I would like to primarily look at the moon, but seeing Jupiter (and its weather pattern), Saturn (and its moons), and mars (and its ice cap) would be nice too. Are the telescopes I mentioned above sufficient enough to see such celestial objects/details? I was debating between something like these two:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=006&item=160000511947&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=009&item=190002464374&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1
Or even a 127mm Maksutov, if the 90mm are not sufficient enough to see the celestial bodies and details I described above. Like this one:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=012&item=220003714991&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1
The reason I choose these small compact scopes are because I would like to take it in a backpack w/ tripod to remote places. Please no suggestions on huge scopes!
Any other suggestions? Thank you very much.
2006-07-07 23:32:29 · 7 answers · asked by †ђ!ηK †αηK² 6 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Those scopes are fine for the moon. If you wanted to use those scopes for Jupiter, Mars, Saturn you can use a Televue 2x or 4x powermate in combination with your eyepieces. I would go for the Muksatov. An 8" Schmidt Cassegrain(F10) would be better and is not to heavy. For astrophotography , refractors are the best to start with. They give a wide field of view and they have a short focal length (F6 or 7)
2006-07-07 23:59:49 · answer #1 · answered by banarger 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the past I would have said that as a starter scope for viewing our solar system you should go with a relatively powerful scope from the start, but to view the cosmos you should start with a lower power scope and work up. However with the technology today for locating celestial objects, I think it is simply a matter of your interest and your budget. If you you live in an area that is conducive to stargazing a somewhat permanent refractor installation might be the way to go, however if you will be travelling to a remote site or sites then definitley a cassagrain is more suitable.
2006-07-07 23:44:37 · answer #2 · answered by Sleeping Troll 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I actually have an really large Dobsonian and on reliable nights I actually have not been waiting to get a decen view at 325x so do not imagine you'll both. The Earth's environment prevents maximum telescopes from attaining their finished ability. Maksutov Cassegrains are corrected for off axis aberrations. for this reason, stars on the fringe of the sector in a Maksutov Cassegrain must have a lot less coma than the celebs in a newtonian reflector. The Maksutov Cassegrain ought to furnish astounding planetary and lunar perspectives. it really is difficult to assert even if it is going to furnish nicer perspectives than the reflector although, and the reflector will be extra versitile. in my opinion, i'd merely get the reflector. P.S. Reflectors haven't got colour aberration. Refractors do.
2016-11-01 10:40:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Go with the Maksutov, you'll get better resolution of close objects like the moon.
If you want to see deeper objects the refractor is a better choice. But I think that 90mm is small in both cases.
My first refractor was a 4". And I upgraded to 6" quickly afterwards.
Good luck and good gazing!
2006-07-08 02:43:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
90mm Refractor
2016-12-15 08:58:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Try this link:http://www.my-spot.com/whatkind.htm
2006-07-08 04:07:44 · answer #6 · answered by Eric X 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I suggest this one.
2006-07-08 03:20:45 · answer #7 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