Post by Rocketman on Sept 4, 2005 0:18:58 GMT -6
I promptly received the 8" Celestron Starhopper today. I couldn't wait for it get dark. Finally the time came, after assembly, to move the scope outside. I quickly adjusted the scope to Jupiter. I hesitated a moment before looking into the eyepiece trying to mentally get a picture of what I'd expect to see. Well what I expected see was larger than what I actually saw.
I could see Venus as a half illuminated disk, small, and again not as large as I expected. I waited for Mars to rise, and once again, I did not notice any increase in detail over my 90mm Meade. I thought I'd be seeing planets the size of dimes or quarters in the eyepiece, but obviously I was wrong. The star count per field of view was drastically better than that of mine, but the planets did not appear that much larger than in my Meade.
However, the manual shows that the maximum useful magnification for this telescope is 480X. I'm hoping that means without a barlow. The eyepiece that came with the Dobsonian is a 1.25'' 25mm Plossl which yields 49x at this focal length of 1,219mm(48'').
I myself say it's worth the price paid, but Jupiter is nowhere near the size shown in the manual, I'm assuming that picture is at 480X, there was no caption. In comparison it's as if I'm looking at Jupiter in mine at 120X. (I may edit the estimate later because I did not have enough time to bring the out the Meade this evening to compare views before Jupiter sank behind the trees). The Meade DS-90 was my first telescope, and I am more than well pleased by it's usefulness, and what it has shown me.
Isn't a good 8 incher like any other good 8 incher? Is this the whole shabang?
I realize that I'm looking at something 600 million miles away (Jupiter), and I figured it would be HUGE, huge being at least appearing three to five times larger in the Dobsonian, even at 49X.
I guess I figured wrong. As Al pointed out in another thread, I do not have a strong background in telescopes.
Your input is greatly appreciated, thanks.
I could see Venus as a half illuminated disk, small, and again not as large as I expected. I waited for Mars to rise, and once again, I did not notice any increase in detail over my 90mm Meade. I thought I'd be seeing planets the size of dimes or quarters in the eyepiece, but obviously I was wrong. The star count per field of view was drastically better than that of mine, but the planets did not appear that much larger than in my Meade.
However, the manual shows that the maximum useful magnification for this telescope is 480X. I'm hoping that means without a barlow. The eyepiece that came with the Dobsonian is a 1.25'' 25mm Plossl which yields 49x at this focal length of 1,219mm(48'').
I myself say it's worth the price paid, but Jupiter is nowhere near the size shown in the manual, I'm assuming that picture is at 480X, there was no caption. In comparison it's as if I'm looking at Jupiter in mine at 120X. (I may edit the estimate later because I did not have enough time to bring the out the Meade this evening to compare views before Jupiter sank behind the trees). The Meade DS-90 was my first telescope, and I am more than well pleased by it's usefulness, and what it has shown me.
Isn't a good 8 incher like any other good 8 incher? Is this the whole shabang?
I realize that I'm looking at something 600 million miles away (Jupiter), and I figured it would be HUGE, huge being at least appearing three to five times larger in the Dobsonian, even at 49X.
I guess I figured wrong. As Al pointed out in another thread, I do not have a strong background in telescopes.
Your input is greatly appreciated, thanks.
