Is it best to start off with a Go to telescope or learn the traditional way?

Question

I have looked at the nextstar 60 with goto, and the skywatcher 114m which are about the same price.
Is is better to get a Goto telescope or learn the planets and stars the old way?
And which is the better scope out of these two or should i save more and get a better scope?
I am just starting off into astronomy and there are no local clubs where i live because i live out in the wilds!

Answer 1

My first telescope was a Newtonian reflector type with no goto and I really struggled to get to grips with it. I gave up the ghost and traded it in against a Meade LX90 with goto and now I've got the power source sorted out I love it, so much easier to find deep sky objects.
But it is important to learn the sky too. I bought a planisphere and Starry Night Pro software for my PC and am gradually learning my way around. Its really satisfying to look up and confidently identify constellations, stars and planets. It also helps make sure your goto scope is set up right and is pointing in the right direction !
On reflection (no pun intended), now that I've got quite a bit of observing experience under my belt I could probably handle that Newtonian now !!!

Answer 2

While I agree with Eugene N that a lot of beginners give up because they can't find things, I'm not in favour of gotos for beginners. In this case 60mm is too small - adding a goto just means you'll very quickly find something that's not worth looking at. You're better off spending the money on bigger optics. Maybe a dobsonian would be the best option - you're spending almost all your money on the 'scope itself and you can mount it on an equatorial mount later if you want to.

As well as learning how to find things, you also need to learn how to see them - your eye / brain aren't used to picking up the very fine detail and contrast differences in astronomical objects. If you've struggled to find an object I think you're more likely to spend some time observing it rather than just crossing it off a list. "No pain, no gain" applies to astronomy too.

It's a very personal thing, but I like the familiarity of knowing where things are in the sky. I don't believe you get that if you rely on a goto to find everything for you.

Answer 3

I would not get a Go To at this point for two reasons.

1. You will not see much with a 60mm telescope. The Go To database may have "30,000 objects!" but 30,000 what? Stars? All stars look more or less the same in telescopes, and with 60mm of aperture you will generally not see much of anything you look at.

You'd be better off buying 60mm binoculars. At least you get to use two eyes that way and can scan the sky a lot easier.

2. The money spent on the Go To will take away from the money spent on aperture, as partially addressed above. You do not want to get a telescope with less than 4.5" (which is 114mm) of aperture. This is enough to show you a few things. For serious all around viewing you want an 8" telescope and for serious deep sky observing you want at least a 10" telescope.

If you do not plan to do astrophotography you might want to get a dobsonian, as they're cheapest per inch of aperture. You might also want to look into getting a used telescope, as you can get a really nice used telescope for the same price as a crappy new one.

You can find used telescopes at http://www.astromart.com or http://www.cloudynights.com

You can find new dobsonians at http://www.oriontelescopes.com

Answer 4

With telescopes, bigger is better. And because the goto feature is expensive, you will have to settle for a smaller telescope. A 114mm telescope will definitely give better views than a 60mm. Also, you might learn more without the goto. There is a lot to be said for locating objects with star charts and brains rather than letting a computer do all the work. Also, the computer has its own learning curve, although young people today are better at such things than us old farts.

Answer 5

I would recommend the goto scopes for someone who's starting off. If you just want to look at easy to find stuff like planets and the moon, you don't need the goto. If you want to look at deep sky stuff, the goto is best. Most beginners quit because they can't fins the objects. Definitely spring for it, fall in love with the sky and decide later if you upgrade if you want goto or not

Answer 6

The merits of starting with go-to versus learning to starhop is a perpetual hot-button issue on amateur astronomy forums. I lean towards starhopping, myself. I think learning the sky is part of the fun of astronomy, and I enjoy hunting down faint fuzzy things. On the practical side, as your telescope options illustrate, you can afford to buy more telescope of you don't go for the go-to.

I'm not familiar with the Skywatcher model you're considering, but in general, Catadioptric-Newtonians like that have a reputation for poor optics.

Most beginners find that the equatorial mount is not the necessity they thought it was, and in fact it just adds complexity and confusion. If you're willing to learn to starhop, a small Dobsonian is the best way to start.

Check out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/telescopes/ and the forums at http://www.cloudynights.com/ for more information and opinions.

Answer 7

You can buy 'astronomy' programmes that emulate using a real telescope, the result is very much like using a 'goto' telescope.

ie there is very little input by the user and about the same degree of learning.

If you want to know the Stars and Planets you have to work at it.