I Have Plossl For My 6se,Their Not Bad For The Price,Im Happy With Them Thus Far,I Can Never Get Any Clear Skies

Yesss!

@@PafMedic I know the feeling, I purchased some bins to start out 3 weeks ago. I have had low cloud every night since and can't see a thing 😂

I wonder if his wife knows how much they really cost haha

@@gabrielrobles5288 ,🤣🤣🤣🤣Probably Not..

Believe it or not, most amateur astronomers I know, even the ones with huge collections, are blue collar people.

@@edting I am sure you are right, Ed. Including myself. I did notice, however, that you didn't deny being head of an international Astronomy cartel.😉

@@edting That's because we can't swing the price tag for an actual trip to space.....lol

That is what I do. I am VERY nearsighted!

You’d think astigmatism could also be fine with a telescope. You would just adjust the focus to correct, like glasses do.

Fantastic scope; I love mine. But a word of warning: DO NOT GET DIVORCED IF IT DOESN'T WORK. In other words, don't expect Hubble-like Telescope views on your first few nights (or ever!). Getting great astro objects takes time and effort. I've had students who can see nothing the first time we set up the scope; literally, nothing.! Why? How can they see nothing when I get oohs and aaahs from others? I really don't know. But I do know that with practice everything visually starts to work. Good luck, and clear skys.

@@AstroGuy99 thank you so much for the advice Richard. Much appreciated. I will absolutely take it! Take care, and clear skys

@@johnterry8890 So very welcome. Have fun.

Ha, thanks for that!

Thanks for that summary!

Haha, glad to be of service!

Very true. I have severe myopia and discovered that my focus point (when not wearing glasses) is way off from somone who has good vision.

Damn..Only Time I Ever Tried Fo Pull Off a Sloppy PA,Didnt Go Well,I Was Dead On,Everything Looked Great,Till I Fell Asleep and Woke Up 2 Hours Later😂Nothing Was Salvageable,lol

Thanks for the idea, I haven't tried that one yet.

Good point, I forgot about that!

A 6" - 8" SCT is a good all purpose telescope. Just make sure you get it with a sturdy mount. Many beginners don't pay enough attention to this end of things and wind up with shaky views. If the planisphere is only off by 10 degrees don't worry about it. It's an approximate device to begin with.

@@edting Thank you so much for the response, I sincerely appreciate all of your advice.

Those should be fine. They were nice simple telescopes, made just before everything became a computer on wheels!

A low amount of astigmatism will not distract the view much and smaller exit pupils can reduce it even more.

Hey yes please. Can you send it to eting at a o l dotcom? If you don't mind I can link it in a future video.

I have a Telrad and I also want a right angle finder scope scope. When trying to locate an object over 60 degrees from horizon, it is super difficult for me to use the Telrad and I just 'wing it'.

Thanks for the comments. I've been trying to come up with a way to do an eyepiece video.

Most materials will deteriorate the image quite much, but Baader Planetarium sells a special film (Turbo Film) which shouldn't. Dew formation will become a problem.

Good job on the C8/AVX. I have barely seen the Starsense so far, so I can't offer a definite opinion yet.

I have been finding things with my Telrad for over 35 years, and just recently got a Starsense installed on my CGE1100. Call me lazy, but what comfort... If you can afford it, I can recommend it.

I'm not Ed, but with a telescope, for viewing through an eyepiece, the focal length of the telescope is effectively being magnified by the eyepiece that's used, with potential "magnifications" well into the hundreds, if the optics of the telescope can give you a good image at that high of a magnification. For high focal length photography, such as the 2000mm you mentioned, excepting the Moon, which is very bright, you'll generally need very long exposures. So two things are critical, one, that you're following the rotation of the earth, tracking your subject, and that requires a mount such as a motor driven equatorial or computer guided, etc., regardless of if it's a telescope or a Nikon P950. And, second, that you have a relatively clean sensor, that is, its signal to noise ratio is high. Thus, there's dedicated image sensors for astrophotography, some small, some large, some expensive, some cheap, etc. They plug right into where the eyepiece would typically go. As to the focal length issue for astrophotography do a google search for "astrophotography sensor size crop factor", that determines the effective focal length of the image you take with a given telescope and sensor, as it does with regular digital cameras, re. full frame, APS-C, the Nikon P950 has a CMOS sensor, 6.2mm X 4.6mm, my Canon EOS 1200D has a APS-C which is 22.3 x 14.9mm. A full frame sensor is 36mm x 24mm. The full frame is the standard that the focal lengths of lenses are based on. The crop factor, is a multiplier that one uses, to multiple the lenses physical focal length by, to get the effective focal length of the image that's being captured by the sensor. For my Canon's APS-C sensor, the crop factor is 1.6. So, a 100mm lens on a full frame camera will give a 100mm focal length image, on my camera, that same lens will give a 160mm "focal length" image. As, my smaller sensor is capturing a smaller portion, 62.5% to be more accurate, of the light captured by the lens, then a full frame sensor will. The CMOS sensor of the Nikon P950 has a crop factor of 5.6, so if that same 100mm lens could be put on it, the "focal length" of the image taken, would be 560mm!!! That's because it's only capturing 17.8% of the area of light from the lens that the full frame sensor would. This is very fascinating(to me at least), the Nikon P950's lens has an actual, physical focal length of 4.3mm at its widest angle(which is incredibly impressive!) and a focal length of 357mm at full zoom. Those are the focal lengths of the images that you'd get if it you could put that lens on a full frame camera. Due to the magnifying power of that small CMOS sensor, the effective focal lengths of the images it captures can range between 24mm to 2000mm. Back to telescopes. The lowest focal length you'll generally see for a common telescope is 400mm. That's the physical focal length of its optics. Over the past few years, sensors for astrophotography have gotten much less expensive. A budget CMOS sensor, which is specially designed for imaging stars and what not, can be had for $150. Budget telescopes with focal lengths of 400mm, 600mm, 800mm and 1200mm can be had for not much more than that, especially if you just get the telescope without a mount, and get the mount separate. A similar crop factor would be applied to the telescopes focal length with a small CMOS sensor. So, a CMOS sensor on nearly any telescope would given a higher effective focal length than that Nikon. But, bigger focal lengths aren't always better! Many celestial objects you would want to capture are actually pretty large! And, for deep space things, or even planets and what not, the two most significant factors(besides weather conditions and such) are how large the lens or mirror of what's capturing the light is. As that allows for shorter exposures, less time for the sensor to deposit "noise" in the image, and allows for detailing very faint objects. And, secondly, the quality of the optics in the lens/telescope, which determines how crisp the image is going to be. I also have a Nikon A900, which is like a smaller and cheaper P950, same general principle for the camera. That Nikon of mine is fantastic for bright outdoor images, it struggles to give good images when used indoors without its flash being on, and long exposure night images. . . mmm. . . even at low ISO, they're grainy. The single greatest issue with it is that the A900 doesn't have a manual focus. So I can NOT focus it on stars, it's simply not possible. It can't detect the stars enough to focus on them, not even a bright planet. It's extremely capable outside during the day, but it's not outside at night. Anywho, hope this helps a bit. And I hope your journey is a fun one!

I should add that I was able to easily get some rather good photos of the Moon with my Nikon A900, even a sliver of Moon was enough for it to focus, and enough light for a quick 1/60th second or so exposure with ISO set to 100. That's the only object I could photo graph in the sky with it properly. For viewing the moon, just using it to see it better, my pair of Barska 15x70 binoculars are infinitely superior to looking at the A900's display screen. The image quality is much better, and it's extremely sharp. Any pair of 10x50 or 15x50 or so binoculars are really good for looking around at things in the sky. Magnification and object lens size preferences vary between people a bit.

Look at the review of the XT6. I briefly address this issue at the end.

Take look at my Top 3 Beginner's Telescopes video, or the XT6 review. I'd give the links here but KZfaq seems to frown upon that. Thanks for watching.

Stay away from the binoviewers for now. This is a huuuuuge topic. Go to scopereviews and look at my binoviewer articles. I'd put the link here but KZfaq doesn't appear to like it when you do this.

@@edting Thanks Ed, I will do that. Have a great weekend.

Takahashi and Astro-Physics.

2" eyepieces are mostly for low power viewing. Skip the truly wide field low power eyepieces unless you're up to modifying the telescope. In a standard 8" Dobsonian, an 82 degree 20mm eyepiece will work fine, but an 82 degree 30mm will show extreme vignetting. The 20mm 82* shows roughly the same field as a 68* 24mm, so you can get to basically the same place without going 2". I got my personal Skywatcher 8" Flextube to work well with my wide fields only after increasing the size of the secondary mirror by a full 10mm. Stock is 48mm, it currently has a 58mm. That takes away from your raw light gathering, so decide for yourself if the wide field or the resolution is the most important. I didn't notice a degradation at the eyepiece, so for me it was all win, but others may disagree. Worst case, I can put the stock diagonal back in.

Eh....those are all passable, but if it were my money I'd still stick with the standard recommendations - the Orion Starblast, or the XT6 (get the XT8 if you can swing it).

Hi, do you have an astronomy club near you? Hang out with them and use their stuff before committing to anything. I don't care for ETXs. They are cheaply made, and good luck getting the computer to work. Any 8" Dob is miles ahead of the ETX.

@@edting Thank you again, Ed. I get distracted by shiny objects too easily. We have a club nearby but this is what there is. I'm a former Naval Aviator (Vietnam) so I don't live in fear. Virtual meetings for astronomy clubs don't work for me.

Take a look at my video on the the Top 3 Beginner's Telescopes. The right one for you may be different based on your needs and budget.

The choice of finder is a personal one. For years I would only use a straight -through optical finder. These days I only use red dot finders.

@@edting I think I am going to get a red dot sight. My 4 inch refractor has always had a red dot sight on it and that has worked fine. I was just wondering if it would be worth it to get a straight 9×50 for the dob , but I think I will just get the red dot sight ( it is $40 less). Thanks Ed

If its' that junky $650 Explore Scientific 10" truss Dob being blown out at places like Costco, no.

Eyepieces are a highly personal decision; what I like may not match what you like. For me there's no substitute for looking into a big porthole of glass and feeling like I'm gazing out of the window of a spaceship into space...

Looks more like a 16" . Embarassment magnifies by 33%. YW.

@@DavidOfWhitehills way to rub salt in the wound mate :-D