To set the mood for my telescope test reports, I would like to explain how I came to the respective telescope. As you will soon take notice, or have already noticed, I am quite a layman in the field of the fax. I think that's not so tragic, there are still plenty of my species.
And like me, sure a lot of questions, which I merely want to purchase a device? The look on the pictures somehow all the same, only different costs. That's right and wrong again. Perhaps my opinions assets in one or the other to weigh something that Dick light. And as they say: for every telescope there is a heaven.
I can not lose weight so a purchasing decision. But to explain what I have decided, I can and especially while and why.
Initiation
It all started when I found an old pair of binoculars in the attic. Previously, I had barely occupied myself with the stars. It knew that there was one and that was enough for me. But sitting on a summer evening on the balcony with a wheat in the comfortable chair, I found the star countryside but interesting, and thought that a 'real' telescope might be a good idea.
No sooner said than done, on Ebay I've gained needed my first best (or erstschlechteste) Tchibo refractor. Nett formulated, was what I got a bunch of mindless plastic scrap. Besides the fact that I saw the moon not much larger than previously with binoculars, it was almost impossible to create a shake-free image. Even breathing was enough to entice the tube for continuous tremors. I have (ie back to Ebay) shipped the thing in the trash and was as you can imagine, plenty eaten by the whole action. Allegedly, the telescope should be able to zoom in up to 225-fold (4mm eyepiece X 1.5 Barlow). Mathematically that, but goes even then only. Because even with the 20mm eyepiece and 30x magnification, hardly a focus was possible, and if only for seconds.
In addition to the anger be kindled gradually my hunting instinct. Now it should certainly be a telescope and a reasonable to do so. Now Amazon comes into play. At first I was for days on the relevant pages and blogs and especially nights informed soaked me with technical terms, then slammed shut.
My first-cheek attempt was a Celestron AstroMaster 130/650 with an EQ mount. The unit went back (see review). This was followed by the Heritage Skywatcher 130/650. Also of had to go back to the dealer (see also here Test). Finally I ended up in Orion Star Blast-6 150/750. In between, joined yet the Celestron FirstScope 76/300 for my daughter so. Perhaps the best of all devices.
For the following telescopes I have created test reports:
Celsestron AstroMaster 130/650 EQ,
Skywatcher Dobson Heritage 130/650
Orion Star Blast-6 150/750 Dobson
Celestron Firstscope76 76/300 Dobson
Ps. A report of the Tchibo refractor I have now given me time.
Celestron FirstScope 76/300 Dobson
Technical Specifications:
Design: reflector - means that there is a reflecting telescope. Is named after its inventor, Sir Isaac Newton and Newton. The other major variation in the market is called refractor. These are the long pole things that (not the glass, from the stew) do not work with mirrors, but with lenses. I mean the first refractors go back to Galileo and as regards their type older than Newton.
Opening: 76mm - called the mirror size of the primary mirror. So the vessel which bundles the incoming starlight. An old saying from the motorcyclists corner after it says that displacement (opening) is to be replaced only by displacement (opening), has been adopted here. The size of the aperture determines the maximum useful magnification. It is calculated as: opening x 2. In this case, the maximum useful magnification 150x. Theoretically could be the way each telescopic zoom up to 600 times and more; you see nothing else except only one bright point. Just in terms of advertising promises of some low-cost carriers.
Art of the main mirror: spherical - There are at reflector telescopes two main types of mirrors. On the one hand these are the spherical mirror, which, if they were round, a sphere would equal. Secondly, there is the parabolic variation. Their shape is concave, turned inward, like a satellite dish. General states that the parabolic mirrors are better because they produce less distortion. However, they are also expensive.
Focal length: 300mm - The more focal length (length) of the tube has to be enlarged more. Calculating method for enlargement: Tube length: Size eyepiece. With a 20mm eyepiece the magnification is then 15 times (300: 20).
Mount: Dobson 'A mount that completely waives tripods. The tube rests (called rocker) in a wooden formwork. Altitude and azimuth (horizontal motion) is adjusted manually. There are no gears, counterweights or tripod legs. The advantages are the lighter weight, ease of use, the 'smoothness'' it wobbles very little - and very importantly also the price. The is is than azimuthal or equatorial tripod forms significantly lower (see report AstroMaster 130 EQ).
Accessories: eyepiece H (Huygens) 20mm (enlarged to 15-fold) and 4mm (magnification of 75 times). We recommend the purchase of other eyepieces, for example, super-Plossls in 5-6mm for planets and 25-30mm for the general view. The cost of Amazon as something with 30, - Euro and are definitely worth their money.
Subjective impression:
The perceived quality of FirstScope is surprisingly good and very stable. There was also unimpressed by the weight of a heavy zoom lens. The rocker is rather simple. Unlike the Heritage 130 (see there report) it does not look cheap but rustic and suitable. In addition, the slight (and simple) Usability is a real source of joy. The Okulareinzug gobbles obscene in focusing. That was in (almost) all of the tested focuser so and is well understood as a sign of sufficient lubrication.
Regarding the image quality you have to make big compromises but already. More is not in it just at this focal length and aperture. Basically, the performance is tidy, albeit clearly worse than in the other tested. Magnifications with the 4mm eyepiece are meaningful only when visibility is good. Moon and Jupiter with its four moons were still recognizable.
Conclusion:
The mount is simply great. Simple and practical, I liked much better than the equatorial mount. Imaging performance and build quality is unbeatable in relation to the price: strong buy recommendation. For first purchase and travel! 5 points.
***
