69 replies to this topic

[Frank2]

Instead of the usual 'it's the telescope you use' or 'there is no best scope' type of advise, I'll tell you exactly what I think is the best "beginner telescope". Drum roll please... Meade ETX90 Premier. There I stuck my neck out and gave a precise answer. A little about my qualifications for offering this bold opinion. I have been observing for decades and have owned at least a dozen telescopes and have looked through many more. Why this scope? It is physically small. Most stargazers, especially new ones, at one point will lose interest in the hobby for some length of time. This scope is so compact that it stores easily in a small space ready and waiting for you to get interested again. It doesn't scream "Hey, what are you planning to do with me" from some obvious location around the house. Ahead of it's time technology. Besides being a fully goto setup, this mount is scary close to being able to replicate what Celestron Starsense and Meade Starlock accomplish using plate solving to orient the scope to the night sky. With plate solving you turn the scope on and it does the rest. With the Premier, you rotate the scope clockwise till it stops, turn it on and it finds a star which you center and then hit enter. It finds another star you do the same. That's it, you're done. You don't have to enter the time, or identify or chose any stars. You don't even have to level or point the tripod north other than a very crude approximation. It does all this without GPS and is accurate, it is almost magic. You can see a lot. It shows small, but razor sharp images of the planets and gives excellent views of the moon. Star clusters, planetary nebulas, and double stars will keep you busy all night. Even brighter nebulas and some galaxies will reveal themselves as faint smudges under dark skies. This scope was so good Meade had to retire it prematurely and replace it with an inferior model ETX because it was stealing sales from the, at the time, top of the line telescopes. I don't have any evedince to support that claim, just a very strong suspicion. Also, it is cheap. Since this scope's heyday was a decade ago, you can find them used for a fraction of their original selling price. I could go on, but I think I have sufficientltly represented this little gem of a telescope.

Edited by Frank2, 29 May 2024 - 11:59 AM.

[Tony Flanders]

As you can't use large exit pupils under bright skies anyway, no need for a fast Newtonian, which favours a SCT or a refractor

First of all, it's near clear how bright the Original Poster's skies are. He does describe having nearby streetlights, but also describes the location as semi-rural, which suggests skyglow around 20.0 mpsas. That's very bright compared to a dark site, but fairly dark compared to the average suburban backyard.

 

Second, I love using large exit pupils under bright skies. I did all the object location for my Urban/Suburban Messier Guide by star-hopping through the eyepieces of the main scopes, which frequently entailed my 7-inch Dob at 24X. It's impossible to get a better view of M44 under 18.0 mpsas skies than I do with that scope at that magnification, for a 7-mm exit pupil.

 

I have nothing against SCTs; they're certainly a plausible choice. And refractors are fine if they're all you can get. But the best way to combat light pollution is with lots of aperture, and that's the one thing refractors can't deliver. If you want to resolve M13 well under 18.0-mpsas skies, you really need a scope with at least 10 inches of aperture, and 12 or 16 inches of aperture are better still.

[Mike Q]

The ideal scope is the one that shows you what you want to see.  Find a astro club and check out scopes and look at different objects through them.  Find the one your first and second choices and see which one fits you the best fir your given circumstance.  The one that does is your ideal scope. 

[gene 4181]

  Ideal : 1. satisfying one's conception of what is perfect, most suitable.. 2. existing only in the imagination ; desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality. :New Oxford American Dictionary.  Thats pretty much got it right there. So no one scope can   completely fulfill  it completely ,   Tony as usual has pretty much nailed it.    

[12BH7]

  Ideal : 1. satisfying one's conception of what is perfect, most suitable.. 2. existing only in the imagination ; desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality. :New Oxford American Dictionary.  Thats pretty much got it right there. So no one scope can   completely fulfill  it completely ,   Tony as usual has pretty much nailed it.    

You mean weltschmerz?

[Kerste]

Second, I love using large exit pupils under bright skies.

I've made the experience (with the C14 of my local observatory club in a city) that I see less stars if I increase the exit pupil too much.

