Entry-Level Astronomy? 358
brobak writes "I'm getting ready to move into a new home on a couple of acres of rural property a significant distance from any large source of light pollution. I've always been interested in astronomy in general, and I would like to put my dark skies to use by picking up decent telescope and learning a bit about the skies over my head. The overall budget for this project is going to be around $1,000. I am particularly interested in astrophotography, but I understand that that may carry me outside the scope of the initial budget. I've already signed up for my local astronomy club's next monthly meeting. I have been doing Web research, but I thought that the Slashdot community would be the perfect place to get opinions on entry-level equipment, websites, and books."
Astronomy software (Score:5, Informative)
Celestia (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Astronomy software (Score:4, Informative)
And if you want to use a (web)cam on your telescope, take a look at registax [astronomie.be].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I use Astroplanner for all of my observing and planning. It will draw the stars as they appear in the eyepieces of you telescope, so you can compare and make sure you are looking at what you think you are looking.
It mentions pointing and clicking an item in the manual and then clicking Go to drive your mount to the object. This drive to an object, is it then tracking the object, or is it a one shot to there while waiting the next Go as the
Re:Astronomy software (Score:5, Informative)
Hear is the list of groups and websites you want to visit or sign up:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DeepSkyImager/?yguid=222412370 [yahoo.com]
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ETXASTRO/?yguid=222412370 [yahoo.com]
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/astroplanner/?yguid=222412370 [yahoo.com]
http://www.weasner.com/etx [weasner.com]
The software. One of the best softwares i have tried is Astroplanner http://www.ilangainc.com/astroplanner/ [ilangainc.com]
It allows you to plan your observations or download plans of others.
Will control your telescope and help align it correctly. runs both on Mac and PC.
They guy is very good at support, and it is not very expensive.
ps: I'm associated with Astroplanner but a very happy user.
Re:Astronomy software (Score:5, Informative)
Anyways, to the poster: First off, let me recite the standard advice for getting a telescope:
1) Don't buy from a "junk" brand (and there are a lot of them -- Bushnell, Tasco, Baytronix, etc). Get a name brand -- Meade, Celestron, Orion, etc.
2) Get large aperture, but keep the telescope portable, or you'll never use it.
3) Don't buy from Ebay.
4) Don't even buy from a store like Walmart. Buy from a telescope dealer.
5) Get quality optics like Televues and Naglers.
6) Subscribe to astronomy magazines, join a local astronomy club, and on and on.
7) If you can't afford everything above, just buy binocs.
8) Don't do astrophotography; you'll just be disappointed.
Let me tell you that most of that advice is bollocks.
Follow #1 and, as money allows, #2. Completely ignore the Ebay advice. Ebay is *wonderful* for telescopes and accessories (of course, verify that they're actually cheaper there than elsewhere before you buy, but they usually are). I find that things get to you faster from Ebay, too, and they're almost never "backordered" like so many stores are. I bought my scope, four eyepieces, and a barlow from Ebay, and everything was exactly as described, shipped quickly. One caveat: With the scope itself, if it has a motorized mount or an autostar, make sure you have a warranty. This is very sensitive scientific equipment, so Murphy's Law applies. Also, never trust an airline with *any* part of your scope any further than you can throw them, no matter how well you pad it. Trust me on this one. I've had an equatorial mount sheared clean in half by them -- i.e., straight through a bolt with about half an inch of steel, sheared right off. I think they were having a monster truck rally on top of my luggage. If you're taking a scope on the plane, the whole thing must be carryon. Let me also take this change to plug Meade's customer service, which I've dealt with several times, and have been *very* pleased with.
The "Televue and Nagler" advice is idiotic. People who advise that (and I've heard way too many) would have you spend your entire budget on two eyepieces. There are plenty of cheaper eyepieces that aren't too much lower quality than those top-of-the-line pieces. Antares eyepieces are good. I use Meade 4000 series, and have been very happy with them. On ebay, you'll only spend about $40 each for them.
Your budget is bigger than mine was, so I wouldn't recommend my scope (a Meade DS 2130AT -- a 5" newtonian with a motorized equatorial mount and autostar -- $170, plus some money for eyepieces to replace the junk ones that it comes with). You can do better than 5" aperture. I wouldn't go with a newt at all; they'll get too heavy and bulky as they scale up, and the short tube newts aren't that good. I think you'd want one of the Cassegrain or Maksutov varieties so that it'd be more portable. Perhaps something in the Meade LX series.
