What kind of telescope is better for rookies; a reflector, refractor, or computerized?

Question

I saw a Mead computerized telescope at Sam's for $200. Do you think that's good?

Answer 1

Refractor and reflector are types of telescopes; either can be computerized or not.

Rookies have two problems.

First is figuring out where to point their telescope so they can find things. Most rookies can find the Moon and a bright planet or two, but that's not much to look at, given the hundreds of neat things there are in the sky. A computerized telescope can help, but most of the computerized scopes today require a lot more knowledge about the sky than most rookies have, so you're back to square one. The answer is to read a good book or two, and the absolute best place to start is NightWatch by Terence Dickinson (Firefly).

The second problem is actually _seeing_ what the telescope is pointing at. Most of the things amateur astronomers look at are at the limits of vision. I'll point my scope at a galaxy, and a rookie will look in the eyepiece and not see a thing. You need all the help you can get to see things, and that means you need all the aperture you can afford: aperture is the diameter of your scope's main lens or mirror. Forget refractors, they're all too small to see much until you start spending megabucks. Reflectors give you more aperture for the money, but you really need 6" or 8" before things start to become visible.

So, do some reading and learn your way around the sky. Then save up ebough money to buy a scope that will really show you things. In the meantime, join an astronomy club and use other people's scopes.

As to the $200 Meade scope, forget it. In that price range you can get either low end electronics or low to medium optics, but not both. Most likely you'll have a computer which is difficult to use and which will point you to things you can't see. I once tested a Meade computerized scope which actually had black holes in its database. Black holes are invisible even in really the Hubble!

Answer 2

Personally I think a computerized telescope is not good for a beginner. Not only is it more expensive, it is hard to figure out the computer controls. You learn way more about the sky by getting some star charts, learning the constellations and motions of the planets, and pointing the telescope manually. But then I am such on old fashion, 20th century kind of guy. And getting the telescope pointed at the object you want to see IS the hardest thing for a beginner to learn.

As to reflector or refractor, either one is fine. Just be aware that a refractor will always cost more than a reflector of the same size.

Answer 3

One in the hands of someone who is not a rookie, instructing the rookie.

I'd go with the refractor first, then the reflector, then the computerized scopes. All three will show you planets, stars, galaxies, nebula, etc. The refractor is basically an aim and focus tool. The reflector is aim and focus, but can involve aligning the main mirror so that it is actually focusing the light it gathers into the eyepiece. The computerized systems can appear to be overly complicated until you really know how to use a telescope.

Again, your best option is to go out viewing the skies with someone who already is familiar with telescopes. Once you know your way around them, you can spend your money once rather than twice.

Answer 4

I'm not a big fan of computerized telescopes myself. I really think it takes away from the knowledge of astronomy. You can go to Barnes & Noble or any store that sells a lot of books, and find very good books on basic astronomy and skymaps as well. It really is not very difficult to learn your way around the night sky if you spend the time to learn it.

Before buying a telescope, I would use binoculars. They can open up a whole new world of viewing, and they are very easy to carry around. Once you know your way around the sky, and can find objects using binoculars, I would recommend a refractor telescope. I know that lots of places recommend reflectors, but I believe refractors are better instruments. Be aware though, they are usually quite a bit more expensive than reflector telescopes. I think that is the main reason they are recommended much more often than refractors. In my opinion, reflectors are much more fragile than refractors, plus you have to keep the mirror of a reflector in proper alignment.

For practically fuss-free operation, I would recommend a refractor telescope, once you have used binoculars. I really feel these are the steps to follow. Hope you enjoy the sky!

Answer 5

I would avoid computerized telescopes in that price range, they're not worth the money at all. What's better for a beginner who has limited means is a good 6 or 8-inch Dobsonian reflector. These are Newtonian mounted in an alt-azimuth base. They're inexpensive but their optical and mechanical performance are excellent when well made. I use three Dobsonians myself and I've been stargazing for 30 plus years. What counts most with a telescope is the diameter of the primary lens or mirror, the quality of the optics and the quality of the mounting. If any one of them are not up to snuff, you will regret buying that telescope. A good computerized telescope tends to be quite expensive, and even with one of them, you still need to know your way around the sky well enough to set one up. A Dobsonian with a Telrad finder or 50mm finder scope together with a good star atlas will allow you to locate hundreds of galaxies, nebulae and star clusters from a good site, and all with a good 6-inch Dobsonian telescope you can buy for 300 bucks.

Answer 6

Quality is most important. There are a lot of crap scopes out there of all types. A small quality telescope will outperform a larger (supposedly "more powerful") but poorly made telescope. All things being EQUAL, a reflector will give you the most "bang for the buck" as they are easier to manufacture and hence cost less. A Dobsonian mounted Newtonian reflecting telescope being the ultimate in this regard.

Answer 7

If all you have is $200 to spend on astronomy, I would spend them on books on the topic.

Any telescope for significantly less than $1000 is significantly closer to a piece of junk than it is to an instrument you will enjoy. If all you want is to look at the sky once, go to a gathering of amateur astronomers with serious instruments and let them show you a few things. You will get to see what the sky looks like through a small but useful instrument and maybe even through a $20000+ semi-professional telescope.

And if you are still fascinated by what you get to see and not at all dissapointed that it looks nothing like 8 hour Hubble and Keck exposures after professional image processing, you can still go and buy something with a lens or a mirror in it.

Answer 8

For a beginner, I suggest a good set of 50mm binoculars and a book of star charts and star-hopping guides.

If you insist on going with the scope, I suggest a Dobsonian reflector.

http://www.telescope.com/control/category/~category_id=dobsonians/~pcategory=telescopes?WT.term=orion+skyquest&WT.campaign=775&WT.content=text&WT.medium=cpc&WT.source=msn&cshift_ck=502010253cs500700917&WT.srch=1