(Viewed 2,947 times)

[Mark Ross]

Looking at the Celestron AstroMaster 130EQ-MD (Motor Drive) Telescope for backyard Viewing. Have no room for a gigantic dobsian base, I have to carry it up a short flight of stairs to take it in/out.

www.celestron.com/astronomy/celestron-astromaster-130eq-md-motor-drive.html

Comments, suggestions of something different? I did not see a specific thread on this but if I have missed an already well hashed out topic just point it out.

[erikruud]

Right now I think the best starter scope out there is the Bushnell Ares 5. I have one and I love it. It is simple to use and highly portable.

EQ mounts are generally not the best thing for beginners.

On the other hand, I think that scope looks like a great first EQ mount and I have been reading everything I can find about it. Unless I stumble on a deal on something better, that scope is at the top of my list for my first equatorial scope.

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

M5,

That scope you selected is a decent one...

Entry-level telescope it's offering 5 inches of light gathering power and offers these features:

Motor Drive for the automatic tracking
Quick and easy no-tool setup

Permanently mounted StarPointer

Erect image optics - Ideal for terrestrial and astronomical use

Quick release dovetail attachment - no tool setup

German Equatorial mount with Setting circles - to accurately locate and track sky objects

Rugged pre-assembled tripod with 1.25" steel tube legs

Provides a rigid and stable platform

All coated glass optics for clear, crisp images

Deluxe accessory tray for convenient storage of accessories

"The Sky®" Level 1 planetarium software with 10,000 object database and enhanced images


Optical Design Newtonian Reflector
Aperture (mm) 130 mm (5.12 in)
Focal Length (mm) 650 mm (26 in)
Focal Ratio 5
Eyepiece 1 (mm) 20 mm (0.79 in)
Magnification 1 33 x
Eyepiece 2 (mm) 10 mm (0.39 in)
Magnification 2 65 x
Finderscope Built-on StarPointer
Mount CG-3 Equatorial
CD ROM The Sky L1
Tripod 1.25" steel tube legs
Weight (lbs) 24 lbs (11 kg)
Highest Useful Magnification 307 x
Lowest Useful Magnification 19 x
Limiting Stellar Magnitude 13.1
Resolution (Rayleigh) 1.07 arc seconds
Resolution (Dawes) 0.89 arc seconds
Light Gathering Power 345 x
Angular Field of View (deg) 1.5 °
Linear Field of View (@1000 yds) 79 ft (24 m)
Optical Coatings Aluminum
Optical Tube Length 24 in (610 mm)
Tube Attachment Dovetail Bar
Motor Drive Included

Listed at $289.95 + shipping


But, for $139.00 you get essentially the same scope for less...

www.telescopes.com/telescopes/reflecting-telescopes/celestronastromaster114eqreflector.cfm

Features listed:

Quick and easy no-tool setup

Permanently mounted StarPointer

Erect image optics - Ideal for terrestrial and astronomical use

Quick release dovetail attachment - no tool setup

German Equatorial Mount with Setting Circles - to accurately

locate and track sky objects

Rugged pre-assembled tripod with 1.25" steel tube legs

Provides a rigid and stable platform

All coated glass optics for clear, crisp images

Deluxe accessory tray for convenient storage of accessories

The Sky Level 1 planetarium software with 10,000 object database and enhanced images


Warranty
2-Year Limited

Equatorial Mount
Brand Celestron
Weight Complete 17 lbs.
Finderscope Fixed StarPointer
Lens Coating Aluminum
GPS No
GoTo No
Telescopes Series Celestron AstroMaster Telescopes
Optical Design Reflector
Aperture 114mm
Focal Length 1000mm
Focal Ratio f/9
Mount Design CG-2 Equatorial
Eyepiece 1 20mm (50x) Eyepiece 2
10mm (100x)
Highest Useful Magnification 200x
Star Diagonal 1.25 Inch

Add 30 bucks more for the motor drive and you are looking at $169.00...and free shipping! Both offer pretty much the same features.

The above is a 4.5" compared to the 5" on the first scope listed. In astronomy, bigger is usually better, but here, with only a .5 increase in aperture - the additional of $120.00, (not including shipping), is not worthy of the difference. You can use the $120.00 for additional accessories.

Back to the size difference of 4.5" to 5"....

You will not notice any significant difference in the eyepiece. The increase of that 1/2 inch aperture of the first scope listed will offer just marginally better/brighter views, but nothing to write home about.


The focal length of the first scope is listed at 630mm, whereas the second is at 1000mm...much better and will provide bigger images - although slightly dimmer.

With the first scope, you get a single 20mm eyepiece, but with the second you get two - a 20mm & a 10mm.

The first one weighs in at 24lbs whereas the second is at a lighter 17lbs. (Your back will thank you.)

Both have a "Red Dot" pointer finder scope.

There will be some play in both mounts and won't be rock solid, but this is normal with this level of scope. I spent many years with my trusty 4.5" reflector, and it showed me many wonders of the cosmos. It will deliver for you as well and the EQ mount will help you learn the mechanics of the skies better. You may even be able to take some astrophotography pics with the motor drive running - (but you'll have to polar align the scope first so that it tracks well).

- Curious...that the second one offers a 1.25" Star Diagonal, but on this scope, none is needed. If indeed correct, you can hold on to it for future use or experiment with.

If this is the type of scope you are seeking, (both are decent), then I would go with the second recommendation. Let us know if you have any more question or made a decision...

[erikruud]

Just a note, the EQ mounts on those two scopes are not the same. The more expensive one uses their CG-3 while the cheaper is a CG-2. In theory at least, the CG-3 is better quality and can handle heavier scopes.

[magic612]

I'll disagree with Joe a bit on the quality at the eyepiece too. The 130 scope is an f/5 - which is the focal length that should fit in a scope that size. The 114 is a Bird-Jones reflector - an f/10. It basically uses a strongly curved primary mirror, then an additional lens to achieve an f/10 in an f/5 space.

There are a couple issues with this: One, a strongly curved mirror usually needs to be parabolic to be good; at this low a cost, I'm doubtful that one is parabolic. Two, the corrector lens of the Bird Jones design forces a problem - a larger secondary mirror to fully illuminate the field of view. This reduces contrast - granted, the 130 scope will have a larger secondary too, but it won't have the Bird Jones corrector lens - which are really a not-very-good compromise way to get an f/10 scope in an f/5 space.

I've owned a Bird Jones type scope before - they're "okay." And that's coming from a person who's not all that picky about scope performance. I've seen better. And Erik makes a valid point about the mounts; a more "beefy" mount makes a difference, especially at higher magnifications.

Just my $0.02 on the matter - take it for what it's worth.

[erikruud]

Dave is correct. I had forgotten that I read that, but the 114 has a spherical mirror.

[patrickm]

Hi Mross5!

Last fall, I wrote up a post about just this type of situation. This dob is light, super portable, and cheap!
sakistore.blogspot.com/2011/09/astronomy-setup-for-beginners.html

Check it out.

[Mark Ross]

Thanks for all the excellent responses and suggestions. I have been reading reviews of all the telescopes suggested and trying to dig through their specs and try and understand most of it.

The scopes suggested so far are
1) Celestron AstroMaster 130EQ-MD (Motor Drive) Telescope - by me
2) Celestron AstroMaster 114 EQ Reflector Telescope
3) Bushnell Ares 5
4) Orion SkyQuest XT6 Classic Dobsonian Telescope

The viewing apparatus that I have now, which I will not criticize since it was a gift from my lovely wife, has a really shaky mount so I guess I am a little sensitive about that issue and I did find some info about cg-2 vs cg-3 mounts.

Question: I read about the bird-jones design and still do not quite understand how it increases focal length by using a spherical primary mirror. I would think the only way to increase focal length would be to make the tube longer. Can anyone point me to a diagram of how this works?

The Bushnell Ares 5 does not fit my preconceived notions of what a telescope should look like, which is silly, buy I found an excellent review of it and am trying to keep an open mind.

The Orion SkyQuest XT6 Classic Dobsonian Telescope looks kind of large to store on my back porch but I am still looking at this also.

Thanks again!

[magic612]

Jan 6, 2012 12:58:44 GMT -6 Mark Ross said:

Question: I read about the bird-jones design and still do not quite understand how it increases focal length by using a spherical primary mirror. I would think the only way to increase focal length would be to make the tube longer. Can anyone point me to a diagram of how this works?

