Looking to buy your first telescope? Part 1

[tfwthom]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi, i'm interested in a few telescopes and im hoping that someone can determine which is better. My price range is under 350, although I could push it up a bit if it makes a difference. I am interested in the&nbsp;Celestron Nexstar 114 SLT (with the goto thing)&nbsp;for $369, Celestron Astromaster 114 EQ for $259, Celestron Astromaster 130 EQ for $269, and Sky-Watcher 5.1 w/ 2x barlow and moonfilter&nbsp;for $289 (all of these are reflectors btw). There are a few Orion telescopes, however I can't find any shops which sell those around Mississauga or Toronto, Ontario. I have 1 more question too, in the description of the 114 SLT it says you will be able to see Messier objects such as the Great Orion neb. and stuff, but in the 114 EQ astromaster it says more light gathering for nebula's (but for every Astromaster series,&nbsp;regardless of price or size, it was sayin more light gathering ability for nebula's).Suggestions please <br />Posted by TahaSiddiqui</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Get an 8' Orion Classic dob for $370. Orion is sold on line http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=dobsonians/~pcategory=telescopes/~product_id=09707;jsessionid=793B0F3AE56662AC762998724B615A35.ivprod2</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1" color="#3366ff">www.siriuslookers.org</font> </div>

 

[crazyeddie]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi, i'm interested in a few telescopes and im hoping that someone can determine which is better. My price range is under 350, although I could push it up a bit if it makes a difference. I am interested in the&nbsp;Celestron Nexstar 114 SLT (with the goto thing)&nbsp;for $369, Celestron Astromaster 114 EQ for $259, Celestron Astromaster 130 EQ for $269, and Sky-Watcher 5.1 w/ 2x barlow and moonfilter&nbsp;for $289 (all of these are reflectors btw). There are a few Orion telescopes, however I can't find any shops which sell those around Mississauga or Toronto, Ontario. I have 1 more question too, in the description of the 114 SLT it says you will be able to see Messier objects such as the Great Orion neb. and stuff, but in the 114 EQ astromaster it says more light gathering for nebula's (but for every Astromaster series,&nbsp;regardless of price or size, it was sayin more light gathering ability for nebula's).Suggestions please <br /> Posted by TahaSiddiqui</DIV></p><p>Even a 2" scope can see all of the Messier objects. &nbsp;But if you want to see them as more than very faint smudges of greenish light, buy a bigger telescope, such as a 6" or 8" dobsonian. &nbsp;Forget about "GOTO" for now....you can always have that on your next telescope if you decide you really like this hobby.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[TahaSiddiqui]

<p>Thanks alot crazyeddie! So ur suggesting i get a dobsonian over a refector? Will this affect views at planets&nbsp;or the moon (negatively)? Also, if i do end up gettin a 4.5" or 5.1", the views wont be a smudge of greenish light (for nebula's)&nbsp;like u said for 2" but will be decent? About getting that Orion scope, I would but since I live in Canada, customs or border fees add an extra $100-200. Im interested in this dobsonian, Sky-Watcher 153mm (6'') Dobsonian Telescope for $299. Also, what is the difference between a "super 25mm and 10mm eyepiece" compared to a regular 25 or 10mm one? Last question, are dobsonians difficult to set up? </p><p>Thanks alot </p>

 

[tfwthom]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks alot crazyeddie! So ur suggesting i get a dobsonian over a refector? Will this affect views at planets&nbsp;or the moon (negatively)? Also, if i do end up gettin a 4.5" or 5.1", the views wont be a smudge of greenish light (for nebula's)&nbsp;like u said for 2" but will be decent? About getting that Orion scope, I would but since I live in Canada, customs or border fees add an extra $100-200. Im interested in this dobsonian, Sky-Watcher 153mm (6'') Dobsonian Telescope for $299. Also, what is the difference between a "super 25mm and 10mm eyepiece" compared to a regular 25 or 10mm one? Last question, are dobsonians difficult to set up? Thanks alot <br />Posted by TahaSiddiqui</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Both SKy-Watcher and Orion are made by Synta in China, so it doesn't matter. Get the largest diameter scope you can afford.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1" color="#3366ff">www.siriuslookers.org</font> </div>

 

[crazyeddie]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks alot crazyeddie! So ur suggesting i get a dobsonian over a refector? Will this affect views at planets&nbsp;or the moon (negatively)? Also, if i do end up gettin a 4.5" or 5.1", the views wont be a smudge of greenish light (for nebula's)&nbsp;like u said for 2" but will be decent? About getting that Orion scope, I would but since I live in Canada, customs or border fees add an extra $100-200. Im interested in this dobsonian, Sky-Watcher 153mm (6'') Dobsonian Telescope for $299. Also, what is the difference between a "super 25mm and 10mm eyepiece" compared to a regular 25 or 10mm one? Last question, are dobsonians difficult to set up? Thanks alot <br /> Posted by TahaSiddiqui</DIV></p><p>First of all, your views of faint nebula and galaxies will be nothing like what you see in photographs, so be prepared to be somewhat disappointed....with the exception of a few showpiece objects such as the Orion Nebula, <span style="font-weight:bold" class="Apple-style-span">everything </span>will be relatively dim and faint. &nbsp;You will see no spectacular reds and blues or any other bright colors....almost everything will be a pale green (the wavelength of light your eyes are most sensitive to), even in an 8" aperture telescope. &nbsp;Star clusters will be better, but again, more aperture gives you better views. &nbsp;A 6" F/8 dobsonian will give you great lunar and planetary observing and it's a great all-purpose beginner's scope, but 6 inches of aperture is still just 6 inches of aperture. &nbsp;It's an improvement over a 4.5" or 5.1", but not by much.</p><p>I don't know what "super" eyepieces refer to as opposed to regular ones. &nbsp;Unless the advertiser specifically mentions the eyepiece design, such as "plossl", "erfle", etc., you can assume they are cheap kellners, the least-expensive design.</p><p>Dobsonians are about the easiest scope to set up. &nbsp;The 6" and 8" ones from Orion have carrying handles and can be move around with one hand (if you're reasonably fit). &nbsp;Otherwise, you just move the base and tube assembly separately, each of which are easy to carry. &nbsp;Then you drop the tube assembly into the cradle of the base, and you're ready to go.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[TahaSiddiqui]

<p>Oh, ok thx, u and tfwthom are a great help . Im going&nbsp;tomorrow morning to&nbsp;get mine&nbsp;.&nbsp;I just have one more question about the Dobsonians, are they good for backyard usage? I dont really go to starparties but I will be going to a closeby park more often. In my backyard, houses and trees are of a bit obstruction but good enough for an EQ or ALZ mount. I actually did have a telescope before.. but it was a tasco 60mm and&nbsp;I had it for less than a week because I had heard they are horrible. Anyway, these are the telescopes I have in mind, please check em out and comment. http://khanscope.com/productdetails.cfm?productID=271</p><p>http://khanscope.com/productdetails.cfm?productID=270</p><p>http://khanscope.com/productdetails.cfm?productID=1409</p><p>http://khanscope.com/productdetails.cfm?productID=1408</p>

 

[TahaSiddiqui]

I bought my telescope!! However, it was not any I had listed in my last post. It is the Celestron Astromaster 114 AZ. I bought this because EQ seemed very complicated for me atm. The dobsonian was a bit large, so i dont think it was practical for me to use everyday, carrying it in my backyard. The finderscope on this scope is pretty bad, but I think i can adjust to it. Ive only been able to see the moon on this so far, but tomorrow night i'm going to try to see some of the planets, star clusters, and some nebula's . Wish me luck, and thanks for the comments/suggestions

 

[darkhelmet01]

<font size="1"><p><br /><br /><font size="1">&nbsp;<br /></font><font size="1">----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /></font><font size="1">as far as ease of use, the two scope would be about the same.</font></p></font><p><font size="1">If you have the $100 to spare, I'd say probably go with the 8 inch.</font></p><p><font size="1">Please wait for some more astute scope people respond before taking my advice though, as I'm a meteor guy, not a scope expert. <br /></font>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>i was leaning this way, didnt want to spend the extra 100 bucks but in the grand scheme of things its not really that much money. </p><p>i have another question though, i live in a big city. light polution is not as bad as it used to be, they made an effort to cut it down. you used to could barely see the stars through a purple haze. but it is still not as clear as when you are outside of the city, would investing in a light polution filter help or should i go outside of the city to star gaze? </p><p>thanks</p>

 

[crazyeddie]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>i was leaning this way, didnt want to spend the extra 100 bucks but in the grand scheme of things its not really that much money. i have another question though, i live in a big city. light polution is not as bad as it used to be, they made an effort to cut it down. you used to could barely see the stars through a purple haze. but it is still not as clear as when you are outside of the city, would investing in a light polution filter help or should i go outside of the city to star gaze? hanks <br /> Posted by darkhelmet01</DIV></p><p>It will help, but it's not a cure-all. &nbsp;Light pollution filters will also make galaxies and stars dimmer, so they are better for use with emission nebula. &nbsp;Since it's not always possible to travel to dark sky sites, LPR filters are a nice accessory, but there really is no substitute to viewing under a dark sky, away from city lights.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[darkhelmet01]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It will help, but it's not a cure-all. &nbsp;Light pollution filters will also make galaxies and stars dimmer, so they are better for use with emission nebula. &nbsp;Since it's not always possible to travel to dark sky sites, LPR filters are a nice accessory, but there really is no substitute to viewing under a dark sky, away from city lights. <br />Posted by crazyeddie</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;thanks for the answers everyone.&nbsp;i ordered my telescope and a ligt filter. will pick up a moon filter later. hopefully it wont be cloudy and rainy when it gets here. thanks again. <br /></p>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;thanks for the answers everyone.&nbsp;i ordered my telescope and a ligt filter. will pick up a moon filter later. hopefully it wont be cloudy and rainy when it gets here. thanks again. <br />Posted by darkhelmet01</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>It's the unwritten rule of astronomy. Receipt of your new scope will guarantee 2 weeks of clouds. SOrry, that's just the way it is. Keep a boat handy <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[commander_khashoggi]

I bought a Meade Multi-Coated (Whatever&nbsp;<em>Multi-Coated</em>&nbsp;means....<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" />) telescope a few days ago at a garage sale, fully functional and everything with two different eye-pieces.<br />When I went to go and test it outside in daylight, I focused it and everything.&nbsp; When I looked through the eye-piece,&nbsp;the world&nbsp;was upside down!!<br />I decided to ignore that fact and try it out on a clear night, which was yesterday.&nbsp; I got the scope focused again, and looked through the eye-piece.&nbsp; Blackness. (And yes, I took off the lens-cap.xD)<br /><br />My Dad says I'm missing a mirror, which, if you think about it, is probably true.<br /><br />Any suggestions that could help me out with this would be very much appreciated. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font size="3"><font color="#339966">"<strong>If it's planned,</strong></font> <font color="#808080"><u>it's boring.</u>"</font><font color="#ff9900"> </font><font color="#ffcc33"><strong>- <em>Freddie Mercury</em></strong></font></font></p> </div>

 

[TahaSiddiqui]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I bought a Meade Multi-Coated (Whatever&nbsp;Multi-Coated&nbsp;means....) telescope a few days ago at a garage sale, fully functional and everything with two different eye-pieces.When I went to go and test it outside in daylight, I focused it and everything.&nbsp; When I looked through the eye-piece,&nbsp;the world&nbsp;was upside down!!I decided to ignore that fact and try it out on a clear night, which was yesterday.&nbsp; I got the scope focused again, and looked through the eye-piece.&nbsp; Blackness. (And yes, I took off the lens-cap.xD)My Dad says I'm missing a mirror, which, if you think about it, is probably true.Any suggestions that could help me out with this would be very much appreciated. <br />Posted by commander_khashoggi</DIV></p><p>The reason the telescope inverted the image of what you saw (upside down) is because of the eyepiece, it's normal for astronomy use. However, if you wish to use ur telescope for terrestrial as well, you may want to buy a telescope eyepiece (errected eyepiece). Is your telescope a reflector? Anyway, I do not think you are missing a mirror. To find out, take off the cap, then look from the&nbsp;very&nbsp;front of the telescope where you took the cap off.&nbsp;At the very end of the scope, you will see a mirror. That is your primary mirror. The secondary mirror is what you see when you look through the focuser without any eyepiece inserted and the cap is off for the front of the scope. There is no mirror at the very front of the telescope as you would think there is. I thought that too when i got my first reflector telescope. Try aligning your finderscope with the main telescope then find an object like a&nbsp;bright star&nbsp;using the findescope, and look through the telescope with an eyepiece. You will see a huge circle until you focus it, but when you do focus it properly, you will see a star in perfect shape (unless you scope needs colliminating which I don't really know how to yet). Hope I helped xD</p>

 

[commander_khashoggi]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The reason the telescope inverted the image of what you saw (upside down) is because of the eyepiece, it's normal for astronomy use. However, if you wish to use ur telescope for terrestrial as well, you may want to buy a telescope eyepiece (errected eyepiece). Is your telescope a reflector? Anyway, I do not think you are missing a mirror. To find out, take off the cap, then look from the&nbsp;very&nbsp;front of the telescope where you took the cap off.&nbsp;At the very end of the scope, you will see a mirror. That is your primary mirror. The secondary mirror is what you see when you look through the focuser without any eyepiece inserted and the cap is off for the front of the scope. There is no mirror at the very front of the telescope as you would think there is. I thought that too when i got my first reflector telescope. Try aligning your finderscope with the main telescope then find an object like a&nbsp;bright star&nbsp;using the findescope, and look through the telescope with an eyepiece. You will see a huge circle until you focus it, but when you do focus it properly, you will see a star in perfect shape (unless you scope needs colliminating which I don't really know how to yet). Hope I helped xD <br />Posted by TahaSiddiqui</DIV></p><p>So,&nbsp;to my understanding of what you just told me above, you're&nbsp;saying that it's&nbsp;completely normal&nbsp;to get an inverted&nbsp;image?&nbsp; Well, if that's what you are saying, that sucks.xD<br />And when I went&nbsp;downstairs and&nbsp;looked through the front end of the scope,&nbsp;with no&nbsp;eye-piece on, I just saw straight through to the other side.&nbsp; No&nbsp;mirrors whatsoever.&nbsp; The same thing when I looked through the&nbsp;main&nbsp;end with no eye-piece.<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /><br />But when I put on the eye-piece,&nbsp;and seeing a mirror in there, I saw&nbsp;that one mirror through the front end.<br />Yes, you've helped a ton.<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" />&nbsp; Thanks very much!^^<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font size="3"><font color="#339966">"<strong>If it's planned,</strong></font> <font color="#808080"><u>it's boring.</u>"</font><font color="#ff9900"> </font><font color="#ffcc33"><strong>- <em>Freddie Mercury</em></strong></font></font></p> </div>

 

[my_chemical_science]

<p>I'm looking to buy my first telescope.</p><p>&nbsp;how much is too much to spend on it?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080"><strong><em><br /><img id="efe57d21-8154-4fbb-93b5-7c5f4a8303be" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/15/3/efe57d21-8154-4fbb-93b5-7c5f4a8303be.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="197" height="106" /><br />If everyone treats you like a kid, you might as well act like one and throw the TV out the hotel window ~Gerard Way</em></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[tomorows_scientist]

<p>Ok im yung going to have my first job this summer now what would be in my price range(extreamly inexpensive) yet it will give me the best um.... "picture" and distance i can see (bang for my buck) if u know what i mean. lol i dont know much about telescopes or anything so any ideas ?? this would be my first telescope but i also dont you know want somthing thats a&nbsp;"pile" that barly works.<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-undecided.gif" border="0" alt="Undecided" title="Undecided" />.... and also i was wondering i live way up north and we have verry extream winters most ppl would say i meen it gets down&nbsp; -50&nbsp; here some times&nbsp;in the winter (our summers are normal i might add tho lol)&nbsp;with the wind chill so do you know of any telescopes that would be lets say weather proof to that kind of temprature lol im sure if they did make one it would be plenty out of my price range but maybe for a future purchase.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tomorows_scientist]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is too much light pollution.No point in having a telescope.At least dont waste your time. <br />Posted by alokmohan</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;not when ur living in a small town in the middle of no where haha like me then its aparently prime conditions minus having winters here that would kill me if i was outside tring to look at the stars lol.</p><p>and this also adds to my post above i dont need any of that you know extra "special" stuff to like reduce light polution i dont think. when i live in a small town and dont have that problem....</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[TahaSiddiqui]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok im yung going to have my first job this summer now what would be in my price range(extreamly inexpensive) yet it will give me the best um.... "picture" and distance i can see (bang for my buck) if u know what i mean. lol i dont know much about telescopes or anything so any ideas ?? this would be my first telescope but i also dont you know want somthing thats a&nbsp;"pile" that barly works.....&nbsp;&nbsp;and btw what is that little box next to this that says mark this as a quistion ?? i clicked it so idk what is going to happen lol <br />Posted by tomorows_scientist</DIV><br /><br />This regards to my_chem. as well. What would your price range be exactly? I too am young and just bought a telescope about a month ago with first job earnings. When i had asked the same question about buying a telescope which would give the best views for the price, they all pretty much advised a Dobsonian telescope. These are reflector telescopes.&nbsp;You want your telescope to have the highest&nbsp;apperture as possible for the price. Apperture is what the diameter of the telescopes tube is, which provides the amount of light gathering. The higher the apperture, the&nbsp;objects will become more clear and you will be able to see things which are alot farther in space (deep space). People advised me to buy an Orion Dobsionian either 6" or 8" (apperture). You can buy these online at www.telescope.com. However, search google for astronomy shops nearby. Although I did not ending up the Dobsonian because I thought the mount was that suitable for my use, I am starting to wish I did anyway because of the light gathering. I ended up buyin a 4.5" reflector for $280, but I am still pleased with my views. Oh btw, there are other great brands such as Meade, Celestron, William Optics, and more! Stay away from Tasco, they arenot a good telescope brand. Hope I helped.

 

[tomorows_scientist]

<p>what is a good magnification and what do you guys suggest on buying somthing without a stand/mount&nbsp;w/e (u call em)&nbsp;how much would a good&nbsp;mount cost because all i can find for mounts are these like $1,000 mounts and im like heck no lol. here is the link to the telescope i was looking at i could maybe afford it lol depending on how much a stand/mount would cost and if you guys think this would be a good buy or not ...?...</p><p>http://www.telescopes.com/telescopes/optical-tubes/r130sfota.cfm</p><p>plz check it out and tell me what u think and&nbsp;&nbsp; thanks&nbsp; tahhasiddique&nbsp;(guy who posted above this).</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[my_chemical_science]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This regards to my_chem. as well. What would your price range be exactly? I too am young and just bought a telescope about a month ago with first job earnings. When i had asked the same question about buying a telescope which would give the best views for the price, they all pretty much advised a Dobsonian telescope. These are reflector telescopes.&nbsp;You want your telescope to have the highest&nbsp;apperture as possible for the price. Apperture is what the diameter of the telescopes tube is, which provides the amount of light gathering. The higher the apperture, the&nbsp;objects will become more clear and you will be able to see things which are alot farther in space (deep space). People advised me to buy an Orion Dobsionian either 6" or 8" (apperture). You can buy these online at www.telescope.com. However, search google for astronomy shops nearby. Although I did not ending up the Dobsonian because I thought the mount was that suitable for my use, I am starting to wish I did anyway because of the light gathering. I ended up buyin a 4.5" reflector for $280, but I am still pleased with my views. Oh btw, there are other great brands such as Meade, Celestron, William Optics, and more! Stay away from Tasco, they arenot a good telescope brand. Hope I helped. <br />Posted by TahaSiddiqui</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I don't know yet. But it should be around 200 bucks</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080"><strong><em><br /><img id="efe57d21-8154-4fbb-93b5-7c5f4a8303be" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/15/3/efe57d21-8154-4fbb-93b5-7c5f4a8303be.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="197" height="106" /><br />If everyone treats you like a kid, you might as well act like one and throw the TV out the hotel window ~Gerard Way</em></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[TahaSiddiqui]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>what is a good magnification and what do you guys suggest on buying somthing without a stand/mount&nbsp;w/e (u call em)&nbsp;how much would a good&nbsp;mount cost because all i can find for mounts are these like $1,000 mounts and im like heck no lol. here is the link to the telescope i was looking at i could maybe afford it lol depending on how much a stand/mount would cost and if you guys think this would be a good buy or not ...?...http://www.telescopes.com/telescopes/optical-tubes/r130sfota.cfmplz check it out and tell me what u think and&nbsp;&nbsp; thanks&nbsp; tahhasiddique&nbsp;(guy who posted above this). <br />Posted by tomorows_scientist</DIV></p><p>Magnification is actually not so important for telescopes, as I once&nbsp;thought before too. What you want is the apperture size, the telescope you showed has 130mm (which is 5 or&nbsp;5.1" not sure).&nbsp;That&nbsp;is a pretty good&nbsp;telescope tube, but you need a mount. I'd recommend something that comes with a mount as well. These telescopes are ideal: http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=classicdobs/~product_id=09185</p><p>http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=dobsonians/~pcategory=telescopes/~product_id=09804</p><p>http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=classicdobs/~product_id=09707</p><p>These telescopes start from 4.5" to 8" (ones I listed anyways). Magnification is limited to the size of the telescope, to find out what is the maximum "useful" magnification, multiply the size of the telescope by 50. Ex. 4.5 x 50 = 225 Therefore 225X magnifiction should be the highest you should use. However, when you're looking for Deep space objects such as Galaxies and Nebula's, you should be using around 30-80 magnification because of the Field of View you will&nbsp;have. When looking at planets, go for 100-300 magnification. I usually go to 200X to view saturn with my 4.5". However, if you decide to buy a 6" or 8" telescope, you'll be able to&nbsp;go to&nbsp;around 300X use magnification for&nbsp;planets.&nbsp;To find out the magnification of an eyepiece towards the telescope, divide the focal length by the size of the eyepiece. Ex. 1000mm focal length divided by say 25mm. This equals 40, which is 40X (magnification). </p><p>Hope I helped. btw, my chem, if you can, try going to maybe $250+ so you can get a really good telescope.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[tomorows_scientist]

<p>another quistion how important is it would you guys think for beginers like me to have an electronic telescope with already pre programed objects in it. i mean its a nice extra chunk of change to get that so i wanted to know if u guys think its important or not for a beginer or would u maybe suggest if not that some type of a book/map to find these things instead of buying the extra electronic stuff (that i really dont have money to buy)if its really not that important.</p><p>thanks guys</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[TahaSiddiqui]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>another quistion how important is it would you guys think for beginers like me to have an electronic telescope with already pre programed objects in it. i mean its a nice extra chunk of change to get that so i wanted to know if u guys think its important or not for a beginer or would u maybe suggest if not that some type of a book/map to find these things instead of buying the extra electronic stuff (that i really dont have money to buy)if its really not that important.thanks guys <br />Posted by tomorows_scientist</DIV><br /><br />For a first telescope which is probably under $500, I'd say no. I honestly think its useless to buy an electric telescope mount because it is ALOT more "rewarding" when you try to find an object w/o any help. However, the mounts I would recommend are the German Equatorial mounts. These are ideal for astronomy, however the Dobsonian telescopes come with an Altazamith mount which are still good&nbsp;(controllable up, down, left, and right). The telescope mount I bought was Altazamith (Alt-AZ) because I thought the Equatorial would be too difficult to use, however, now I believe I could do it quite easily. Equatorial Mounts are more appropriate for Astronomy because you will notice when you're looking at objects under high magnification such as planets, they tend to move out of view very quickly. With an ALT AZ, I just have to play around alot to get it back to the middle or somtimes i purposely move it lower because it will eventually move in the middle under 20 seconds. If you align an Equatorial to the North Star (polaris) correctly, you will only need to turn a nob every now and then to move it back into view. Regarding the book/map, usually when you buy a telescope it comes with computer software of the sky. This tells you what is in the sky in your local area (set it) and what you will see at the exact places (north south east west). Don't depend on electronic telescopes for now, maybe when you get more into the hobby and invest more money into it.

 

[my_chemical_science]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>another quistion how important is it would you guys think for beginers like me to have an electronic telescope with already pre programed objects in it. i mean its a nice extra chunk of change to get that so i wanted to know if u guys think its important or not for a beginer or would u maybe suggest if not that some type of a book/map to find these things instead of buying the extra electronic stuff (that i really dont have money to buy)if its really not that important.thanks guys <br />Posted by tomorows_scientist</DIV><br /><br />It depends on how cheap ur telescope is... If it's under a price, say around 500 or 600 bucks, then no. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080"><strong><em><br /><img id="efe57d21-8154-4fbb-93b5-7c5f4a8303be" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/15/3/efe57d21-8154-4fbb-93b5-7c5f4a8303be.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="197" height="106" /><br />If everyone treats you like a kid, you might as well act like one and throw the TV out the hotel window ~Gerard Way</em></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[crazyeddie]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>ok i have decided to buy a telescope and get more into astronomy. i have read lots of articles on what i should look for in a telescope and such, i have also looked at a lot of websites offering various telescopes, i have narrowed it down to these telescopes.....Orion SkyQuest XT6 Classicand Orion SkyQuest XT8 Classici have two questions: how much better is the 8 inch telescope than the 6 inch in one? is it worth the extra hundred bucks? the 6 inch telescope is rated as a beginner scope, the 8 inch as intermediate. i would rather have a telescope i would grow into rather than one i would out grow. so my second question is:&nbsp; is the rating defined by how much it costs or is the 8 inch telecope harder to use than the 6 inch?thanks&nbsp; <br /> Posted by darkhelmet01</DIV></p><p>If you can afford the 8 inch, buy it. &nbsp;You'll see so much more with the extra two inches of aperture. &nbsp;The only reason I could think of to go with the smaller scope is that it's considerably lighter and can be carried with one hand, and it probably would cool down faster, so it would make a better "grab and go" scope than the 8 inch. &nbsp;You will not quickly outgrow an 8-inch scope, and you'll find it just as easy to use as the smaller one.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>