Is one of these telescopes better than the other?

Question

I've been researching these telescopes for a few days now. I haven't tried either out personally, only compared product specs. I plan to attend a star gazing party in 2 weeks but I don't know if I'll see either of these two telescopes there. If anyone has had experience with these two scopes, please tell me if one is better than the other. I'm a beginner and I've read great things about the Dobsonian telescopes.

http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=dobsonians/~pcategory=telescopes/~product_id=09964

http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=dobsonians/~pcategory=telescopes/~product_id=27182

Is the object locator for this telescope necessary? Is it helpful for beginners or can I get by with a good reference book?

Answer 1

better for what?

the longer focal length scope is almost certain to produce better image quality. the starblast 6 is more portable.

everybody says you should star hop, but if you have crummy skies you may need help to find things. i like digital setting circles.

Answer 2

Hello CS......

Both are very decent 6" scopes and will give you about equal views. One thing you should really pay attention to is the weight. Normally the scope and the stand can be moved separately. The stands are generally heavier than the scope. Is the weight of each part something that you can handle easily ? If it's difficult for you, you will be reluctant to take it out. Always remember.....the best scope is the one that gets used.

The object locator or finder scope  is not essential but, I would suggest it, it will make anything you want to look at much, much easier to find. With 1.25 eyepieces and rack & pinion focusers, either of these scopes would be a good "first scope" for anyone and I'm sure you could to expect to see these (or similar) at a star party.

If you can, regardless of which you choose, try to get a moon filter......A full moon or even 3/4 moon can hurt your eyes to look at, not damanging but it may give you a headache.  Also, if you have a digital camera, think about adding Orions Steady-pix camera mount.

Here in Southeast Nebraska the sky gets clear enough to find the Andromeda galaxy with just my regular glasses, Orion and it's Nebula's are glorious and I have on occasion with exceptionally clear nights been able to see color on all the planets. (except Pluto, which is no longer considered a planet, but it is too small at that distance for my scopes)

I have a 10" dob, a 5" Maksutov-Cassegrain & a pair of 4" Giant binoculars....and I bought them all from Orion.

Tom

Answer 3

I'd definitely say the second one is a better scope.

The cheaper one has a basic alt-az mount that will need to be set on a table for it to be a good height to use.  It also has a shorter focal length, this will give you a wider field of view but if you are going to be using high magnifications it will be an issue since it will limit your power.

The other one has a dobsonian mount with a computer that will tell you where to aim it to find whatever you are wanting to view, as well as a better finderscope

If you're not needing the computer I'd say find an larger, unguided dob for the same price such as this one:  http://www.telescope.com/control/product...

Without a computer it will be difficult finding faint objects at first but once you get the hang of starhopping it isn't hard at all.  And if you ask me, a good star atlas is a better investment than a computerized scope.  Here's the one I use:  http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-2000-0-Delux...

Answer 4

Interesting question. There seems to be some healthy disagreement on this subject. It may depend on what kind of conditions you will be observing in. With serious light pollution, a computer locater is beneficial because it will be difficult to find anything at all without it. Of course, in those conditions, the telescope itself provides sort of a questionable benefit.

My opinion is that you will learn the night sky much quicker and better if you do not use a computer to find things for you. If you do use the computer, you may never learn it very well. And knowing the night sky well is half the fun. It is not unusual for me to look at three objects while the guy next to me is trying to reboot his computer. When he finally gets it running, he punches in something like M42 and gets the telescope to buzz and whir while it slews around and almost points at something that I can see by just looking up.

I would recommend the book "Nightwatch" by Dickinson. It has some very intuitive charts that are easy to use in the dark.  

My other recommendation would be to buy a Dobsonian, but use the computer money for more aperture instead - like an 8 inch with no computer finder. Under clear, dark skies with an 8 inch Dob you can see all kinds of wonderful objects - and it will be better if you can find them the next time without asking a computer where to point the scope. There are other tools that you can use to find things easily - a Telrad finder, or if you are not in an astrophotography group, one of the new laser pointer finders would make it simple (I'm going to buy one tomorrow). These will ease the task of finding dim objects, but still let you learn the night sky quickly and enjoyably.

Both of these scopes are excellent choices, but I would favor spending money on aperture and optics instead of electronic gadgets.

Whatever you decide, the astronomy club observing session is a great idea. You will get a warm welcome and an opportunity to try before you buy.

Best of Luck and Clear Skies!

Answer 5

I do not know if you will see these specific telescopes.  You will see 6-inch Newtonians (a mirror at the bottom does the focussing, you look through an eyepiece out of the side, at the top end).

Some, like the first one will have short to medium focal length (bright image, not much magnification), very good for "deep sky" objects (like other galaxies, nebulas, clusters) others will have longer focal: more magnification, more contrast, but dimmer image (good for planet surfaces).

Both these telescopes have alt-azimuth mounts, which is still not common among amateurs, except for the very easy "Dobson" mount (which normally comes without the object locator).

Old-timers like me would normally insist that you should avoid object locators if you want to learn the sky and learn how to find your way by star-hopping.

As the ad says, you can use the telescope without using the locator.

On the other hand, there are times when all you want to do is look at Neptune for a few minutes, and you don't want to waste an hour finding it.  For those days, a locater is a blessing.

(People used to say that scientific calculators would prevent students from learning "real" mathematics -- I used to teach how to do real maths with calculators: you can do may more "real" problems than when we used logarithm tables).