Jump to content


Photo

OneSky Newtonian - Astronomers without borders

  • Please log in to reply
637 replies to this topic

#626 chewie

chewie

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 19
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2015
  • Loc: Miami, FL

Posted Yesterday, 09:56 AM

Hey Mike! I'm sure you'll enjoy using your OneSky as much as I have mine during the past month. It's such a simple, nonsense, straightforward scope to use that delivers beautiful results time and time again.

 

Last night I again trained it on Comet Lovejoy which was a sight even with the moon in its first quarter phase. Last night was also the first time I really got to use the OneSky on the moon. It was a gorgeous sight through the 25mm eyepiece with a 2x barlow attached. A combination I've grown quite fond of for looking at planets and DSO's. I checked the collimation which I had fine-tuned last week using Sirius and a couple other bright stars and it  was perfect.

 

I'm looking to get another eyepiece soon, I'm definitely looking for something with a bigger eye relief and similar or greater field of view.


Edited by chewie, Yesterday, 09:57 AM.


#627 rnc39560

rnc39560

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013
  • Loc: MS coast

Posted Yesterday, 10:03 AM

Lens design and arrangement of them is a major contributor to a "wide field" EP. However, other than stating that, I will let someone with more knowledge explain it further. Lol! 



#628 MSimmons

MSimmons

    Vendor - Astronomers Without Borders

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 75
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2008
  • Loc: California, USA

Posted Yesterday, 10:22 AM

As far as advertising on eyepieces goes, why not just print that it comes with two eyepieces, a 25mm and a 10mm.

 

Leave it to the customer to identify if they wish. Getting two eyepieces free with the scope is a great deal.

 

Your blurb could go like this:

 

"Comes with two eyepieces. A 25mm for low power and a 10mm for high power."

 

Then you don't have to worry about "wide angle" printed on the eyepiece, or questioning whether plossl or erfle.

 

That should be plenty. Have the eyepiece design answer for those that write in about what type it is.

 

Let them figure out whether wide angle applies or doesn't apply.

 

I'm afraid we'd get a lot of inquiries. And I always get the feeling if someone doesn't say up front what the specs are then there's something they'd rather not say. So I tend towards giving all the information up front. But we have to make sure that information is right!


  • rnc39560 likes this

#629 MSimmons

MSimmons

    Vendor - Astronomers Without Borders

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 75
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2008
  • Loc: California, USA

Posted Yesterday, 10:38 AM

Hi all,

 

Another newbie checking in.  I too just ordered my AWB scope a couple days ago based almost entirely on this forum, jlandy's posts, and some favorable reviews elsewhere.  Am looking forward to participating in what is an extraordinarily pleasant and useful forum.

 

It's clear to me that jlandy in particular is selling a bunch of scopes.  His progress from "beginner" to grand old man of the forum in a matter of a few months is truly inspirational and he shows what can be done with an inexpensive scope, some focus (get it?) and a little elbow (silicon?) grease.

 

But he has clearly put in a lot of effort and I wonder if he may make it look a little too easy for newcomers, particularly with the long exposure deep sky photography stuff.  I am still pretty clueless about astronomy in general but have been doing a lot of reading over the last month or so and the "experts" say that it takes lots of practice and lots of study and lots of patience (and lots of money?) to get halfway decent results.  So I worry about expectations of new forum members who see jlandy's images and are asking him about camera mounts before their scope even arrives.

 

But I am just as guilty.  I have never looked through the eyepiece of a serious telescope, I still don't own one, a month ago I couldn't spell astronomy, and today I find myself pricing autoguiders.  Hopefully I can keep my wits, go slowly, and learn to enjoy the non-electronic essence of it for awhile.  But I feel much better about the possibilities - all the "experts" I've read say you'll need $3,000 - $5,000 to do astrophotography worth doing - jlandy has demonstrated that's not necessarily true!

 

As I said, looking forward to participating in this terrific forum!

 

-- Mike

 

Welcome Mike.

 

I think you had the right idea before seeing the magic jlandy has done. The OneSky is a visual scope lacking the necessities of astrophotography, for the most part. I wouldn't recommend it to someone wanting to do astrophotography except for quick shots of the Moon or maybe the brighter planets where the exposure is short enough that there is no perceptible motion in the eyepiece.

 

While jlandy has gone way beyond that capability, note that he's not using the simple table-top Dobsonian mount for longer exposures. The optical tube assembly (OTA) is entirely suitable for wide-field astrophotography but it needs a tracking mount. And not just any tracking mount but something sturdy enough to hole the OTA without any vibration during the exposure. So the jump from visual observing to astrophotography can be a big one. But not always, as jlandy has shown.

 

The most important necessity for astrophotography is the the patience and passion that jlandy has shown. Anyone can buy the gear but not everyone can get the best results that gear can produce. That persistence and patience can make up for quite a lot of missing equipment capability. When I started in amateur astronomy more than 40 years ago there was nothing but massive equatorial mounts -- many homemade -- and a guide scope where the photographer would spend long, cold nights watching every second of the exposure. That's no longer necessary, and more time is now usually spent in post processing than gather the starlight. It's quite a different game.

 

I never expected to see results from the OneSky (OTA) like jlandy has produced. I just didn't think anyone would eve try it! And jlandy's learning curve has been amazingly steep. He shows that it can be done if you really, really, really want to do it. It's just a bit time-consuming, and there is more expense involved, but he has really minimized the expense by spending the time. It's not necessary to spend big money to get into astrophotography and get satisfying results, as he's shown. But it's not a point-and-shoot hobby, even with the very expensive gear.

 

jlandy's advice is exactly right. Look around -- there's a whole Universe out there waiting to be discovered! Get to know the expanded neighborhood you've moved into. Take a cell phone shot of the Moon or Jupiter through the eyepiece some time and see what you get. Play with it and discover what you can, and can't, easily do. That's the fun part.

 

Mike


  • rnc39560 likes this

#630 MSimmons

MSimmons

    Vendor - Astronomers Without Borders

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 75
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2008
  • Loc: California, USA

Posted Yesterday, 10:46 AM

Lens design and arrangement of them is a major contributor to a "wide field" EP. However, other than stating that, I will let someone with more knowledge explain it further. Lol! 

 

Right. Those designs provide a wider field of view. But don't confuse that with the telescope field of view. Note that eyepieces don't form the image. Think of it as the telescope forming the image at the focal plane and the eyepiece is used to examine it. You might have eyepieces that zoom in closer to the image the telescope has produced, or pull back to show more of it. But the eyepiece also has its own field of view as well. So the image is set with a given image size in the focal plane and a fixed field of view on the sky. It's always the same. Some eyepieces allow you to see more of that image at once, others less. The really wide-angle eyepieces that advertise 80+ degree field of view are for the eyepiece. You see more of the sky because you're seeing more of the image the telescope has created. The rest of the image -- outside the eyepiece's field of view -- is just not seen. There's always some of that, or else you'd see the edges of the field as a curved "border".

 

So the telescope forms an image at the focal plane, and the shorter the focal length of the telescope the more of the sky is included in the image. The eyepiece lets you view the image the telescopes created, and the shorter the focal length of the eyepiece the *less* you see of that image. For a given telescope the field of view on the sky is fixed. Same for the eyepiece. Both can be modified to include more, but for different purposes. Thus it's really important to match the eyepiece design to the telescope design, but that's another topic.

 

Mike


  • rnc39560 likes this

#631 howard929

howard929

    Member

  • *****
  • Posts: 3878
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2011
  • Loc: Low End of High Ground

Posted Yesterday, 10:49 AM

Mike,

 

I just gotta ring in here and Thank You for your knowledge, honesty, integrity and the way you handle all things OneSky. Much appreciated!

 

Take the compliments as is, you deserve them.

 

Best,

 

a very very happy owner of one, Howard 


Edited by howard929, Yesterday, 10:50 AM.

  • rnc39560 likes this

#632 rnc39560

rnc39560

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013
  • Loc: MS coast

Posted Yesterday, 10:51 AM

Jlandy has certainly shown what one can do, if willing to take the time and effort. I would never havethought anyone would this with the Onesky either! 


Edited by rnc39560, Yesterday, 10:53 AM.


#633 rnc39560

rnc39560

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013
  • Loc: MS coast

Posted Yesterday, 10:55 AM

OneSky "the little scope that could!" New marketing slogan! ;)



#634 Abhat

Abhat

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 937
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2013
  • Loc: Central Maryland, USA

Posted Yesterday, 11:08 AM

I am a visual observer. For me I think Jlandy's 99 cent Michales foam sheet design is the reason I find this scope became a keeper for me. First two days I owned the scope I thought I made a mistake. I was not happy with exposed secondary and my neighbor's lights robbing the contrast through numerous reflections.

 

Next day a trip to Michaels and what a difference that integrated light shroud makes. Now you have a 5"  light weight OTA that can collapse and fit in a  carry-on bag and provide same sharpness and contrast as other 130mm solid tube Orion and Vixen OTAs. 


  • rnc39560 likes this

#635 CosmoSat

CosmoSat

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1322
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2009
  • Loc: India

Posted Yesterday, 11:54 AM

This is likely a dumb question - what makes an eyepiece "wide angle" other than the stated focal length? I just figured the 25mm gave a much larger field of view than the 10mm, which it does. I suppose my 32mm gives a wider field of view, but the difference isn't all that much

 

 

What you figured out is the "True Field Of View" (TFOV) that different focal length eyepieces of the series u hve would produce with a given telescope. That is, the real part of the sky u would get to see.  The wide angle mentioned on eyepieces is what is known as the Apparent Field Of View (AFOV)  The viewing angle u get when looking down thru the eyepiece, and its expressed in degrees.  A  wide AFOV eyepiece does allow u to produce a larger true field than a its narrow field counterpart of the same focal length.


  • SteveG, rnc39560 and Abhat like this

#636 DaydreamPhotography

DaydreamPhotography

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 47
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2014

Posted Yesterday, 06:09 PM

Hi all,

 

Another newbie checking in.  I too just ordered my AWB scope a couple days ago based almost entirely on this forum, jlandy's posts, and some favorable reviews elsewhere.  Am looking forward to participating in what is an extraordinarily pleasant and useful forum.

 

It's clear to me that jlandy in particular is selling a bunch of scopes.  His progress from "beginner" to grand old man of the forum in a matter of a few months is truly inspirational and he shows what can be done with an inexpensive scope, some focus (get it?) and a little elbow (silicon?) grease.

 

But he has clearly put in a lot of effort and I wonder if he may make it look a little too easy for newcomers, particularly with the long exposure deep sky photography stuff.  I am still pretty clueless about astronomy in general but have been doing a lot of reading over the last month or so and the "experts" say that it takes lots of practice and lots of study and lots of patience (and lots of money?) to get halfway decent results.  So I worry about expectations of new forum members who see jlandy's images and are asking him about camera mounts before their scope even arrives.

 

But I am just as guilty.  I have never looked through the eyepiece of a serious telescope, I still don't own one, a month ago I couldn't spell astronomy, and today I find myself pricing autoguiders.  Hopefully I can keep my wits, go slowly, and learn to enjoy the non-electronic essence of it for awhile.  But I feel much better about the possibilities - all the "experts" I've read say you'll need $3,000 - $5,000 to do astrophotography worth doing - jlandy has demonstrated that's not necessarily true!

 

As I said, looking forward to participating in this terrific forum!

 

-- Mike

Welcome!  And if you have an iPhone I'd definitely look into some of the podcasts available.  I came across one from THE (ugh) Ohio State University by a wonderful professor there.  It's called Astronomy 161 and it is very informative... you just have to look over the THE OSU ;)  Just kidding, just kidding.  I'm a Gator ok ;-)  We're a little disgruntled haha!  But there are a ton of podcasts available.  I think there was even one for looking for the Messier Objects.



#637 MSimmons

MSimmons

    Vendor - Astronomers Without Borders

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 75
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2008
  • Loc: California, USA

Posted Today, 12:07 AM

OK, thanks to Abhat pointing out that the 25mm eyepiece doesn't really look like a Plossl, and CosmoSat even pointing to an identical SkyWatcher eyepiece (from the same company) that's designated SMA I've checked with Celestron and confirmed that the eyepiece is indeed a Modified Achromat and not a Plossl (like I was insisting it was!).

 

The text on the store OneSky page has been corrected.

 

I haven't checked the 10mm yet to see if it's really a Plossl.

 

Thanks to all for the correction, your patience, and especially your support! :waytogo:

 

Mike


  • Abhat, jlandy and BFaucett like this

#638 Mike_

Mike_

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2015

Posted Today, 06:47 AM


Welcome!  And if you have an iPhone I'd definitely look into some of the podcasts available.  I came across one from THE (ugh) Ohio State University by a wonderful professor there.  It's called Astronomy 161 and it is very informative... you just have to look over the THE OSU ;)  Just kidding, just kidding.  I'm a Gator ok ;-)  We're a little disgruntled haha!  But there are a ton of podcasts available.  I think there was even one for looking for the Messier Objects.

 

 

Thanks for the welcome and the podcast suggestion!  YouTube of course also has a wide selection of astronomy related videos of widely varying quality and usefulness.

 

By far the best I've found so far is Chris Impey's 10 part "Essential Astronomy" series which, along with Hawking's book "A Brief HIstory of Time," is what convinced me my life is insufficiently complicated without a telescope.  Impey is the Astronomy Dept. Deputy Head at the University of Arizona, certainly one of the premier astronomy departments in the U.S.  Impey's presentations are rigorous but entertaining and highly digestable - am going to be very sad when I finish them.

 

The first can be found here:

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=U_fLbgYA324

 

Hope the forum allows YouTube links...

 

-- Mike








Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics