Casual Evaluation of a Beginner Telescope
Usually, but not always, there is a significantly limited budget for these beginners and this is where it gets even more difficult to recommend something useful to a beginner. Naturally, like anything else in life, the more limited the budget, the fewer the viable options. Low cost astronomy kits that are worth recommending with a clear conscious are few and far between. I don't want to be the one to recommend a telescope that I know will cause frustration so I refuse to recommend what I consider garbage or even something I feel will frustrate a beginner and there are a lot of "beginner telescopes" that fit this description.
This problem of setting unrealistically small budgets for a complete beginner kit is not strictly related to only astronomy. This could be applied to just about any hobby. A beginner with absolutely nothing needs to purchase a lot of stuff to get involved in just about any hobby. The more you advance in the hobby, the more you will need to purchase. The same applies to backyard astronomy.
For instance, let's talk about the cost of getting started in photography as an example since astronomy and photography are both optics-based hobbies. Plus, I have decades of photography experience as well so I'm very familiar with this hobby too.
If someone expected to get involved in photography for less than $100, I think any reasonable experienced photographer would be holding back laughter (or maybe not) because there really is little to nothing to be purchased in the photography world for less than $100 and especially not a whole kit for a beginner looking to begin a hobby in photography.
Even thinking back to when I was a child, my parents, who were always budget conscious, spent far more than $100 on a camera kit way back many decades ago. They actually purchased more than one kit throughout my childhood. This was about four or five decades ago so that $100+ back then is equivalent to around $850+ today. Well, this $850+ should be kept in mind when thinking about getting involved in any hobby involving "decent" to "good" optics. "Excellent" or "outstanding" optics are in a whole different higher pricing category. Expecting optics of "decent" or "good" quality is reasonable for a beginner.
I also understand that people want to get as much as they can for their money but being ridiculous in your expectations is in itself ridiculous. Don't expect to get the "best" of any level of gear without paying a realistic and fair market value.
That being said, I do have one or two telescopes to recommend for those people hoping to purchase a telescope for around $100. There are a few more available in the sub-$200 range. Things get a bit better in the $200-500 range and more realistic expectations can be had in the $500-1000 range. When considering a whole kit (ie, everything you would need to get involved in the hobby) consisting of products of good quality providing as little frustration as possible it would be nice to have a budget in the $500-1000 range. This price range is capable of getting you into that more comfortable and better quality gear. However, $1000+ is more reasonable for the starting kit for someone who is serious about this hobby and especially if the beginner is interested in astrophotography too.
Actually, any hobby today would probably require around $1000, give or take a little bit, to get fully involved so there really is nothing unusual about backyard astronomy. If you take a stepped approached based on buying a little more gear for each new step in learning this new hobby, then you could probably get started with some nice gear with a budget in the $500-850 range as had mentioned previously.
So, even though I have a couple of sub-$100 telescopes in mind that I might recommend to certain beginners, you would also need to spend more money on other pieces of the beginner kit which will quickly put you over your $100 budget. Even a retail "complete kit" usually isn't a complete beginner kit. My advice is to always expect that you will need to purchase more accessories even after purchasing a "complete kit". The most basic kit involves a telescope, the mount, a tripod, eyepieces, diagonal, finder scope, and a few other creature comforts for being outside in the weather in the dark of night.
I currently own a number of telescopes and I have owned various other telescopes throughout the decades. In my quest to understand what is available for beginners, I decided to purchase another very small beginner telescope to evaluate for beginner use. Because of the telescope type, this particular beginner telescope should be a good tool to use a little differently than my current beginner telescopes. Sheila, the grandchildren and I enjoy viewing objects in our solar system like Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Saturn, the Sun and our moon so I chose a small beginner telescope that is geared more toward this type of observing. After I briefly evaluate this new telescope, I feel it would come in handy for our own personal use at times.
Incidentally, this isn't the only telescope of mine that I have evaluated. I evaluate all my telescopes as soon as possible. I do the same with cameras and photographic lenses in my photography hobby. The idea is to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each product so that you can best utilize each product. If I know that a product does "x" poorly, then I won't attempt to do "x" with that product. So, evaluating this little beginner telescope is nothing new nor unusual for me. I rarely will write about my thoughts on these evaluations though.
I found what appears to be a nice beginner Maksutov-Cassegrain telescope called the Orion Apex 102mm Maksutov-Cassegrain telescope. It comes with a small soft-sided case, an eyepiece, a diagonal and a finder scope. This particular Maksutov-Cassegrain telescope model is really quite small but it does have a long focal length which is good for observing those tiny rocks floating around in the vast relatively empty space of our own solar system. This little telescope would be great for quick views of the moon and the sun as well as the planets so I decided to purchase one, evaluate it and add it to my small observatory collection. This telescope will then be used as another small telescope kit for the purpose of viewing some planets in the night sky.
The Good Points
There are quite a few good points about this telescope so I'll start by pointing out and explaining these good points.
- It is small and lightweight and I feel this is a big plus especially for a beginner. Big, heavy and unwieldly telescopes are less likely to be used by most beginners because of all the effort required for set up and tear down. Handling this little telescope is easy and finding room for storage should be no problem for anyone. It fits snugly in its compact padded case and the case is small enough to fit into even crowded closets, on a shelf or even stored under a bed.
- I feel it puts up a pretty nice image for a low end beginner telescope. It is free of chromatic aberration and it has a fairly pleasing image which are two big pluses in this low price range. Realistically, it is not as sharp as bigger and better telescopes nor should we expect it to be but it is a good quality for a beginner telescope. The sharpness is at a fair level for a low cost beginner telescope so this is worth mentioning among the "good points".
- There are many other beginner telescopes which will not provide the amount of magnification that this beginner telescope can provide. Most beginners want to first view some planets and the moon and the long 1300mm focal length of this little telescope helps in this endeavor. This telescope makes it quite easy to magnify these small solar system objects (planets, the moon and the Sun) to an acceptable size in the eyepiece making these objects easier to identify. Beginner telescopes with shorter focal lengths typically do not shine when pushing them to higher magnifications. I found that this little telescope can put up a fair image to around 165x magnification. On a good night, you could push the magnification up to just under 300x with a 4.5mm eyepiece for some okay views. Beyond this magnification, I feel you get into hollow magnification and the image tends to degrade similar to enlarging a photo too much.
- Cassegrain telescopes are known (infamously) for some focus slop and focus shift but the focus on this particular telescope is smooth. There is no noticeable slop nor is there any focus shift. The focus knob instantly and smoothly initiates a change in focus in either direction as well as when changing directions. Focus is actually fairly easy to adjust too requiring very little effort to turn the focusing knob on the back of the telescope. Finding no slop in this focuser was a very pleasant surprise and a definite positive attribute.
- It is very nice that this telescope comes with a soft-sided carry case. I find this to be particularly appealing so that is another plus for this telescope.
The Bad Points
As with any product, there are some bad points about this product that are worth mentioning. If the beginner understands these shortcomings, then there will be little disappointment. If expectations are unrealistically high, then you should expect disappointment.
- The included 45° diagonal is of poor quality for nighttime observing. The view it provides is noticeably darker than a decent 90° dielectric mirror diagonal. After testing this kit diagonal, I pulled out one of my better 1.25" 90° diagonals to use with this telescope. I'm not a fan of 45° diagonals anyway. My diagonals provide 99% reflectivity. If I were to guess, I'd say the kit diagonal that comes with this telescope provides less than 90% reflectivity. A 90° diagonal is more appropriate for nighttime astronomy since the sky is viewed at steeper viewing angles. 45° diagonals are pretty much only used for daytime terrestrial viewing due to the shallow viewing angles.
- The long focal length of this little telescope provides an advantage for observing solar system objects but this comes at a cost that should be mentioned especially when it comes to beginners. Beginners often think that more magnification is always better but this is not the case especially for beginners. It is not even the case most of the time in astronomy. This long focal length means this telescope provides a rather narrow view. A narrow view makes it much more difficult to locate objects with the telescope and this is especially important for beginners to consider. A narrow view can be incredibly frustrating when all you want to do is find something identifiable in the night sky.
Imagine trying to find a tiny airplane in the sky by peering through a cardboard tube like you find in the middle of a roll of toilet paper. That short fat cardboard tube is pretty easy to use for spotting objects in the sky. Now imagine trying to locate this tiny airplane by peering through a long, skinny drinking straw. Which one would be more difficult? Just like when looking through the straw, the long focal length of this telescope makes it much more difficult to locate tiny objects in the sky and this can be very frustrating for anyone especially a beginner.- Another negative point worth mentioning is that the longer the focal length, the better and sturdier you need your tripod and mount to be. Any tiny amount of shaking will cause your telescope's view to jump way off the object you are observing. This means you are constantly moving the telescope in an attempt to manually track your object. So, the longer the focal length, the better and sturdier your mount and tripod need to be.
- With such a narrow view, objects will pass through your view rather quickly because the Earth is constantly rotating. It doesn't seem like the Earth is rotating all that quickly when looking up at the whole sky but it is rotating quickly when you have a very narrow magnified view! The best solution to objects moving out of your view quickly is the purchase a high quality tracking mount. Unfortunately, for the beginner who is trying to keep this first purchase at a reasonable cost, a tracking mount will increase the budget significantly. A tracking mount has a learning curve too and the beginner already has enough on their plate with learning the basics of visual astronomy. At a minimum, a sturdy manual alt-azimuth mount with slow motion controls would make things easy enough for a beginner. The slow motion control knobs provide the astronomer with the tools necessary to easily track objects in the sky.
- With a focal ratio of f12.7, the views are pretty dark/dim, as one would expect. This is not a problem for bright objects but it is a bit of a problem for dimmer objects. Even though Saturn is rather bright in the night sky, it is rather dim through this telescope. The view gets even dimmer as you push the magnification higher. Also compounding this issue is the previously mentioned darker than average kit diagonal.
- Although the views this telescope provides are "good" for a beginner telescope and for a long focal length telescope that is so small and compact, I find the views to be a bit soft when compared to my refractor telescopes whether they are achromatic, ED or APO refractors. The views are sort of hazy and lacking the contrast that I see in my refractors. The views remind me very much of what you see through a very cheap, inexpensive photographic telephoto lens... a bit hazy, soft and lacking contrast.
- I find the tiny straight-through finder scope to be almost completely useless. First, it is too small at only 6x26 although, I admit that you don't want a big finder scope on such a small telescope. I wear eyeglasses and I have adult-sized eyes so the finder scope being as small as it is made it almost impossible to see through. Next, I find it very difficult craning your neck to view through a straight-through finder scope. I would definitely prefer a cheap but decent red dot finder. Better yet would be a small right angle finder scope but these can get as expensive as this entire kit cost. A red dot finder would be the most appropriate for a beginner plus it would be less bulky for storage in the included carry case while also being lightweight and very easy to use.
- The dovetail bar that is screwed onto the bottom of this telescope is too short in certain circumstances. I found it to be too short to use effectively in my large dual Losmandy/Vixen saddle on my largest mount. This saddle has two clamps and the short dovetail bar is barely long enough to fit across both clamps. This also means that I have no room at all to slide the telescope in the saddle to balance the declination axis.
Another time when I experienced a problem with this short dovetail bar was when I used my good eyepieces. The telescope becomes heavier toward the rear which means I need to slide the telescope up farther in the mount's saddle to keep the telescope balanced. As a result, I often run out of dovetail bar when trying to balance this telescope (even on my portable mounts with small saddles). Adding a dew shield to the front of the scope has helped move that balance point back to where it should be but I would still be more comfortable with a longer dovetail bar.
Additionally, when I was looking more closely at this short dovetail bar, I noticed that it is mounted on the telescope using only two small screws/bolts. Even worse is that these two screws are positioned only about an inch apart on this rather short dovetail bar. I would prefer a longer dovetail bar and I would prefer a more solid connection between the telescope and the dovetail bar with the mounting screws being much farther apart for more stability. I may eventually remove this small dovetail bar and put this little scope in cradle rings on a longer dovetail bar.
Comparison Image Evaluations
I spent a little bit of time doing some side-by-side comparison evaluations between three telescopes. I wanted to see how the image quality provided by this telescope compares to two of my current lower-end telescopes. I compared this Orion Apex 102mm ($269) to my inexpensive beginner Celestron 70mm achromatic refractor ($89) followed by comparing it to my Skywatcher ED 72mm refractor ($465, and is shipped with a nice hard case).
I should point out that the Celestron 70mm refractor kit came with a very poor quality alt-azimuth mount even at the exceptionally low $89 price but that mount really should be replaced by anyone purchasing this kit. This mount is therefore useless which puts all three of these telescopes in the same category of "telescope only without a mount and tripod". This blog entry really is an evaluation comparing image quality of the telescopes and not the completeness of beginner kits.
In each comparison, I used the same brand and model of eyepieces but by matching the magnifications as closely as possible. I also used the same diagonal in each telescope since I don't have two identical diagonals. I compared at low magnifications up to high magnifications at five levels of magnification.
 |
| Side-by-side comparisons |
- When I compared the Skywatcher ED 72mm refractor to the Orion Apex 102mm Mak-Cass, there simply was no comparison. The Skywatcher ED 72mm refractor was noticeably better in sharpness, brightness and contrast and better at every magnification. This should come as no surprise though since the Skywatcher refractor costs more and has better glass. At only $465, however, the Skywatcher ED 72mm refractor is quite the bargain for only a relatively moderate price increase over the Orion Apex 102mm Mak-Cass at $269. I would say that these two telescopes are in the same pricing category but, if you have that little bit of extra money for a better telescope, the benefits of the ED 72mm refractor far exceed the extra cost.
Also worth noting here is that some diagonals will provide better results than others. Some are sharper, some are brighter. This affects comparisons and initial impressions to some degree. I used the same diagonal for these comparisons. Different eyepieces can also vary in brightness, sharpness and effectiveness in various telescopes so results may vary. Because of these variations, I swapped eyepieces and diagonals between telescopes as much as possible but, regardless of the combination, I was still left with the same impressions as stated above.
Recommended Additional Accessories
- A mount and tripod will definitely be needed because this telescope does not come with either so keep that in mind if you purchase this telescope. You can use this telescope on a manual mount but I would highly recommend you ensure the manual mount has slow motion controls for finer control of each axis. The long focal length of this telescope makes fine control necessary. With long focal lengths, any tiny movement in any direction will cause the view of your object to jump out of view so, the better the mount, the better off you will be. At the low end, a mount and tripod will cost you anywhere from $100 to $200. At the mid-range, you are looking at a cost in the $250-1000 range. At the high end, they will be well into the four figure range and even up into the five figure range... and even the six figure range for some observatory-class mounts!- I would recommend replacing the kit finder scope with a small, lightweight red dot finder scope. A good and comfortable-to-use finder scope is an absolute necessity when using telescopes with the narrow views we get with the Orion Apex 102mm telescope. The included straight-through finder scope is quite literally a pain-in-the-neck because you need to contort your neck into weird, uncomfortable and even painful positions while placing your eye perfectly in the exact right spot at the finder. A decent, lightweight red dot finder scope is very small, lightweight, easy to use and should cost no more than around $30.
- A dew shield would definitely come in handy for minimizing dew forming on your optics as well as for shielding reflected and ambient light. These flexible dew shields can be purchased for only $30 or so.
- You will definitely want at least one more eyepiece. This telescope comes with a decent 25mm eyepiece but another eyepiece in the 10-12mm range would provide some more magnification. Alternately, a good upgrade from kit eyepieces for a beginner is a decent zoom eyepiece. Svbony makes a few zoom eyepieces that are a step up from kit eyepieces and are reasonably priced in the under $100 category. The 8-24mm zoom range is most popular. For a long focal length like this scope provides, however, the 10-30mm zoom might be more useful.
- Unless you purchase this telescope strictly for daytime terrestrial viewing, I'd highly recommend replacing the kit diagonal with a 90° Dielectric Mirror diagonal. The dielectric mirror will be noticeably brighter than the kit prism diagonal. Additionally, a 90° diagonal is far more comfortable to use with viewing the night sky. A 1.25" diagonal will cost between $50-120 depending on quality. I'd recommend a dielectric 90° diagonal with 98-99% reflectivity.
Conclusion
As with any type or size of telescope, you can view a wide variety of objects in the sky but each type of telescope has its strengths and weaknesses. Telescopes are always weak at some things but strong in at least one thing. The long focal length of this Orion 102mm Mak-Cass is its strength which makes it a good option for viewing tiny planets in our solar system. You can view other things but this isn't a good option for that. This long focal length comes at the cost of making it far more difficult for a beginner to locate these small objects in the sky. Also worth noting is that this telescope is not made for observing dim objects nor even moderately dim objects due to its slow f ratio. (The higher the f number, the darker the view.) This Orion telescope is not the choice for observing at low magnifications (which is actually a good way to observe an awful lot of objects in the sky with the right telescope). There are specific tools for specific jobs and this tool's primary job is allowing beginners to view the moon, the sun and the relatively tiny planets within our own solar system.
This 102mm Maksutov-Cassegrain telescope is a small, lightweight telescope and, perhaps more importantly, it is a rather simple telescope. I always recommend keeping it simple when taking on new things. Put this little telescope on a small alt-azimuth mount with slow motion controls and I believe most beginners would be happy hopping from the moon to planet to planet.
Of note and worth repeating again in this "Conclusion" section is that this telescope does not come with a mount and tripod so you will need to provide that or purchase them separately. Better telescopes rarely come packaged with a mount so this doesn't mean much as far as the quality of the kit. Just know that you will need to purchase a mount and tripod. At the low end, a manual mount with slow motion controls and a tripod can be purchased for an additional $100-350 so that isn't horrendous but it is a cost that must be considered so keep that in mind. If you prefer a GoTo tracking mount, that will cost more than the cost of a manual mount.
Although I do like this little telescope and it has its purpose, I, personally, still prefer my refractor telescopes for a variety of reasons not the least of which is image quality. That being said, for beginners on a low budget (less than $400), there really are very few options no matter which type of telescope you want or need for your astronomy interests. At a cost of only $269 and if you are mostly only interested in planets, the sun and the moon, this Orion Apex 102mm is a nice beginner telescope.
When our climate changed to a typical autumn climate with colder nights around freezing, I found that this telescope requires an absolute minimum cool down period of a full hour. I would never recommend a telescope that requires a long cool down period to a complete beginner. When we combine the need for tedious collimation with the need to cool down before use with the very narrow field of view, I no longer feel this telescope qualifies as a good first telescope for a beginner. I feel this telescope would cause far too much frustration for most beginners. That being said, depending on what and how much the beginner learned with his or her first telescope, this might qualify as a good second telescope.
Sample Images
I should start this section of sample images by mentioning a few caveats. What is shown here is not what the visual views through the eyepiece look like. I had to significantly sharpen these images in addition to adding saturation and contrast. Plus, each camera will render an image differently. Peering through the eyepiece visually showed a rather soft image. Also, it is worth noting that these images are low power images captured by a full frame sensor with no additional magnification provided. Low power does a good job at hiding problems. Unfortunately, this is really supposed to be a high power telescope.
At this point, I had only one clear evening since purchasing this telescope but I managed to do a little bit of viewing and I managed to capture a few images. I had to work quickly because I was shooting between clouds. I only shot some photos of some objects that suit this little telescope... the sun, the moon, Jupiter and Saturn.
First, with a sky mostly filled with dense clouds during the day, I captured a single image of our sun. I used a homemade full aperture Baader film solar filter mounted on the front of the telescope and my Sony a7 camera. I just slipped my Sony a7 into the diagonal and used a wireless remote to trigger the shutter. This telescope provides some decent white light solar possibilities as seen in this photo.
I used my Sony a7 camera for this image of Jupiter. I love my Sony a7 but this is definitely not the ideal choice of cameras for planetary imaging but I made it work.
To any beginners reading this blog entry, although this little telescope works well when pushing the magnification, you should understand that Jupiter and Saturn will still be small in the eyepiece. These planets are very far away so they will be rather small in your eyepiece which is why they are rather small in these images.
As you can see, these images are decent which shows what this little telescope is capable of seeing and imaging. Really, in the big scheme of things, these images are actually fairly nice for a beginner telescope! This is especially true since I was using this telescope on a photo tripod with a lightweight manual alt-azimuth mount head that has no slow motion controls. It is clear that viewing solar system objects are this particular telescope's strong suit. Using a manual mount on a photo tripod made this imaging session a little bit challenging especially without slow motion controls but I still managed to quickly and easily capture some acceptable images. These photos are proof that this little telescope is quite capable at viewing and imaging solar system objects.
In the end, I have to say that this little telescope pretty good as a beginner telescope.
_________________________________________________________________________
Oct 28th, 2021 - Sheila and I had this telescope outside tonight to view Jupiter and Saturn. We let the scope cool down for about a half hour (maybe a bit less) but that didn't seem to help provide views nearly as crisp as my refractors provide. It took some effort to set all of this up and it was on a night when I had no energy to spare. We spent this morning at the hospital again. We were at UVM Oncology for one of my visits again and that seemed to totally wipe me out.
I ended up napping all afternoon then started on dinner. I noticed that the sky was clear when we finished up dinner. Since clear nights are rare in the cold months around here, I knew I had to set up a telescope to do some viewing regardless of how fatigued I might be.
I have to say that it is a bit disappointing when you go through all the effort to set up a telescope for what seems like nothing. Anyway, I'm exhausted and looking forward to a full night of sleep.
The views tonight were "okay" but not nearly as crisp as my refractors even when I push the magnification in those refractors. I have no idea why so many amateur astronomers gush constantly about their "tack sharp" Mak-Cass telescopes. There is absolutely no way I would call this telescope "tack sharp" after my experiences with truly sharp refractor telescopes. I would describe my experiences with this small Mak-Cass as "rather soft mush". I will admit that we might not have let the telescope cool down long enough (acclimate to the outside air temperature) to get good views. The only way to know for sure is to try again on another night but let the telescope sit outside for about an hour before viewing through it.
I don't really care for the narrow field of view that this telescope produces either. This narrow view just doesn't "look right" or maybe it is more about it not "feeling right". It seems uncomfortable and even creates a sort of emotional conflict. It is an odd feeling that this narrow view creates in me. Worst yet, this narrow view also demands that you either use slow motion controls on your mount or have a tracking motor. Trying to just gently nudge the mount manually in the right direction with fingertips does not work and quickly becomes quite frustrating. What you want to view bounces in and out of the view as you gently try to nudge the telescope. This is due to the narrow view and long focal length. Slow motion control knobs would help immensely. A properly polar aligned GoTo tracking mount would be even better.
Maybe I'll sleep on my thoughts about what we observed tonight and add more about it here tomorrow... And, maybe, just maybe, what I add will be a bit more positive about this little Mak-Cass telescope.
Maybe our cool-down time wasn't long enough tonight... which means that I probably do not have the patience for any type of reflector telescopes...
__________________________________________________________________
Oct 29th, 2021 - I did a little more research and it seems that this little tiny Maksutov-Cassegrain telescope does indeed need upwards of an hour to acclimate to the outdoor environment before the views will be stable (sharper/crisper). If you try to view through the telescope while the mirrors are still acclimating to the change in temperature when going from indoors to outdoors, you will get the "rather soft mush" views Sheila and I saw last night.
Last night when we headed outside with the telescope, the temperature inside our house was 70° and the outside temperature was around 40°. I needed to let the telescope sit outside for about an hour to let it acclimate to the new colder temperature and I didn't do that so my views were "rather soft mush". In my case, I needed to wait for the mirrors to drop in temperature from 70° to close to 40°... a 30° difference is pretty significant. The cooling process while acclimating creates convection heat waves inside the telescope tube as the heat moves from inside the heavy glass mirrors to the colder air outside the telescope tube. These convection heat waves create soft mushy views.
I knew this cool down period was necessary for larger cassegrain telescopes (5"/127mm and up) but I thought people were using these smaller (4"/102mm and less) cassegrain telescopes as grab-and-go telescopes. In my opinion, if you need to wait for any length of cool down period, then the scope is not suited to being a grab-and-go scope.
This is yet another valid reason why I feel all reflector telescopes with their big glass mirrors are rather poor choices for a beginner. Why would anyone in their right mind recommend a telescope for a beginner, watch them excitedly set the scope up outside, and then tell them they need to wait another hour before being able to see good views?
That being said, I'm going to change my Conclusion section, above, to state that I cannot and will not recommend this scope or any reflector telescope for beginners. I'm not going to recommend something that I know will frustrate the majority of complete beginners.
On the particular day and night that I shot the sample images in the above blog entry (which look pretty good), the outdoor temperature was pretty much the same as the indoor temperature so no cool down period was necessary and I had some good views right away.
One way to avoid the cool down period is to just place your telescope, in its case, outside someplace where it will be safe a few hours before you plan to view. This way the telescope remains safe and protected while it slowly acclimates to the outdoor temperature. Then, when you want to view, you simply set up your tripod and mount. By the time you place the telescope on the mount, it will already be acclimated and ready to go. I still wouldn't call that grab-and-go because it requires some planning and foresight but it is better than having to wait an hour after setup to view.
In the end, my additional experiences with this little telescope on colder nights have swayed my opinion of whether or not this telescope is suitable for a beginner. I still feel as though this telescope qualifies as a "decent scope" but I will not recommend it to a beginner.
_______________________________________________________________
Oct 29th, 2021 - This afternoon at around 5pm, I placed the Orion 102mm Mak-Cass telescope on my rebuilt CG-2 mount and moved it outside to acclimate to the outside temperature. After about an hour and a half, as it was approaching 6:30pm, we went outside to view Venus, Jupiter and Saturn. The views were better this time around... still not great, but better than our last observation session.
I used a Baader Morpheus 9mm eyepiece which gave me a magnification of 144x which is respectable for these planets. I believe the telescope was still acclimating though because I've definitely seen better views through my Skywatcher ED 72mm refractor. The temperature is still dropping outside so that doesn't help with the telescope trying to acclimate. It is always playing catch-up.
Another issue is I think the sky conditions weren't the best. Well, first of all, it was dusk so the sky was still a blue color rather than inky black. I was seeing a bit of a haze around each of the planets which can be caused by ice crystals in the upper atmosphere. We do have some lousy weather close by.... actually, a bomb cyclone is approaching from the south west... there should be a lot of moisture in the atmosphere and that could be contributing to the bit of haze around these planets.
Overall, however, the views were better tonight after letting the telescope acclimate outdoors for almost an hour and a half. In the future, I might let my eyepieces cool down/acclimate too. I'm happy to report some sharper results tonight though.
I'll continue to add to this blog as new information comes to light but, right now, I'm a little happier (albeit cautiously) with the quality of the views through this little telescope. I am not at all happy about needing to wait an hour or two before using the scope but, apparently, that is the nature of the beast when it comes to any sort of reflector telescope. Uggg... I truly hate reflector telescopes.
Now... where is my APO refractor?
________________________________________________________________
Oct 29th, 2021: Later the same night - I was still bothered by the less-than-crisp views out of this telescope (contrary to what all other astronomers claim) so I began wondering if the sky conditions were the culprit for the rather mediocre views. For a comparison, I went in the house to grab my Skywatcher ED 72mm refractor telescope and brought it out... put it on the old CG-2 mount... pointed it toward Jupiter... WOW... the crisp views were back! Now that is what a view through good optics should look like! I now knew that my problem with the little Mak-Cass telescope was not due to the sky conditions. The sky conditions would affect both scopes. Also worth noting is that I just grabbed this refractor telescope from indoors, brought it outside, and started viewing through it right away with no cool down period. It was ready for viewing immediately unlike any reflector telescope. (Have I mentioned lately how much I despise reflector telescopes?)
I then swung the comparison refractor telescope over to Saturn. The view of Saturn looked crisp. I even pushed the magnification up using my most powerful eyepiece, a Baader Morpheus 4.5mm. This gave me a magnification of almost 100x. This telescope is really a wide-field type of scope meant for low magnification to medium magnification because the focal length is a short 420mm (compared to 1300mm for the Mak-Cass telescope). The view with the 4.5mm eyepiece was clear and crisp though. It looked far better than the view through the little Mak-Cass telescope just a few moments ago. The crazy thing is that this refractor is not meant for high power yet it is providing far better view at high power (for its small size) than the Mak-Cass which is indeed meant for high power.
Then I went back inside to grab my very inexpensive Celestron 70mm achromatic refractor... mounted it on my old CG-2 mount... pointed it toward Jupiter... even the views through this scope were a bit better than the views through the Orion 102mm Mak-Cass telescope. The views were comparable but I definitely saw more detail through this achromatic refractor than through the new little Mak-Cass telescope.
I also swung this Celestron achromat toward Saturn and the view was detailed. I think it is great that this very inexpensive achromatic refractor is putting up some nice crisp views but this left me again disappointed by the performance of the new little Mak-Cass. From everything I've read written by other people, this Mak-Cass telescope should be worlds better than this old achromatic refractor. To say I am disappointed is an understatement. Either something is drastically wrong with this telescope or these people are the same kind of people who can't see the difference between a cellphone photo and a photo captured by a good quality camera and lens.
It might be time to revisit collimating the Mak-Cass telescope from scratch again. I'll try to accomplish that this weekend but I probably won't get to it until Monday or Tuesday. It might be possible that there is too much pressure on the primary mirror (by the three "push" adjustment push screws) causing a bit of deflection... maybe? If this isn't the cause of the rather lousy views, then I will just assume the mirrors are of poor quality.
Note: I found that the push-pull screws for collimation apply no pressure whatsoever to the mirror itself. About a half inch behind the primary mirror is a plate. The push-pull screws apply pressure to this plate alone. The plate then moves the entire primary mirror assembly. So, no pressure is actually applied directly to the glass.
I honestly have no idea why any astronomer in their right mind would tolerate this needless, pointless and frustrating reflector telescope nonsense. This whole exercise is only reinforcing my love of refractor telescopes. Refractor telescopes are easier to maintain and they provide crisper views with far more contrast.
After all my previous decades of experience with reflector telescopes and now this experience with this Mak-Cass telescope (all those experiences being quite similar), I highly doubt I will ever recommend one of these types of telescopes to any beginner.
______________________________________________________________
Oct 30th, 2021: I spent another day trying to resolve the "rather soft mush" that I get with this little Mak-Cass telescope. I cleaned the glass corrector plate on the front of the telescope and then jumped into trying to refine the collimation. It is cold and rainy outside (in the 40s) so I'm attempting to do the collimation indoors.
I first tried accomplishing the collimation using a Collimation Eyepiece. I could see how this method could be an effective tool for collimating this scope but, because of my eyeglasses, I could not get close enough to the tiny pin-hole in the top of the Collimation Eyepiece. When I removed my eyeglasses, my astigmatism was still prominent affecting my vision through the eyepiece resulting in me being unable to focus on the pattern being projected by the eyepiece. Consequently, I found the collimation eyepiece method to be completely useless for me.
I then made an artificial star and I placed it at about 33 feet from the telescope but I should probably be at about 33 yards based on the focal length of this little telescope. I can't go any longer distance inside the house though. When the rain stops, I'll move everything outdoors, let the scope cool down, and then attempt to refine this collimation more at about 33 yards.
Today's exercise in collimation was a complete flop. Twice, I had one of the collimation "pull" screws come completely unthreaded so I had to start over again from scratch after loosening all the other screws enough to thread this loose screw back into place. Something seems to be very out of whack with this scope yet I have very concentric circles when checking the collimation at this short indoor collimation range.
The views through the telescope have not improved even after hours of working on aligning those mirrors today. The views through the scope are still soft mush. Currently, this scope is really about on par with my 70mm achromatic refractor. In some ways, that achromatic refractor is even better than this 102mm Mak-Cass! My ED 72mm refractor is still looking worlds better today than any view out of this Mak-Cass.
Maybe things will improve a bit when I get to attempt collimation outdoors at a much greater distance. At this point, I'm not too confident that things will improve much though. So the question is, do I have a bad telescope? Or, is this just the way a 102mm Mak-Cass looks through the eyepiece?
______________________________________________________________
Oct 31st, 2021: This morning, I was again running through all the possible problems with this scope's optics in my head and I realized that this scope is providing views almost as poorly as the views I got out of an absolutely terrible, miserable, good-for-nothing Bird-Jones reflector telescope. That is not good for the possibility of somehow and miraculously resolving the problem of the rather soft mushy views that are sort of hazy as well. It is that soft and hazy thing that is reminding me of the Bird-Jones reflector telescope that I eventually threw in the garbage and, boy, did that feel good throwing that telescope in the trash bin! That is definitely where it belonged. A huge weight lifted off my shoulders when I rid myself of that piece of junk telescope.
We'll see what happens with this little Mak-Cass telescope but it is not looking good at the moment. It is raining steadily again today so there will be no working on this telescope today.
I am hoping that in order to attempt to refine the collimation, I need to bring the telescope out into the backyard so I can set up a 100' long collimation range. I'm really beginning to worry that simply refining the collimation a bit closer toward infinity will not resolve the rather drastic problems I am seeing through the eyepiece. I already did a star test the other night when I had the scope out in the backyard and the star test looked okay.
That last star test was a bit difficult to do though. The views through this scope are so soft and hazy, especially at high power, that it is difficult to make out the diffraction rings during the star test. As best as I could tell, however, the rings were concentric... the out-of-focus star looked completely round... I could not, however, see enough resolution to make out any defined rings whatsoever.
Here's the thing... One of my hobbies is photography and I would consider myself extremely accomplished, knowledgeable and experienced as a photographer. I know that when you want to soften an image, you lower the saturation and the contrast. This will provide a significantly softened image. Well, all reflector telescopes are going to be low contrast because of that secondary mirror obstructing the light path toward the big primary mirror. Lack of contrast is a fact of life with a reflector telescope. Consequently, I'm now beginning to accept the fact that this little Mak-Cass telescope might never be "sharp" from my point of view based on my decades of experience with optics.
As I said, above, we'll see what happens with this little Mak-Cass telescope but it is not looking good at the moment. At the moment, I wouldn't even pawn this off on someone who wants a telescope because I feel it is that bad.
________________________________________________________________
Nov 1st, 2021: Today the weather is sunny and clear but very windy. Trying to collimate a telescope on a very windy day is brutal but I needed to take advantage of the drier conditions and head outside with the telescope first thing this morning. It is so windy today that the wind is blowing over my eyepieces standing on a small table next to my mount! I let the telescope and eyepieces sit outside for about two hours before attempting to refine the collimation.
When it is very windy outside as it is today, the telescope is shaking, the tripod holding the flashlight that is my artificial star is shaking, and the wind actually makes the "seeing" noticeably worse. I needed to make some headway on this little project that has become rather frustrating so, regardless of the wind, I needed to try my best to refine the collimation during some short periods of calmer winds.
Moving my artificial star to a distance of 85 feet worked! This allowed me to fine tune the alignment of the mirrors inside this little telescope. I now have sharper views!
I tried taking a few photos of individual leaves on trees but they were blowing wildly in the wind. Then I tried to shoot some photos of conifer trees on a distant ridge but they too were wildly blowing in the wind. Then I tried to shoot photos of a tree with no leaves but the branches were still blowing in the wind anyway. So, I settled on some utility pole equipment off in the distance.
What we see in these photos is far, far better than how the telescope arrived from Orion Telescopes. The collimation is looking much more accurate now so that is great news.
The other night while looking at the telescope and trying to figure out why the views were so terrible after an indoor collimation adjustment, I noticed that the front glass (the corrector plate) was dirty and it had a huge greasy thumbprint on it! I then spent a bit of time cleaning that big greasy spot off the corrector plate. That certainly contributed to quite miserable views. The biggest problem, however, was trying to do a collimation at such close range indoors. I really needed to be outside where I could get closer to 100 feet in range. The longer the distance between the artificial star and my telescope, the finer I can adjust the mirrors.
I will not recommend this telescope to any beginners but it should end up proving to be a nice little scope for solar system views after a two hour cool down/acclimation period. Beginners should have a telescope that is ready for viewing instantly. It should be simple to use and require no aligning of mirrors. Keep it simple.
Later in the evening: I left the Orion 102mm Mak-Cass telescope sitting outside for at least two hours so it would be completely acclimated to the outside temperature for some viewing this evening. I also left my case of Baader eyepieces outside to acclimate too. Before grilling some bacon-wrapped pork chops, I spent a short time observing Venus, Jupiter and Saturn. I'm always up for viewing planets but this was also a quick test to confirm that I did manage to properly align the mirrors in the scope.
Finally... these three planets were sharper and the size of each of these objects in the eyepiece was relatively large due to the long focal length of this telescope. It was a huge relief to finally see these planets more crisply with a lot of visible detail!
With an 8mm eyepiece, at a magnification of 162.5x, the bands of Jupiter were plainly visible along with its four Galilean moons (four its 79 moons). Venus was a bright half crescent. And Saturn was just as detailed and easy to observe.
I have to say that this session was a great relief after days of frustration and views of "rather soft mush". Tonight, these planets looked the way they should through a long focal length telescope.
I have to mention that although I am happy with the views that this little telescope provides, I am still disappointed that this little Mak-Cass telescope requires an hour or more of cool down time before viewing. What good is a small telescope if you can't view the night sky right away?
I do believe that this long run-on blog entry is now officially closed, thankfully, for all of us.
Comments
Post a Comment