Switch to mobile style

nexstar 4se good or rubbish

Ask your fellow astronomers to solve your telescope queries

RE: nexstar 4se good or rubbish

Postby spoon » Sun May 03, 2009 11:50 am

regarding post 8, what do you expect when you are given a crappy question?

What would happen if someone went on Top Gear website and asked "I want a family saloon that will manage off-road racing and some speed trials and must be able to tow a 20ft caravan but I don't want to spend more than £5,000 new"?

You over-egg the answers too.

"You won't get good astrophotography for £300" is right. Now, they can decide if they want to spend more money or not bother with astrophotography. When they have experience, they will likely have a book or three and they may try it to see what they want to do.

"Get a dob" is as good an answer as the question "I want a new scope for £300. What should I get?". You can get a dob for £300 and it's a telescope. Want a better answer? Ask a better question.

And so on.

Here's some useful hints and tips that can be applied to ANY blogging question:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Read.

Learn.
spoon
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:52 pm

RE: nexstar 4se good or rubbish

Postby uea74 » Sun May 03, 2009 6:46 pm

The question why is the 4SE a Mak was asked as the 5, 6 and 8SE are all SCT's.
Simply would have suspected that the whole SE range would therefore be SCT's and not have one that was a Mak!

Simple question that really wanted just a simple answer. I assume that you don't actually know why that decision was made by Celestron.
uea74
 
Posts: 459
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:54 pm

RE: nexstar 4se good or rubbish

Postby spoon » Sun May 03, 2009 8:43 pm


[quote]ORIGINAL: uea74

The question why is the 4SE a Mak was asked as the 5, 6 and 8SE are all SCT's.
Simply would have suspected that the whole SE range would therefore be SCT's and not have one that was a Mak!

Simple question that really wanted just a simple answer. I assume that you don't actually know why that decision was made by Celestron.
[/quote]

Ask Celestron marketing.

Simple answer for you.

NOTE: one possibility (and I have no idea as to whether this was the reason) is that the central obstruction of an SCT is larger than the Mak's, so at the smaller sizes, the SCT loses too much light. That may explain why you don't get a 4" SCT, but doesn't say why they offer the Mak.

For which you'll need to ask Celestron marketing. Not their customers.
spoon
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:52 pm

RE: nexstar 4se good or rubbish

Postby neil0748 » Mon May 04, 2009 12:36 am

Thank's for the info boy's realy appreciate it.Why do the 4se have a lens on the front of it, is it better to have one with or without ?.
neil0748
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:57 pm

RE: nexstar 4se good or rubbish

Postby spoon » Mon May 04, 2009 11:10 am

Use Google.

Finding out for yourself is a much better way to learn than to just ask someone.

And in the short case, does it matter? Either you trust the manufacturer to make the right design choices for you or you educate yourself and make your own.
spoon
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:52 pm

RE: nexstar 4se good or rubbish

Postby sparrow » Wed May 06, 2009 2:53 am

Going back to the originaL question as to why people are geting better images wih a Skywatcher 250PX than with a nexstar 4se, the original poster should consider the following:-

1. The Skywatcher is a 10" scope - a much bigger aperture wih much more light gathering capacity. It is a newtonian scope with a shorter (faster) focal length than the nexstar, therefore making it more suitable for imaging.
2. Other than this it's impossible to say for sure what oher reasons there may be - the poster does not say what camera, filters, software (capture and processing) they are using, or how long they've been imaging.

The best advice I was given 18 monhs ago when I returned to this hobby, is not to have unrealistic expectations of the equipment and what it can do. Don't be fooled by the wonderful images that are displayed on the box that the scope comes in - they have little resemblance to what can actually be seen or imaged with the scope.

Unfortunately, results tend to be closely linked to budget. (Obviously skill and experience are important too). With my first scope - a Celestron firstscope 112mm, Saturn was a fuzzy blob with ears. I didn't have a laptop so was hooking up to my computer in the house through a series of USB cables - I had to keep running in and out to focus and keep the image in the viewfinder. 18 months later and about £1200 lighter in my pocket I'm much further on and making a start on deep sky imaging, but there is still a long way to go. To make any substanial progress i'm going to have to start spending some serious money to upgrade my equipment.

There's nothing wrong with the nexstar 4se but it's an all rounder and not ideally suited to imaging. It should be possible to get some reasonable lunar images with it, but Saturn is still going to be pretty small when imaged as the 4se just won't give the magnification needed.

My advice would be to concentrate on imaging the moon for now and perfecting technique with capturing and processing the images. Then you can decide where you want to go with the hobby in the future and purhasing equipment better suited to what you want to do.
sparrow
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:57 pm

RE: nexstar 4se good or rubbish

Postby brianb » Wed May 06, 2009 9:50 am

[quote]It should be possible to get some reasonable lunar images with it, but Saturn is still going to be pretty small when imaged as the 4se just won't give the magnification needed.
[/quote]
This is not the real issue here. Someone with a [i]good[/i] 4" scope [i]and excellent seeing[/i] should be able to make images which are as good as those of us with larger scopes & horrid seeing can manage. The focal length of a "short" scope can be increased with Barlow or eyepiece projection; the difficulty is that focusing the faint image becomes difficult, especially when (as usual) "swimming pool" turbulence is continually distorting the image.

The examples of the 4SE I've seen have good optics. Sure the mount isn't up to unguided long exposure deep sky work (but then the price tag is short of a couple of trailing zeros) but it's fine for planetary & lunar work.

And aperture is of course helpful ... more so for visual work than for for imaging.

brianb
 
Posts: 5513
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:49 pm

RE: nexstar 4se good or rubbish

Postby chaletreynard » Sat May 16, 2009 5:36 pm

I bought a 4se and unfortunately the GOTO was painful. Forever going dead and even a wind gust would mean realignment. As previously discussed there is no manual overide of slew controls and this can be a nuisance. After a month I was looking to upgrade as the images of Jupiter on a relatively calm night with no turbulence were disappointing. You almost had to imagine the belting, though Lunar observing was good. Autumnal evenings made Dew appear within 20 minutes, so I temporarily have bought a 2nd Hand Celestron 10" Dob and a skyscout riding piggyback which will do until I win the Lottery.
chaletreynard
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:58 pm

RE: nexstar 4se good or rubbish

Postby brianb » Sat May 16, 2009 6:10 pm

[quote]After a month I was looking to upgrade as the images of Jupiter on a relatively calm night with no turbulence were disappointing. You almost had to imagine the belting, though Lunar observing was good. Autumnal evenings made Dew appear within 20 minutes,[/quote]
Nobody in the UK got a good go at Jupiter last year as it was so low in the sky. The seeing was awful.

Dew taking 20 mins to form? I'm usually swimming by then .... a dew cap and/or heater strip is [i]essential[/i] for any scope with an exposed front element, like I've said before it's close to criminal to sell Maks or SCTs without them.

brianb
 
Posts: 5513
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:49 pm

RE: nexstar 4se good or rubbish

Postby chaletreynard » Sat May 16, 2009 6:10 pm

Maybe I was too eager to give the 4se the boot. But having my 10" primary at the bottom at the bottom of a 5ft tube certainly helps cut the dew build up. Brianb your comments are noted, thanks.
chaletreynard
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:58 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Equipment Advice

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests