Telescopes: Whats the difference?

Question

http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=reflectors/~pcategory=telescopes/~product_id=09184

http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=reflectors/~pcategory=telescopes/~product_id=09708

What kind of images can I expect from each?
Any recommendations as far as eye pieces?

Don't be a smart-***.
I can read.
Obvioulsy, I want a second opinion.

Answer 1

Optically, they are the same telescope.

Personally, I'd spend the extra $$$ and get the one with the object locator thingy, because I have terrible skies and it's difficult to star hop. YMMV.

As for what you'll see, I'd strongly recommend hooking up with some local astronomers and seeing what their scopes do. I've had too many people look through my telescopes, see a grey smudge or little dot and be disappointed that it doesn't look like a Hubble picture.

Answer 2

Optically, the two are identical. The first has the IntelliScope Object Locator, which I find works quite well, though you need to be able to identify some bright stars in order to align it properly. The first also has better smoother bearings and an altitude tension adjustment knob, which is more convenient than the spring adjustors on the Classic. I have the 6" IntelliScope, and am very happy with it.

Both these scopes will perform really well on both solar system objects and deep sky objects,,,10" is pretty close to optimum size in terms of optical capability and portability.

Both scopes come with 25mm (48x) and 10mm (120x) Plössl eyepieces, which will get you started. I would recommend an Orion Shorty Plus Barlow lens to double the powers of these eyepieces, which will give you a good range from 48x to 240x. You might want to add a 30mm GSO SuperView eyepiece for low power wide field views.

Both scopes currently come with right-angle finders, which many people find hard to point. You may want to add a Telrad or Rigel QuikFinder to get pointed in the right direction.

Either scope is a good choice, depending on how much computer help you need or want.

Answer 3

Hi. The more expensive scope has an object locater. Get the best lenses you can afford but keep in mind that Dobsonian scopes can move under the weight of a heavy lens. Teleview, Meade, Orion, etc. are good sources. Lower power lenses will be more satisfying. You might start with a Plossl first. The image quality should be pretty close to identical between the two scopes and with a 10" primary, you'll have your socks knocked off. Good luck.

Answer 4

Probably the same. Looks like the same telescope plus/minus an electronic gadget to make it easier to find objects.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/images/jupiter/friedman.jpg

The image above is obviously what a CCD sees AFTER image processing. YOUR eyes are not nearly as light sensitive, so YOU won't quite be able to see it that way.

Here is an interesting experiment:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rfroyce.com/nmjup.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.rfroyce.com/products_ast.htm&h=196&w=250&sz=5&hl=en&start=82&um=1&tbnid=0YOab3YaCIo0fM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=111&prev=

I would put most cheap telescopes under most seeing conditions at the lower end of this experiment. Seeing matters. I have made bean bag exposures of the sky with my digital camera and the best ones came out at close to ideal conditions while I never managed to get even a modest picture under poor conditions. And that is with a couple of second exposures on a bean bag with a lens made for daylight photography. Now translate that to how bad things get with an instument made for the skies.

Answer 5

you want the one with the bigger mirror because it gathers more light which means you can see farther. I'm not a complete expert on telescopes but I'd go with the first one

Answer 6

THE FIRST ONE SEEMS LIKE IT COULD BE BETTER THAN THE SECOND ONE. READ THE DESCRIPTION OF EACH.

Answer 7

i agree with jwanna j.