Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Beginner's dilemma: why there is no difference?

  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#1 Moshteaca

Moshteaca

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2025

Posted 17 June 2025 - 12:03 PM

Probably i'm not the first asking, but i'll do it anyway.

So, the story is like this: a few months ago a bought a SH telescope just to see if its catching or not. Well ... it did, but after looking at moon and jupiter i started to become more ambitious.

Oh right ... i had to also move over the fact that planets are tiny ... rly tiny; as opposed to the moon which is a huge BLOB of light smile.gif))).

 

The telescope is a AZ bresser 70/700. In the end i made quite a few modifications - new tripod and AZ head to be more stable, I changed the dovetail clamp to be able to mount an extension to have the finder but also the phone. The idea was to use an older phone and run astroHopper to navigate the sky. The first time i finally found something - M3 was a blast. Until then i was always pointing at M81-82, but it was nothing ... special there.

I even bought the entire red line series from SVBONY to have better eyepieces. They are good, but not much improved - not to mention that the 6mm eyepiece is basically useless. It looks like i'm asking too much.

According to some app, i live in a bortle5 area.

 

 

Since i was not pleased, i started to look at other telescope options, but i ended up borrowing a AZ go to Skywatcher 127 MAK.

And finally, here is the dilemma i have - at least to me ... with both telescopes side by side ... using my 68 degrees eyepieces i honestly don't see any difference. MAYBE Vega is brighter ... somewhat easier to see details on moon ... but no improvement in the area i was interested in - see some messier object - at least the ones catalogued - verry easy & easy. I know ... i don't expect them to look as in the pictures; this i already understood when i understood that planets don't look like in the picture.

But still ... why with the MAK i have the same struggle? more aperture ... more focal length - double in fact and still the messier objects are ... hmm ... maybe there is something there indeed.

 

Can somebody clear up this for me?

I really don't expect anything HUGE, but at least to be better since all is - at the double.


Edited by Moshteaca, 17 June 2025 - 12:07 PM.

  • vtornado, scanner97 and Ripvanhalen like this

#2 vtornado

vtornado

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,377
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2016
  • Loc: North East Illinois

Posted 17 June 2025 - 12:16 PM

In my opinion eyepieces only moderately help you see more as long as what you are comparing them to is a reasonable plossl.  More expensive eyepieces will have wider fields, more eye relief, and a cleaner outer field.   Since you now have a mak which is f/13 even cheap eyepieces will have well corrected outer fields.

 

If your primary targets are M galaxies.  More aperture helps, but not by a lot.  That is because as the aperture increases the target becomes brighter, but so does the sky.  If you want to see more galaxies what you really need is dark skies.

 

Where aperture really does help is with stellar objects.  So M object open clusters, and globulars should be much better.   Because stars  are point sources the more aperture you have the brighter they are.  Increasing magnification does not dim them but does dim the sky.

 

Your Mak should allow you to see much more detail on  moon and planets because if its increased resolution and lack of CA.

 

A narrow band filter with your Mak can bring out some details on some nebula.

 

Make sure that when you are comparing you are using roughly the same power (equal size) or exit pupil. (equal brightness)

 

Additionally follow these tips for dim objects.

  • Don't view when the moon is up and bright.
  • Check your sky transparency.
  • If you are in an urban environment the higher the altitude of the object the less light dome effects there are, also less atmosphere to peer through.
  • Be dark adapted.  (this may be difficult/impossible in urban settings)
  • Use off axis vision.

Edited by vtornado, 17 June 2025 - 12:28 PM.

  • Brain&Force, sevenofnine, jeffreym and 4 others like this

#3 Richie2shoes

Richie2shoes

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,027
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2017
  • Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 17 June 2025 - 12:25 PM

Your biggest issue won't be solved by optics.  It's light pollution.  Even larger telescopes don't perform as well.  You could try a narrow band filter to get more contrast on some items, but your money would be better spent on gas and driving to darker skies.


  • Brain&Force, rgk901 and scanner97 like this

#4 scanner97

scanner97

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,210
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2024
  • Loc: New Hampshire

Posted 17 June 2025 - 12:30 PM

Most of my visual has been through 8" and 10" newts, and most DSOs (with the exception of clusters) are faint, fuzzy blobs. Half the fun (for me) is finding them by star hopping, and the other half the fun is figuring out the best mag for a given target - all other things being equal.  (Which they never are.)

 

To get better views, EAA or AP are options.  But cost and complexity are definitely trade-offs if you go down that path.  


  • TacoBuddy likes this

#5 WadeH237

WadeH237

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 12,126
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2007
  • Loc: Ellensburg, WA

Posted 17 June 2025 - 12:36 PM

When you do your side-by-side comparison, be sure that you select eyepieces that produce very similar magnification.  You should see that the 127 is significantly brighter.  Since the 127 has a 1540mm focal length to the 70's 700mm, the focal length of the eyepiece in the 127 should be 2.2 times the length in the 70.  For example, if you use a 12mm in the 70, the proper comparison would be to a 26mm in the 127.  Both scopes would be just under 60x.

 

If you use different magnifications when comparing the scopes, it's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison.


  • rfcooley, sevenofnine and Dralf like this

#6 jeffreym

jeffreym

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 797
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2016
  • Loc: La Crosse, WI

Posted 17 June 2025 - 12:50 PM

The MAK really should be significantly better visually. 

 

The mirror diagonal included with the 70mm should be fine.  

 

Try comparing the two again on M5.  The 70mm with the 9mm/68deg eyepiece would be the same field and magnification as the 127 MAK with the 20mm/68deg eyepiece.

 

Here are the two scopes with the 3 lower power eyepieces of the series (I used 1500f instead of 1540f but this is close enough).

 

Jeff

Attached Thumbnails

  • 70 vs 127.jpg

  • rjacks and Dralf like this

#7 maniack

maniack

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,708
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2019
  • Loc: SF Bay Area

Posted 17 June 2025 - 12:51 PM

For high magnification views of the moon the 127 mak should noticeably show a lot more detail than the 70mm refractor. I found that a 102 mak showed more noticeable fine details in lunar craters compared to my 72mm apochromat (although your 70mm achromat has decent color correction the AT72EDII I have should still be significantly better). On Jupiter it was closer but there was still a difference in the larger aperture. Then I compared the 102 mak side-by-side to a 125 SCT, and again I noticed a bit more detail in the larger scope. My first and most used telescope was a 127 mak that's a twin of the Sky-Watcher you borrowed (made by the same parent company Synta), and I know from experience that it's a tad better than the 125 SCT. So at least on solar system objects (which don't suffer in light pollution) you should be seeing more detail with the 127 mak.

 

Is the difference night and day? No, of course not. You are limited by seeing conditions, and most importantly by the your experience as an observer. This last point is often neglected when comparing telescopes. The more you observe the more experience you gain, the better you can see the differences that larger aperture or better corrected designs bring.

 

Splitting double stars is another area where the larger aperture will show obvious improvements. Fainter objects that you can't see in the smaller scope will also be in reach. For example my 120mm refractor can barely show M12 in my light polluted skies (bortle 8 or so), while it's a lot more obvious in my 200mm. I'm quite sure I would not be able to see it in my 72mm at home. But at a darker site I've had no trouble observing it with an 80mm achromat.


  • Jon Isaacs and sevenofnine like this

#8 SoCalPaul

SoCalPaul

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,103
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2005
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 17 June 2025 - 12:53 PM

Your biggest issue won't be solved by optics.  It's light pollution.  Even larger telescopes don't perform as well.  You could try a narrow band filter to get more contrast on some items, but your money would be better spent on gas and driving to darker skies.

I respectfully disagree with this, with regard to aperture.

 

I believe the OP's issue is due in large part to small aperture. A 5" scope simply isn't going to show many Messier objects, especially from light polluted skies, or with any detail. With time and experience, sure, you could detect them, but I'm not sure the experience would be all that satisfying, at least for me.

 

The general rule of thumb used to be, that you needed at least an 8" scope to observe deep sky objects. I think this applies here.

 

Case in point- I have been using my Tak FS-128 5" refractor for a few weeks now under my heavily light-polluted, Bortle 8/9 skies. I was just able to discern M81 and M82, and barely able to detect elongation in M82. Globulars were detectable but not a lot of stars resolved.

 

I switched to my C11, and the experience was entirely different. I was able to clearly see the shape of M82 and even hints of internal structure. Globulars were better resolved, with many stars showing up.