A SCT gives me about 4mm exit pupil with a 40mm-eyepiece, should be quite close to beeing regularly blinded by a street light, even if the sky itself isn't too bright. The maximum I tried was an old 70mm-eyepiece, it was like looking through a smaller telescope.

 

Of course, using an observing cloth over your head may be helpful if there are only point sources of light around you to achieve enough dark adaptation to make use use of darker sky above you. That might be a cheap way to see more at that location.

 

And yes, aperture rules – I'd prefer our C14 to a smaller telescope with a larger exit pupil any time in the city, especially for stellar objects – and maybe with narrow-band filters, too, depending on the required field of view. I've got to try narrow band filters plus observing cloth in the city some day...

[star acres]

That's easy. I have the ideal telescope.   My Sky Watcher Skyhawk 1145 PS is a smaller parabolic Newton mounted on a smooth homemade tabletop base. It can be moved very accurately for stars, or fast or medium for terrestrial targets. If children want a look, it works perfectly, sitting on the grass. It can be put away in the blink of an eye, and it can leave it's stationary chore to go field watching. In sudden rain, it covers so compact.

Edited by star acres, 29 May 2024 - 04:02 PM.

[star acres]

In rain, you cover this:  

[ABQJeff]

OP…any more specifics on your needs/desires?  is the ground level or flat? super bumpy or cement and field turf?  You mention obstruction, so you are looking to be able to move it around?  AP and/or visual?  Any terrestrial viewing (birds, mountains)?

[PIEJr]

The ideal backyard telescope is the one that you have a desire to use every blessed clear night you get and is like a sirens call from Greek Mythology to you to go out and enjoy.

That is the Ideal Backyard Telescope.

 

For me, it is what I have and can somewhat master. My rig calls to me in ways others cannot understand.

A wonderful brain stretcher and ability challenge.

Everybody's mileage varies. Just do whatever your budget can afford.

[Tony Flanders]

The ideal backyard telescope is the one that you have a desire to use every blessed clear night you get and is like a sirens call from Greek Mythology to you to go out and enjoy.

That would be my unaided eyes. Anything more complicated tends to get left behind when I'm tired. Though hand-holdable binoculars run a close second.

[star acres]

I cover my telescope if the rain hits, but I sure don't leave it outside when I don't use it.

[Jon Isaacs]

First of all, it's near clear how bright the Original Poster's skies are. He does describe having nearby streetlights, but also describes the location as semi-rural, which suggests skyglow around 20.0 mpsas. That's very bright compared to a dark site, but fairly dark compared to the average suburban backyard.

 

Second, I love using large exit pupils under bright skies. I did all the object location for my Urban/Suburban Messier Guide by star-hopping through the eyepieces of the main scopes, which frequently entailed my 7-inch Dob at 24X. It's impossible to get a better view of M44 under 18.0 mpsas skies than I do with that scope at that magnification, for a 7-mm exit pupil.

 

I have nothing against SCTs; they're certainly a plausible choice. And refractors are fine if they're all you can get. But the best way to combat light pollution is with lots of aperture, and that's the one thing refractors can't deliver. If you want to resolve M13 well under 18.0-mpsas skies, you really need a scope with at least 10 inches of aperture, and 12 or 16 inches of aperture are better still.

 

 

My two cents:

 

The ideal scope for your backyard depends on how ideal is your backyard.

 

My San Diego backyard is bright, 18.4-18.6 mpsas.  That is not ideal.  But in most other ways, it is ideal. It's not far from the cool Pacific ocean, seeing can be excellent.  It is fenced with no visible street lights or lights from the neighbors.  There is plenty of room to setup a relatively large scope and there is a "scope room" that has no stairs or impediments so it's out the door, and about 40 feet and the scopes are ready to go..  

 

Unless I am feeling tired, I will use either my 10 inch F/5 GSO Dob or my 13.1 inch F/5.5 Starsplitter.  The typical backyard menu includes planets, double stars, brighter DSOs and some challenging DSOs, particularly nebula where filters can help fight the light pollution.  These objects all benefit from larger apertures... the planets and doubles are awesome in larger scopes.. And as Tony says, globulars as well as galaxies, nebulae and open clusters all benefit.. I consider something around 12.5 inches about ideal for backyard stuff.  It's big enough to push the limits of the seeing and provides enough aperture to make DSOs interesting.  

