They really are ideal for viewing the sky, but my experience with the celestron is it was very cheap and started to malfunction early on, perhaps it was user error, had I known exactly how to use it right out of the box, and been gentle with it, it may be still good, but I think they know it is a beginner scope, and should be somewhat wary of how a beginner needs to learn. I mean, I wasnt rough on it, I just didn't baby it.
As far as the binocs go, yes. They are fine... First thing to do is look at Pleiades star cluster, then spot andromeda galaxy.... After wards you can start searching other more visible open and globular clusters.... If you do all that, I think you can then seriously say you need a scope
If I had it to d o all over again, I would just save my money for the biggest scope I was ever gonna buy. For me, that is the 16" collapsible light bridge... Basic setup without the starfinder is like 800... Sounds like alot, but that is the limit on cheap scopes... Afterwards prices skyrocket. I paid ~380 for my 10", and all I can do when I look through it is wonder how much better the 16" would have been.
I appreciate the advice, Williams. Once someone gets into a hobby, one can spends LOTS of money on it for equipment.
Part of the consideration is: how often will I use and ultimately enjoy it? I think I will get the cheaper telescope and use THAT before deciding on purchase of the $800 one. TO me, THAT is LOTS of money; I am not sure I can justify THAT to my wife. The other is in range of ...maybe.....
JP
WILLIAMS5232 wrote:My opinion of the equalateral mount;
They really are ideal for viewing the sky, but my experience with the celestron is it was very cheap and started to malfunction early on, perhaps it was user error, had I known exactly how to use it right out of the box, and been gentle with it, it may be still good, but I think they know it is a beginner scope, and should be somewhat wary of how a beginner needs to learn. I mean, I wasnt rough on it, I just didn't baby it.
As far as the binocs go, yes. They are fine... First thing to do is look at Pleiades star cluster, then spot andromeda galaxy.... After wards you can start searching other more visible open and globular clusters.... If you do all that, I think you can then seriously say you need a scope
If I had it to d o all over again, I would just save my money for the biggest scope I was ever gonna buy. For me, that is the 16" collapsible light bridge... Basic setup without the starfinder is like 800... Sounds like alot, but that is the limit on cheap scopes... Afterwards prices skyrocket. I paid ~380 for my 10", and all I can do when I look through it is wonder how much better the 16" would have been.
I understand what you mean. If I could get something great for $200 I'd be typing "You need one of these!"
I'll continue to be on the look out. I'm not very hopeful though, since there are quite a few eyepieces that are more expensive than that.
It is interesting that I am seeing lots of the stuff that is not as good as a pair of binoculars in the few stores here with telescopes. The worst part is how they are often labeled as "Great for beginners."
How is something that is fragile, frustrating to use and only really good for looking at moon craters "Great for beginners." ?
That Land Sea Sky Co place has a good website. Is the physical store good? I'm probably going to try to convince my wife to let me go. But I suspect she will not be keen. Is there any other store that would be better to check out in the Houston area?
Ok the see land and sky store is marvelous. I bought a planisphere and soaked up the feeling of being in a room with lots of really nice telescopes.
The guy that helped me insisted they ship to Canada and encouraged me to contact them if I needed anything.
He recommended I try Sky Portal by Celestron on my phone. I'll give it a run but fear my phone might be too old to run it.
I'll also check out your link later tzor.
We enjoyed your town Williams but the freeways are a bit intense. Stayed near Hobby Airport and went to three Astros games. The GPS sang, "Recalculating" often.
I don't usually read the various CC forums. However I clicked on "Astronomy" and found this long, informative discussion thread... fascinating stuff, guys!
I have not come in to complain but the forest fires in British Columbia have made it so you can look directly at the orange ball that used to be a bright sun. I have not gone out to look but presume you won't see any stars here these days.
Vlasov wrote:I don't usually read the various CC forums. However I clicked on "Astronomy" and found this long, informative discussion thread... fascinating stuff, guys!
so, i've been travelling the past few months.. really just since july 25... feels like a few months.
from houston texas, i traveled to alaska, then up to tuktoyuktuk via the dempster hwy, and then down the pacific coast, all the way to santa cruz, where i turned back east and just made it through yosemite...
my whole trip i was expecting so much more in the way of looking up. was kind of in a rush to get to alaska, since i left a bit later than expected so i stayed mostly in motels the first week or so, got to alaska, and was cloudy the whole time.. same with going up to the arctic ocean... as 2dimes pointed out, fires in bc were terrible on the way back south. the sun was barely visible. more rain in washington and oregon... more cities in california....blah blah, blah.
and finally, i end up in eastman lake recreation area, just a bit north of fresno california. .... to me kind of semi-desert climate.... i would say the foothills of the sierra nevadas.
and my first good look up at a clear night.. i mean, being from mississippi i've seen plenty of stars, houston is terrible. but ive always wanted to see what that western deserty open clear night looks like. and it was great. i'm sure it will only improve as i head through nevada, arizona area.
unfortunately i don't have my scope, just a pair of 8x50 binoculars. which still makes looking up well worth it.
i can easily locate the constellations; big dipper, little dipper, orion, Cassiopeia, taurus, lyra, aquilla, cygnus, adromeda, scorpio, gemini, and now have added Hercules to the list. and since hercules interacts with a few others those will be next. (i think his knee is supposed to kneel on leo)
so inside of Hercules there is m13, supposedly the best globular cluster to see with a decent scope.. they recomend a 12" i hope my 10" will be good enough. i spotted it with my binocs, but was just a fuzzy whisp. also, Hercules alpha star is supposed to be a very satisfying double star. so can't wait to see that.
anyway, just thought i'd share. with medlum scope i think you can make out mars polar cap... i've never had mine out for opposition though.
Nice, I would recommend eastern Montana. There are a few areas there where you can be a hundred miles away from a town. The nearest yard light would be over fifty miles. I have not made it there yet since getting interested but maybe one day.
I'd have to look at a map again but basically south of the Fort Peck reservoir. Like north west of Miles City. It is a vast flat prairie area.
I looked up at the early one morning at home last week (before 6 am) and saw Orion. I am not sure I have ever seen Orion in the summer. and a bit above where the head ought to be was.....The Crescent Moon..!
Quite a site without any lenses...ok, I had my glasses on, ONLY.
jusplay4fun wrote:I looked up at the early one morning at home last week (before 6 am) and saw Orion. I am not sure I have ever seen Orion in the summer. and a bit above where the head ought to be was.....The Crescent Moon..!
Quite a site without any lenses...ok, I had my glasses on, ONLY.
JP
orion is a winter constealltion. but as summer closes,it rises earlier and earlier.
it's because we're flying around the sun at breakneck speed.
in case it's hard for you to visualize, and you are curious, here is a diagram, that may help.
if you already knew this, just pretend you didn't see it.