 

Clear skies,

Paul


  • Mike G., Bob4BVM, dnrmilspec and 5 others like this

#9 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 124,345
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002
  • Loc: PA, USA, North America, Planet Earth

Posted 17 June 2025 - 01:03 PM

The Skywatcher 127 Maksutov-Cassegrain has an effective aperture of about 118mm.
 

https://www.cloudyni...atcher-127-mak/
 

Your 70mm f/10 refractor has a limiting stellar magnitude of about magnitude 12.0, as compared to about 13.0 for the f/13 Maksutov-Cassegrain.

 

The resolution figures are approximately 1.6 and 0.98 arcseconds respectively.
 

The light grasp ratio between the two telescopes is ~2.8x.
 

Even with a 40mm eyepiece, the exit pupil produced by an f/13 telescope is only going to be 3mm so the views will be a bit dark, especially with an OIII filter.  Nebula filters generally work better at higher exit pupils.


  • Nerd1 likes this

#10 sevenofnine

sevenofnine

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,705
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2016
  • Loc: Santa Rosa, California 38*N., 122*W.

Posted 17 June 2025 - 01:07 PM

Welcome back! flowerred.gif

 

I see a lot of difference in the views through my 70/80mm refractors and my 127mm Mak on brighter SSO's and DSO's. Dim DSO's like those in the Virgo Cluster will be invisible in both scopes. Not enough aperture. However, the Mak will show both Uranus and Neptune as tiny blue/green and blue discs. The refractors will only show tiny pinpoints at best. If you're after the dim stuff then consider a much larger Newtonian (8"-12") and take it to darker skies Dobsonian.gif

Good luck on your astronomy journey! borg.gif


Edited by sevenofnine, 17 June 2025 - 05:44 PM.

  • rjacks likes this

#11 Starman1

Starman1

    Stargeezer

  • *****
  • Posts: 70,536
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 17 June 2025 - 01:07 PM

I respectfully disagree with this, with regard to aperture.

 

I believe the OP's issue is due in large part to small aperture. A 5" scope simply isn't going to show many Messier objects, especially from light polluted skies, or with any detail. With time and experience, sure, you could detect them, but I'm not sure the experience would be all that satisfying, at least for me.

 

The general rule of thumb used to be, that you needed at least an 8" scope to observe deep sky objects. I think this applies here.

 

Case in point- I have been using my Tak FS-128 5" refractor for a few weeks now under my heavily light-polluted, Bortle 8/9 skies. I was just able to discern M81 and M82, and barely able to detect elongation in M82. Globulars were detectable but not a lot of stars resolved.

 

I switched to my C11, and the experience was entirely different. I was able to clearly see the shape of M82 and even hints of internal structure. Globulars were better resolved, with many stars showing up.

 

Clear skies,

Paul

I had logged 3500 different deep sky objects before I ever made it to 8".

The thing that matters is the darkness of the sky.


  • Mike G., Bob4BVM, Brain&Force and 4 others like this

#12 vtornado

vtornado

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,377
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2016
  • Loc: North East Illinois

Posted 17 June 2025 - 01:09 PM

I'm in B8 (18.5 Mpas) and also in moist/hazy midwest skies.   Yes I can see a difference in M81 and M82 between 6,8 and 14 inches of of aperture but to my eye it is not OH WOW difference.  In the 6 M81,82 only the cores are barely detectible.  In the 14,  I can see the differences between core and disk to some extent. These galaxies are no longer just a round core.  To get to OH WOW I had to go to EAA.  

 

Before upgrading to anything larger than an 8.  I would advise any potential purchaser to go to a star party and look.  Make sure the party is hosted with similar sky conditions as your own.

 

Caution, these are my eyes, my scopes, my skies.   I have never done these comparisons in a dark sky setting, because I am transportation limited.   YMMV.


Edited by vtornado, 17 June 2025 - 01:12 PM.

  • SoCalPaul likes this

#13 droe

droe

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,172
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Fenton, Mi

Posted 17 June 2025 - 01:15 PM

I have many scopes I use for astrophotography but for visual I use Zhumell 25x100mm IF and Oberwerk 25x100mm IF binoculars. Both give me outstanding views and easy are to use. 

I will say though when looking at the moon, the ES127mm refractor produces the best moon image I have ever seen in any telescope.


Edited by droe, 17 June 2025 - 01:16 PM.

  • dnrmilspec likes this

#14 Starman1

Starman1

    Stargeezer

  • *****
  • Posts: 70,536
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 17 June 2025 - 01:15 PM

Probably i'm not the first asking, but i'll do it anyway.

So, the story is like this: a few months ago a bought a SH telescope just to see if its catching or not. Well ... it did, but after looking at moon and jupiter i started to become more ambitious.

Oh right ... i had to also move over the fact that planets are tiny ... rly tiny; as opposed to the moon which is a huge BLOB of light smile.gif))).

 

The telescope is a AZ bresser 70/700. In the end i made quite a few modifications - new tripod and AZ head to be more stable, I changed the dovetail clamp to be able to mount an extension to have the finder but also the phone. The idea was to use an older phone and run astroHopper to navigate the sky. The first time i finally found something - M3 was a blast. Until then i was always pointing at M81-82, but it was nothing ... special there.

I even bought the entire red line series from SVBONY to have better eyepieces. They are good, but not much improved - not to mention that the 6mm eyepiece is basically useless. It looks like i'm asking too much.

According to some app, i live in a bortle5 area.

 

 

Since i was not pleased, i started to look at other telescope options, but i ended up borrowing a AZ go to Skywatcher 127 MAK.

And finally, here is the dilemma i have - at least to me ... with both telescopes side by side ... using my 68 degrees eyepieces i honestly don't see any difference. MAYBE Vega is brighter ... somewhat easier to see details on moon ... but no improvement in the area i was interested in - see some messier object - at least the ones catalogued - verry easy & easy. I know ... i don't expect them to look as in the pictures; this i already understood when i understood that planets don't look like in the picture.

But still ... why with the MAK i have the same struggle? more aperture ... more focal length - double in fact and still the messier objects are ... hmm ... maybe there is something there indeed.

 

Can somebody clear up this for me?

I really don't expect anything HUGE, but at least to be better since all is - at the double.

Here's the thing.  Hubble photos of galaxies and nebulae prompt beginners to look for galaxies and nebulae, not aware that the reason these are what the Hubble photographed is because they are the hardest objects to observe from the Earth.

Add in light pollution, and you don't really have a chance.

 

So, reserve galaxies and nebulae for when you can transport the scope to a much darker sky, and look at:

Moon

Planets

Double Stars (there are thousands)

Open star clusters (there are thousands and no two look alike)

Globular star clusters

Red carbon stars (there are hundreds)

Variable stars

The brightest planetary nebulae (using an O-III filter)

 

And save for the dark skies:

Galaxies

Telescopic comets

Reflection nebulae

Dark nebulae

Emission nebulae

Most planetary nebulae


  • Jon Isaacs, SoCalPaul, Bob4BVM and 10 others like this

#15 Bob4BVM

Bob4BVM

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,608
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2015
  • Loc: W. Oregon

Posted 17 June 2025 - 01:30 PM

Well said Don !

I'd triple down on all that.

 

OP, there is still lots to see from lighter skies, so don't give up !

 

But do use the gasoline LP filter when you can :)



#16 maniack

maniack

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,708
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2019
  • Loc: SF Bay Area

Posted 17 June 2025 - 01:31 PM

I had logged 3500 different deep sky objects before I ever made it to 8".

The thing that matters is the darkness of the sky.

Just checked my logs, and I see that at least half a dozen objects I failed to see at home (bortle 8+) in my 127 mak I easily saw in an ST80 in darker skies (bortle 4). So yes this makes a much bigger difference than aperture, as some of those objects I have trouble with or can't see at all in my 200mm SCT.


  • Brain&Force and rjacks like this

#17 vtornado

vtornado

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,377
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2016
  • Loc: North East Illinois

Posted 17 June 2025 - 01:33 PM

For all the reasons Don mentions above these are my favorite targets from my urban back yard.

  • Moon -- get an atlas try to find items.
  • Planets  -- keep trying, Jupiter and Mars change their faces.  Also changes  due to distance, altitude, seeing conditions.
  • Double Stars (there are thousands)  -- i'm not too into these,(subjective) but some are really pretty.  Usually the wider/brighter ones.
  • Open star clusters (there are thousands and no two look alike)  -tops in my book, breath takingly beautiful.
  • Globular star clusters -- another of my favorites.  aperture really helps on these in in LP
  • Galaxies -- i don't really bother  sometimes for academic reasons to show the public and to just find them.
  • Emission Nebula -- a handful are visible a dual line filter helps a wee bit 

I should try for more planetary nebula.  I'll put it on my list.


  • Ripvanhalen likes this

#18 Inkie

Inkie

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,277
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2022

Posted 17 June 2025 - 02:05 PM

It's both. 

 

Larger aperture = greater definition/resolution.  That's No 1. 

 

No 2 is skies (bright, dark, moonlight-bathed, polluted, ambient light locally, alto cirrus that wasn't obvious at dusk, very light fog just a few feet above one's head (learned that with a flashlight one night), etc.  Seeing.  It varies, and it matters.

 

Then, there are those other factors; eyesight, condition of correcting lenses (smeared, scratched, not well-matched to what would be a new prescription), fogged eyepieces, or their lenses are dirty, or they don't play well with the main optics.... even the accuracy of focus achieved by the operator on that eyepiece...it all matters.

 

To the OP, I believe I understand what you're driving at.  And your brain and eyes aren't lying to you.  You perceive what your optical system and your brain say is there, such as it is.  We haven't dealt with collimation in my preamble above.  Nor with coatings in older reflectors or any aluminizing/silvering layers and their current condition. I do think, though, that if you adopted a more methodical approach, as suggested by some early responders, you would immediately see a difference between the two scopes you used.   The science ain't wrong!  A larger aperture, even if somewhat reduced from the claimed aperture, that is about 60% larger in effective total optical cross-section over the smaller scope, HAS TO show more...a lot more.  You are not equipped to see it...yet.  You need more time at the eyepieces, at different scopes, knowing more about what you're attempting to see, and letting your eye and brain learn HOW TO SEE what each system can show you.  Sometimes drawing, or making your best attempt at it, will help you to learn how to see, and not just how to look.  Many of us draw or sketch what we think we see.  Each time we move back to the eyepiece, and remember the small discernment we noticed last time and moved back to the sketching pad to draw it, will show something next to it that escaped your detection previously.  When you have this skill, you'll immediately notice the differences between scopes set up next to each other.  



#19 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 124,345
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002
  • Loc: PA, USA, North America, Planet Earth

Posted 17 June 2025 - 02:17 PM

There's a section on urban astronomy in my post at https://www.cloudyni...mers/?p=5184287

 

It also has sections on various books, observing guides, the Moon, the planets, star-hopping, stellar atlases, planispheres, planetarium programs, astronomy apps, deep-sky objects, lists of worthwhile celestial objects to observe, binocular astronomy, and other related topics.

 


  • Starman1 likes this

#20 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 124,345
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002
  • Loc: PA, USA, North America, Planet Earth

Posted 17 June 2025 - 02:28 PM

An article on observing under light-polluted skies can be found at https://skyandtelesc...yDeepSky111.pdf

 

It includes a list of 111 possible objects.



#21 Sketcher

Sketcher

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,109
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2017
  • Loc: Under Earth's Sky

Posted 17 June 2025 - 02:29 PM

OK, so you compared/contrasted your views of various objects with a 70mm (700mn focal-length) telescope (a refractor I presume) with those with a 127mm telescope (a Maksutov-Cassegrain having double the focal-length of the smaller telescope) and are wanting to know why your views of Messier objects were basically no different in the 127mm than they were with the 70mm telescope.

 

Well, many of the Messier objects are galaxies or other extended objects that are not resolvable into stars.  For the visual observation of such objects, the contrast between the object and the background sky is of great importance.  That contrast is dependent solely upon the object and the background sky.  The telescope does nothing to change that -- not its aperture, and not its focal-length.

 

Observing such objects from a more light-polluted sky will reduce the contrast even more -- eventually to the point where those objects will become invisible -- regardless of the telescope.  On the other hand, observing those objects from a less light-polluted sky will result in views that have a higher contrast between the object (the brightness of which is unchanged) and the background sky (which will now appear to be darker).

 

Many on these forums are so obsessed with aperture ("bigger is better") that they ignore the importance of other critical factors -- sky quality and observer experience being too of the biggies.

 

The below sketch is from a strictly visual observation with a 1-inch (25.4mm) aperture -- but under a "seriously dark" sky by an observer who's been observing such objects since the 1960s:

 

M31 32 110  1 inch aperture 5 Dec 2018 20x Sketcher   text 1
 
Make the same observation with a telescope of triple the aperture, but under a more severely light-polluted sky and M110 will become invisible while only the cores of the other two galaxies will be able to punch through the light-pollution.  In other words, the Great Andromeda Galaxy will appear to be much smaller when observed under a light-polluted sky -- due to insufficient contrast (with the brighter sky background) for the fainter portions of that galaxy to be visible.
 
