I would like some food for thought please? (1 Viewer)

[StoneCold1664]

Hello all,

Having recently rediscovered my love for bird watching during lockdown I have decided to invest in a better spotting scope. I currently use an unbranded 10 year old scope I bought for around £100 and have discovered it really isn't up to the job I need it for. it has a 20 - 60x eyepiece which gets very blurry at the higher magnification so as to be nearly pointless.
I have been looking at the Celestron Regal M2 XLT which seems to be around the £600 mark.
I would also like to use the scope for taking photos with my phone (currently Sony Experia Z5 but due an upgrade so can change) I do this to confirm bird ID at home as I'm seriously out of practice. (Pesky waders)
Do you think the Celestron is a wise investment of £600 or are there better options to consider.
Many thanks and best regards.

Mark

 

[paddy7]

Hi Mark -
I don't know the Celestron, but a couple of years ago was checking the market around that price for someone who was just entering the scope market. What i ended up recommending to them was the Opticron MM4 60mm with the SDLv3 15-45x zoom eyepiece. I think this is now somewhere around £700 as a set up, but haven't checked prices in some time.
If you're in Norfolk, perhaps giving CleySpy and/or InFocus a ring? (Glandford and Titchwell respectively). I think CleySpy are taking 'bookings' if you need to have a look round.
I think it depends if your budget has to include tripod and head, and whether you're looking at around 60mm (very transportable and good general purpose) or something larger or with greater magnification.
I think Opticron has released a bigger-bodied MM4 recently (if it's still called that) but i'm sure someone more up to speed on the current situation will chip in on that.

 

[asp09]

I think Opticron has released a bigger-bodied MM4 recently (if it's still called that) but i'm sure someone more up to speed on the current situation will chip in on that.

Yes, it’s the MM4 77, but it’s quite a bit more expensive - over £900.

Mark, given that the Celestron scope you are considering weighs 1889g, I assume that low weight is not a major priority for you. In that case, an excellent choice for £700 would be this used Opticron HR80:
https://www.at-infocus.co.uk/product/opticron-hr80eda-c-w-sdl-v2-zoom-wf/

The HR80 used to be Opticron’s top-of-the-range scope but has now been discontinued. In Focus also have the smaller HR66 available for £539. I tried one of these once in the shop and was very impressed. Just remember that larger objective lenses are better for digiscoping and long-distance viewing, at the expense of extra size and weight.

 

[jring]

Hi,

good examples of the Regal can be nice, as with most scopes, regardless of manufacturer. My advice is to only buy what you will be able to test - either in person before buying or inside the return period when buying online from a store with a no questions asked return policy.

Being able to see a nice and sharp image with an easy to find point of best focus at the maximum magnification on a cool overcast day (to eliminate seeing) should be the minimum requirement.

If you want to go further, you either print out a resolution target and try to find results for a similar size scope online and compare or you can read up on star-testing telescopes, which can be done either at night with real stars or with an artificial star during daytime.

Remember though, that the star test is a very delicate test and also shows minute aberrations (which will be totally irrelevant at the magnifications used for spotting scopes).

Veteran astronomers who have star tested hundreds or thousands of scopes tend to remember the few perfect examples (if any) they have seen. I personally have not seen one yet.

Joachim

 

[Binastro]

It depends what one calls perfect.

Testing perhaps 200 scopes, only one comes to mind, a 1950s 100mm Soviet Maksutov. But this has a central obstruction.

An essentially perfect scope was my Pentax 100mm f/12.
This would easily take 300x and was tested at 400x.

My Jim Hysom 6 inch f/8 Newtonian and 14 1/2 inch f/5 Newtonian may have been essentially perfect

I do not consider a star test to be the ultimate test.
I think that planetary fine faint detail is a tougher test.

Horace Dall's 8 inch Maksutov was as far as I could tell perfect. At 400x through his attic window the detail seen on Mars was quite incredible.
His 108mm f/30 camera obscura was also perfect.

My 520mm f/3.9 Newtonian had a 1/20th wave mirror, but the image was not perfect because of the atmosphere and difficulty getting almost perfect collimation single handedly.

I don't think spotting scopes reach these levels of perfection.

I expect a top telescope to work well at 75x per inch of aperture, and the best not to have image breakdown at 100x per inch of aperture.
Spotting scopes don't seem to reach these standards.

Regards,
B.

 

[jring]

Hi Binastro,

it seems you have had the pleasure to own quite a lot of very nice scopes - I would have loved to look through one of them.

I might have star tested a few ten different scopes and have not seen anything with really identical intra- and extrafocal patterns...

As for planetary detail - yes, that is also a great test and much more enjoyable than star testing.
Unfortunately it takes planets in the correct position, even better seeing, quite a few high mag EPs to get just the right magnification and last but not least quite a bit more experience...

Joachim, who really should take the time to make that 8" f8.5 1/10 wave mirror into a telescope... should be quite nice

 

[Tringa45]

(Pesky waders)

That is offensive!!!

Angry Tringa (John)

 

[StoneCold1664]

Many thanks for the responses.

The £600 is purely for the scope. I have a manfrotto tripod and suitable head.
I must confess I hadn't considered weight at all although I am keen on digiscoping. Would a 60mm still be reasonable for this.
I do tend to walk 3 or 4 miles when out and about although I will often stop in one place for a couple of hours half way round.

 

[paddy7]

I am blessed with having two scopes - an 88mm on aluminum tripod and Manfrotto AH500 head, and a 65mm on carbon legs and a Sirui VA5 head. I know which one i'd take for a walk!
Actually for digiscoping, i find little difference between the two (although this is just a mobile phone/Phoneskope set up - nothing fancy....). Fortunately, the Phoneskope fits both scopes equally.

 

[CMB]

Weight and ease of carrying are a bit subjective.

A 60mm-65mm scope (and tripod spec’d to match) are lighter and easier to carry than a corresponding 80mm setup. But an 80mm scope may be able to resolve more detail, and gather more light, than a 60-65mm scope. Depending on your digiscoping setup light gathering ability and resolution may help.

The weak point in digiscoping with a phone is the phone’s tiny image sensor rather than the scope’s objective lens size. People may disagree with me on that. A better quality camera, with a larger image sensor, will begin to show the difference in the resolution capability of the scope sizes. But if your digiscoping will be with a smartphone, then either size scope will do the job.

In terms of carrying a larger vs smaller scope... Backpacks/load carriers make carrying a heavier setup over long distances easier. The practicality of using a backpack/load carrier depends: will you be hiking several miles to the destination and then setting up the scope, or will you be using the scope while hiking.

Think about how you will most likely use the scope, and then what weight you are willing to carry around to use like that.

My 80mm setup weighs about 12 lbs (5.4 kgs), and the 65mm setup weighs about 7 lbs (3 kgs). I don’t have carbon fiber tripods. I’ve regularly carried both several miles. I carry the 80mm scope when I know there will be stuff I want to see in as much detail as possible. I carry the 65mm setup more at the times when I’m not sure if something will be present but want a scope with me to make sure I don’t miss something. The 80mm setup is more stable in wind because its tripod is sturdier (and weighs more) than the tripod used for the 65mm scope.

 

[asp09]

I carry the 80mm scope when I know there will be stuff I want to see in as much detail as possible. I carry the 65mm setup more at the times when I’m not sure if something will be present but want a scope with me to make sure I don’t miss something. The 80mm setup is more stable in wind because its tripod is sturdier (and weighs more) than the tripod used for the 65mm scope.

This is exactly how I use my two scopes (MM4 60 & 82mm Kowa). I end up using the small scope the majority of the time, but when I go to see a particular bird or in windy or murky conditions, the heavier scope/tripod/head really come into their own. I think a two scope solution is ideal, but if I had to have only one scope, I would probably split the difference and go for a 65mm.

 

[paddy7]

When faced with these 'same tool for different jobs' dilemmas, i have developed a strange little formula, which i now apply to most things requiring a bit of investment (and it seems to have worked so far). I look for something that gets an 8/10 for 85-90% of what i do, and can get to around 6/10 on the rest of it.

I realised previously i was basing purchases on the hardest thing i was expecting a piece of kit to do - and then rarely ever doing it!
Of course, if you're shelling out two grand on the either of the new Swaro or Zeiss binoculars, you might expect 10/10 all the time - but i'm not!

 

[Singlereed]

I can also vouch for the Opticron MM4/60 and SDLv3 eyepiece - cost me £719 new a few weeks ago including stay on case. I’ve been very happy with its performance and handling. It’s also quite compact and light. Regarding Digiscoping I plan to do a write up as I’ve tried several ‘ways’ - an adaptor that replaces the camera lens and fits over the eyepiece; an adaptor that connects the camera directly to the scope and I’m also waiting for a step ring to try connecting the eyepiece adaptor to a short standard lens. They all have pros and cons but none is anywhere close to the results I get with a long telephoto lens on my camera. The other way I’ve tried is a Phoneskope adaptor on my iphone and quite frankly, that’s one of the cheapest and by far the more practical way of doing it. I have got some quite acceptable results and it doesn’t mean much rearrangement or adjustment of kit. Furthermore, the phone does the fine focus. All I’d say is don’t expect much from connecting a camera to the scope, at least not in my experience. I don’t know if that helps.