Any astronomyfags around? I've been thinking about getting

>>7804308
Many of the online astronomy magazines have extensive lists of telescopes for beginners rated for quality, cost and level of interest.

>>7804308
I don't know man what kind of advise are you looking for? Anything less than 8inch would be bad for deep sky objects, so I guess you've got that covered. I would recommend 10inch for fainter deep sky objects. As for those Chinese telescopes I've got no idea if they're good or not, but going from experience with Chinese product's they are most likely supar.

>>7804547
>>7804308
Forgot to mention that you can get a 8inch Dobsonian cheaper than sky-watcher(at least where I've looked)

>>7804524
yeah but most of these are focused on the western european/US market, and that doesn't help me at all. Outside of massively overpriced Celerons I don't have access to such luxuries

>>7804547
I'm just asking if my setup is a good idea for a first telescope. I have considered a 10 incher, but it is fairly expensive and at that size portability becomes an issue (for some reason it is much heavier than 8").

Also I haven't found anything cheaper than the sky watcher, and actually I've read that all those 8" chinese tubes are the same thing and GSO makes the best one quality-wise.

Did you learn how to do naked eye first? So much has been done with the naked eye (Tycho Brahe, Kepler, Ptolemy). After that you can move on to appreciate telescopes.

http://umich.edu/~lowbrows/guide/eye.html

>>7804659
I have done some, and I know how to spot most of the brighter stars, but I have myopia so It's not that enjoyable. For example I can't see the individual stars in Pleiades, just a faint mist.

On a $300 max budget, looking at the Orion StarBlast 4.5" EQ for $200, looking to see at least the brightest DSOs, will that do? On stellarium using it and the eyepieces it comes with I can see Orion's Nebula and Andromeda pretty well, is that far from what I should expect?
I will have to go down a hall and an elevator to use my scope so I'm not keen on picking up a big Dob or anything, but I want a reflector because I've read too much about refractors being a shit for anything other than planets/moon.
Is 4.5" too little? Anything bigger is over 400 or so.
How about the Celestron Astromaster 130 EQ? It's 280 on the site but 220 on amazon, although I've read a lot of great reviews about the StarBlast 4.5 and haven't heard good things about Celestron. Is it worth the extra 20-70 bucks for the 16mm aperture?

>>7805625
http://www.astroshop.eu/skywatcher-dobson-telescope-n-130-650-heritage-flextube-dob/p,14966#tab_bar_2_select

How about this sweet foldable Dobson that makes carrying it easy? The reason why I'm recommending Dobson is that you usually get more bang for your buck. Which is especially great if you're in a tight budget

>>7805688
Looks pretty good, not sure about SkyWatcher though
Don't truss dobs require more frequent collimating too?
And I imagine dobs are more bang for buck as the StarBlast's EQ1 mount alone is 129 from the orion site
The Astromaster I mentioned has the same focal length and aperture and comes with an equatorial mount, so I think that beats it anyway.

>>7804308
>>>/p/ usually has a few anons who are good to talk to about astronomy gear

>>7805700
Of course Orion Dobson are far superior but I do believe they are more expensive.

File: scopes.png (23KB, 522x127px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 522x127px

hows my list guys
Any other recommendations in this price range for a first telescope?
Thanks pals.

>>7806110
My university's astronomy society has a meeting this week so I'll stop there and check everything out, leaning towards the 6" dob but we'll see. (I'll have to carry it quite a bit for each use so I don't want to go too big.)

/blog

I used to have a 30cm (12 inch) dobsonian and could fit it in my hatchback with the back seats folded down lol.

How stupid would it be to try and build my own dobsonian?

>>7806110
The last one. In case of telescopes the better the better. Plus its Orion AND a Dobson you can go wrong with those. I'm having up for a 10inch Orion Dob, for fainter DSOs

>>7806676
The bigger*

>>7804308
Build Your own telescope, buy only glass oculars (dont know English word).

>>7806676
As its my first scope I'm trying to balance price and quality, but I do think the 6" Dob will last me a lifetime, so maybe it is worth the extra $100 compared to the StarBlast. Don't think I could go for the XT8 both because of price and size, for the next few years I'll have to be carrying my scope around. But for now I'm set on the XT6.

>>7806762
Oculars is correct, but they're mostly referred to as an eyepiece.

How embarrassing of me.
Anyways, how big would a telescope need to be to see the hypothetical "planet 9" at perihelion?

Is there a point buying a telescope while living in a city? Or is it too bright?

>>7807638
Huge, I doubt it could be detected by amateur telescopes, even some of the largest telescopes on the Earth would have troubles seeing it.

>>7807934
large (8 inch+) newtonian telescopes can work if you live in the suburbs, especially if you use light pollution filters. It will be much better if you can transport and use the telescope somewhere outside the city (even a small distance is good). Consult this handy map: http://www.lightpollutionmap.info