That being said, increased aperture still has its advantages.  For such objects it permits one to have more magnified views without thinning out the limited light from the object too much.  And for many such objects, if they're not magnified sufficiently, one isn't going to be able to see them.  The human eye has very poor resolution when it comes to the observation of faint objects under low-light conditions.
 
As for those tiny planets (as well as lunar details), with adequate experience/training, one learns to pick out fine details that go unseen by less experienced observers -- all other things being equal.  Also, the quality of one's optics (specifically the telescope's objective) and one's seeing conditions (the atmosphere one is forced to look through) can often prevent a larger aperture instrument from showing more detail than one can see with a smaller aperture telescope.
 
The below sketch shows the apparent size of Jupiter, at 200x, in the field of an eyepiece with a 52 degree apparent field of view -- your "tiny" view of a planet:
 
Jupiter 200x  full field view   Sketcher

 

. . . While the below sketch shows what an experienced eye might be able to see upon observing that very same 200x view of Jupiter -- while carefully examining that tiny image in the telescope's eyepiece:
 
Jupiter June 13 2018 AR152 200x Sketcher

 

Of course, in that second view Jupiter had to be sketched much larger in order to show all that the eye could see in the "tiny" eyepiece view.

 

One's equipment is often capable of showing much more than what many beginners will be able to see -- until those beginners have gained more observing experience.
 
Buying more and/or buying bigger aren't always the better approaches when it comes to being able to see more.  There's also one's sky conditions and observer experience to take into account, and that last one costs nothing -- except for one's time.
 
P.S.  Try sketching what you see when observing objects through your telescopes.  You'll end up being able to see more -- and perhaps even being better able to note differences in what you're able to see with your telescopes.  The individual behind the eyepiece is in many ways more important than all that resides on the other side of the eyepiece.

Edited by Sketcher, 17 June 2025 - 02:36 PM.

  • Asbytec, Celerondon, maniack and 1 other like this

#22 Don W

Don W

    658th Member

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 26,020
  • Joined: 19 May 2003
  • Loc: Cottonwood, Arizona

Posted 17 June 2025 - 02:34 PM

Pardon my ignorance, I’ve only been in this hobby for 44 years.

 

What is an SH telescope?


  • Jon Isaacs likes this

#23 Moshteaca

Moshteaca

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2025

Posted 17 June 2025 - 02:42 PM

Many thanks to all of you. There are many advices and some really good info. I'll keep going on. now is summer here and at last according to this: https://starlust.org/messier-catalog/

summer is the best time for clusters - at least i saw M3, so i guess i'll be able to see the others too with enough patience.

I'll also check for the doubles and try to have as much fun as i can possibly have.

 

And since the moon is also so generous to show-up quite often, then probably i should try to "map" it too. In fact the moon as the verry first thing i looked at with the telescope.

It was really funny when i first got my hands on the telescope - as beginner, focusing on the moon is dead easy, but then .. since i has no clue what i was doing .. i pointed on jupiter and the started to turn the focuser until i got a nice HUUGE blob of light :)). Now i know that this is what you do when you want to check collimation on maks/SCTS/all the rest - NOT to view the planet in "more details". :).

Only after suffering a bit i learned what i do wrong - youtube can be quite useful. (i had no clue that cloudynights even exists at that time).

 

NOW ... i know ... just point at some star or moon, focus on it - moon should be as clear as possible, or the star a tiny clear dot .. and then don't touch the focuser again; just leave it be - don't start turning the focuser like a maniac each time you change your target :)))).

 

Thanks again for the advices.

 

so ... OIL filter huh? I should drop by a car parts shop :p


  • Jon Isaacs likes this

#24 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 124,345
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002
  • Loc: PA, USA, North America, Planet Earth

Posted 17 June 2025 - 02:59 PM

NOW ... i know ... just point at some star or moon, focus on it - moon should be as clear as possible, or the star a tiny clear dot .. and then don't touch the focuser again; just leave it be - don't start turning the focuser like a maniac each time you change your target :)))).
If you change eyepieces that are not parfocal, you'll probably have to refocus somewhat.

#25 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 124,345
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002
  • Loc: PA, USA, North America, Planet Earth

Posted 17 June 2025 - 03:01 PM

The Astronomical League's graphic at https://www.astrolea...copes85x-11.pdf illustrates just how small the bright planets are in angular size compared to the Moon.




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics