquet for the local mosquito population. If you pass that test, you can move onto one of two diseases previously mentioned.
David |
|
| |
|
Member Junky
Posts: 10
Location: Ohio | I think I've got an idea of what I'm looking at at this point. It's between the 90mm Mak or one of the larger reflectors.
In the smaller one, being limited to brighter objects, what exactly will I be limited to? Is that in reference to magnitude? Will I be able to see a good amount of stuff with it like all the planets and some further out objects?
And the reflectors, I know being better for deep sky, would that be good enough for closer objects like planets?
Just wanna get my more 'general purpose' viewer that I'll be able to use as often as possible and not be disappointed. My goal is to have a few scopes and to move up to the higher end like the big 10-12" Meades that are great for astrophotography as well as viewing.
From the looks of it, the reflectors will put me WAY out there from the information I've been seeing, but I can't get a feel for the Mak and how far it will go, as well as how close would also work with the reflectors.
Also, considering dropping considerably more on a better Mak scope because of a combination of shipping and protability. Looking at the Orion Apex 127mm and want to know if I would be able to mount it on this mini tripod they have or what I would need.
http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=cassegrains/~...
http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=mounts_and_tr...
Or if there is anywhere I could find a decent tripod of comparable price. I am definitely willing to drop more on the scope, but leaves me with less for later, but when it comes to aperture, why would that matter?
Actually getting pretty excited about this. If I could mount that scope easily with that mount then I'm ready to go! I'd honestly love this last scope if I could get a tripod to mount it on... but that's the issue that has me confused now! Don't know what is required to mount a scope...
Edited by mike213 2/9/2010 11:30 AM
|
|
| |
|
Expert Junky
Posts: 1299
Location: Boiling Springs, SC | Now, remember, this is just MY opinion. I have several different scopes and I see the value in all of them as to what they can bring to the table now that I have gotten neck deep in the hobby. My first telescope was 130mm in aperture, it didn't take long at all until I wondered what a bigger aperture would do for me. Pretty much at this aperture, you are going to be limited to excellent Moon views, small scale planetary views (with only the largest features evident), many star clusters, and a few of the brightest showpieces (like the Hercules Globular (still a fuzzy ball for the most part) and the Orion Nebula, among several others). For visual use, it would be darn near impossible to beat a larger (8+ inches) dobsonian reflector dollar for dollar. For small grab n go usage, I love binoculars. Out of the equipment that I own, if I go out for observation, it's always the Dob if I want to stay out a while, or the binoculars for a quick look. The old 130mm is now a dust collecting eyesore according to my wife .
As a side note, magnitude is a tricky little number  . To some extent, you can get a feel for what can be seen in a particular scope based on magnitude, but the trick is this... The magnitude of a particular object refers to the collective brightness that the object appears. Meaning, that if you combine all the light for an object into a single point, it will shine at a particular brightness. Most beginners, MYSELF included, forget when looking at star charts that when you spread a certain amount of light over a large area it starts to become pretty dim. Think about a drop of paint on a wall, when you run the brush over it it fades out the larger that you spread it even though it's the same amount of paint. I had several objects that I ran out of the house to see staring into the eyepiece as hard as I could just knowing that I should be able to see it. The more objects you view, the more you will get a feel for what limits you can push.
Jimmy
Edited by jimbo 2/9/2010 12:23 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member Junky
Posts: 10
Location: Ohio | I'm trying to find out if one of these mounts would work for the Apex 127, despite being a bit more expensive.
http://www.telescope.com/control/accessories/mounts-and-tripods/ori...
http://www.telescope.com/control/clearance-center/accessories-on-sa...
Also, the Apex 102 is an option. I'd just like an opinion from the standpoint of getting more bang for the buck with it. Would it be worth going all the way for the 127 and spending that extra money now, for more capabilities as opposed to saving money on a starter scope? Or would it be more favorable to 'settle' for now and use the money I save for more accessories or a better scope in the near future?
And from the looks of it, I'll be able to get a decent view of Jupiter out of the 127. Are there any views I could get that would be considered great or anything bordering on breathtaking? Moon views look great and I'm sure sun views would as well. I don't know about anything else with the specs of that scope. |
|
| |
|
Member Junky
Posts: 10
Location: Ohio | Ok, last thing here. I'm pretty narrowed in on what I want!
I'm either going to go with the Starmax 102 or Apex 127. Couple reasons for this.
The 102 will save me some money and come with a mount, allowing me to get a solar filter immediately or near to it.
The 127 will get me a more lasting scope but will cost some for a mount (as long as I can use one of those two, otherwise I'll have to pass on it for now). Can get either an eyepiece for better magnification or spend a little more and get a solar filter instead.
Like I've said already, I intend on getting all of these things regardless, but I'm unsure of which route would give me more options. Don't know how the view is with the included 25mm eyepiece to say whether I want to go with a piece of a filter.
Any input that might help me on that matter? Would I be better off buying the larger aperture and a filter later because it would allow me more night viewing (which is where I would end up using it more of the time). |
|
| |
|
Forum Support Admin
Posts: 3574
Location: Mandeville, LA USA 30.38 X 90.07 | Well, I'm a deep space stuff observer myself. I had a solar filter and sold it, although, now, I wish I hadn't. Be that as it may, I'm all for getting the most aperture your budget and your desire to move a bigger scope around, will allow. For me, the minimum aperture is 4". My outreach/grab n' go is a 110mm refractor on a German Equatorial Mount (GEM). It has pleasing views and for outreach, I always concentrate on brighter objects anyway and the refractor I have does just fine.
But the longest lines at the outreach events are always at either the big Newts, one of our club members routinely brings a 16" Nightsky dob, or at the member with the an 8" SC with a Mallincam hooked up to it. I usually set up next to the largest scope to give the viewers a contrast between a small scope and a big scope. It's alway fun!
So....get as much aperture as you can. You'll see more. It's just good ole' physics.
David |
|
| |
|
Member Junky
Posts: 10
Location: Ohio | I have found that the 127 is too heavy for the single screw mounting options on a lot of these tripods I've found, but am curious if this would be a tripod that would work with that scope. I was told it's a Vixen dovetail, but I can't tell all these things just by looking at them.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Celestron-Heavy-Duty-Alt-Azimuth-TelescopeTripo...
I don't know if there is a difference between these scopes, other than having a mount, second eyepiece, and the 90 degree thing instead of the 45. The Apex 127 just being a tube, 410, then the Skyview Pro 127 has an EQ mount, second eyepiece for 700 (on sale right now for 600).
Is there any difference between the two to warrant such a high price to get an eyepiece and mount? I don't know if I have the funds to do that Skyview Pro, but just want to know in case I can.
Edited by mike213 2/10/2010 1:32 PM
|
|
| |
Newb looking at a scope