 

 

I have done a little observing with the 22 inch in my driveway..  It stays in the high desert so it's only been a few times but the views are impressive, even DSOs.. 

 

 

These are not scopes that will work for Paul in his situation but they are examples of the usefulness of larger aperture Dobs in an urban environment.  

 

Jon

 

 

 

. 

[Keith Rivich]

No theory here...

 

I bought a used 8" f/7 Newt on a GEM mount for $200 to use at my light polluted house. Threw away the GEM and built a nice dob mount for the OTA. I made the sides tall enough so that I can sit comfortably on an adjustable barstool while viewing. 

 

I can take the scope out my backdoor in two trips and be ready to look at planets and such in just a few minutes. If we happen to have really transparent skies I'll also go after a DSO or two.

 

Edited by Keith Rivich, 31 May 2024 - 07:37 PM.

[paulsky]

Thank you very much for all response... 

Cheers, 

Paul

[luxo II]

I was wondering what the "ideal" small backyard telescope could be... surrounded by bushes and houses up to 45° altitude, with two distinct parts, and in semi-rural Bortle, with nearby streetlights...

This... http://www.novacon.c...rtergradene.htm

They are seriously valuable collectibles now.

 

I'm actually a little surprised that apart from one attempt at copies, no-one else has attempted something g similar sufficiently durable to be left outdoors long-term..

Edited by luxo II, 01 June 2024 - 06:05 AM.

[HagglePig420]

A good general purpose scope is an SCT or a Dob.. 8-12" is a nice aperture... but having a good 4" APO refractor as a companion to the big scope is where it's at...

Everyone has different priorities and preferences... an ideal backyard scope might be a 22" obsession for one guy, a 12" fork mount SCT for another, a big 7" maksutov for that guy, or a small 3" high end APO on an alt az for some other dude...

The best think I could say is join an astronomy club, talk to people there, and look through as many scopes as you can.. get an idea for what you yourself are looking for and willing to set up

[DSOGabe]

The ideal scope is one that a user can set up fairly quickly/easily. Beyond that, its all about personal preference. 

[Kefka1138]

My vote goes to a catadioptric based on their compactness, great focal lengths for their size, and less prone to chromatic aberration. Granted, I'm biased but for backyard observing, cats are difficult to beat in my opinion.

Edited by Kefka1138, 04 June 2024 - 12:38 PM.

[ninelives]

Hello,
I was wondering what the "ideal" small backyard telescope could be... surrounded by bushes and houses up to 45° altitude, with two distinct parts, and in semi-rural Bortle, with nearby streetlights...
Thank you
Paul

I use a 120mm refractor for my similar back yard. 

 

Edit: Something that has helped me with all the stray light is a hoodie with an extra big hood. In my case, since it's usually cold here, I went with a double thick Arborwear hoodie with the oversized hood and that works pretty well.

Edited by ninelives, 04 June 2024 - 01:37 PM.

[revans]

First of all, it's near clear how bright the Original Poster's skies are. He does describe having nearby streetlights, but also describes the location as semi-rural, which suggests skyglow around 20.0 mpsas. That's very bright compared to a dark site, but fairly dark compared to the average suburban backyard.

 

Second, I love using large exit pupils under bright skies. I did all the object location for my Urban/Suburban Messier Guide by star-hopping through the eyepieces of the main scopes, which frequently entailed my 7-inch Dob at 24X. It's impossible to get a better view of M44 under 18.0 mpsas skies than I do with that scope at that magnification, for a 7-mm exit pupil.

 

I have nothing against SCTs; they're certainly a plausible choice. And refractors are fine if they're all you can get. But the best way to combat light pollution is with lots of aperture, and that's the one thing refractors can't deliver. If you want to resolve M13 well under 18.0-mpsas skies, you really need a scope with at least 10 inches of aperture, and 12 or 16 inches of aperture are better still.

My experience is that light pollution defeats aperture but yields to night vision.

