TheSkySearchers

gregl wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:37 pm Before we get too far into recommending eyepieces, does anyone know what barrel diameter the focuser on that scope takes? If its the .965 then the options are fewer.

Looking at the manual for the scope from the above link it says that it uses 1.25" EP's.

turboscrew wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:25 am I don't understand the fuzz about EQ-mounts. As if they couldn't be used just like ALT-AZ mounts.

Agree! You set it to AltAz mode and it works just like AltAz mount.

Thanks, Omeek. To Darkskywalker, as others have written, hold off on buying eyepieces for now. It's easy to make mistakes on this when you are starting out and end up spending money on something you'll rarely use. (Voice of experience here....I've got about $400 worth of glass that just decorates the eyepiece case.)

Someone once compiled a list of all the available eyepieces and the total was well over 800. The best way to figure out what you'd like is to borrow from the other folks at sky parties.

A 32mm GSO Plössl (low magnification, 52° apparent field) will show the largest true field that a 1.25" focuser has to offer. You'll find it useful for larger targets like star clusters and for sweeping the rich star fields of the Milky way. A lunar eclipse is also extra beautiful if you can observe it's dim red disk on a background of stars.

I've had one for about 15 years now, and it proudly sits in my eyepiece case between the 10 times more expensive eyepieces that I have. What matters more: it often sits in the focuser of my 72mm refractor when I go bird watching. Just because it's good and lightweight.

It's also affordable (a bit over $30). Check here: https://agenaastro.com/gso-32mm-plossl-eyepiece.html

---

The 60° apparent field Starguider Dual ED eyepieces are also good. They cost about $60. They may be sold out in the US (not sure about that though), but FLO in the UK usually has them: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bst-st ... piece.html.

The GSO 32mm Plössl and the whole Starguiders range are good value.

---

Poor value are the eyepiece and filter kits for starters. Click here for an example. Avoid these, unless you think the case by itself is worth the money. If you're lucky you'll find just two or three items in the kit useful.

---

Before you start spending, get acquainted with your current setup. Look around on the second hand market and if you come across anything interesting, ask us if is worth buying.

[fimg][/fimg]

omeek wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:54 pm

gregl wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:37 pm Before we get too far into recommending eyepieces, does anyone know what barrel diameter the focuser on that scope takes? If its the .965 then the options are fewer.

Looking at the manual for the scope from the above link it says that it uses 1.25" EP's.

Yes it is 1.25"

Thanks to all for help and info

I'm looking to buy some binoculars for skywatching, any suggestions on a pair, under$100? Or what I should look for when looking?

Darkskywalker wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:26 am I'm looking to buy some binoculars for skywatching, any suggestions on a pair, under$100? Or what I should look for when looking?

At that price level I would suggest a porro prism binocular and something like the Pentax SP 10x50, Nikon Aculon 10x50, or the Oberwerk 8x56 or 11x56 LW's

All the best,

Dean

I vote for the 8x56. While 10x are quite popular I feel that they are right at the limit for hand-holding. Personally, they work for a short look but after some time fatigue sets in and they are just a little too much to hold comfortably. Also, Oberwerk claims they check every pair for proper collimation. There is nothing worse for binos than being out of collimation and some folks have found even big-name bimos that were out. I'm thinking of getting a pair of these for myself.

I have a pair of 7x50, 10x50, and various lightweight 6x field binoculars. I find I use the 7x50 the most as they are small and light enough to keep handy, travel with, and hold for longer periods. Personal preference is going to be the biggest factor, if you are not comfortable using it, it doesn't matter what the technical specs are. The most important binocular accessory turned out to be a folding lounge chair. Great to tilt back and check out easier objects and relax during the upcoming summer meteor shower.

And bug spray! Never forget the bug spray!

Darkskywalker wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:30 pm I just got a telescope someone gave to me, RP-300, seems like a decent beginner telescope.

Congratulations and welcome. Your 4.5-inch reflector will serve you well for a wide range of observing programs. A lot depends on your skies. What is your backyard like? Can you see the Milky Way? That's a good measure of how dark your viewing area is. Even so, your telescope can cut through some small city light pollution. Let us know.

Also, your telescope is sufficient to reveal interesting clusters. These are "deep sky objects" DSO, we call them. You are at about 45 degrees North. So, right now, you do not have a lot of dark sky at night. You can still see the Moon at twilight. And it is warm enough now if you can get out in the early morning like 3:00 AM before sunrise to see Jupiter, Saturn, and other objects.

I use the Sky & Telescope "sky tonight" web page to plan my viewing. https://skyandtelescope.org/interactive-sky-chart/
Right now, you have Scorpius-Sagitarrius coming up on your meridian at dark-thirty PM and it is an area very rich with clusters. Ptolemy's Cluster was a naked-eye object 2000 years ago. It's great in a scope like yours and it has neighbors. Look also for "the steam from the kettle."

A couple of people here recommended Turn Left at Orion. it is easy to endorse. On that basis, allow me to suggest that you rely on your library card before you buy books. Turn Left at Orion is fine. The thing with books is that some speak to you better than others. If you don't see what you want on the shelves or in the card catalog, ask the librarian.

You will really get a heck of lot of use of your telescope when winter comes. You are far enough north to enjoy some good darkness.

Learning to use a telescope is like learning to drive a car. It takes time. One purchase that I can recommend for the near future is a Lens and Filter Kit. They cost about $200. Several brands all have the same equipment from the same source. You will get eyepieces (oculars) in a range 32-17-13-8-6 millimeter and a 2X Barlow lens as well as filters to help with certain details, mostly for planets. I have had several telescopes over the last six years and gave two to the Goodwill because I was that unhappy with them. However, I never regretted the Celestron lens-and-filter kit which I bought because at local star parties, I saw other people with the same kit.

Darkskywalker wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:30 pm I just got a telescope someone gave to me, RP-300, seems like a decent beginner telescope.

I said: "One purchase that I can recommend for the near future is a Lens and Filter Kit. They cost about $200. ...

Thinking about this a bit more... The funny thing is that I have settled into just three lenses. The kit is fine for many reasons, but overall, rather than spend $200, it might make more sense to add to your eyepieces with one more: a 32mm. It will cost about $40. The few makers sell them through several other brands. It will give you a broader, wider, deeper view at lower power. The first thing we all learned was that more power does not equal a better view. With lower power (900 mm divided by 32 mm = 28 X) you get a wider view and can take in the entire Moon or the entire Pleiades.

Another good book for beginners:

mikemarotta wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 2:47 pm ... more power does not equal a better view. ...

All beginners read that again.

Yes, more power magnifies the target but it also magnifies all the wiggles and jiggles in the Earth's atmosphere. There have been nights when I could look at Saturn and Mars at 225x (and one unique night when I got away with 338x) and other nights from the same location when 112x was the best I could get due to upper atmospheric turbulence.

Mike also wrote: "The funny thing is that I have settled into just three lenses." I think the same could be said for many of us. I've somehow acquired some 14 eyepieces but the ones I use the most give 81x and 112x (82 degree FOV, my favorite above all), with once in a while 162x and rarely 193x. Almost all the others lie in a box in the bottom drawer of my desk!

mikemarotta wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 2:47 pm

Darkskywalker wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:30 pm I just got a telescope someone gave to me, RP-300, seems like a decent beginner telescope.

I said: "One purchase that I can recommend for the near future is a Lens and Filter Kit. They cost about $200. ...

Thinking about this a bit more... The funny thing is that I have settled into just three lenses. The kit is fine for many reasons, but overall, rather than spend $200, it might make more sense to add to your eyepieces with one more: a 32mm. It will cost about $40. The few makers sell them through several other brands. It will give you a broader, wider, deeper view at lower power. The first thing we all learned was that more power does not equal a better view. With lower power (900 mm divided by 32 mm = 28 X) you get a wider view and can take in the entire Moon or the entire Pleiades.

Yes! My minimum magnification is about 50x and I, sure, could use lower.

Darkskywalker wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:30 pmI have tried it out last 4 nights, everything just looks like dot, basically what you see with naked eye. Been no moon to try and see, I also tried looking at Mars last night, just looks like star.

You also need to remember here our relative distance from Mars can vary greatly. Right now it is very far away from us and I believe getting further. Since it is not a large planet, its distance from us will greatly impact how it appears to an amateur telescope even under the highest practical magnification. Every two years or so we will swing in for a closer look when it is in opposition. This will be around December of next year.

Astronomy, if nothing else, is not for the impatient