| written by Nebuloso on Jan 09, 2006 22:25 |
 | |  | | How much did you pay for your telescope? I've always been curious as to how much use the "cheaper" ones are and how much I'd have to pay for something along the lines of your telescope. | |  | |  |
|
| written by Mcwgogs on Jan 09, 2006 22:49 |
 | |  | | as far as i remember it was somewhere around 250$, don't buy the cheap ones, they're pain in the ass to use  like one my uncle brought me for about 50$ unstable,shaking, small, and hard to point at things, and i had to screw a bolt every time to rotate it. | |  | |  |
|
| written by Nebuloso on Jan 09, 2006 22:53 |
| | | | Oh, really? Wow! I thought I'd have to pay $1000+ for images like that. And those images aren't as sharp as they could be either, you say?
One thing, though... Those pictures... Are they cropped from the 100% view or do you actually get that close but you just resized? | | | | |
|
| written by Mcwgogs on Jan 10, 2006 14:26 |
| | | | The camera was set to take 2272x1704 pictures and i then cut the planet out , i don't resize it, the moon picture was made merging a few 320x240 movie frames. | | | | |
|
| written by Nebuloso on Jan 10, 2006 16:53 |
| | | | Oh, okay, so in the full-sized image, saturn, for example, is only a tiny bit of it?
What's the size of the 'scope? in inches or mms?
Just curious as I'm looking to maybe get one myself. | | | | |
|
| written by Mcwgogs on Jan 10, 2006 17:16 |
| | | | Just google for SkyQuest XT6 | | | | |
|
| written by Nebuloso on Jan 10, 2006 18:53 |
| | | | Tried that. Didn't get anything much of use. I'll try some more. | | | | |
|
| written by Alex on Jan 10, 2006 21:30 |
| | | | ![]() Poo, I'm late here. Wish I had posted before. I don't have a telescope, but one day I might buy one. Meanwhile, I heard that it's difficult to get in photographs all the details you see by looking within the instrument. So I suppose you deserve a bold congratulations for those works!
What's it? an 8" newton?
or a refractor? maybe a refractor... judging from the chosen subjects (planets and moon) and the look of Venus in the first photograph...
But whoa! 
Good works!
edit:
er...wait, found photograph link.
Looks like a Newton mounted on Dobson support. Probably 114 mm.?
edit 2:
googled it, nevermind explaining anything.
The results are wonderful compared to the instrument! Really! | | | | |
|
| written by Nebuloso on Jan 10, 2006 22:01 |
| | | | What're the inches compared to mms? 25 mm per inch, isn't it? So it's... uh... 6 inches? Ah, of course. XT6, 6 inches. XT10, 10 inches.
Those things sure are big bastards, though. If I get one of those things, I think I'll save up and get an eight or even ten-incher. | | | | |
|
| written by Mcwgogs on Jan 10, 2006 22:07 |
| | | | don't buy a really heavy one, or you'll need to build a observatory thing around it.
mine's quite heavy | | | | |
|
| written by Alex on Jan 10, 2006 22:09 |
| | | | ![]() I dream of a massive Shmidt-Caissegrain of at least 16" aperture.
And yeah that's 40 centimeters.
Meade produced one (model LX200) with completely automated pointing, and computer-controlled. Wow! Sit on your chair, leave the instrument in the garden, and comfortably let it point at things for you!
pity it costed something like 10000 euros
ps. anyway, you'd better hope I never get it, or you'd have to forget NV. I'd be way too busy with the telescope.  | | | | |
|
 | |  | | Thank you, i am also looking to buy a telescope, this imfo will be helpful.  | |  | |  |
|
| written by Yayo on Jan 11, 2006 20:50 |
 | |  | | ![]() bay the way, talking about telescope pictures, look at what I found just now:
do you have troubles in downloading... (ugh.. I forgot.. wait a second, please.. yayo's checking the pic info... oh, ok!).. 385.09Mb of a 18000x18000pixels tiff picture of the Orion nebula?
HubbleSite - Large Image Warning - Hubble's Sharpest View of the Orion Nebula - 1/11/2006
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2006/01/image/a+warn
y. | |  | |  |
|
| written by Alex on Jan 12, 2006 01:49 |
| | | | ![]() heh... for what concerns my above post, Pengawolf, the info is... helpful when you don't know how to spend 12000 dollars or so... I could afford that maybe if I sold my car and the computer together
however, Shmidt-Caissegrain might probably be the best for general observations nowadays. Until a few years ago they were (as well as all the reflectors) not recommended for watching the objects of the solar system (planets, the moon...), but with time it seems they got much better, judging from MCW's photographs (although that's a newtonian optics on dobsonian mounting, but it's still a reflector). If I have to buy one, it will be a S-C, realistically speaking (and aside expensive dreams like the one above) an 8" would probably be enough. Shmidt-Caissegrain are compact to transport, while still having huge focal lengths. | | | | |
|
| 