It doesn't hurt to join clubs or subscribe to magazines. On the other hand, you don't *have* to. There are plenty of astronomy forums online, and lots of articles.
As for astrophotography, it's not a case of "don't do it", just "do it right and be patient". One thing not to do, IMHO, is afocal with your current camera. On sites that list afocal as a method, caveats with it often are not stressed enough. If you have a fast lens, the vignetting will be atrocious, often to the point of the pictures hardly being usable. Also, the higher the magnification you use, the worse the vignetting. You really need a camera that you can remove the lens on (eyepiece projection and prime focus astrophotography). Ignore the people who say to get an SLR (non-digital). If you want to use a regular camera, get a DSLR; modern astrophotography benefits hugely from digital postprocessing. However, any camera that might be even a little heavy should
Good binoculars, star charts, and a red flashlight (Score:5, Informative)
That way, you get used to pointing out where things are in constellations. You also find out if you can handle the long nights, getting your eyes used to darkness and waiting, waiting, waiting.
It takes about an hour to get used to the darkness. Red LED flashlights also keep your eyes dilated, having little effect on night vision.
If you get good at doing things the "old-fashioned way", then buy from somebody on EBay, who spent the big bucks and found out they weren't as interested as they originally thought.
Worst case, you got a good pair of binoculars and saved about a grand.
Best case, you learned a lot more about astronomy and will be able to find anything by constellation.
Of course, download and use Stellarium. They have a red night vision mode you can take with you on a laptop. (I'd still recommend dimming the display as much as possible and enabling a 1 minute monitor shutdown, to keep your eyes).
Also, go to http://heavens-above.com/ [heavens-above.com] for more information about tracking objects in the sky. (Be sure to synchronize your clock to the atomic clock, since satellites and other objects wait for nobody). Watching satellites pass is a good way to keep yourself interested in astronomy, while you wait, wait, wait.
Heavens-above.com and Stellarium are excellent planning tools, as are your handy star charts.
Re:Good binoculars, star charts, and a red flashli (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good binoculars, star charts, and a red flashli (Score:3, Informative)
I've take to using my binoculars more than my telescope. While I don't get the aperture with the binoculars, I do get the ease of instant set-up time and a wide field of view so I can see not only the various objects in the sky, but also the star field around them.
The wide field of view helps you learn the sky too. You get the big picture when learning what is what up in the sky, which makes finding things easier down the road with a telescope.
Another little tidbit--don't be so
Re:Good binoculars, star charts, and a red flashli (Score:5, Informative)
So look at the planets through your scope. It should be bright enough to resolve any of the naked-eye visible planets as discs. You should be able to see the phases of Venus.
On my desk I have a picture of Comet Hale-Bopp. I took it with a 35mm film camera, with a 100-200 mm zoom lens set all the way out. Tripod, Kodacolor Gold color film (although there isn't any color in the print.) I thought I would want to take more astro-photographs, but haven't gotten around to it yet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus, a nice 10 inch dob gives bright images, it's a quality instrument, you can get fancy electronic setting circles, and they don't cost much at all.
Besides, when a kid says he wants a telescope, he wants a telescope! Not binoculars, but something that looks like a telescope.
At the end of the day, M-43 in binoculars is NOTHING compared to M-43 in a 10 inch Dobsonian scop
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have realistic expectations: You'll NEVER take Hubble-like pictures and there are very few things (outside of our atmosphere) that you'll see any color from with your eye. Photography offers a better change to capture color.
Learn about stacking multiple exposures: see Photoshop or applications like AStroStack
Spend the extra money on a good tripod and m
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Second Thing I'd do..then 3rd..then 4th... (Score:3, Informative)
My experience went from a few seasons of frustration, to actually being able to easily find deep space objects and planets in the scope, the moment I got a Telrad.
Also, concerning software, Cartes du Ciel is a fr
How dark is it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Web site (Score:3, Informative)
'Where to start' is a common question there.
Well there's always... (Score:4, Informative)
A Great Camera? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, I know that this probably won't be the kind of answer you're looking for, but here I go anyway...
