![]() Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. FWIW I have a 8" telescope and I struggle much beyond 220 times on a night in really good conditions.Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. I think then you might be more satisfied with what you can see.įWIW from what I read on SGL I tend to think that the best expectation of some advertisements is to take the highest expected magnfication indicated and half it to get what is probably practical - thus your scope claims 175x/262x/525x so I wouldn't be inclined to expect any practical use beyond about 250 times magnification and that's probably pushing it. To modify your expectations read the first page of this thread or at the very least look at the photos and then realise that the actual views are still being taken by a telescope with more magnification than you probably have yourself. It's a new scope I doubt it needs huge collimation. use the X25 not the X8 (fill in the numbers you have and put in the one with the highest number which will give you the lowest easiest to focus magnification), then point it at moon at night or a distant object during the daytime (well away from the direction of the sun) and twiddle the focus knobs until it is in focus - even if it is still small. Don't use anything calling itself a Barlow, and only put in the eye piece with the highest number written on it. Seeing a small image is exactly what you should see. ![]() You may have been seduced by some coloured pictures on a box and expectations of descriptions of so many hundreds of time magnification giving you an expectation of far more than you will actually see. You state in the OP that you see an image but it is very tiny. You may also have your expectations set a little high. The information in the link seems somewhat lacking.ĭo not expect in general anything like the magnifications given. If the smaller diameter then locating additional ones will be difficult. Any chance of you specifing the eyepiece diameter "size" ? Ask as there may be a chance that they are 0.965", not the normal 1.25". You will end up spending about the same on eyepieces as the scope cost. Will suggest a couple of additional eyepieces, simple plossls to keep cost down. Remember that scope are intended for distances of light years not meters. Distant means a mile or two, not the house on the other side of the road. That is then approximately where the focuser needs to be set or used. Presuming the 8mm only then one possible idea is during the day aim the scope at something distant, big and distant, and adjust the scope to get whatever in view and adjust the focus. The 4mm is likely too much and the 3x barlow seems pointless. Then my opinion is that only the 8mm eyepiece may be of real use. If the focal length is 700mm ( any chance of details, usually on the tube somewhere). Makes getting things in your view immensly easier. That would give you a decently wide field of view. You really need to get hold of something like a 25mm or 30 or 32mm plossl. General optics would say that at 87x and an SR eyepiece that your field at the eye is around 0.5 degrees. If the 87x is based on the 8mm eyepiece then the focal length appears to be 700mm. The details would imply that the scope is "sold" on rather extreme ideas of magnification. Put in whatever is the longest eyepiece, although reading the information it says 4mm and 8mm and I half suspect that both will be too short. Most simple thought is that the focus is well out.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |