Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Equipment Discussions >> Refractors

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | (show all)
coopman
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 04/23/06

Loc: South Louisiana
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: rflinn68]
      #5526947 - 11/18/12 10:05 PM

Visual only.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GOLGO13
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 11/05/05

Loc: St. Louis area
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5527059 - 11/18/12 11:19 PM

visual only for a few reasons...1) money 2) lazy 3) mooch off others who create photos...saves me time and money

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ziggy943
Post Laureate


Reged: 08/11/06

Loc: Utah
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: GOLGO13]
      #5527184 - 11/19/12 12:51 AM

99% visual

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Tom S.
member


Reged: 02/16/07

Loc: Benicia, Calif.
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5536623 - 11/24/12 03:55 AM

I can totally relate to the feeling that visual observing has a certain je ne sais quoi that looking at astrophotos lacks. But let's just leave it at that.

I don't buy the idea that looking through a telescope eyepiece is more "real" than looking at photo. The light entering your pupil is highly processed and enhanced by telescope optics. If you really want some kind of direct experience of the stars, look at them with your naked eye.

Also, astrophotography for most amateurs is about much more than simply the finished product. They enjoy the process of creating the photos. I have done a little bit of AP and understand this thrill.

But frankly, I don't really understand why I'm thrilled to use telescopes, cameras, and software all made by other people to make a picture of something that's already been photographed gazillions of times, and not only that, but basically doesn't even change from one photo to the next.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Messyone
sage


Reged: 05/02/12

Loc: Down Under
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Tom S.]
      #5536652 - 11/24/12 05:13 AM

Mine is for visual as I'm not at all interested in doing the hard yards for the final image....too much like work, not a hobby. Maybe, just maybe one day astro photography will suck me in. Til then I'll look at other peoples hard yards and marvel at the wonders my eyes can't see.
Matt


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pete-LH
sage
*****

Reged: 03/25/09

Loc: Wilmington, DE
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Messyone]
      #5536897 - 11/24/12 09:35 AM

Visual and seldom GOTO ... I prefer the hunt and real time observation ... Like watching a shadow transit on Jupiter.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rocketsteve
sage
*****

Reged: 04/17/11

Loc: Southeast Louisiana
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Pete-LH]
      #5536917 - 11/24/12 09:43 AM

I know there are a lot of folks who love astrophotography and are very good at it, but I've never really been bitten by that bug. Afocal shots of the moon and planets is about as deep as it gets for me, while the remaining 95% of the time is spent with my eye in the EP.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
CounterWeight
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 10/05/08

Loc: Palo alto, CA.
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5536942 - 11/24/12 10:02 AM

I enjoy my large refractor for visual and imaging.

Enjoy the 128 FS for visual.

I use my smaller refractors almost entirely for guiding or imaging.

________
Hope I'm not going off topic here, some general thoughts and experience regarding the original post...

Images are recordings of events in space-time, no different than same with sound. They provide useful talking points and measurement techniques for what can be quantified by them, and in terms of folks in geographically and culturally diverse areas can discuss the 'same thing' and bring ideas and concepts to bear is scientifically useful. Qualitative/quantitative comparison, here I'm just referring to information in general.

Emotional/intellectual response or reaction to the same information can be quite diverse, but it's the freezing of a 'metrics' and attempt at a 'ground form' of data that is useful in the exploration of ideas. IMO these recordings/images can add to our understanding (more than detract or confuse) - but it's up to the person looking to understand what they are looking at. Here I'm just talking about perception of information and not the data itself. If someone thinks that what they will see through a telescope is like some image they saw somewhere, not a problem - more to me an opportunity.

We experience one direct sense, that of sight. In a humor mode I could also add that we feel as in getting cold! and hearing as in the hopeful quiet... but smell and taste?

Going to the idea of emotional response to stimulus somehow being different - I agree. You can take an image and enlarge it up on the wall, play with the data and color, print in a book or magazine - and enjoy at leasure and comfort. To look through the scope is a different activity, and to take the image through the scope is yet a different activity from that. So that's three different activities WRT something hanging in space, and I wouldn't say it's limited to that. Some folks find it all equally uninteresting. Some folks prefer to take in what they choose from an armchair or couch and the screen with folks interpreting that information for them so they don't have to really think about it too much and feel what ideas communicated and how are sufficient. I'm glad they looked at that and not something else.

