TheSkySearchers

sdbodin wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 2:09 am

Vern wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:33 am

If other meade telescopes use the same level of software as I have regardless of the size of the telescope then I assume they could also have this glitch.

Are the motors & gears in the mounts for larger telescopes made of better quality materials or to closer tolerances so they are more accurate?

I have the biggest Meade and the goto accuracy is first rate. Always on target in my camera fov the first time. However, planets are a different story and it has to do with the ephemeris loaded into the scope's computer, not enough bits to be accurate after a few years, so the finder is needed.

Steve

That is good to hear. So I should look at the price level of the mounts to see where the LX200 is and what is above & below it.

Hi Vern,

For your info, I have used Meade LX90 8" scopes off and on for many years, and I have never had a problem with their go-to capability once they are star aligned. The LX200 are a significant step up from the LX90 (in price too!), and are very accurate in my experience. I own a Celestron CPC800 which I use for outreach activities, and again I have had no issues with go-to capability. The joy of the Celestron for me is that they don't make that loud Meade go-to noise that you hear on every club observing field!

In terms of your original query, I think you will find that all of the Messier catalogue is accessible with your 5" scope, even in your light polluted sky, but some will be very faint. If you can make it to a darker sky you will notice a big difference. If you want to check out galaxies, I found the Leo Trio (M65, M66, NGC3628) were a good place to start when I first used a scope: an old Tasco 114mm reflector. They were visible with a small amount of detail from a similar sky to yours...

Don't expect to see easy spiral arms, even in M51, with a 5" scope. In fact even with an 8" scope you will need to use averted vision to see extra details.
I often use a 4" refractor when I am under a dark sky (I get to a Bortle 1 sky a few times a year ), and it is amazing what you can see, but you need to train your eyes: practice makes perfect! I have even seen Saturn in a bright sunny sky with a 3" scope.

If you are having trouble with the go-to, or you think it isn't pointing where you want it, I find it is best to go-to a bright star nearby, centre it, and re-train the scope. Then at least you can be confident that the object is in the fov, even if it is really faint.

Good luck, and all the best,

Dean

PS: You will find that the brighter globular clusters are good to practice on too: and it is a good idea to use the low-power eyepiece first to find and centre the object, before putting in a higher power one to chase detail. Most Messier galaxies and globulars like 100-120x (eg: your 20mm or 15mm eyepieces).

Note too that you have a pretty narrow FOV with an f15 Mak: only about 2/3 of a degree (~40 arc-minutes) even with the 26mm plossl eyepiece (plossls have around 50° AFOV), so even if your go-to is off slightly the object may be out of the FOV, and you may have to search around a bit. This is where the more accurate you can set it up the better.

The best possible true FOV you will be able to get with 1 1/4" eyepieces is with a 32mm plossl: around 50 arc-minutes.

- Dean

@DeanD Thanks for the info on LX90s. Maybe I will get a 32mm eyepiece and hope it isn't out of stock/sold out like every telescope I have seen when browsing websites.

Vern wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:48 pm As my subject says, what aperture telescope would I need to see DSOs as more than smudges? I have a meade star navigator NG 125mak and the diameter is 127mm. I bought it last year and can see star clusters and the Andromeda galaxy. I have not been able to see other galaxies. At what aperture would I start to see individual stars in star clusters and would the cluster be brighter? What aperture is needed to see galaxies, say the sombrero or pinwheel galaxy?

Would a larger and more expensive telescope have a more accurate goto? I use a two star alignment on my star navigator and then click on the guided tour/tonights best. I have had go right to a target and can see it in the eye piece, other times (sometimes the same session) it will be close but I can't see the target and need to slew the telescope to find it. When I try to see the sombrero galaxy I don't know if the telescope isn't pointed at it or my telescope isn't big enough.

I am near Fenton Michigan and lightpollutionmap.info shows my location as Bortle 5.

I haven't read all of the replies, so sorry if I am repeating any of them in any way. I aimed to see all of the Messier objects from southern England but it took me 4 years! I have a 127mm Maksutov as well. To adjust the odds in my favour, I bought a focal reducer, light pollution reduction filter and 9x50 right angle finderscope. I live in a Bortle 5-ish, too but the odds are much better from a dark site.

My adaptations certainly helped, with a 32mm Plossl and 0.5x focal reducer giving me an exit pupil of about 5mm. M101 appeared 3 times larger with the LPR than without.

It is true that most Messier objects with a small/medium telescope are ones to cross of the list before you die than real treats but one of the highlights was seeing M35, which I have seen through binoculars very often but, with my set-up looked breathtaking. M33 looks great if you catch it on the right day. I never resolved any individual stars in any globular clusters but M22 is a nice sight and just as good as the better-known M13. The best of all is Omega Centauri, which I saw from Brazil but is invisible from northern temperate latitudes. M81 and M82 show up well and you can see some structure on M81 on a good night.

The Leo and Virgo cluster galaxies look like objects to cross off the list before you die but it is a nice challenge to track them all down.

To answer the original question, I would go for a 10" Dobsonian for purely visual use but, the chances are that you will want to photograph them one day.

I can assure that 28" will do the job. I looked through Dennis Young's 28" single pole Newt at the RTMC at 7000', I believe I could see M51 in color. The human eye is not really meant for this kind of viewing so impatient people like me have to go for large apertures, or AP. I looked through a 22" Obsession UC recently at 7000' , easily transportable but not quite the same as the 28". The closest Obsession is 25", but you need a transportation system to take it to dark skies. I chose to go the AP route and am content with looking through other people's large light buckets at the occasional star parties. Fujinon binos were another wow factor for me, I can't recall if I looked through 100 mm or 80 mm but it beat out many telescopes. At Bortle 5 spending a lot of money for visual is not justifiable IMHO but if you can take your scope to dark skies, it would make a big difference for any kind of scope, and make worth the investment.

I think 'spending a lot of money' is sort of up to an individual to decide. I was thinking of 8" to 12" not 22" and up. From browsing websites I know that the cost goes up a lot for larger telescopes and accessories. Is the view through a 10" or 12" noticeably better than an 8"? If my budget is X and a larger telescope is X+20% then that would be ok. If a larger telescope is only available with a more costly mount and ends up at 2X then that would be too much.

I,ll go with SkyHiker, darker skies wins it al the time. I have seen picture like views from M51 through a 18" dobson under dark Northern France skies. That same M51 seen from my home situation shows the arms alright, but the picture like "WOW!!!!" effect is just not there.
Any telescope that can be taken to darker skies will give lots of plessant moments.

turboscrew wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:35 pm T-shirt goes over the head. The towel goes on the shoulder. :joking:

Like this!

Vern wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 8:57 pm I think 'spending a lot of money' is sort of up to an individual to decide. I was thinking of 8" to 12" not 22" and up. From browsing websites I know that the cost goes up a lot for larger telescopes and accessories. Is the view through a 10" or 12" noticeably better than an 8"? If my budget is X and a larger telescope is X+20% then that would be ok. If a larger telescope is only available with a more costly mount and ends up at 2X then that would be too much.

Both are "noticeably better", but the 12" is more so... Just think in terms of the square of the diameter. A 10" gives 56% brighter images at the same magnification (100/64), while a 12" is 125% brighter (144/64). However, if you take an 8" scope to (say) a Bortle 2 sky it will show you quite a bit more than a 12" at your home.

In terms of cost, as an example: here in Oz a dealer has an 8" dob for $A700, a 10" for $900 (28% more then the 8"), and a 12" for $1300 (71% more). So you have to weigh it all up in terms of what you really want, and can afford: and recognise that the weight etc. of the larger scopes can be a major factor.

I got over the cost problems by making my own, and my 12" scope in travel mode takes up less space in the car than my 4" refractor.

All the best,

Dean

@DeanD That is what is need to compare to the price when I decide to buy another telescope. While the prices on dob's are attractive I would want another catadioptric. I know that they can get pricey.

I would mostly use it at my house and a couple times a year to a slightly darker sky at the family farm.

Vern wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:40 am @DeanD That is what is need to compare to the price when I decide to buy another telescope. While the prices on dob's are attractive I would want another catadioptric. I know that they can get pricey.

I would mostly use it at my house and a couple times a year to a slightly darker sky at the family farm.

So you don't want the dob-based 14" bino-scope that is partly made on my bench at the moment?

Vern wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:40 am @DeanD That is what is need to compare to the price when I decide to buy another telescope. While the prices on dob's are attractive I would want another catadioptric. I know that they can get pricey.

I would mostly use it at my house and a couple times a year to a slightly darker sky at the family farm.

I like the way you think. 8" SCT is the ideal size, good light gathering in a compact and lightweight package. Starting from 9.25" they get considerably larger and heavier.

Vern wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 8:57 pm I think 'spending a lot of money' is sort of up to an individual to decide. I was thinking of 8" to 12" not 22" and up. From browsing websites I know that the cost goes up a lot for larger telescopes and accessories. Is the view through a 10" or 12" noticeably better than an 8"? If my budget is X and a larger telescope is X+20% then that would be ok. If a larger telescope is only available with a more costly mount and ends up at 2X then that would be too much.

An 8"-12" scope will reduce your "smudges" problem somewhat but won't solve it, so try before you buy. As a rule of thumb, to see significant difference you need to go up 2" at the least, 4" is a better rule. When using scopes with a secondary mirror, subtract 2" relative to a refractor as a result of diffraction effects. The size of the secondary matters (my Mak-Newt has a small secondary and is very crisp). If the aperture goes up the brightness may remain the same as the focal length usually increases proportionally, too. If you end buying a Newt, anything more than 10" becomes a serious transportation issue. I had a 10" Dob and now have a 12" Z12 that I converted to a collapsible which helps a lot but it's still too big for convenient transportation. A truss would have been better, or a 10". Price wise, Newts are the best deal but are not the easiest to handle - SCTs are much better in that regard. You may also need a coma corrector depending if you are sensitive to coma.

I think your question would be better phrased "Is a MAK good for DSO" In my personal opinion would be NO, MAK's are slow by nature usually around a F:15. They are great for observing and for Planetary imaging. But as for DSO they stink. You would be better off with a Refractor or an SCT. Both have the reach and the speed needed for DSO imaging. Others may disagree with me about the MAK, but this is my opinion.

Mark E.

I have a Celestron 9x50 r.a.c.i. finderscope on my meade starnavigator 125mak with an actual 127mm diameter. I started out with just the red dot and that wasn't close sometimes so I bought a meade series 6000 50mm guide scope. While that worked I couldn't bend my neck to see objects straight up. I then got the Celestron and used a dremel tool to slot the holes on the mount to fit my telescope. That worked and I could see through it in any direction, but it was close to the eyepiece on the telescope. Since both were 50mm I was lucky that the Celestron fit in the mount for the meade guide scope, that got it farther from the telescope eyepiece.

I understand that I have a narrow FOV and I use the finderscope to see extended DSOs. I browse different websites a couple of times a week and there isn't much of anything in stock with an aperture of 8" to 12".

I will post a picture of my telescope if I can figure it out

lostone wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 5:44 am I think your question would be better phrased "Is a MAK good for DSO" In my personal opinion would be NO, MAK's are slow by nature usually around a F:15. They are great for observing and for Planetary imaging. But as for DSO they stink. You would be better off with a Refractor or an SCT. Both have the reach and the speed needed for DSO imaging. Others may disagree with me about the MAK, but this is my opinion.

Mark E.

I can still remember my first view of the Swan/Omega Nebula (M17) through my original Meade ETX 90. The contrast and detail were brilliant. Sure, you couldn't see the outer nebulosity with a 90mm aperture, but the inner swan was bright and very impressive. Likewise, M42 and Eta Carina were standouts through the ETX. The "Leo Trio" looked good, as did M104 and other "bright" galaxies. So, not all DSO's are great through a small MAK, but it is surprising what you can see due to the inherent contrast and sharp field.

I have an old Meade 2045-D 102mm f/10 SCT that I was not really happy with until I bought a Meade 6.3 focal reducer. So maybe a focal reducer will make a small difference in finding and observing DSO's through your 127mm MAK!

I once owned an old spur-geared C8 SCT that was a nice all around scope, I should have never sold it. If I remember right, it did a pretty good job with DSO's.

StarBru wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 4:13 am I have an old Meade 2045-D 102mm f/10 SCT that I was not really happy with until I bought a Meade 6.3 focal reducer. So maybe a focal reducer will make a small difference in finding and observing DSO's through your 127mm MAK!

I once owned an old spur-geared C8 SCT that was a nice all around scope, I should have never sold it. If I remember right, it did a pretty good job with DSO's.

I use an 0.5x Antares / GSO focal reducer with my VMC110L and it becomes great for DSOs in addition to lunar/planetary.

Wouldn't a focal reducer give me a smaller image in my eyepiece? Would it also be dimmer?

Right now it is light so late that I don't use my telescope much. Yesterday last light was 9:58pm eastern daylight saving time and it was still light enough at 10:20pm that I couldn't see M13. It doesn't help that we have had lots of rain and the mosquitoes are everywhere, even in the daytiime.

When I said DSOs I mean globular clusters and galaxies, not open clusters.