Personally, if I had the kind of space you had, with no light pollution, and if I had the budget you mentioned: I would buy a high quality digital SLR camera. Obviously, if you're looking to photograph things that you need a telescope to see, this wouldn't be a good use of money for you. But, if you're looking to take shots of constellations and the moon and such, then a high-quality digital SLR with a tripod will work beautifully.
Plus, such a setup would allow you to take great photos of various weather phenomenon (e.g., thunderstorms). While it may not be the case for you, most of the people that I know that enjoy photographing the moon and the night sky also love photographing weather as well.
And, obviously, you'd then have a great camera for travelling and such.
Re: (Score:2)
What i considered doing for a while was using cheap scopes, webcams and software like astrostack to composite the images; I've seen images on the net that were produced with less than $500 total worth of hardware that are truly phenomenal, created by compositing the output of 4 60mm meade telescopes.
The nice thing is that all you have to do to make your images better is add more c
Re:A Great Camera? (Score:5, Informative)
A good dSLR can be had for under $500 (Canon 350d/d40) new or even less used (KEH.com and fredmiranda.com (Buy & Sell forum) are good sources) and quality tripods start at $100.
That leaves the choice of lens - whatever you buy if you decide to go the camera / tripod route invest in a really good lens - it's better to buy a $300 body and a $700 lens then vice versa since your glass has a greater impact on picture quality than MP's and you'll want fast glass (the ability to shot at faster shutter speeds in low light). Your investment will pay off over time since the lens will stay with you when you get a new body. Don't get all wrapped up in MP - anything 6mp or above is more than adequate for virtually any shoot. Don't worry about the endless Canon / Nikon fanboy debates - both are great systems so pick one that you like, meets your needs and fits your budget; realizing that you investment in lens will pretty much result in a lock to one manufacturer.
I'd recommend holding of on a purchase until you attend a club meeting or too - you'll get advice there as well as a chance to talk about what you want to do and learn about other's rigs before you invest.
Re: (Score:2)
and you'll want fast glass (the ability to shot at faster shutter speeds in low light).
While fast, and prime, lenses help in some types of photography, for night shots what you really want is a shutter release cable for time delay, elapsed tyme shots.
whatever you buy if you decide to go the camera / tripod route invest in a really good lens
Tripods are very handy, I use mine about 10% of the tyme, but for shooting the stars what you want is a camera mount for your telescope.
Re: (Score:2)
For the most part. However, I have a Nikon D80, and there are issues [google.de] with this camera as far as astrophotography. It's a great camera overall, but the amp glow sucks for longer exposure astro shots...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Personally, if I had the kind of space you had, with no light pollution, and if I had the budget you mentioned: I would buy a high quality digital SLR camera. Obviously, if you're looking to photograph things that you need a telescope to see, this wouldn't be a good use of money for you. But, if you're looking to take shots of constellations and the moon and such, then a high-quality digital SLR with a tripod will work beautifully.
To stay within budget and get good exposures of the night sky, stars and p
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to be a fancy camera, a webcam mounted on your telescope will get you quite far already. I've made a complete mosaic of the moon that way, 2000x2000 pixels with a s
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm just a hacker when it comes to photography. I have a newish Canon DSLR which I think is awesome. But i have friends with serious serious camera collections and portfoios.
They're all disassembling their darkrooms and have gone completely digital. Film is dead there, they use Epson printers with the Ultra Chrome inks. While the ink isn't cheap it is better and more durable than current photographic methods.
They use 'spensoive things like the R2200 and
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The real advantage of digital is sensitivity. Digital sensors capture a LOT more of the light than film does. Much of that sensitivity is swamped by
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
300D Peltier Modification [jupiter-io.net]
Canon Digital Rebel 300D IR Filter Removal Modification and Peltier Cooling Plans -by Gary Honis [ho8.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Or someone who enjoys nature hikes, away from the Americanized restaurants and such? Anytime I've had the opportunity to venture far from civilization on my travels (e.g., into a rainforest), I've always brought my SLR (an old non-digital one, which may someday be replaced with a digital, funds allowing). Photographing flowers, birds, and landscapes is just more fun with an SLR!
And no, I'm not American :)
Re: (Score:2)
Or someone who enjoys nature hikes, away from the Americanized restaurants and such? Anytime I've had the opportunity to venture far from civilization on my travels (e.g., into a rainforest), I've always brought my SLR (an old non-digital one, which may someday be replaced with a digital, funds allowing). Photographing flowers, birds, and landscapes is just more fun with an SLR!
Same here, I too love hiking and will bring my 35mm with me. Because of budget constraints I haven't got a dslr yet but hope I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you
Re: (Score:2)
I hate digital cameras period, I always want to take another exposure and the digital is always "recording image".
I don't understand what you're saying. Did you mean to say that saving an image takes too long?
From what I understand, you are talking about a cheap digital camera. Indeed they sometimes are quite slow, but that's no problem for some people and if it is, then you should just buy a better camera. E.g. I'm totally fond of my Nikon D70s, it can take 3 photo's per second, you can control everything, and it's relatively easy to use.
I think you're either just too impatient to learn how it works, or else your cam
Re: (Score:2)
Layne
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As in beer, FYI.
What the heck, here's the link [astronomie.be], while I'm at it.
Go slow (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not binoculars first? (Score:5, Interesting)
You can get a quality telescope for $1000, especially if you build your own. I grind my own mirrors because the mirror I make myself is quite a bit better than all but a very few of the ones commercially available. It's quite a bit of fun too.
Your best course of action would be to hold off on getting a telescope for now. Get good astronomical binoculars ($200 - $400) and learn the sky. Once you've done that, you'll have a much better idea of exactly the aspects of astronomy that interest you and you'll have some additional time to decide upon the right equipment. You'll also have more time to save some additional money for qualityequipment.
Re: (Score:2)
ENTRY LEVEL ASTRONOMY, DUDE.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Offhand do you recommend any particular brand?
Re: (Score:2)
I took it as any pair that costs more than the new house...you know: 'budget', 'prosumer' and 'Price?? If you have to ask, you can't afford it! A s t r o nomi-cal!'
I'll go out on a palm frond and bet that the Army has some pretty good hi-tech field binocs that may not have made it into the Christmas '07 Eddie Bauer catalog just yet...
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody have similar suppliers today for parts and aluminizing at their fingertips?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you provide information on how the amateur grinds mirrors? What kind of equipment do you need?
Thanks.
Re:Why not binoculars first? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.google.com/search?q=information+on+how+the+amateur+grinds+mirrors?+What+kind+of+equipment+do+you+need? [google.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There is plenty of stuff out there about it. Basically you start from a blank piece of plate glass or Pyrex (or portals it seems) and you make yourself the 'tool'- The tool is a convex shaped lump usually with small porcelain tiles on the working surface (A glass tool was traditionally used but this means using a second blank just for that so making your porcelain tiled tool is cheap
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why not binoculars first? (Score:4, Informative)
For a grand I can set someone up for basic entry level easily out of an orion catalog. That is where he needs to start. and he also needs to stay away from anything smaller than 8" primary mirror size.
Oh if it's a refractor telescope, dont touch it. Short of professional 6 figure versions I never looked through a refractor scope that was worth it's weight in scrap aluminum.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Try building a telescope (Score:5, Informative)
If you're lucky enough to be in the SF bay area, the Chabot Observatory Telescope Maker's Workshop is a great place to learn about telescopes, and also how to build them. They can guide you through the process, and its really not as hard as you might think. http://chabotspace.org/vsc/observatory/telescopemakers/ [chabotspace.org]
If you want to hold of on astrophotograpy for a while, I recommend picking up a Dobsonian mount telescope. They're a low cost design, and you can find 10 and 12 inch reflectors for $800. Also, they're easy to build, which goes back to the building your own comment earlier.
Dobsonians are not suitable for photography though. But, they are a cheap way to break into backyard astronomy.
dobson: newtonian reflector on dobsonian mount (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I agree with basically all of what you're saying except the last sentence. It sounds like the person asking the question hasn't spent a lot of time looking at the stars and doesn't really know if it's going to turn into an occasional night out having fun or a serious time investment. For such a person, spending a few nights with a decent no-frills Dobsonian reflector finding celestial objects themselves will tell them how much they love the sky. If it turns out they really love it, they can invest thousands
Sorry, camera + dobsonian = nothing. (Score:2)
There are Dobsonian setups that can rotate the camera mount to compensate for the rotating earth, but these setups are for experienced persons with high pain thresholds.