 

Rick

[justfred]

Paul - Six inch dob, digital inclinometer, and a planetarium app on your phone. 

 

Easy to set up, move from spot to spot, and store. And will show you enough to keep you smiling.

 

Fred

[Jon Isaacs]

My experience is that light pollution defeats aperture but yields to night vision.

 

Rick

 

My experience is that aperture helps overcome light pollution.  I spend enough time under dark skies (100+ nights/year) that I am not looking to replace the dark sky experience with electronics.  Observing DSOs from a light polluted backyard presents it's own special challenge and larger apertures are helpful. 

 

From my light polluted backyard, the seeing is often very good, my targets of interest are primarily double stars and the planets.  For these, larger apertures provide superior views.

 

Jon

[revans]

My experience is that aperture helps overcome light pollution.  I spend enough time under dark skies (100+ nights/year) that I am not looking to replace the dark sky experience with electronics.  Observing DSOs from a light polluted backyard presents it's own special challenge and larger apertures are helpful. 

 

From my light polluted backyard, the seeing is often very good, my targets of interest are primarily double stars and the planets.  For these, larger apertures provide superior views.

 

Jon

It is getting late into galaxy season now but my interest is still in the Coma/Virgo/Leo area and that mostly means galaxies.  From Bortle 6, I've been mostly imaging with a 4 inch refractor but viewing with binocular telescopes at 82, 100 and 127mm.  I don't see much unless I use night vision PVS-14 equipped eyepieces.  When I do, what can be seen even in my BT-82 reminds me of what I could see travelling to Bortle 3 years ago with a 10 inch SCT.  There is a gain in what you can see from the 82 to the 127mm end of the aperture range I'm using, but the gain is subtle.  For example, comet Tsushinshan is visible in all of my BTs with night vision, but with regular eyepieces it bearly becomes visible in the BT-127. 

 

I've decided that night vision gives the biggest deep sky gains in Bortle 6.  Aperture without night vision gives you a tiny bit more target depth, but night vision on almost any aperture will give you a quantum leap in target depth.  I suppose best of all would be to combine larger aperture with night vision, but then there are practical size and weight limits to consider for what you gain.

 

Rick

[Jon Isaacs]

It is getting late into galaxy season now but my interest is still in the Coma/Virgo/Leo area and that mostly means galaxies.  From Bortle 6, I've been mostly imaging with a 4 inch refractor but viewing with binocular telescopes at 82, 100 and 127mm.  I don't see much unless I use night vision PVS-14 equipped eyepieces.  When I do, what can be seen even in my BT-82 reminds me of what I could see travelling to Bortle 3 years ago with a 10 inch SCT.  There is a gain in what you can see from the 82 to the 127mm end of the aperture range I'm using, but the gain is subtle.  For example, comet Tsushinshan is visible in all of my BTs with night vision, but with regular eyepieces it bearly becomes visible in the BT-127. 

 

I've decided that night vision gives the biggest deep sky gains in Bortle 6.  Aperture without night vision gives you a tiny bit more target depth, but night vision on almost any aperture will give you a quantum leap in target depth.  I suppose best of all would be to combine larger aperture with night vision, but then there are practical size and weight limits to consider for what you gain.

 

Rick

Rick: 

 

Are you using anything larger than 127mm?  In my mind, those are all small scopes with relatively little difference between them. My primary backyard scopes are my 10 inch and 13.1 inch Dobs.  Compare the refractors to the 13.1 inch.. 

 

I observe galaxies from dark skies primarily with my 16 inch and 22 inch Dobs.. I observe brighter galaxies from my 18.4mpsas backyard but for DSOs, I mostly do planetary nebulae, open clusters and globulars.. If I didn't spend more time under dark skies than under bright skies, I might be more interested in observing galaxies from my backyard. 

 

This thread is about the ideal backyard telescope.  To me that means more than just trying to see galaxies and faint extended objects.  At the top of the list are the planets and double stars because these objects are not significantly affected by light pollution. Good seeing and a 10 inch or larger scope are great backyard scopes for the planets and double stars.. 

 

Jon