60mm Refractor Jupiters Belts

[subliminal1284]

Get a better scope, atleast 90mm.

[psonice]

Oh, and binoculars: they're actually a good recommendation. I picked up a pair of 10x70s. As much aperture as my scope, but one for each eye! And they cost 50% of what the scope cost.

OK, so I can't see the clouds on Jupiter, but the views of the rest of the sky are fantastic, and some of the bigger DSOs look good.

I guess long term what I want is: a big dob or whatever is good for the money and has plenty of aperture for DSOs, a smaller refractor (probably bigger than what I have now, but reasonably portable) for planetary, and some binos for general scanning of sky. And lots of computing power and cameras handy, I'd like to try serious digital viewing.

[DarkSky]

IMO, and nothing more, I think a 5 to 6 inch GEM mounted Newton reflector, f5 to f8 OTA is probably the best all around compromise of capability and portability and expense.

As to the cardboard, I see them all the time, phenolic paper tubes, cabinet hinges, plywood mounts, not my cup of tea. I had a 12 inch all metal Dob some years ago, I rarely used it, in Houston the skies were to polluted, it was bigger than my Subaru wagon, I dumped it on the market and got a fraction of what I paid for it. Sorry, I am just not a Dob sort of guy and I know and have been told to my face at events, you cannot see anything with that (80mm refractor), you need one of these pointing to a phenolic tubed gigantic Dobsonian. I guess they have their place. A universal solution, hardly.

You know, most people cannot see anything, not because of their telescopes but because they simply don't know that they actually are seeing something and that the photos they saw in the coffee table books are all doctored, extended exposure and not exactly what you are going to see through any telescope that an amateur is likely to have available. They need to be educated, not sold a pair of binoculars.

JR

In my search for a telescope, I have yet to find a new commercialy made dob made with anything other than a metal tube.

I also cant say I have seen a Old 50's or 60's scope for sale localy. I dont think that many exist outside of big citys. I've seen pictures of "big dobs" that are made by amatures that are beautiful, furniature quality woodworking.

[psonice]

Maybe he means the truss dobs, that have a nice solid (usually metal, maybe sometimes wood?) open frame tube for portability. They're sometimes covered up to block stray light, and cardboard would actually be a pretty convenient covering - just fix it on with some masking tape, roll it up when you're done. Lightweight, and available in matte black. Cardboard would actually be better than metal in this case

[sxinias]

Well, I guess that we’ve completely hijacked this thread so here is my two cents.

I think that Nemrod has a point that does need exploration. I personally believe that we often do beginners great harm with the almost instant bombardment of “buy the biggest aperture you can afford” advice that typically pours out when ever a new comer seeks advice about telescopes. While I have no data, I suspect that there are just as many “high quality” telescopes mismatched to the beginner that are out there gathering dust as there are “department store telescopes.” I often wonder how many large aperture SCTs, Newtonians on Dobson or other type mounts, and refractors sit unused because a ten year old can not handle a large scope, dad doesn't have the time, or the owner just isn’t inclined or able to lug such a scope up and down stairs, can’t easily transport it, etc., etc., etc.

Then there is the another almost instant pouring out …. Don’t buy a goto telescope …. waste of money, you must learn the night skies first, I had to learn the hard way so everyone else should to, etc., etc., etc. Again, I wonder how many telescopes are gathering dust because the owners can’t find anything because of their light polluted back yards, just plain don’t have the spatial sensory abilities needed to star hop, find star hoping exceedingly boring, etc., etc., etc.

But if you go back through the threads ……. the cry, loud and clear, typically is buy a large aperture non-goto Dobsonian telescope. This advice often pours out even through the beginner clearly stated he/she wanted something small and portable that is easy to handle, good for astrophotography, etc.

I don’t think that a large aperture telescope is an ideal telescope for many, perhaps most, beginners. While some may think an 8 or 10 inch Dob is portable and easy to use, I think that most lay people would look at it in a different light. Not to pick on Dobson telescopes, the same is true, perhaps even more true, for any 8 inch telescope mounted on a German equatorial mount and some of the larger forks mounts like the LX200. These things are physically large, bulky, and are not lightweight. …. movable but not portable. They are far more difficult to set up and use than is a small refractor, MAK, SCT, or Newtonian on an azimuth mount.

The other aspect … goto versus star hoping. Again, one shoe does not fit all feet. Some people unfortunately live in areas where light pollution steals the night sky and one can look up and easily count the visible stars. Other people, no matter how hard they try don’t posses the spatial sensory abilities needed and simply are klutzes at star hoping (I fit this category). Some simply are super type A folks and don’t have the patience for the task and only want to see the stars as easily as possible. Then there are people who just occasionally, perhaps as few as two times each year, want to take a scope out and see the night sky. What percentage of beginners fall in one of these categories, I really don’t know, but I suspect the percentage is substantial. For these beginners, a goto telescope is the difference between enjoying astronomy or parking their scopes in the garage as dust collectors. I think that astronomy is big enough for all these people not just folks who can complete the spring Messier Marathon in one night using a manually operated mount.

BTW, using a goto telescope is not a mindless activity. True, just tell the telescope what you want to see and away it goes. However, using a goto telescope is much more involved that. Beginners soon learn that “Tonight’s Tour” doesn’t change much from night to night and want to see more. To see more, they learn that they must find out what is visible in a telescope …. they soon learn that before viewing a viewing plan is needed. While preparing viewing plans, they slowly start learning the night skies. Many of the goto telescopes require that the user know and identify alignment stars. Again, this provides a helpful exercise in learning the night skies. While we often say go to your nearest astronomy club, this is not easy for many people to do, especially children, teenagers, and folks not living near one. These people are on their own. While books can help, a goto mount can too. It is like having a very knowledgeable astronomer at the side of a beginner, anyone else really, explaining the night sky … albeit, some manufacturers do a much better job here than others.

I know that this is trite but the best telescope is one that is used. To be used, I think that a telescope for a beginner should have the following attributes:
1. be easy to store
2. be easy to transport
3. be easy to set up
4. be easy to use
5. be sturdy enough to provide decent viewing
6. be easy to find objects
7. be sufficiently large enough (aperture) to make life interesting
8. be easy on the pocket book

• be easy to store. A beginner needs to understand the physical size of the telescope being recommended as well as the environmental conditions required for storing it. Before we recommend a telescope to a beginner, we should also understand the beginners needs and circumstances.
• be easy to transport. Again, the beginner needs to understand the size, bulk, and weight of the telescope recommended and we need to know the beginner’s constraints before making a recommendation.
• be easy to set up. Here we need to take into consideration both the physical abilities and temperament of the beginner. This requires some questions asked and answered. For example while I can certainly handle and setup an 8 inch LX200 SCT there is no way on this earth would I ever want to do so; however, many others will have not problems doing this at all. It just depends upon the person personal likes and dislikes. Telescopes are too expensive to have one you dislike.
• be easy to use. While any telescope on a German equatorial mount is not that difficult to learn to use, learning to use a GEM is just one more hurtle a beginner has to overcome before enjoying the night skies. While a GEM certainly has its place in astronomy, I can think of precious little it provides for a beginner learning astronomy.
• be sturdy enough to provide decent viewing. Here is where most department store telescopes and, for that matter, most beginner telescopes sold by “reputable” telescope manufactures really drop the ball. Far too few telescopes in the entry level category have a stable mount or tripod and the beginner must fight vibration while focusing and viewing
• be easy to find objects. Here again, both the department store and reputable telescope makers drop the ball. Today, red dot finders rule over all … nothing wrong with a red dot finder that has a variable dimmer, but most that are on department store or reputable beginner scopes have only two light intensity levels making using them with stars other than the brightest in the sky very difficult. Others have inadequate finder scopes that are impossible to use to star hop. Goto telescopes, on the other hand, are relatively easy to setup and to use and the woefully inadequate red dot finders pose no problem for them.
• be sufficiently large enough (aperture) to make life interesting. Here the debate can get lively as it is in this thread. The lower limit for significant viewing capability is often stated as around 90 to 100 mm. True, a smaller aperture telescope with quality optics can show plenty to a skilled observer. However, with beginners and beginner telescopes, we are generally not using high quality optics nor is the beginner a skilled observer. How large an aperture should be recommended is a tough question to answer. I personally think that the aperture is governed by logistics, economics, and the type of mount appropriate for the user.
• be easy on the pocket book. Here again, reality is often overlooked. Telescopes meeting the above criteria exist but with a few exceptions $200 seems the lower limit. Surprisingly enough, $200 can get you a 102 mm refractor on a proven goto mount, a 90 mm MAK on a manually operated azimuth mount, or a 114 mm table top Dobson; all of which easily meet the criteria stated above.

I think that we do no one any good by recommending a cheap or an expensive telescope that does not meet the criteria listed above. I do think that we should find out a lot about the beginner and the beginner’s desires, circumstances, etc. before blindly recommending any kind of telescope.

There is another criteria beginners often state that is very difficult to handle; this simple statement “and I want to do astrophotography.” Here we know the stark truth …. However, here I think we may over react. Many of the entry level goto telescopes are capable of some photography …. very limited but they can be used on brighter objects, planets, and the moon. These photos will not be prize winners to be sure, but the people taking them will be pleased and they will learn a lot about the basics of astrophotography. I don’t think this is a waste of time or resources. If they enjoy photography, then they will do like countless others before them, spend, spend, spend. If not, they will get out cheaply. Neither outcome is bad.

Anyway, that’s my two cents worth.

[dmbryan]

Nice post Joe. Very good points indeed.

[DaveW]

Good points in this thread. I think a lot of the confusion about recommendations for AP comes from the wide chasm between lunar/planetary AP and trying to get a Hubble quality image of M101.
Comparisons are always poor, but it would be like someone asking on a photography forum for advice on a camera in the $300 range that's good for taking family photos, can take movies, and can take pictures of the band at a stadium concert from the upper decks. It's up to the person who's trying to help whether they say "No way you can do that for that budget, what you need is a full-frame dSLR, 400mm f/2.8 lens, and stable tripod. $10,000 or so", or try to help them into something that satisfies what they need, while still being able to snap a half-decent non-blurry photo from a concert to throw up on Facebook.
I know I'm bad for this; I love gadget shopping for it's always fun to try and fit different systems into people's budget, rather than try and differentiate between what features they really need and what is just tossed on as a nice-to-have because they don't know the costs.

[Nemrod]

Three of my fleet aimed at Jupiter, my own star party. The Carton 60mm provided the best views, one of the moons was literally stuck to the side of big Jupiter, quite a sight. The clouds and belts were stunning through this little scope at 100X. Of the 60mm scopes I have had, it is by far the best even over my Unitron.

[astronut]

Well, I guess that we’ve completely hijacked this thread so here is my two cents.

I think that Nemrod has a point that does need exploration. I personally believe that we often do beginners great harm with the almost instant bombardment of “buy the biggest aperture you can afford” advice that typically pours out when ever a new comer seeks advice about telescopes. While I have no data, I suspect that there are just as many “high quality” telescopes mismatched to the beginner that are out there gathering dust as there are “department store telescopes.” I often wonder how many large aperture SCTs, Newtonians on Dobson or other type mounts, and refractors sit unused because a ten year old can not handle a large scope, dad doesn't have the time, or the owner just isn’t inclined or able to lug such a scope up and down stairs, can’t easily transport it, etc., etc., etc.

Then there is the another almost instant pouring out …. Don’t buy a goto telescope …. waste of money, you must learn the night skies first, I had to learn the hard way so everyone else should to, etc., etc., etc. Again, I wonder how many telescopes are gathering dust because the owners can’t find anything because of their light polluted back yards, just plain don’t have the spatial sensory abilities needed to star hop, find star hoping exceedingly boring, etc., etc., etc.

But if you go back through the threads ……. the cry, loud and clear, typically is buy a large aperture non-goto Dobsonian telescope. This advice often pours out even through the beginner clearly stated he/she wanted something small and portable that is easy to handle, good for astrophotography, etc.

I don’t think that a large aperture telescope is an ideal telescope for many, perhaps most, beginners. While some may think an 8 or 10 inch Dob is portable and easy to use, I think that most lay people would look at it in a different light. Not to pick on Dobson telescopes, the same is true, perhaps even more true, for any 8 inch telescope mounted on a German equatorial mount and some of the larger forks mounts like the LX200. These things are physically large, bulky, and are not lightweight. …. movable but not portable. They are far more difficult to set up and use than is a small refractor, MAK, SCT, or Newtonian on an azimuth mount.

The other aspect … goto versus star hoping. Again, one shoe does not fit all feet. Some people unfortunately live in areas where light pollution steals the night sky and one can look up and easily count the visible stars. Other people, no matter how hard they try don’t posses the spatial sensory abilities needed and simply are klutzes at star hoping (I fit this category). Some simply are super type A folks and don’t have the patience for the task and only want to see the stars as easily as possible. Then there are people who just occasionally, perhaps as few as two times each year, want to take a scope out and see the night sky. What percentage of beginners fall in one of these categories, I really don’t know, but I suspect the percentage is substantial. For these beginners, a goto telescope is the difference between enjoying astronomy or parking their scopes in the garage as dust collectors. I think that astronomy is big enough for all these people not just folks who can complete the spring Messier Marathon in one night using a manually operated mount.

BTW, using a goto telescope is not a mindless activity. True, just tell the telescope what you want to see and away it goes. However, using a goto telescope is much more involved that. Beginners soon learn that “Tonight’s Tour” doesn’t change much from night to night and want to see more. To see more, they learn that they must find out what is visible in a telescope …. they soon learn that before viewing a viewing plan is needed. While preparing viewing plans, they slowly start learning the night skies. Many of the goto telescopes require that the user know and identify alignment stars. Again, this provides a helpful exercise in learning the night skies. While we often say go to your nearest astronomy club, this is not easy for many people to do, especially children, teenagers, and folks not living near one. These people are on their own. While books can help, a goto mount can too. It is like having a very knowledgeable astronomer at the side of a beginner, anyone else really, explaining the night sky … albeit, some manufacturers do a much better job here than others.

I know that this is trite but the best telescope is one that is used. To be used, I think that a telescope for a beginner should have the following attributes:
1. be easy to store
2. be easy to transport
3. be easy to set up
4. be easy to use
5. be sturdy enough to provide decent viewing
6. be easy to find objects
7. be sufficiently large enough (aperture) to make life interesting
8. be easy on the pocket book

• be easy to store. A beginner needs to understand the physical size of the telescope being recommended as well as the environmental conditions required for storing it. Before we recommend a telescope to a beginner, we should also understand the beginners needs and circumstances.
• be easy to transport. Again, the beginner needs to understand the size, bulk, and weight of the telescope recommended and we need to know the beginner’s constraints before making a recommendation.
• be easy to set up. Here we need to take into consideration both the physical abilities and temperament of the beginner. This requires some questions asked and answered. For example while I can certainly handle and setup an 8 inch LX200 SCT there is no way on this earth would I ever want to do so; however, many others will have not problems doing this at all. It just depends upon the person personal likes and dislikes. Telescopes are too expensive to have one you dislike.
• be easy to use. While any telescope on a German equatorial mount is not that difficult to learn to use, learning to use a GEM is just one more hurtle a beginner has to overcome before enjoying the night skies. While a GEM certainly has its place in astronomy, I can think of precious little it provides for a beginner learning astronomy.
• be sturdy enough to provide decent viewing. Here is where most department store telescopes and, for that matter, most beginner telescopes sold by “reputable” telescope manufactures really drop the ball. Far too few telescopes in the entry level category have a stable mount or tripod and the beginner must fight vibration while focusing and viewing
• be easy to find objects. Here again, both the department store and reputable telescope makers drop the ball. Today, red dot finders rule over all … nothing wrong with a red dot finder that has a variable dimmer, but most that are on department store or reputable beginner scopes have only two light intensity levels making using them with stars other than the brightest in the sky very difficult. Others have inadequate finder scopes that are impossible to use to star hop. Goto telescopes, on the other hand, are relatively easy to setup and to use and the woefully inadequate red dot finders pose no problem for them.
• be sufficiently large enough (aperture) to make life interesting. Here the debate can get lively as it is in this thread. The lower limit for significant viewing capability is often stated as around 90 to 100 mm. True, a smaller aperture telescope with quality optics can show plenty to a skilled observer. However, with beginners and beginner telescopes, we are generally not using high quality optics nor is the beginner a skilled observer. How large an aperture should be recommended is a tough question to answer. I personally think that the aperture is governed by logistics, economics, and the type of mount appropriate for the user.
• be easy on the pocket book. Here again, reality is often overlooked. Telescopes meeting the above criteria exist but with a few exceptions $200 seems the lower limit. Surprisingly enough, $200 can get you a 102 mm refractor on a proven goto mount, a 90 mm MAK on a manually operated azimuth mount, or a 114 mm table top Dobson; all of which easily meet the criteria stated above.

I think that we do no one any good by recommending a cheap or an expensive telescope that does not meet the criteria listed above. I do think that we should find out a lot about the beginner and the beginner’s desires, circumstances, etc. before blindly recommending any kind of telescope.

There is another criteria beginners often state that is very difficult to handle; this simple statement “and I want to do astrophotography.” Here we know the stark truth …. However, here I think we may over react. Many of the entry level goto telescopes are capable of some photography …. very limited but they can be used on brighter objects, planets, and the moon. These photos will not be prize winners to be sure, but the people taking them will be pleased and they will learn a lot about the basics of astrophotography. I don’t think this is a waste of time or resources. If they enjoy photography, then they will do like countless others before them, spend, spend, spend. If not, they will get out cheaply. Neither outcome is bad.

Anyway, that’s my two cents worth.

Good points indeed Joe.
From my yrs. of experimentation with just about every type of instrument made. I still stand my ground that 2 things work best for beginners: number one a good program on the PC that SHOWS what is where, when at that moment on that evening, & exactly where to look for it at a certain time.
That being said a small or medium refractor on a alt/alz mount, or a (very simple drive with a hand set) not a complicated go-to...... just a drive....is all that one needs to see just about anything comfortably without constantly loosing sight of it from drift..
If I was questioned by someone id tell them there are only 2 types of things in the sky really, DSOs, & Planets. Starclusters well......while being DSOs due to their distance can be seen with any scope so I leave them as they are easy jewels anyone can locate with anything. IF I was told Planets is my main interest then id tell them buy a Hubble...........................Just kidding but the reality is Planets are disappointing to see in any scope except Saturn since the pics of Hubble & near fly bys of spacecraft have spolied a nation visually.
If the observer is open minded however a refractor will show some decent pale detail in a Planet. Reason I say a refractor with a simple drive is because ive had a few & they require a short cool down, no collimation at all ever, no go-to exp just turn on the drive point it at the object & lock the mount asuming you polar align it to polaris first a no brainer also....& away you go. Show me a simpler design that tracks for the price. Only reason I sold them was the quest for aperture.
Its true, I can see more in my 8" dob but it sadly lacks tracking.............my only gripe. Collimation? Since ive collimated it I haven't had to touch it but I don't do a 4 wheel drive up a mountainside to my viewing site Ill admit that. LOL! I know some do.
Keep it simple is all im saying, and having a collection of 10 telescopes or more won't get one any closer to that perfect scope either all that is .....is well.................a hoarding compulsion. For DSOs & Planetary 2 scopes tops is all one really needs. Better to save for a super hi-end hand figured perfect optics scope then own 20 so-so scopes. I see some have this compulsion as well. Being a hobby this is all fine & dandy so im simply stating my own point of view others may & do find great joy in old stuff that has no special lense coatings or great lense figurings but love tinkering with the mechanics etc of it.
But for a beginner I stand on a simple refractor & learn the sky with software. THEN..................make the big decision next a yr. later. I have read a LOT of gripes about using the small 4.5 reflectors as starter scopes, a small refractor can be had for the same price with no headaches to use it.
Dave

[TCA]

Good points indeed Joe.
From my yrs. of experimentation with just about every type of instrument made. I still stand my ground that 2 things work best for beginners: number one a good program on the PC that SHOWS what is where, when at that moment on that evening, & exactly where to look for it at a certain time.
That being said a small or medium refractor on a alt/alz mount, or a (very simple drive with a hand set) not a complicated go-to...... just a drive....is all that one needs to see just about anything comfortably without constantly loosing sight of it from drift..
If I was questioned by someone id tell them there are only 2 types of things in the sky really, DSOs, & Planets. Starclusters well......while being DSOs due to their distance can be seen with any scope so I leave them as they are easy jewels anyone can locate with anything. IF I was told Planets is my main interest then id tell them buy a Hubble...........................Just kidding but the reality is Planets are disappointing to see in any scope except Saturn since the pics of Hubble & near fly bys of spacecraft have spolied a nation visually.
If the observer is open minded however a refractor will show some decent pale detail in a Planet. Reason I say a refractor with a simple drive is because ive had a few & they require a short cool down, no collimation at all ever, no go-to exp just turn on the drive point it at the object & lock the mount asuming you polar align it to polaris first a no brainer also....& away you go. Show me a simpler design that tracks for the price. Only reason I sold them was the quest for aperture.
Its true, I can see more in my 8" dob but it sadly lacks tracking.............my only gripe. Collimation? Since ive collimated it I haven't had to touch it but I don't do a 4 wheel drive up a mountainside to my viewing site Ill admit that. LOL! I know some do.
Keep it simple is all im saying, and having a collection of 10 telescopes or more won't get one any closer to that perfect scope either all that is .....is well.................a hoarding compulsion. For DSOs & Planetary 2 scopes tops is all one really needs. Better to save for a super hi-end hand figured perfect optics scope then own 20 so-so scopes. I see some have this compulsion as well. Being a hobby this is all fine & dandy so im simply stating my own point of view others may & do find great joy in old stuff that has no special lense coatings or great lense figurings but love tinkering with the mechanics etc of it.
But for a beginner I stand on a simple refractor & learn the sky with software. THEN..................make the big decision next a yr. later. I have read a LOT of gripes about using the small 4.5 reflectors as starter scopes, a small refractor can be had for the same price with no headaches to use it.
Dave

I worked backwards. I bought the 8" dob and now I want a SV102ED on a good alt/az to compliment it. No tracking doesn't bother me. Both of these should keep me busy for many years before I get the bug to buy anything else.

I've found your comment about mediocre scopes even more useful when applied to EPs. I decided recently to liquidate most of my EPs and go for the gold. Even if I have to save over much time and build the collection of premium EPs very slowly. Premium EPs should stay with you forever vs constantly buying, trading, selling, upgrading etc. Ending the abusive cycle lol.