Stargazing with the Beaverlab Finder TW2 Purveyor of optics Beaverlab has unveiled its an inexpensive telescope for wannabe star-gazers: the Finder TW2. The company sent us one to try out, and our results were… mixed. The predecessor of the TW2 is the TW1, which can be picked up for $369 in Pro guise. The TW2 will retail at $499 or can be purchased for $329 as an …
That's odd. A 6" scope should easily resolve Saturn's rings (even an 80mm does that). Maybe your C6 is out of collimation, or the tube wasn't cooled down to ambient temperature. The latter causes thermal currents within the optical tube, and these completely ruin the view. I need to leave my C8 out for about 45 minutes before the view stabilizes.
When I was a kid living in the countryside it was easy to be sitting on the lawn in the darkness and looking with my telescope to see stars, the moon, and other planets instead of my daily bird watching. Nowadays it's difficult because there is too much street lighting and house lighting everywhere at night. When I was a kid it was wonderful to hear about science on the BBC radio and then just look, it was very helpful to me as a kid learning what I was seeing at night.
"When I was a kid living in the countryside it was easy to be sitting on the lawn in the darkness and looking with my telescope to see stars, the moon, and other planets"
Even a suburban garden wasn't too bad in the 70s and 80s, though I envy you the luxury of a country garden. And then the council built a bloody great roundabout on my doorstep, complete with oodles of lighting. One hobby gone virtually over night :(
And they'll tell you that this is far too small a telescope to expect a detailed view of Saturn. At that price, the optics are likely to be low-quality, so you're going to get a lot of chromatic aberration, and the image quality is going to deteriorate rapidly if you try to shift to higher magnifications. It's an unfortunate but unavoidable truth that if you want to take good pictures of objects like Saturn, you'll need to be prepared to spend well over a thousand pounds/dollars.
It's an 80mm refractor so in terms of light grab equivalent to a reflector in perhaps the 5-6" range and should be capable of the rings of Saturn (even in their current comparatively skinny orientation) and the zones and belts of Jupiter. The Cassini Division and Great Red Spot are more challenging, you may well need lucky imaging techniques on a scope such as this. Yes the rings of Saturn themselves should be a given, even with cheap handheld 7x binoculars I can see it is not round, either a rugby ball or diamond shape with them in a more favourable orientation. With my Canon image stabilised bins I can make them out as rings at only 12x.
But this strikes me as more of an overpriced price of junk. I note the Indigogo page makes no mention of the optical design, it doesn't even mention the word "refractor", yet alone a specific arrangement, I must draw a negative inference from that.
The pricing is comparable to the lower end Meade ETXes or Celestron SE's, both well respected ranges from recognised makes. Add a cheap webcam imager (Bresser do one for about £35 on Amazon) and you have something that does everything this does only better and since both those scopes are GoTo models will actually point themselves at what you want to look at.
<BackInTheDay>
When I was a teenager I got a 3-inch refractor with tripod and a couple of eyepieces new for about £35. This plus a copy of Norton's provided a good start to finding my way around and identifying the (brightest) nebulae and clusters; it did show Saturn's rings, but IIRC only as a single ring around the planet (NB: ring tilt angle as seen from Earth varies over the years). I remember also a 'green' star which for some reason I thought particuarly cool.
Of course this was no use for photography, for that you needed longer exposures which meant replacing the tripod with an equatorial mount, i.e. one that enabled the telescope to follow the (apparent) movement of the stars, ideally motorised to save a lot of fiddling about - way too expensive for me! The telescope had limited non-astronomical use because it showed everything upside down - you don't add light-absorbing optics unnecessarily.
</BITD>
> when pointed at nearer objects, such as the Moon.
I was under the impression the Moon was a unique body in terms of proximity (and more importantly: relative size and brightness). So given the plural in the text, I'd love to know what other nearer objects I have apparently missed out on seeing.
(And I do hope nobody tries imaging the Sun without the correct filtering)
> Jupiter & Mars are nearer than Saturn
Sure, but nothing beats seeing the rings (if the angle is right)! Because standing half an hour in the dark and cold just to see a peculiarly colored dot is boring.
If you want to get anything more than "okay, now let's go back inside/home now" from your victims spectators, you need to show them something more: Jupiter's red spot is a must-see, but people really start getting amazed when they see "with their own eyes" Saturn's rings and/or any moons around a planet (Jupiter is pretty good for that, having 4 bigger ones among its 95 moons)...
When I was very young (50+ years ago), a next door neighbour had a reflecting telescope (no idea of size or spec but he had a concrete base in the garden to mount it on) and I remember one night him just saying "have a look at that" and when I looked through the eyepiece it took me a while to work out what I was seeing, because it wasn't round like Mars that I'd seen before. It was Saturn with enough ring tilt so that the overall view was an oval with a couple of dark spots. Really cool, still remember the wow factor.
I had a Celestron NexStar 127 SLT for quite a long time and you could easily see Saturn's rings, Jupiter's 4 main moons, some fuzz on Mars. The killer where I live has been LED street lights ramping up light pollution and the insane amount of distribution parts (Magna Park being one of the worst) with insane levels of lighting.
Add a planetary camera and I had some decent images as well.
I also have an 72mm APO for deep sky. Both have not been out for years now as there is simply too much light. We can see Orion's 4 corners and just about the belt, that is it.
> Just don't be surprised when nobody sends anything else for "review".
On the other hand, who trusts the opinion of a site which ever only gushes? If a site with a reputation of severity does say something good about your product, it really means something, so I wouldn't be surprised companies would keep sending them their stuff.
Unless of course thart product is so bad only a YouTube "Influencer" could say something positive about it with a straight face... Horses for courses.
> So given the plural in the text, I'd love to know what other nearer objects I have apparently missed out on seeing.
The pretty lady living on the other side of the street I guess...
After all from what I get it's just a glorified monocular (half a binocular), not really a tool for astronomical observation. The manufacturer admits targeting a very specific public, the social media junkies ("is more user-friendly for quick viewing and sharing").
People wanting to really watch stuff out there need a bigger magnification, a better resolution, and, most of all, an equatorial mount: At any bigger magnification (for planet watching for instance) you have to track your target constantly because Earth keeps turning under your feet, and your object keeps creeping diagonally out of your picture, rather fast actually...
People wanting to really watch stuff out there need a bigger magnification, a better resolution, and, most of all, an equatorial mount: At any bigger magnification (for planet watching for instance) you have to track your target constantly because Earth keeps turning under your feet, and your object keeps creeping diagonally out of your picture, rather fast actually...
Magnification is the spec of the likes of the Argos catalogue because they sound impressive and are cheap to supply, in reality here in the UK it is very rarely worth going above perhaps 150x because the "seeing" (atmospheric stability) is such that you don't actually gain anything. I do most of my observing with eyepieces giving 40, 62 and 80x power, I have higher power eyepieces but they are much less commonly used. If anything I'd prefer a lower powered eyepiece that shows more of the sky but then you hit the limits of the telescope design.
If there's a single key metric astronomers look at it is aperture, the diameter of the tube, which controls the light grab, i.e. how faint an object you can see.
> I have higher power eyepieces but they are much less commonly used
Same here: For an occasional use, i.e. wanting to amuse kids and friends, IMHO a personal telescope just needs to be able to resolve Saturn's rings (when available).
Obviously the location is the most important thing, in or near any bigger urban center a telescope is pretty much useless, a good pair of binoculars would be a much better investment. But it can be interesting for those living in the boonies, or those having a second home in the wilderness (hunting/fishing lodge or some such).
Exactly so, which makes it in some respects a non-starter. When I was ill-informed enough to buy a telescopic camera lens I had not realised in my excitement that even a (relatively) static Moon would disappear from view at the slightest jerk of the lens or camera. I do not know how twitchers (which I am not) encourage an exotic bird way over there in the jungle to stand still and pose so they can grab that unique shot. Without a mechanism for minuscule adjustments such a toy is almost unusable.
The saying goes that you can observe the Sun through a telescope twice, once with your left eye and once with your right eye.
The safe way is to project the image of the Sun on a white surface held some distance behind a small (20 mm diameter) binocular. At the moment the Sun is quite active and you will see several sunspots and be able to observe the Sun's rotation.
> The safe way is to project the image of the Sun
It's also the cheapest method. To watch the sun directly you need very expensive filters, even more expensive because ideally you'd put them on the front end (wide end) of the telescope, not the eyepiece, thus requiring a huge diameter filter.
(This is because else the interior of the telescope will heat up (sun + magnifying glass...), which can create temporary or lasting problems like warping, or damage the lens coating.)
The whole aperture filters are relatively cheap, perhaps £10 or so for perhaps a square foot of suitably rated Mylar solar film and a homemade mount for it. It's when you want to look at specific wavelengths, e.g. Hα that things get pricey with eyepiece filters in addition to the whole aperture filters already described.
And no, eyepiece projection of the Sun on a refractor such as this is generally fine, it is reflecting scopes where this is not advisable due to a heat build up behind the secondary mirror.
There are definitely better astro photography devices out there, but as several people have noted, a telescope with an equatorial drive is virtually essential for planetary photos.
If you are just after "sky" photos, ie nebulae, constellations, sky timelapses etc., cameras such as the Dwarf2 and the upcoming Dwarf3 are very good - and there are others that I'm not very familiar with.
Forum site "Cloudy Nights" is a good place to start to get advice.
OK I don't know if Saturn itself was a good target when this was tested, but it is about 80-90% of the time it's in the sky.
I first saw Saturn in a 50mm refractor, and it was small but it was clearly Saturn and it's a big deal, like it's real, and you can see it - by walking outside and looking up!
With an 80mm lens 500mm focal, it should be quite clear, again small but unmistakable - 90% of the time.
Now, maybe the magnification is also fixed, at too low power?? Or the optics are really, truly poor? But decent optics are pretty easy these days. The fancy electronics aren't going to help much with Saturn, but they should certainly be able to find and show it.
Basically, I have nothing to add to this ... except, it you're in the market for a refractor for just a little more money, you could do worse than this one:
https://www.amazon.com/Sky-Watcher-Telescope-Portable-Alt-Az-Tripod/dp/B07SYBPVJF
I've had my hands on one a couple times (a friend's kid bought it, they sometimes bring it up here to get away from most city lights) ... it's not exactly a professional model, but it works as it says on the tin and seems to be built well enough to survive a teenager. The thing doubles as a fairly decent spotting scope. No, it's not perfect ... but it's good enough for a kid to figure out how far they want to take the hobby.
I have a Newtonian that's about the same barrel size and I can just about make out Saturn. It's kind of a big deal the first time you spot it, once you realise what that odd looking blob actually is. There's very little detail at this optical size, but with a 2x lens you can clearly see a blob with a hoop around it. It's more impressive than Jupiter (that's pretty much just a bright dot).
A far bigger problem is that without a proper motorised mounting, things are simply moving too quickly to make any serious photography useful. My phone has a starlight long exposure mode (about 30~40 seconds) and even that produces photos showing movement.
Here's a real time video I made of the full moon passing through my telescope's view: https://youtu.be/aLB79Uv6a_Q
If a was looking for a specific camera for a telescope, JPEG only output would be a big red flag. I can understand having it as an easy option for children and beginners, but it's a serious omission not to be able to save in raw form. I have a basic digital camera (that I rarely use as my phone, frankly, makes better photos for things where zoom isn't necessary) and even that has the option. Something that is common in astronomy is to take multiple photos and merge them together, and for that you really don't want to be fighting the JPEG artefacts.
I looked for photos on the funding page and, oh my, the design of that spotter scope is dreadful. You want a mirror on the end so you can look into it sideways (just like I do with my telescope). The only part that needs to be accurate is the cross hairs (it does have cross hairs, doesn't it?) need to line up with where the telescope is actually pointing.
The second you see "500x magnification" and "AI Infused" and a complete lack of mention of a drive on the system, you know you have a problem.
Typical rule of thumb for telescopes say never use more than 40x magnification per inch of aperture with a telescope - 95% of the time you're just magnifying blur.
AI Infused in imaging means the accuracy of the representation presented to you will be suspect. You might just as well Google an image.
But, most importantly without a drive its only good for the brighter planets, the Moon and the Sun (filtered).
This system is way behind the curve of the Seestar50 and the Dwarf II.
Anyone notice that there's not even a mention as to whether or not the objective is even achromatic?
"The Register" is not doing itself any favors by lending credibility to a device which is outclassed--in spades--by any offering from any reputable telescope manufacturer, and for $100-250. (One can even buy a 4½ reflector with an equatorial mount for less than $150.00!) See, as one example, among very, very many examples:
Celestron – StarSense Explorer LT 80AZ--$230
https://www.celestron.com/products/starsense-explorer-lt-80az
With an 80mm refractor and an eyepiece you should be easily able to see Saturn's rings - normally. However, they are currently only slightly inclined to our point of view and so less obvious.
Planets and the Moon should work well - even in Trafalgar Square - as they are so bright.
But dimmer stuff ideally needs tracking. I have seen no mention of that in the review. Also, is it goto or do you have to point the thing (something 95% of the population will fail on - even for the planets)?
Might have been better to draft in someone who had used a telescope more often to evaluate it.
And BTW the Seestar and Dwarf II smart telescopes may be a better bet and similarly priced.
You get a small sac of sand, and a big sac of hematite rocks: First you'll have to melt the sand to glass, to create the optics. Then you build a backyard blast furnace (charcoal not supplied) to extract iron from the hematite ore, iron with which you can build the telescope's structure.
You'll really be able to say "I made this with my own hands"!
Optics on kickstarter? That always ends well... haha. Any number of odd camera designs have not lived up to the hype, why not just get a scope from a well-known maker instead? No mention of other scopes available cheaper, either.
What is this, a paid advertisement masquerading as a test article?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