Best advice I got (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Best advice I got (Score:5, Insightful)
I SECOND THIS. I can not say it strong enough. This is THE most important advice for someone just getting in to astronomy. So many people as they are buying their first telescope take the wrong road.
There are 3 roads to take here.
Road 1: It's only $129 and it magnifies 8000 TIMES. - The trap is that the optics are junk in it.
Road 2: I will see more deep sky stuff with a 10 inch dob, or a 12 inch SC. - The trap is that it sits in the basement, unused. It is too much of a pain to just get out on a wonderful night, so it sits. This is the advice the poster above was giving you.
Road 3: A nice middle of the road scope that fits your budget and you use all the time to learn the sky and see things that are amazing.
As others have said, the astrophotography aspect of it is really going to be above your budget. Sure, you can get the "webcam converted to a starscope", but it is junk. Stay within your budget, and get a nice scope for yourself. One that you can get outside at the drop of a hat. Not something that becomes an anchor.
Let me quote him again:
The best advice I got (now in retrospective) when starting out was to buy an telescope that was easy to take out and setup, the best scope is the scope you use often.
That was the best advice I got as well. The best one is the one you will use. I guess that means smaller is better in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
I started off with a similar budget and goals as the article poster and wound up with a high quality 8" Newtonian on an equatorial mount. The problem is that while it's a good enough scope to attempt basic astrophotography, it's really bulky to transport anywhere and takes at least ten minutes to get set up (many more if attempting long exposures). So it sits unused for the vast majority of the time.
On the other hand, a summer camp that I worked at had
get an Apochromatic Refractor (Score:5, Informative)
The best balance in this big_mirror/refractor conflict is an apochromatic refractor. Because - apochromatic means that the lens are covered with special layers that give about 96+% of light transmission (so it's better than non-apochromatic refractor, where some light is wasted on the lens and you don't see deep-sky objects clearly), and special layer eliminates light dispersion like in an optical prism (otherwise each color would go on a different path and the resulting picture of something looked more like a rainbow instead of beight sharp). And also as a refractor it's good for planets. But... this APO refractor has to have big aperture, or it won't work for deep-sky anyway.
Refractors have some other advantages - for instance you don't have unnecessary air flow between the lens because they are inside a tube. Newtons are much brighter (good for deep-sky) but air turbulence blurries the view on planets.
Oh, and forget about cassegrains, they are compact, that's true (the only advantage). But the view is terrible.
Well if you have just $1000 you gotta decide: (1) want to see distant galaxies (newton), or (2) view to see planets (refractor). But I suggest to spend a bit more cash and get APO refractor. Should be good for both.
You can look at those reviews I had bookmarked long time ago: http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1260 [cloudynights.com] and http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=32&pr=2x6x17 [cloudynights.com]
You can consider Takahashi also, althought from my research it looks like TMB make better equipment, but you never know that for sure: http://www.tmboptical.com/itemsGrid.asp?cat_id=4 [tmboptical.com] .
Re: (Score:2)
Re:get an Apochromatic Refractor (Score:5, Insightful)
Aperture is king. Aperture wins. You can never get enough aperture
My advice is to forget about astrophotography for the moment. Do not get a DSLR camera -- you will want a dedicated astro-camera with a cooled CCD sensor. You will also want a good equatorial mount (Losmandy, Astro-physics, or similar) which will cost at least ~$2000. Deep-sky astrophotography is expensive and for the moment, you're better served with a good visual instrument to get you started. (If you just want to take images of the moon and planets, you can get by with a webcam and a lower cost equatorial mount.)
With a $1k budget, you won't be able to do deep-sky astrophotography. Given your budget, the economics of astro-imaging, and the difficulty of putting a large telescope on a quality equatorial mount, your best bet is to forego imaging until you can save a substantially larger amount of money. In the meantime, get yourself a 10" or larger Dobsonian-mounted Newtonian. They may look cheap, but you will appreciate the aperture when viewing deep-sky objects.
Oh, and join a local astronomy club if you can.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, you want to learn the sky and the gear before you try photography. That's a whole different world.
First, like the parent of this post, I would also suggest a 10" Dobsonian telescope, specifically an Orion Inteliscope XT10. This scope will run you about $700 on average.
Second, while the XT10 or whatever scope you get will come with an eyepiece or two, you'll still want to invest in more eyepieces. Eyepieces comprise half of the telescope. Initially with your scope purchas
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you might even have some left over to buy a cheap 35 mm camera and make a barn door mount to take pictures of the sky, which is your best bet for entry level astrophotography.
Re: (Score:2)
The cheaper acrochromatic type is corrected against 2 wavelengths. Most of the largest (and most famous) refractors ever built used just two pieces of glass, and so were acrochromatic types. However by using a focal length of F15 or greater, the residual color of these telescopes is not a problem. More modern lenses are made from 3 or more glass elements which reduce the color to a very small percentage, and allow shorte
It's been a while, but..... (Score:2)
Usability is paramount (Score:2)
It seems a secondary consideration, but the smaller telescope you
Buy binoculars (Score:2, Informative)
Both are useful outside of astronomy and until you know whether you are really keen it's not worth spending lots of money. They are also great to use as spotters while you are using your real telescope as they have a fantastic field of view.
I started with a pair of Gerber 10x50s which is getting to the limit of what I would consider comfortable to hand hold without a tripod. The tripod itse
check out the specialist internet groups (Score:3, Informative)
They are well versed in helping beginners and will be able to give you advice and guidance on this fascinating hobby. They have their own experts who don't necessarily post here.
As a starter, get the book "Turn Left at Orion". Read it. This will set your expectations of what you can really see. If you are still enthusiastic, go ahead and take advice on what equipment to buy. Be aware though that there are as many opposing opinions as there are people willing to offer you advice (including this one). You will still have to choose which ones you want to adopt.
Good luck and clear skies
Budget too small (Score:5, Informative)
For astrophotography you absolutely *must* have an equatorial mount, it is simply impossible to do astrophotography with a stock altitude-azimuth mount, because while it can still track the sky as it moves, the view will rotate as it does so. With an equatorial mount, the view stays properly aligned even while it tracks the sky. German equatorial mount is the preferred mount for astrophotography. Even looking at just the mount you've pretty much blown your budget right there.
Secondly, you're going to want a high quality right-ascension drive motor. It's possible to get by without one, though tedious and limiting, but don't bother with a cheap one. The gearing is insufficient for astrophotography and will cause jerking and backlash resulting in awful pictures.
You'll also need to get a heavy duty mount and tripod, because a normal tripod is only designed for the weight of a telescope, not a telescope with a camera hanging off the end. You also need to make sure you've got a very sturdy, firm mount, because any vibration at all will ruin your pictures. Remember we're talking about huge magnifications and long exposures here, it's extremely easy to blur the pictures. Astrophotography is a challenging enough hobby to begin with. Inferior equipment can make it damn near impossible.
You'll notice I haven't even talked about the actual telescope yet. That's how important the mount and tripod is to astrophotography. So now that I've completely blown your budget, I'll try and be a bit more gentle on the telescope side of things. Probably the most bang for your buck in this case will be a newtonian reflector telescope. They're by far the cheapest type of scope per inch of aperture. Sort of big and unwieldy, and they require very precise and regular maintenance (called collimation). I'd recommend a bare minimum of 5" aperture, but as high as 8" if you can manage it.
Then you have to figure out how to mount your camera to the telescope, which is a black art in and of itself. Duct tape is not recommended. For most SLRs and telescope brands you can find a suitable T-mount adaptor which will allow you to attach your camera in place of the telescope's eyepiece. For non-SLRs, I'm not sure. If you were thinking of getting an actual astronomy CCD camera (such as the popular SBIG brand) well that alone will blow your budget and then a whole lot more. Then you'll want a second one to use it as an autoguider.
Astronomy isn't cheap, but it is rewarding. Good luck and clear skies.
Re:Budget too small (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For planetary images, you can do pretty well with short exposures and using align/stack software. By short, I mean 1/30 to 1/2 second. This will get you pictures of Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.
For deep-sky stuff, you need to have mu
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I shot many MANY photos including long exposures with a dobsonian scope and a tracking table. Less than $1000.00 spent on scope and table. It moves the whole scope as one with the sky and if you follow directions it is set up polar so it works well.
