Thank you for watching the video, and glad it helped! Finding what you want to do in something you really don't have much experience is a challenge. I've learnt things the hard way, buying and selling equipments all the time for years, and settled on what I like years after, so don't worry if something doesn't go right the first time. You will find your way eventually!
@@StarsAboveRooftop On that note, why do people always seem to recommend a tracking or go2 mount over a manual. Is it because it is almost set it and forget it and it can be imaging while you sleep?
@@michaellayne1172 I wouldn't say managing a GOTO mount is "set it and forget it" kinda thing. I spend about 30min to 1 hour to set up my equipments every astro imaging sessions. If you are a beginner, you might spend hours or even whole night's session just setting up and try figuring out how to do this and that. Manual mounts are strictly for visual astronomy only. You cannot image moving objects in the sky more than a second (literally, 1 second.) with a manual mount. Many times, beginners want things that can do both visual and imaging. Of course, what you get with a limited budjet won't be very good, and the learning curve on a GOTO mount can be a challenge, but you at least get a taste of both visual and imaging and get to decide on which path to take.
For the complete beginners who know next to nothing about stargazing I would recommend 1. a good pair of binoculars (7x50 or 8x40 or so), 2. good star map or night sky apps + dim red flashlight to not ruin your dark-adapted vision, and 3. a small telescope. All those tree things should be used during almost every observation session. No need to start too big, short refractor like 80/400 or 102/500 or 102/600 is probably the best. Very straightforward and no need for collimation like with Newtonian reflectors. They usually come with prisms giving properly oriented image, but it is good to have also a simple 90° mirror for a little clearer view. “Wrong” i.e. mirrored image is a sacrifice worth the improvement, not absolutely necessary though. Make sure to put such telescope on an adequate mount like AZ 3, AZ 4 or so, even though a better photographic tripod would somehow work too, but dedicated sturdy enough astro mount is much better. Avoid too cheap looking astro mounts too. Such telescope will enable you to make very basic observations of the brightest deep sky objects and basic view of planets and the Moon, but for a beginner the basic stuff is more than plenty. Even with heavy light pollution such a small telescope can show you a lot. It’s like learning to play an instrument. You don’t need the most expensive 50-thousand-dollar piano to learn how to play. After learning the basics, one can move one.
Thank you for watching my video, and thank you for extensive comment on your recommendation.😁 I totally agree with the point you are making, and your recommendations for beginners to start small, and make your way up. I, too, think that it is the best and traditional(?) way to enter astronomy hobby. The problem I see is that nowadays, there are so many great pictures and videos everywhere, that the general expectation of people is usually way way up at Burj Kalipha. I've always felt that when I show my friends and family, I really feel like disappointing them and not fulfilling their expectations (although they say nice things to me, like "wow it's amazing"). Because I show the nice, processed pictures that I took and show them the same thing visually using the same scope, they don't really understand the gap between the two. And the difference in quality of gears, especially when they start to do astrophotography, when they ever buy the cheaper starter gears. And they all gave up astronomy, now. So I thought I should clear up what they are getting from buying the entry-level gears. And perhaps let people know that buying big certainly gives you better experiences and have less to worry about.
I found out quite fast that I was more into astrophotography that direct observing. My first telescope was a cheep reflector telescope that didn't really work with a camera. So just after a year I upgraded to a new parrabolic reflector telescope and computerised mount to use with my old DSLR and from there it went. I think an important question to start with is if you want to go with direct observation or with astrophotography. And also if you can and will do it from home or need to travel yo be able to do it. That will determine what kind of gear you need. It's also good to ask yourself if you want to tinker alot and make improvements or not. Because newtonians and dobsonians can be improved, however a refractor doesn't give much to improve.
Thank you for watching the video, and the comment! Yes, the path you are going to take, visual or astrophotography, is quite important, because the gears you need are eventually vastly different. I used to think this way for quite a while, so in the Korean online astro community (similar to Cloudynights), we often ask back about what they want to do to the beginners who ask for what beginner telescope to buy. But the thing is, most of them want to do both, or at least try both and see what's right for them. And they don't really have or don't really think too much on how things are heavy and bulky in astronomy. Maybe it's a regional thing. So, the we suggest them a telescope set composed of a cheap achromatic refractor with a computerized alt-az mount called BCTO 80 or 90 (which will be very unfamiliar to the people from the US or Europe) for most of the starters.
Besides size of object, brightness and nature of object is important. For example, it is almost impossible to get proper pictures of reflection-dust-dark nebulae from bortle 9.
Thank you for watching the video! No, I don't have the image comparion on the internet. I just copy-pasted thing that I shot with the same gear into photoshop as I was making this video. You can find the apparent sizes of some objects in Angular Diameter section in the Wikipedia. Or you can use planetarium softwares such as Stellarium or Sky Safari to find the sizes of other objects.
@@RodrigoPolo I don't use Twitter or Facebook after my IDs were hacked some years ago. But if I ever do share the images on them, I'll share you the link!🙂
Thank you for watching the video!😁 Yes, eventually, the country of origin would somewhat influence the quality of the telescope, I agree with that. But these days, under $1000 telescopes, which a beginner would be looking to buy, are almost all made in China. The most brands selling astronomy stuff, except for some of those more premium brands, nowadays are in fact, importing OEM / ODM products with different labels and slight variations. Difference in quality of control may be there depending on how each brand reject the lower grade stuff, but you are eventually getting the same stuff. So, in my opinion, the country of the origin doesn't matter to the beginners, because they are most likely to buy a made-in-China product anyway.
Thank you for watching the video! Ah, the CQ40 mount is a new thing just recently released, so there's not much information about the quality. CQ40 seems to be a manual equatorial mount. There are mixed opinions on manual equatorial mounts, because of its steep initial learning curve. If you familiarize with the mount (it might take days or maybe months to do it properly), and the mount is decent enough quality, it would work out for you. The telescope or the OTA (optical tube assembly) will be decent quality for a starter. But the newtonian reflectors needs collimation. It is not that difficult to collimate when compared to nightmare telescopes such as GSO's CC and RC variants, but some beginners with perfectionist mind or with less patience could find this process overwhelming. So, in all, I have mixed opinion about this. The quality of the scope will be decent enough for a starter. If you are a type of person who has lots of patience and ready for real challenges (of course how difficult it will be would depend on the person) and ready to drag this learning process for weeks (and maybe months if the weather doesn't cooperate), I would go for it. If you want some setup and go kind of guy, I would suggest more modest, easier to use scopes. In the Skywatcher's product catalogue on their website, something like Evostar 90/900 AZ3 refractor, or someting with AZ on its name.
Great video and explanation. It helped me choose what I personally want to do.
Thank you for watching the video, and glad it helped!
Finding what you want to do in something you really don't have much experience is a challenge. I've learnt things the hard way, buying and selling equipments all the time for years, and settled on what I like years after, so don't worry if something doesn't go right the first time. You will find your way eventually!
@@StarsAboveRooftop On that note, why do people always seem to recommend a tracking or go2 mount over a manual. Is it because it is almost set it and forget it and it can be imaging while you sleep?
@@michaellayne1172 I wouldn't say managing a GOTO mount is "set it and forget it" kinda thing. I spend about 30min to 1 hour to set up my equipments every astro imaging sessions. If you are a beginner, you might spend hours or even whole night's session just setting up and try figuring out how to do this and that.
Manual mounts are strictly for visual astronomy only. You cannot image moving objects in the sky more than a second (literally, 1 second.) with a manual mount.
Many times, beginners want things that can do both visual and imaging.
Of course, what you get with a limited budjet won't be very good, and the learning curve on a GOTO mount can be a challenge, but you at least get a taste of both visual and imaging and get to decide on which path to take.
Good job, I’ve been at it for years now, your on the money. Don’t forget how important progressing is as well.
For the complete beginners who know next to nothing about stargazing I would recommend 1. a good pair of binoculars (7x50 or 8x40 or so), 2. good star map or night sky apps + dim red flashlight to not ruin your dark-adapted vision, and 3. a small telescope. All those tree things should be used during almost every observation session. No need to start too big, short refractor like 80/400 or 102/500 or 102/600 is probably the best. Very straightforward and no need for collimation like with Newtonian reflectors. They usually come with prisms giving properly oriented image, but it is good to have also a simple 90° mirror for a little clearer view. “Wrong” i.e. mirrored image is a sacrifice worth the improvement, not absolutely necessary though. Make sure to put such telescope on an adequate mount like AZ 3, AZ 4 or so, even though a better photographic tripod would somehow work too, but dedicated sturdy enough astro mount is much better. Avoid too cheap looking astro mounts too. Such telescope will enable you to make very basic observations of the brightest deep sky objects and basic view of planets and the Moon, but for a beginner the basic stuff is more than plenty. Even with heavy light pollution such a small telescope can show you a lot. It’s like learning to play an instrument. You don’t need the most expensive 50-thousand-dollar piano to learn how to play. After learning the basics, one can move one.
Thank you for watching my video, and thank you for extensive comment on your recommendation.😁
I totally agree with the point you are making, and your recommendations for beginners to start small, and make your way up. I, too, think that it is the best and traditional(?) way to enter astronomy hobby.
The problem I see is that nowadays, there are so many great pictures and videos everywhere, that the general expectation of people is usually way way up at Burj Kalipha.
I've always felt that when I show my friends and family, I really feel like disappointing them and not fulfilling their expectations (although they say nice things to me, like "wow it's amazing"). Because I show the nice, processed pictures that I took and show them the same thing visually using the same scope, they don't really understand the gap between the two.
And the difference in quality of gears, especially when they start to do astrophotography, when they ever buy the cheaper starter gears. And they all gave up astronomy, now.
So I thought I should clear up what they are getting from buying the entry-level gears. And perhaps let people know that buying big certainly gives you better experiences and have less to worry about.
I found out quite fast that I was more into astrophotography that direct observing. My first telescope was a cheep reflector telescope that didn't really work with a camera. So just after a year I upgraded to a new parrabolic reflector telescope and computerised mount to use with my old DSLR and from there it went.
I think an important question to start with is if you want to go with direct observation or with astrophotography. And also if you can and will do it from home or need to travel yo be able to do it. That will determine what kind of gear you need.
It's also good to ask yourself if you want to tinker alot and make improvements or not. Because newtonians and dobsonians can be improved, however a refractor doesn't give much to improve.
Thank you for watching the video, and the comment!
Yes, the path you are going to take, visual or astrophotography, is quite important, because the gears you need are eventually vastly different.
I used to think this way for quite a while, so in the Korean online astro community (similar to Cloudynights), we often ask back about what they want to do to the beginners who ask for what beginner telescope to buy. But the thing is, most of them want to do both, or at least try both and see what's right for them. And they don't really have or don't really think too much on how things are heavy and bulky in astronomy. Maybe it's a regional thing.
So, the we suggest them a telescope set composed of a cheap achromatic refractor with a computerized alt-az mount called BCTO 80 or 90 (which will be very unfamiliar to the people from the US or Europe) for most of the starters.
Great video!
Thank you for watching this video, and for your kind comment!
Great vid! thanks bud.👍
Thank you for watching and for a heart warming comment!
Besides size of object, brightness and nature of object is important. For example, it is almost impossible to get proper pictures of reflection-dust-dark nebulae from bortle 9.
Do you have the image of the comparison of apparent size of the celestial bodies anywhere online?
Thank you for watching the video!
No, I don't have the image comparion on the internet.
I just copy-pasted thing that I shot with the same gear into photoshop as I was making this video.
You can find the apparent sizes of some objects in Angular Diameter section in the Wikipedia.
Or you can use planetarium softwares such as Stellarium or Sky Safari to find the sizes of other objects.
@@StarsAboveRooftop If you post it on Twitter or Facebook someday please share the link, I want to send it to a friend.
@@RodrigoPolo I don't use Twitter or Facebook after my IDs were hacked some years ago. But if I ever do share the images on them, I'll share you the link!🙂
Not price, but country of origin for telescope defines quality.
Thank you for watching the video!😁
Yes, eventually, the country of origin would somewhat influence the quality of the telescope, I agree with that.
But these days, under $1000 telescopes, which a beginner would be looking to buy, are almost all made in China.
The most brands selling astronomy stuff, except for some of those more premium brands, nowadays are in fact, importing OEM / ODM products with different labels and slight variations. Difference in quality of control may be there depending on how each brand reject the lower grade stuff, but you are eventually getting the same stuff.
So, in my opinion, the country of the origin doesn't matter to the beginners, because they are most likely to buy a made-in-China product anyway.
thank you, I was thinking of buying the Skywatcher CQ40 Newton 130/650 as my first telescope. Do you think this is a good idea?
Thank you for watching the video!
Ah, the CQ40 mount is a new thing just recently released, so there's not much information about the quality. CQ40 seems to be a manual equatorial mount. There are mixed opinions on manual equatorial mounts, because of its steep initial learning curve. If you familiarize with the mount (it might take days or maybe months to do it properly), and the mount is decent enough quality, it would work out for you.
The telescope or the OTA (optical tube assembly) will be decent quality for a starter. But the newtonian reflectors needs collimation. It is not that difficult to collimate when compared to nightmare telescopes such as GSO's CC and RC variants, but some beginners with perfectionist mind or with less patience could find this process overwhelming.
So, in all, I have mixed opinion about this.
The quality of the scope will be decent enough for a starter.
If you are a type of person who has lots of patience and ready for real challenges (of course how difficult it will be would depend on the person) and ready to drag this learning process for weeks (and maybe months if the weather doesn't cooperate), I would go for it.
If you want some setup and go kind of guy, I would suggest more modest, easier to use scopes.
In the Skywatcher's product catalogue on their website, something like Evostar 90/900 AZ3 refractor, or someting with AZ on its name.
@@StarsAboveRooftop thanks a lot i appreciate the advice