Think of it this way: A short focal length reflecting telescope - like an f/5 or f/6 - will have a steeply curved mirror, and therefore shorter focal length. A longer f/ratio like f/8 or f/10 will have a shallow-curved mirror, and a longer focal length. Imagine the light cone each needs to make when it focuses light.

What a Bird Jones design does is take that short focal length mirror - an f/5 usually - and when it gets close to the focal point (sometimes before, sometimes after the secondary mirror, IIRC), uses a lens is placed there to "amplify" the light. It changes the light cone from a sharply angled one, and effectively makes it longer by changing the way the light is bent, making it longer than what the mirror did with the light. Imagine putting a projector lens at that spot and making the light cone longer - that's not exactly what it does, but it takes that steeply focused light cone, and effectively makes it longer, using a lens.

So the marketing stuff will tell you, "An f/10 scope in the space of an f/5!" which is technically true; even an Schmidt-Cassegrain scope uses two steeply curved mirrors (one f/5 and one f/-2, usually) to make an f/10 system. But that's the key word: System. That Bird Jones isn't really an f/10 scope - it's an f/10 system. And an SCT scope has a corrector lens on the front to take care of aberrations caused by those steeply curved f/5 and f/-2 mirrors - a Bird Jones doesn't. It tries to do it all with one lens, and on top of that, with an inexpensively ground mirror in a spherical shape - usually parabolic is needed for short f/l's. And unfortunately, it really doesn't do this "lengthening of the system" all that well.

They are small, inexpensive scopes that are lightweight and easy to move and use. But they are not the best performers, and there are other low-cost options out there that I personally think are better. Just my thoughts on it; they've not "bad" per se. But they aren't not stellar (excuse the pun!) performers either.

The Bushnell Ares 5 does not fit my preconceived notions of what a telescope should look like, which is silly, buy I found an excellent review of it and am trying to keep an open mind.

The Orion SkyQuest XT6 Classic Dobsonian Telescope looks kind of large to store on my back porch but I am still looking at this also.

I've not used either one myself, but seen good reviews from many people who know about these things better than I do. Don't worry about them not "looking" like a telescope; that'll pass when you see how much more light they can gather for less money than a refractor of similar size.

A 6" Dob won't take up much space; they can be stored upright, and maybe take up all of 2 square feet of total space.

Hope that helps in the decision making process.

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

What Dave and Erik said.

And...

The parabolic mirror is superior in optical mechanics, but that's not to say that the spherical set-up is not good, but there are better set-ups. The additional lens in located in the focuser, some feel that it makes collimating difficult.

[patrickm]

There are competing issues when buying a scope: usability vs. aperture. More aperture = more photons = better viewing, BUT also usability usually decreases as aperture increases. The old saying is that the best scope is one that gets used, and the world is littered with scopes in closets. Not good. A dob is a bit bulky, but a 6" is NOT heavy and really takes up very little space. After about 6", the debate really begins. For Joe, his 11" SCT scope is still portable. For me, 9.25" SCT maxes me out, but my 10" travel dob is also great and relatively light.

Last winter, we got our cousins (kids) a 6" dob and by all reports they love it. They are able to drag it out to the yard on their own, set it down, and start observing. I know Paulie here loves and swears by his. My first scope is a 4.5" GoTo and is a great, fast, portable little scope (with a lot more setup time than a dob).

You just kind of have to figure out what works for your circumstances.

[Paulie pchris00]

I have a few thoughts to add.

First, on the Bird Jones set-up. I had not heard it called this before, but my secondary telescope is a low end Meade 4.5" go-to scope. It's focal length is 1000mm, but the optical tube is nowhere near 1000mm. I first assumed it to be a misprint, until I found that there is a lens in the focuser. As Joe pointed out, it might lead to problems collimating the scope. I can't say that my problems with collimation are because of the Bird Jones lens, but that scope has not been on perfect collimation for over a year. I try tweaking it every now and then under the "it will work itself out" hypothesis, but haven't been able to find that sweet spot. When perfectly collimated, the views were pretty good.

My primary scope is an Orion XT6 Dob. Of the scopes Mross5 listed above, I would recommend the XT6 on the premise that aperture wins, and wins big. If you're planning on storing your scope fully set up, I would say the Dobsonian will take up less room (in cubic feet) than the EQ reflectors. My only real word of caution with the XT6 is that knobs and screws come loose very easily. Maybe because I keep my scope in my car so much of the time it's exposed to more vibrations that jar things loose, but I have lost knobs holding both the primary and secondary mirrors. Only once was I able to find something at a hardware store that could hold those mirrors in place, and even one of those came loose, and was lost.