Do I shoot incredibly dim deep sky objects? nope I only have a old SLR digital and a 10" dob, not enough light collecting capability for the distant stuff. But i got photos of the horsehead and other nebulas that upset the guys at the club that have
Lets see.... (Score:2, Informative)
Don't go too far down the food-chain (Score:2)
Is there an "entry-level" for radio astronomy? (Score:3, Interesting)
If so, what would a basic setup generally look like? Any pointers to sites?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I went through the same thing (Score:5, Informative)
Here's what my own experiences have taught me: Get a Dobsonian. With $1000 you can get a 10"-12" Dobsonian and still have tons of room for accessories. A dobsonian is very portable compared to a refractor and with near zero setup and takedown using it is much easier than a refractor too. 10" is a lot of aperture and you won't catch the "aperture fever" for something bigger for a while. The scope I eventually got is an Orion [telescope.com] XT10 Intelliscope [telescope.com], but you may not want the computerization with your budget.
I found the people at Cloudy Nights [cloudynights.com] very, very helpful. They have reviews of lots of products as well as their forums and they tend to specialize in getting the most out of your money.
As far as books go, I use Nightwatch [amazon.com] by Terence Dickinson every night I observe just for the charts. Star Watch [amazon.com] by Philip Harrington goes well with Nightwatch as good place to find new objects for the beginner. A lot of people suggest Turn Left at Orion [amazon.com], but I fount it to be a bit slow and the charts lacking in lower magnitude stars for their size.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your local Community College should have a class (Score:2)
Meade telescopes (Score:2)
One of the best pages I've ever seen (Score:2, Interesting)
The photos that this guy manages to take are stunning! He gives full details about the process and equipment. The web is in Spanish, I hope it won't be a problem.
Liquid Mirror (Score:2)
1k ain't much (Score:2)
Low Buck, High Yeild (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're serious about the stargazing, forget the pricey glass. Get a decent set of binoculars and a few good books, and one of those plastic "Star Wheel" sky charts.
For the binocs, a basic pair of 10x70's will set you back a hundred and fifty bucks or so online. For the books, try Astronomy for Dummies and Left Turn at Orion. Also, your library will have back issues of Sky and Telescope - read 'em, and then visit their site. [skyandtelescope.com] They have star maps you can print out that shows what's worth looking at each month. Try not to be too put out by their over-agressive marketeering.
The learning curve will be steeper than a big-bucks robotic "Goto Scope" that aims and focuses for you, but with a nice lawn chair, some decent binoculars and a rough understanding of what you're pointing them at, a night under the stars won't fail to deliver a few thrills.
Once that gets old, then look into the big-money glass. Telescopes, on their own, are a pretty damn rewarding hobby, especially once you get into making and modding them yourself. But unless you really, really know what you're after, dropping a grand on glass isn't a good idea. It likely won't be anywhere near what you want once you understand what that is.
Start small... (Score:3, Insightful)
Non budget-breaker suggestions (Score:2, Informative)
Astronomy Cast (Score:2)
I heartily recommend listening to all the other episodes too.
I'm on my second scope already in 9 months... (Score:2)
I live in a city so light pollution is terrible. But, I get a lot of enjoyment with my binoculars. I've found dozens of Messier objects in the city. Sure, they are faint smudges but the joy has been in be
Ask Curious George (Score:2)
google link to the book [google.com]
better spent money (Score:2)
You can also check out porn sites that are much more interesting to look at.
I have had 3 good quality hobby level telescopes - a 6" Newton, and 2 8" cassys, one manual, one computer (goto). In looking back at my experiences, the first one was the only one that really gave me any pleasure, as I bought it for and observed Haley's comet. Everything else was disappointing. Astrophotography is out of
Astronomy Hacks book (Score:2)
Subscribe to Sky and Telescope... (Score:2)
Second, you need to ask yourself, do you want to do Science, or have fun, or something more like Art ? If you want to do science, you should look into
- asteroid occultations (these always need more data) or
- variable star observing (look into the AAVSO [aavso.org] or
- searching for or confirming new comets
Astronomy as a science requires patience and is generally unglamorous.
If you want to do Art (i.e., pretty as
Go to your meeting first (Score:3, Insightful)
reflective vs refractive (Score:2)
reflective vs refractive? personally i'd choose a reflective(parabolic mirror, single fold; fewer surfaces for distortion/abbaration) over refractive, but that's a matter of what you can purchase at the time. at the end
Re: (Score:2)
Dr. Evil, is that you?