Is it the end of the amateur telescope?

[Randomnerd]

It's a simulation, here you go.

View attachment 578361

Right. I see. Gotcha. Suppose you can get a bit of practice in. (OT I know but I often wondered why Conservative Clubs were where all the decent snooker tables were. Did my adolescent Marxism ruin my long potting? Answers on a postcard)

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Never been a fan of telescopes of the affordable amateur variety.

Even through a big refractor stars, that look like little dots to the naked eye, still look like little dots - disappointing to say the least.

 

[stephec]

Right. I see. Gotcha. Suppose you can get a bit of practice in. (OT I know but I often wondered why Conservative Clubs were where all the decent snooker tables were. Did my adolescent Marxism ruin my long potting? Answers on a postcard)

On a similar theme, my cousin only joined the local Con club because it had the best bowling green in the area. 😀

 

[Randomnerd]

On a similar theme, my cousin only joined the local Con club because it had the best bowling green in the area. 😀

I wonder what proportion of the Tory party are only there for the sporting facilities. FOI request time, maybe
?😄

 

[Profpointy]

After an initial dabble with a home made (which I was very chuffed with) adaptor to fit commercial eyepieces to a camera lens, I was very much drawn to getting a proper telescope. The camera lens I had was a 500mm telephoto (mirror lens) - which despite being a genuine Nikon wasn't very expensive and the set up worked quite well. Suitably inspired I bough a very high quality "apo" 4" refractor. Even from the city, jupiter with its moons and stripes, or saturn's rings are easily seen, and the moon is just spectacular. Orion Nebular, or milky way star fields likewise. As others have said, seeing these things with your own eyes is thrilling. Only used it casually, and not all that often but glad I've got it. Maybe a couple of grand's worth so I haven't skimped, nor gone crazy either.

A final thought is seeing pictures in astronomy magazines looking very like pictures in books I had as a kid taken from the Mount Palomar 200" telescope ... but the modern picture were taken from someone's garden in Kent. OK they've got kit worth the price of a modest brand new car, but still astonishing

 

[DCBassman]

A year or two back, walking around the Tavistock Pannier Market, we noticed a telescope on a tripod.
A Celestron C70 Maksutov reflector, with a 25-75x zoom eyepiece. Absolutely not a top-end scope.
"How much?"
"£15"
Don't use it very much, especially as I live right in the middle of town, and light pollution is terrible. But I'm glad I have it!

 

[Dave7]

Clouds comes to mind, that is why I got rid of mine

Plus the fact you watch them while in the nude .
Who wants to see a close up of uranus.

 

[Profpointy]

A year or two back, walking around the Tavistock Pannier Market, we noticed a telescope on a tripod.
A Celestron C70 Maksutov reflector, with a 25-75x zoom eyepiece. Absolutely not a top-end scope.
"How much?"
"£15"
Don't use it very much, especially as I live right in the middle of town, and light pollution is terrible. But I'm glad I have it!

Maksutovs in general have a reputation for high quality, assuming built properly. Celestron are a pukka make, if not Rolls Royce level for such things, so still undoubtedly quite a bargain. I think maksutovs tend to have high definition images but low contrast, so presumably better for the moon and planets than for deep sky objects

 

[wheresthetorch]

Even through a big refractor stars, that look like little dots to the naked eye, still look like little dots - disappointing to say the least

Stars look like small dots even through the Hubble Space Telescope. But a decent amateur telescope will show you more of them, will show you different coloured stars, clusters of stars, close double stars (sometimes in contrasting colours), nebulae, galaxies, craters and rilles on the moon, detail on the planets, planetary moons and even spots on the sun's surface. You just need to know where to look!

 

[HMS_Dave]

Maksutovs in general have a reputation for high quality, assuming built properly. Celestron are a pukka make, if not Rolls Royce level for such things, so still undoubtedly quite a bargain. I think maksutovs tend to have high definition images but low contrast, so presumably better for the moon and planets than for deep sky objects

The maks are great, especially for solar system stuff and double stars. They actually have high contrast due to the small central obstruction, not as high as refractors with no central obstruction but not far off. The issue with maks are their narrow field of view. So when looking at large galaxies such as andromeda or a large nebulae, they won't fit into the field of view.