
So You Wanna Buy a Telescope: Advice for Beginners (2015) - Tomte
http://www.scopereviews.com/begin.html
======
aortega
I disagree with the astrophotography thing.

Even with a telescope your human eyes are limited to planets and the moon,
that's it. Forget about seeing galaxies with the naked eye, unless you have a
1-meter diameter telescope. All other objects are basically points of light.
Artificial satellites are really fun to see, but also points of light.

But a 2006 DSLR (EOS400) that I found in the garbage, connected to a cheap
newtonian telescope can capture 1000X the detail your own eyes can see. Is
your telescope too small? no problem. Just increase the exposure or ISO, you
cannot do that with your eyes.

I've seen comets moving in real time. Tracking satellites, resolving detail on
the ISS, the moons of Jupiter and Mars, incredibly detailed nebula, and a
freaking quasar, all this from my window in the middle of the city, with the
highest light-pollution.

One advice I have is, try to get a scope that's no more than 15 kg. More than
that, and it's a hassle to move.

And get a computerized robotic mount. They are expensive (~800 us$), but
awesome. No point of getting a 15-century instrument today.

~~~
madaxe_again
There's astrophotography and then there's astrophotography, however - and you
get drawn deeper and deeper into it.

I have a few scopes, but mostly use an 8" celestron schmidt-cassegrain - it's
a decent all-rounder for astrophotography, particularly as I mostly do deep
sky stuff.

I started with a simple T-adapter and a DSLR, and of course, you start as you
describe playing with the exposure, the iso - but then you want to see fainter
objects, and the noise starts being a problem, so you learn about
computational techniques for frame stacking and noise reduction, but those
have their limits, and the results you're getting are so-so, so...

You buy a peltier cooled CCD. You upgrade your mount because you aren't
satisfied with the level of backlash you're getting. You get a star tracker.
You learn several suites of astrophotographic software before settling on
three.

Now you're taking images of deep sky objects, but they just don't have that
certain something - so you go and buy filters - hydrogen alpha, OIII, RGB, and
more, and you start getting some images you're impressed by - but... wouldn't
it be great if you could just capture a bit more of that dim halo... maybe I
should buy a bigger telescope. Maybe I need a dome to keep conditions more
constant. Perhaps I should go on holiday and lug my telescope, counterweights
and all, to the other side of the planet, and hang out up a mountain.

No, this is madness. So long as you stick with what you describe and don't go
down the slippery slope as I did. With the setup you describe you can still do
neat stuff like observing the Galilean moons and plotting their ephemerides,
and take stunning photos of the moon and even the sun with a simple solar
filter.

~~~
dr_zoidberg
About capturing a bit more fo that dim halo, I always wondered... Wouldn't a
secondary scope (with similar characteristics) result in an increased light
gathering potential? I've also tried to look into visible-light
interferometry, but there aren't many accessible resources on the subject.

My feeling is that there is a point in equipment in which you are simply
better off getting a new rig (to work in paralell) than trying to get slightly
bigger aperture (let's face it, 16" vs 14" is not as dramatic in light
gathering and image quality as 8" vs 6"), but I'm not sure where that point
lies.

~~~
aortega
But you also need another camera and probably another mount too. The scope is
actually the cheapest component in a astrophotography setup. Probably the 80%
of the cost is the mount+the camera.

~~~
dr_zoidberg
Absolutely. Then again, there are limits. I remember an old Meade model (no
longer available) that was a 20", $36k monster. I was beautiful, and they sold
it as an observatory-grade instrument. But the 16" models were priced close to
$10k, so it sort of made sense (in that particular case) to duplicate the rig.
My "napkin analysis" was:

20" diameter, ~315 squared inches of area[0], $36k

2x 16 inches diameter, ~402 squared inches of area, $20k

This prices did include mounts, but back then (more than 10 years ago) I
wasn't very knowledgeable and I honestly don't know if they were good mounts.
So there was margin to increase the light gathering and having spare money for
the new camera.

Still, the most interesting use for multiple telescopes would be building and
interferometer. I'll keep looking into that, with the procesing power
available in todays machines it should be doable.

[0] I know the secondary mirror obstructs the light gathering, but I don't
have precise figures, so let's go with it the area of the main mirror.

------
lake99
The advice here seems dated, even for 2015. Here's my advice:

1\. Install an astronomy app on your mobile phone. Start with free ones, and
see where it leads you. I recommend Skeye. This is good for going out by
yourself and looking up things you see in the sky. For a PC, Stellarium is the
best I have seen.

2\. Get a camera capable of taking long exposure RAW photos, and get a tripod.
There is so much hidden within the range of our FOV, that a telescope or
binoculars are overkill. You'll use the camera for other things, so that won't
be a special-nights-only investment. A basic DSLR should be fine, though I am
curious about how well generic travel-zoom cameras do. If you have such a
camera already, and played around with it, let me know.

Telescopes come _after_ this stage.

> What about Astrophotography?

> Don't.

Sorry, this is shitty advice. His friend blew thousands of dollars on the
hobby. I didn't.

> and untold thousands of rejected images

In the days of DSLRs? That's like saying I'm no good at computer games because
of all the "bullets" that didn't hit my intended target. Lame. To put it
bluntly.

> 8) Avoid any thoughts of astrophotography.

Fuck off.

~~~
_ph_
Astrophotography without a telescope is indeed a good starting point. Get a
bright 50mm lens and just with a simple barndoor tracker you can do amazing
things. But as this article is about buying a telescope - and astrophotography
through a telescope requires more skill than a complete beginner might
imagine.

~~~
mnw21cam
You don't even need a tracker at all. Just take a series of 20-second
exposures, align them in hugin, and stack them. I have managed to get some
remarkably good results this way, because the fact that the star background
moves allows you to cancel out a lot of the noise that the camera and light
pollution produces.

~~~
gus_massa
If the aligning phase can be automated, this looks like a nice plugin for
ImageJ/ImageMagick or even an online version in a web page. (You an monetize
it with ads about telescopes or something.)

(Bonus points for a deconvolution filter. (Is it useful here?))

~~~
joshumax
Two pieces of gratis software (DeepSkyStacker Live) and RegiStax already do
something like this, as well as PixInsight and the venerable Maxim DL, among
others.

------
dwc
1) Spot on. If you won't bother to learn at least a few prominent bits of the
sky first then a telescope will be fun about twice and then gather dust.

2) Subscribe? Er, see if you can buy individual copies first. I dropped my
subs because, well, the articles all started to become pablum. Probably worth
picking up a few issues when you start out.

3) Yes, join a club or tag along. There's no better way to get an idea of what
it's about than to meet some enthusiasts and look through their scopes. And a
really friendly and helpful crowd, in my experience.

Binocs: I bought 10x50s, and I wish I had bought 7x50s. The higher
magnification is nice and all, and I can hold them steady enough...for a
little bit. You can use 7x50 without strain for a lot longer. Also, yes, do
buy binocs. You'd be amazed what you can see with a pair of 7x50s that you
can't see with naked eyes. It's a great, cheap, convenient way to get started.

Telescopes: buy one that you can afford and that you will use. Like my binoc
choice above, I bought something actually nice but big enough that it was a
pain to haul around and set up. Save that for later. Buy something that you
will pull out on a whim and have a nice evening. This is a very individual
choice, of course. If you live in a fairly dark place and the farthest you
will take your scope is to your back yard, by all means get that light bucket.
:)

Overall very solid advice in the article.

------
ackfoo
I used to love to go out at night with my 10" reflector and see a point of
light magnified to... a point of light. For variety, I would look at binary
stars to see... two points of light. Sometimes, I would search for nebulae and
galaxies to see... a fuzzy patch of light. Optical astronomy is such fun.

Now, alas, the light pollution is so severe that all my points of light and
fuzzy patches are severely washed out.

So I sold my telescope and took up scuba diving. It was all fish and coral,
fish and coral, until a few years ago. Now it's no fish and fuzzy white
patches that used to be coral.

The former coral looks like nebulae and galaxies through light pollution in my
10" reflector.

~~~
Starwatcher2001
Haha... I took up scuba diving after astronomy too. Maybe there's something
similar in wanting to see stuff for yourself, rather than television or
photos. Coolest thing I saw was a star disappear for a few seconds as it was
occulted by an asteroid.

------
SoulMan
I get this question all the time - "I am want to get started with Astronomy -
which telescope should I buy ?"

Its so important to make people realize , one does not need to have telescope
right way. A decent pair of binocular (and probably a book with sky charts) is
enough to spot the 1st few objects in the sky. If the hunger for celestial
objects then one can go for the telescope else there is high chance the
telescope will eat dust at home.

The other problem with hastily buy a telescope is that we end up buying a
beginners one with low budget which is is usually no better than good
binoculars of same power. (magnification and light gathering). It is netter
wait and have a decent budget to buy a good telescope later on.

~~~
joshumax
Another thing I commonly get is (after explaining that decent telescopes have
the ability to swap eyepieces (If you're lucky it'll take 2" ones without
vignetting)) is which eyepieces will "get the most zoom." People seem to be
under the impression that because most objects in the sky are far away, they
are also really "small." So if misguided they'll go buy 4mm Kellners with huge
coma, have a painful time trying to get their scope aligned on any DSO, strain
to see anything because everything looks dim in them, and squint because the
eye relief is terrible. If somebody still wants a scope with high
magnification because they're into planetary observing it's usually best to
stick with a scope with a long focal length that brings it to f/12 or higher,
then get some wide-FOV EPs for that.

~~~
tilt_error
In english?

You seem to be giving good advice to newbees, but the language is
incomprehensible to that audience.

~~~
nikdaheratik
There are two problems in Astronomy:

1\. Objects are distant so you only have so many photons from them that reach
your current location. This means they appear "faint". The solution to that is
a large aperture scope which collects more light.

2\. Objects still appear relatively small even after collecting more photons.
This can be improved somewhat by using an eyepiece to "zoom up" the image.

But just like magnifying a lower resolution image on a computer, the image
through your scope gets fuzzy as you blow it up since you are still only
collecting so many photons. So a good eyepiece doesn't help as much as
beginners think it will.

------
littleredstar
Great summary article for beginners. Ed's been reviewing scopes for as long as
I've been in the hobby. His advice is sound.

The best advice I can give beginners is to get out to a dark sky on a moonless
clear night and enjoy the wonders above you. Maybe watch for meteors for
awhile. That only costs you time and effort. No equipment needed.

I've got mixed feelings about astro apps and phones/tablets. Sure their handy
but I often see people looking at it instead of the night sky. While your
looking down or trying to move your device around to orient it a meteor goes
overhead. But you missed it jacking with your phone.

Also your night vision is affected by that phone/tablet screen - every time
you look at it your pupils constrict letting in less light (unless you put a
red filter over the screen). generally it takes 20 minutes for your eyes to
become adapted to the dark. And 3 seconds looking at a bright screen wipes out
that adaptation.

------
wmblaettler
Bought the recommended Orion XT8 Dobsonian a year ago for my 10 year old
daughter (ok, and for myself!). It is super easy to setup (minutes), captures
plenty of light and has been a joy to view through. I have observed the moon,
Saturn, Jupiter and its moons and several Messier objects - even tracked a few
satellites as they transited overhead.

~~~
starik36
Were you able to see the rings of Saturn with this telescope? How about the
red spot of Jupiter? Any of its moons? And finally, do you observe these
objects in a place with a lot of light pollution?

~~~
jonathansizz
I can see Saturn's rings with my 16x70mm binoculars. Jupiter's Galilean
satellites are easy with any decent pair of binoculars. You can track their
positions relative to Jupiter from night to night.

Binoculars are definitely the way to go for a beginner. Spend 12 months using
the naked eye and binoculars to learn the entire night sky that's visible from
your location. With the aid of an astronomy book and star charts, you'll learn
all the constellations and the names of the major stars in each, plus other
interesting objects in each constellation (Messier objects, variable stars).
Binoculars also bring out the different colours of many stars. Supplement this
with background reading on the targets of your observations and other nearby
objects.

During this time, you'll also be able to learn many of the most prominent
features of the moon's surface, as well as easily being able to identify the
planets (although Mercury can be a challenge and Neptune requires large
binoculars and even then will just be a speck of light), and you'll get a feel
for which constellations are visible in which seasons. Learning the sky like
this is very satisfying and is a great precursor to buying a telescope. Your
binoculars can of course be used for other purposes too.

As casual astronomers are generally most interested in the moon and planets,
I'd recommend buying a medium-sized apochromatic refractor as a first scope. A
high-quality 4" (100mm) one with a good mount can be had for under $1000, and
will give stunning views of Saturn, Jupiter and the Moon, even in the middle
of a large city. Other planets and the brighter star clusters and nebulae will
also look good.

~~~
exhilaration
Can you link to a specific pair of binoculars?

~~~
jonathansizz
Unfortunately, the pairs that I have are all no longer produced. If I was in
the market today, I'd probably look on Craigslist for some high-quality second
hand binoculars. That way, you can go and test them in person after you've
researched them online, and you should be able to get more for your money
compared with buying a new pair.

For astronomy, you want a large objective lens:magnification ratio, because
the higher the magnification, the dimmer the view. For daytime use, this
doesn't matter, but for looking at faint objects at night, light-gathering
power is everything. Get this ratio at least up around 5, or ideally 7, so
7x50mm binoculars would therefore be better (and lighter) than 10x50mm. I'd
start with those before possibly getting some larger (e.g. 15-16x70mm) ones,
or just moving straight to a telescope.

------
DigitalJack
I got An etx125 for a gift a number of years ago. The tripod is a pain to work
with, but otherwise I really like this scope.

I just have one low power eye piece, I think the 26mm plossl. Saturn looks
pretty much like the simulated 100x photo.

I'd like to get a Barlow and a higher mag eye piece for looking at craters on
the moon.

I've messed with photography. It's a lot of trouble. Most of the time the
easiest thing is to use my phone to take a picture through the eye piece.

------
nxzero
Infrared: Most amazing experience I ever had looking at the average clear
night sky was wearing a pair of night vision goggles. Seeing all the extra
stars (100x more) in the sky as I turned my head around allowed me to see the
sky in a way I never would have imagined possible. Highly recommend it.

------
astronomonaut
Excellent advice. I just sold off most of my astronomy equipment except for my
first telescope - an orion xt8 - and some mid-range plossl eyepieces. If I did
it all over again i'd buy everything used off astromart.com (no affiliation -
it's just the best place to find good used astononomy gear). Seriously though
- join your local astronomy club, try out members' telescopes and use their
telescope library if they have one.

------
Roboprog
I've had several small telescopes, but my favorite turned out to be my first:
a 4.5 inch newtonian reflector on an (no motors) equitorial mount, with
upgraded 35, 25 and 10 mm focal length plossel eyepieces.

A small refractor on a camera tripod is too frustrating, and a small
cassegrain on a computerized mount often is too much fuss to align and set up.

~~~
Roboprog
Explanation: an equitorial mount has an axis that points at the north star
(Polaris, or more accurately, the celestial north pole). One you learn to set
it up, it's pretty easy to just "eyeball sight" over the shaft-bearing at
Polaris and call it good enough. When the planet or other object you are
looking at drifts west, you turn a knob a little bit and it is re-centered.

Plossel eyepieces have 4 lenses, vs the 3 in a "Kelner". Minimal "rainbows"
(chromatic aberration), and you don't have to smash your eyeball (or worse,
glasses) onto the lens to see (eye relief). There are better eyepieces. Be
prepared to spend at least 4 times as much, though.

The 35 mm focal length gives you the widest field of view in a standard 1 1/4"
wide eyepiece, so you can actually find anything at all (and brightens dimmer
objects), then, you can swap other eyepieces in the same series ("parfocal")
without refocusing (much) to get higher magnification - 10 mm is the highest
in my set.

------
dreamcompiler
One thing he didn't talk about is clock drives. They're essential for
photography, but they're also good for keeping the scope on target if you want
to let other people look through the scope. Especially at higher
magnifications, the thing you're looking at will move out of the field of view
in a few seconds without a clock drive. The one disadvantage of Dobsonians is
you can't put a clock drive on them (well you can, but it requires two motors
instead of one. And high magnification is not really the point of a dobbie
anyway).

~~~
aortega
Clock drives?

Today's hobbyist telescope mounts have incredible precise stepper or servo
motors, many with optical encoders so precise that they know exactly where
they are pointing to. I don't think you can get a clock drive anymore.

------
arey_abhishek
I agree with most of the points here. There should have been an additional
section on choosing the right mount. There's the cheap AZ mount which makes it
easier to locate an object but is too painful to use while tracking it. The
expensive EQ mount takes a little bit of practice and frustration before you
can use it well. It makes it difficult to find an object, but tracking an
object is a breeze.

Go for a stand AZ/EQ with a motorized GOTO unit if you can afford it. It 'll
save you a lot of time looking for objects.

------
brendangregg
Binoculars are handy, but I wouldn't get anything cheaper than the Nikon
Aculon series (usually $80-$120; they used to be the Action series). Sharp
optics, wide apparent field of view...

------
verytrivial
I have dabbled with simple whole-sky night photography with a DLSR and wanted
to do more (yes, going straight against the no astrophotography advice from
the article!). But as the article shows, there are simply so many options and
permutations of equipment!

I would love a simple (and very approximate) web page with a few sliders and
check boxes that said I have budget range X, and want to do Y and Z. It will
say: "you need the following ... and these will be nice ... " And you can
click "I have these", and it will go "Okay, then go and add this."

This goes for a few other grouped-purchase hobbies/undertakings. I entered
similar befuddlement trying to get a reasonably sound field recording setup.
There's a lot of opinion in these areas, perhaps a general "recipe" engine
would be good to allow people to submit their codified advice.

------
drdrey
There are no mentions of motors or automated tracking in this article. I've
heard from multiple sources that they wished they had a motorized rig, is
there a reason this is not recommended for beginners?

------
cridenour
After attending and then volunteering at my local observatory for a few
months, I pulled the trigger on a Nexstar Evolution 8. Tons of fun to let
people choose what to look at on the iPad and the tracking keeps me from
having to make adjustments every minute when we zoom in on Saturn to see
Titan.

------
gjkood
Here is a nice mount for those wanting to do Astrophotography without a
telescope. The problem with using long exposures without a tracking mount is
that the objects being photographed is always in motion wrt. to where you
originally pointed the camera and you end up with star trails. This may not be
a problem if you are using wide angle lenses to photograph a large chunk of
the night sky.

[http://www.ioptron.com/product-p/3302b.htm](http://www.ioptron.com/product-p/3302b.htm)

One of the most useful things that I did when I started out in this hobby was
get a login to 'AstroMart' and bought used equipment. Amateur Astronomy is
like buying Gym equipment. Everybody wants to do it and will buy fancy
equipment but most will not use much of that (myself included). So you end up
with a lot of very good used equipment available for sale. It can also be a
very very expensive hobby, hence reselling some of your equipment to feed your
habit is a common event. Astromart is a sort of self regulated auction site
for used astronomy equipment. I personally bought a 10 year old telescope 12
years ago which I can still resell today at the price I bought it then.

The most useful advice I see on here is to get something that you will
actually take out and use. Binoculars (7x50 or 10x50) or a good small
apochromatic refractor (80 mm or less) with a decent alt-azimuth mount.
Learning the common constellations, locating the north star (if you are in the
northern hemisphere) etc.

The following site will give you the list of dark sky locations in California.

[http://www.observingsites.com/ds_ca.htm](http://www.observingsites.com/ds_ca.htm)

For those in the Bay Area, Henry Coe State park near Morgan Hill/Gilroy is an
excellent dark sky site. I saw the Milky Way again in all its majestic glory
after 30 years here. Camp out there for a night and you can have a great time
stargazing. Just try and find a cloudless, moonless night for best experience.
Learn to read the Clear Sky chart for each location and plan out your trip.

Its a fun but addictive and expensive hobby. So beware.

------
joshumax
After being trapped in this hobby for years now, I've finally settled on (for
the time being) a nice 10" RC from GSO/Astro-Tech, as well as an ES80ed and
SVQ100-3SV and a Losmandy Titan mount. While not specifically a mount for
beginners, it is a nice choice considering the RA and DEC axis comes apart to
reduce weight and it doesn't use a proprietary mount control protocol like
some companies -- _Looks in the general direction of a certain high-end red-
colored mount manufacturer_

------
davidy123
I wanted to combine several interests and acquire something like the Sony QX
or Olympus AIR, which have lens mounts, with a computer based program and
display (OLED eventually) for capturing night skies (and general exposure
exploration). But I found none of the available systems have much versatility.
Is there any affordable system useful for this purpose? I know some SLRs and
high end 4/3 cameras have APIs, and hacker oriented devices like the PI's
camera have potential.

------
maratc
I am visiting the USA soon and thought of getting a telescope, but not a
42lb/20kg monster. What's the best I can do for 10 kg/$300 or so?

------
jharohit
I am a first time buyer and spent months comparing scopes, talking to people
who owned my top choices, etc. Finally settled on Celestron Astromaster 140EQ.
It is just fantastic to setup and quickly get seeing - an important factor for
first-time hobbyists. Also, a must-buy is the Celestron Astromaster lenses kit
which just increases the quality and quantity of views immensely!

------
OpenDrapery
I am looking at buying a telescope that I can mount to my son's playhouse, and
leave it outside year around. We live in the midwest, so there is weather.

I was thinking of something like the coin operated ones that you see at
tourist spots. They are pretty expensive. Anyone have any info or done
something like this before?

------
sankoz
I wish I had come across this article earlier. Recently bought my first
telescope: a 6" reflector with EQ mount (Celestron Astromaster 130 EQ). While
the images are superb, I find it very hard to find my desired objects in the
night sky. The finderscope on the unit is either useless, or I don't know how
to use it correctly.

------
rdl
Are there "amateur" remote observatories? I'd be happy to control a telescope
on a mountain in Chile or something over the Internet, rather than trying to
screw around with a physical telescope in a city.

------
max_
I was expecting one that you could connect to a computer.

Can someone give me any recommendations?

~~~
aortega
Any Meade, celestron or skywatcher robotic mount can connect to a computer
using a serial RS232 interface.

I recommend a Skywatcher mount, because those mounts can be completely
controlled by software and there is a very good opensource project for this,
called eq-mod.

~~~
max_
thanx alot!

------
skybrian
Why is astrophotography hard?

~~~
_ph_
Astrophotography requires more experience with the telescope handling, a more
stable platform and usually the best beginners telescope for observing isn't
ideal for photography.

For photography you should plan at least $500 for a tracking mount, you might
start even with the cameras lenses or a small refractor telescope. "Barndoor"
mounts are a good alternative for not too long focal lengths.

Photographic mounts for the recommended 8 inch newtonian would run at $ 1500+
and require precise setup.

The good news is, that modern digital cameras with interchangeable lenses are
pretty capable for astrophotography, so if you own one of those, there is no
reason not to try it. So the strong warning in the article was to set the
proper expectations.

~~~
mrob
Couldn't you use manual tracking at first? The steadiness of the tracking
isn't so important if every individual exposure is short, and most cameras
have a continuous mode so you can take many thousands of photographs. I've
successfully stacked hand-held photos using Hugin:

[http://hugin.sourceforge.net/](http://hugin.sourceforge.net/)

You will probably need a camera with raw support for this to work, because
each individual exposure will be extremely noisy, and any in-camera noise
reduction will destroy too much detail. You will probably also need at least
two bright stars in frame for alignment to work.

And if you have a huge number of images you can also keep only those with low
atmospheric distortion:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_imaging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_imaging)

The same principle could be used to keep only those images with little
tracking-induced motion blur.

~~~
_ph_
That could work - and I am a strong believer to try everything, even if the
equipment at hand is not "officially capable" of doing the task. If one does
that in the proper spirit of experimentation, this is great and you learn a
lot and can have tons of fun. People who have no astronomy experience might
though think that you can just take photos as you see them in the web or in
magazines.