I wonder if your post is a tautology (as in 'is a logical statement in which the conclusion is equivalent to the premise'). I experience the night sky in my ways... getting out of the tent at a dark site to just look naked eye at it, waking up at 3AM to see if it really did clear up...grab my binoc's or go to my scope to look through it, or me sitting at home and reading books, mags, journals, atlas... and am always very stimulated by it. At that same camp site many sleep, waiting for dawn and to jump on their 'quad' or maybe head up the trail to elsewhere - without much care or concern of the night sky other than time to sleep.

Many, and sadly by all the light pollution (and economics), are seeing and experiencing the night sky only indirectly - never having a scope but owning a TV of some type, or books, or magazines and internet media.

So I propose that for that small population of us that come to this hobby from whatever backgrounds and interests and how we go about it, levels of education, objects of interest, self perceived depth of understanding, of what it is we are seeing and doing - support one another as being part of the same community rather than create divisions based on same. As ambassadors to the hobby it is up to us to praise the virtues and dispel misunderstanding about the image and the eyepiece, not to the detriment of either - in a way that can add to the community of those interested in doing either or both. When I do outreach I always start off with "this won't be like those big beautiful images you've seen" and am always surprised at all the ooohs and aaahs anyway. I also enjoy the ooohs and aaahs from the images I take and share even when I begin with "this does NOT look like this through a telescope".

Image or eyepiece I already know why I am here, I see both as an opportunity and source for possible inspiration of others to join in the fun however suits them. You can't force anyone to be interested (or can we?), so it's how you go about it if they are interested.

In summation IMO it's not the scope that is important or even what you do with it - it's how you communicate and inspire others with it if that is what you are after. For me, I don't see any bad or better side to anything when it comes to that - it's all an opportunity. As far as an introduction to spacetime - image or eyepiece, on anything of any distance I cannot see any way either could somehow be more realistic as both are 'light travel spacetime dated' if we use that as a metric, it's possible to take the same flight of fancy with either eyeiece or image if you desire. So I don't understand the introduction of that topic and binding it to
Quote:

Analogously, in your possession is a device, a "time portal" that will allow you to observe others alive still; said portal being, the refractor. When you view, say, Betelgeuse, a red supergiant, through your refractor, you see it as it appeared 640 years ago, and still alive, albeit at the point in its life where collapsing upon its core and then violently exploding outward into the void as a type II supernova is imminent, although in the distant future. However, there are those who believe that it may explode at any time during our own lives, its presence in the sunlit sky to be possibly far greater than those visible in 1054 and 1604 A.D....




... possibilities and probabilities being what they are - it is our mind that makes that or similar journey if desired, and this again a different activity.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
FirstSightModerator
Duke of Deneb
*****

Reged: 12/26/05

Loc: Raleigh, NC
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: CounterWeight]
      #5536961 - 11/24/12 10:13 AM

NP101 for visual only. If I ever did get into AP, I'd still always do it in parallel with a visual-only rig.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BigC
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 09/29/10

Loc: SE Indiana
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5537051 - 11/24/12 11:09 AM

Visual to enjoy the view NOW;photography to show others and for a tangible momemto just as in many other facets of life where people take pictures.Admittedly I really do very little photography but the reasoning is still valid.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
csrlice12
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 05/22/12

Loc: Denver, CO
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: BigC]
      #5537108 - 11/24/12 11:43 AM

Neither....they're finderscopes for reflectors....

Let the argument begin.....


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
teelgul
sage


Reged: 09/02/11

Loc: Australia
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5537209 - 11/24/12 12:58 PM

Long live visual ! NO chips ,chargers ,cords,or cards.
Why trouble ourselves with AP ?
hubble and VLBT can do that better.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jrbarnett
Eyepiece Hooligan
*****

Reged: 02/28/06

Loc: Petaluma, CA
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: csrlice12]
      #5537499 - 11/24/12 04:40 PM

Actually, when placed on a reflector, the refractor is not a finder. It's a reference scope. It lets the reflector owner know what he should be able to see with respect to the target, if his scope were well-figured, smooth, clean, collimated and cooled.