The Ares 5 seems to be a capable starter scope. Erik loves his, and it has the advantage of being highly portable. There is a thread about the Ares 5 somewhere; if I can find it, I'll link to it.

When I bought my firt scope (the XT6 Dob), I knew a little about telescopes, but maybe not enough that I should have jumped in so fast. I got the right telescope for me, at the right price, thanks mostly to the knowledge of Jon Betancourt at the now defunct 20/20 Telescopes in Dyer, IN. I can understand the eagerness to get something, and get it now, but the best bet is to wait, check out a variety of telescopes at a star party, and find out what you like and don't like about a particular scope. Rich, Erik, and Robb have a star party planned for next weekend in St. Charles. It might be the only chance over the winter to see some different scopes in action.

Whatever you decide, best of luck.

[erikruud]

This is my original thread about the Ares 5

And this is the one Joe posted

[Mark Ross]

Well, I did a lot of serious thinking about what I really wanted to improve upon in my backyard viewing. It would be nice to get better views of Jupiter's moons and Messier objects. I decided that what I first wanted to do was locate all the easy stuff in the sky that I can't see with my Bauch & Lomb 10x42 very mediocre binoculars I got for free from the credit union or can't find with my Zhumell 20x80 tripod mounted binoculars. The tripod and mount system with the Zhumell's is very difficult to search with, aside from being wobbly.

I decided to hold off on a real telescope and concentrate on all the constellations and their interesting features that I can't currently see/find.

So......




Bushnell Legend 10x50 Porro Prism Binoculars

Bought them used on the cloudy nights web site. I am very, very satisfied with them.
Here are the specs if interested:www.opticsplanet.net/bushnell-10x50-legend.html
The first clear night I had them I easily found Lepus, a constellation I had searched for on several occasions with no luck.


The diopter control is that thin little ring with the ridges on it. When I first tried to adjust I was turning the whole eyepiece which resulted in this:

Which was ok since I see better with both eyepieces at maximum extension.



Easy to grip and not too heavy. After about 15 minutes I could no longer hold them perfectly still and had to take a little break. Was pretty cold by that point anyway and in the summer time that is when I can switch to my 20x80s.


The viewing quality is a huge step up from my previous handhelds. The orion nebula looked fabulous. The pleiades showed at least 15 stars, and they were to the west, not a good direction for me, over the city. Found Hydra in about 30 seconds and traced the whole thing. I am extremely happy with this purchase.

Thanks to everyone who offered up excellent advice. I will be getting a real telescope at some point and will be reviewing the input here to make my decision.

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

Mark,

A good write up on your 10x50's and the pics excellent.

Such similar binos are a good choice for scanning and light weight for the most part - and I too have my 10x50's and 15x80's - both serve their needs.

[magic612]

I resisted getting binoculars for years, and it was one of the poorest astronomy decisions I ever made. I use mine all the time now; you'll be well-versed in the constellations when you do get a telescope, and have much better luck finding objects because of your familiarity with the constellations and stars then. Good choice!

[-=CROMAN=-]

Late to the party......

You should give further consideration to the 6" dob. Highly transportable, easy to collimate, easy to store and easy to use. Im not a fan of staright thru finders or red dots and would slap a telrad or rigel on it. A buddy of mine has the 130 eq-md and hates it. The mount is very shaky at higher magnifications and seems to stress him out quite often.

[-=CROMAN=-]

Orion has a 2nd. ( return or refurbished ) for a god price.

www.telescope.com/Clearance-Center/Telescopes/2nd-Orion-SkyQuest-XT8i-IntelliScope-Dobsonian-Telescope/pc/-1/c/6/sc/81/p/87183.uts

[atomant]

Very nice, Mark!

I agree, the best starter scope is actually two lil refractors aka binoculars.
Study the star patterns in the sky, get familiar with the seasons.

Head to a local star party to check out scopes.
See what you really like to see.

Note: Unless you plan to do astrophotography or enjoy contorting your body, avoid using a newtonian on german equatorial mount.