- Jim


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
RAKing
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/28/07

Loc: West of the D.C. Nebula
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: t.r.]
      #5537540 - 11/24/12 05:05 PM

Quote:

"Considered as a collector of rare and precious things, the amateur astronomer has a great advantage over amateurs in other fields ... the amateur astronomer has access at all times to the original objects of his study; the masterworks of the heavens belong to him as much as to the great observatories of the world. And there is no privilege like that of being allowed to stand in the presence of the original." -- Robert Burnham Jr, Burnham's Celestial Handbook





+1 on this quote.

Years ago, I spent way too much of my college time doing astrophotography with my 35mm Nikons. I would spend the whole observing session exposing a few rolls of film, then spend a few hours every day developing and printing the results. When I finally realized it wasn't any fun it was too late --- I ruined TWO hobbies.

I came back to astronomy about ten years ago and swore I would stick to visual observing only. I dabbled a bit with digital imaging, but I have mainly stayed the course and enjoy it so much more than ever before.

Some of the objects I've seen are better than any photograph - they are indelibly etched in my memory.

Cheers,

Ron


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
City Kid
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 05/06/09

Loc: Northern Indiana
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5537681 - 11/24/12 06:51 PM

My refractors, like my reflectors, are for visual only. I suppose that could change one day but I doubt it. Back when I still had my G11 to put my NP101 on it used to cross my mind that all I was lacking was a camera but I'm not interested in navigating the learning curve. Still, I'm not going to say never.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jan Owen
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 02/12/06

Loc: Sun City West, Arizona
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: jrbarnett]
      #5537744 - 11/24/12 07:38 PM

One can do both. I did astrophotography for several years.

I now only do visual astronomy...

I find I FAR prefer the *presence* of looking AT the stars, and not an image thereof.

But that's just me.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sky Muse
sage


Reged: 10/26/12

Loc: De Soto County, MS
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Tom S.]
      #5537999 - 11/24/12 10:47 PM

"I can totally relate to the feeling that visual observing has a certain je ne sais quoi that looking at astrophotos lacks."

Yes, so can I, and how.

"I don't buy the idea that looking through a telescope eyepiece is more "real" than looking at photo."

"If you really want some kind of direct experience of the stars, look at them with your naked eye."

No doubt, that in and of itself can be rewarding, particularly when observing from a dark location, the more primeval the better.

However, when one sees, a litter of puppies, for instance, do they not crave a closer inspection? Or, when one sees a cluster, an array of telescopes in a shop?

The visual refractor...hug a star tonight!

Alan


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Doug D.
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 08/23/05

Loc: Virginia
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5538100 - 11/25/12 12:24 AM

As I've gotten older and my eyes have deteriorated some I've worried more and more about my ability to resolve things through my scopes as well as I could when I was young (or perhaps would have if only I could have afforded the scopes I own now when I was younger - one of those strange ironies of life). I dislike looking through eyepieces with glasses on and find binoviewing by far the most comfortable in part because I can keep both eyes open and adjust focus for each eye separately. In any event, I bring this up because I feel there may come a time when I'll want to switch to imaging simply because my skills at the eyepiece will be diminished (i.e., decreased sensitivity, increases in floaters, lower acuity, and who knows what else?). I'm thinking maybe imaging will help keep me in the game longer.... I'm just taking the long view here, doesn't hurt to plan ahead.

For now I remain a visual observer and I am quite pleased with that. I have started imaging with an Astrotrac, small refractors (e.g., TV60is, TV76) and digital cameras and I must admit that I've enjoyed it. It is very simple relative to CCD imaging with its steep learning curve, guided multi-hour exposures - not to mention lots of time invested in processing images rather than observing.

It is now almost cliche of course but as a visual observer I like knowing photons originating from long ago are striking my retinas as opposed to a CCD array. Either way, I guess I'll always remain a refractor guy.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Andy Taylor
Twisted, but in a Good Way
*****

Reged: 09/24/08

Loc: Epsom - UK
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Doug D.]
      #5538486 - 11/25/12 10:26 AM Attachment (28 downloads)

With the Carton F13 I have to say visual, but as a planetary imager with my other scopes I just had to stick in the webcam and see what's going on...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
SAL
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 09/13/03

Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Andy Taylor]
      #5538526 - 11/25/12 10:59 AM

I prefer refractors over my Newt and I am strictly a visual observer. Though I must admit I am becoming more interested in trying astrophotography at some point.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | (show all)


Extra information
43 registered and 41 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Scott in NC, FirstSight, panhard, star drop 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 3918

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics