Comparison BRESSER Pollux 150/1400 EQ3 vs BRESSER Pollux 150/750 EQ3

The focal length of the telescope lens.

Focal length — this is the distance from the optical centre of the lens to the plane on which the image is projected (screen, film, matrix), at which the telescope lens will produce the clearest possible image. The longer the focal length, the greater the magnification the telescope can provide; however, keep in mind that magnification figures are also related to the focal length of the eyepiece used and the diameter of the lens (see below for more on this). But what this parameter directly affects is the dimensions of the device, more precisely, the length of the tube. In the case of refractors and most reflectors (see "Design"), the length of the telescope approximately corresponds to its focal length, but in mirror-lens models they can be 3-4 times shorter than the focal length.

Also note that the focal length is taken into account in some formulas that characterize the quality of the telescope. For example, it is believed that for good visibility through the simplest type of refracting telescope — the so-called achromat — it is necessary that its focal length is not less than D ^ 2/10 (the square of the lens diameter divided by 10), and preferably not less than D ^ 2/9.

The highest resolution magnification that a telescope can provide. In fact, this is the magnification at which the telescope provides maximum detail of the image and allows you to see all the small details that, in principle, it is possible to see in it. When the magnification is reduced below this value, the size of visible details decreases, which impairs their visibility, when magnified, diffraction phenomena become noticeable, due to which the details begin to blur.

The maximum resolving magnification is less than the maximum useful one (see above) — it is somewhere around 1.4 ... 1.5 of the lens diameter in millimetres (different formulas give different values, it is impossible to determine this value unambiguously, since much depends on the subjective sensations of the observer and features of his vision). However, it is worth working with this magnification if you want to consider the maximum amount of detail — for example, irregularities on the surface of the Moon or binary stars. It makes sense to take a larger magnification (within the maximum useful one) only for viewing bright contrasting objects, and also if the observer has vision problems.

The smallest magnification that the telescope provides. As in the case of the maximum useful increase (see above), in this case we are not talking about an absolutely possible minimum, but about a limit beyond which it makes no sense from a practical point of view. In this case, this limit is related to the size of the exit pupil of the telescope — roughly speaking, a speck of light projected by the eyepiece onto the observer's eye. The lower the magnification, the larger the exit pupil; if it becomes larger than the pupil of the observer's eye, then part of the light, in fact, does not enter the eye, and the efficiency of the optical system decreases. The minimum magnification is the magnification at which the diameter of the exit pupil of the telescope is equal to the size of the pupil of the human eye at night (7 – 8 mm); this parameter is also called "equipupillary magnification". Using a telescope with eyepieces that provide lower magnification values is considered unjustified.

Usually, the formula D/7 is used to determine the equal-pupillary magnification, where D is the diameter of the lens in millimetres (see above): for example, for a model with an aperture of 140 mm, the minimum magnification will be 140/7 = 20x. However, this formula is valid only for night use; when viewed during the day, when the pupil in the eye decreases in size, the actual values of the minimum magnification will be larger — on the order of D / 2.

The luminosity of a telescope characterizes the total amount of light "captured" by the system and transmitted to the observer's eye. In terms of numbers, aperture is the ratio between the diameter of the lens and the focal length (see above): for example, for a system with an aperture of 100 mm and a focal length of 1000 mm, the aperture will be 100/1000 = 1/10. This indicator is also called "relative aperture".

When choosing according to aperture ratio, it is necessary first of all to take into account for what purposes the telescope is planned to be used. A large relative aperture is very convenient for astrophotography, because allows a large amount of light to pass through and allows you to work with faster shutter speeds. But for visual observations, high aperture is not required — on the contrary, longer-focus (and, accordingly, less aperture) telescopes have a lower level of aberrations and allow the use of more convenient eyepieces for observation. Also note that a large aperture requires the use of large lenses, which accordingly affects the dimensions, weight and price of the telescope.

The resolution of the telescope, determined according to the Rayleigh criterion.

Resolution in this case is an indicator that characterizes the ability of a telescope to distinguish individual light sources located at a close distance, in other words, the ability to see them as separate objects. This indicator is measured in arc seconds (1 '' is 1/3600 of a degree). At distances smaller than the resolution, these sources (for example, double stars) will merge into a continuous spot. Thus, the lower the numbers in this paragraph, the higher the resolution, the better the telescope is suitable for looking at closely spaced objects. However, note that in this case we are not talking about the ability to see objects completely separate from each other, but only about the ability to identify two light sources in an elongated light spot that have merged (for the observer) into one. In order for an observer to see two separate sources, the distance between them must be approximately twice the claimed resolution.

The Rayleigh criterion is a theoretical value and is calculated using rather complex formulas that take into account, in addition to the diameter of the telescope lens (see above), the wavelength of the observed light, the distance between objects and to the observer, etc. Separately visible, according to this method, are objects located at a greater distance from each other than for the Dawes limit described above; therefore, for the same tel...escope, the Rayleigh resolution will be lower than that of Dawes (and the numbers indicated in this paragraph are correspondingly larger). On the other hand, this indicator depends less on the personal characteristics of the user: even inexperienced observers can distinguish objects at a distance corresponding to the Rayleigh criterion.

The size of the “seat” for the eyepiece, provided in the design of the telescope. Modern models use sockets of standard sizes — most often 0.96", 1.25" or 2".

This parameter is useful, first of all, if you want to buy eyepieces separately: their bore diameter must match the characteristics of the telescope. However, 2" sockets allow the installation of 1.25" eyepieces through a special adapter, but the reverse option is not possible. Note that telescopes with a rim diameter of 2 "are considered the most advanced, because in addition to eyepieces, many additional accessories (distortion correctors, photo adapters, etc.) are produced for this size, and 2" eyepieces themselves provide a wider field of view (although they are more expensive). In turn, "eyes" at 1.25 "are used in relatively inexpensive models, and at 0.96" — in the simplest entry-level telescopes with small lenses (usually up to 50 mm).

The type of mirror installed in a reflector or combined model (see “Design”).

Let us recall that the mirror in such models performs the same function as the objective lens in classical refracting telescopes - that is, it is directly responsible for magnifying the image. The type of mirror is indicated by its general shape:

- Spherical. The most common option, which is primarily due to ease of production and, as a consequence, low cost. On the other hand, a spherical mirror, purely technically, is not capable of concentrating a beam of light as effectively as a parabolic one does. This causes distortions known as spherical aberrations; they can lead to a noticeable deterioration in sharpness, and this effect becomes most noticeable at high magnifications. True, there are telescopes that are practically not susceptible to this phenomenon - namely, long-focus models in which the focal length is 8 to 10 times the size of the mirror; however, such devices are bulky and heavy. In light of this, it is worth specifically looking for models with this type of mirrors mainly in two cases: either if the telescope is planned to be used at a relatively small magnification (for example, for observing the Moon, planets, constellations), or if you are not bothered by the dimensions and weight.

— Parabolic. Mirrors in the shape of a paraboloid of rotation almost perfectly concentrate the rays entering the telescope at the d...esired point in the optical system. Thanks to this, reflectors with such equipment provide a very clear image even at high magnification levels and regardless of the focal length. The main disadvantage of this type of mirror is the rather high cost associated with the complexity of production. So it makes sense to pay attention to parabolic reflectors primarily when the described advantages clearly outweigh; A typical example is the search for a relatively compact telescope for observing deep space objects.

The presence of a coma corrector in the scope of delivery of the telescope.

Coma is a special type of distortion (aberration) to which the reflectors of the Newtonian system are mainly subject. Coma leads to the fact that at the edges of the image, point sources of light (primarily stars) begin to blur and become similar to comets, whose tails are directed from the centre of the image; and the greater the distance from this centre, the stronger the lubrication. This is not particularly critical for observations, but it can noticeably "ruin the life" of an astrophotographer — especially since it is desirable to use fast telescopes for shooting, and an increase in aperture leads to an increase in coma.

Correctors are used to eliminate this phenomenon. Such devices are lenses of a special design, installed behind the main mirror (when viewed in the direction of the light). At the same time, if the elimination of coma is fundamentally important for you, it is best to purchase a telescope that was originally supplied with a similar lens: it will guarantee that the telescope is compatible with the corrector in principle, and will also save you the hassle of finding and selecting such an accessory.

The method of attaching the tube to the mount provided in the telescope.

Nowadays, three main such methods are used: rings, screws, plate. Here is a more detailed description of each of them:

— Mounting rings. A pair of rings with screw terminals mounted on a mount. The inner diameter of the rings is approximately equal to the thickness of the pipe, and tightening the screws ensures a tight fit. In this case, the telescope tube, usually, does not have any special stops and is held in the rings solely due to friction. In fact, this allows, by loosening the screws, to move the pipe forward or backward, choosing the optimal position for a particular situation. However, one should be careful here: too much displacement of the mount from the middle, especially in refractors with a long tube length, can upset the balance of the entire structure.
Anyway, the rings are quite simple and at the same time convenient and practical, and compatibility with them is limited solely by the diameter of the tube. Thus, it is this type of fastening that is most popular nowadays. Its disadvantages include the need to independently select a fairly stable position of the telescope, as well as monitor the reliable tightening of the screws — loosening them can lead to the tube slipping and even falling out of the rings.

— Mounting plate. In fact, we are...talking about a dovetail mount. A special rail is provided for this on the telescope body, and a platform with a groove on the mount. When installing the pipe on the mount, the rail slides into the groove from the end and is fixed with a special device such as a latch or screw.
One of the key advantages of mounting plates is the ease and speed of mounting and dismounting the telescope. So, unscrewing and tightening a single retainer screw is easier than fiddling with screw fastening or puffs on rings — especially since in many models this screw can be turned by hand, without special tools. And there is no need to talk about latches. The disadvantage of this option can be called exactingness in the quality of materials and manufacturing accuracy — otherwise, a backlash may appear that can noticeably "spoil the life" of the astronomer. In addition, such a mount has very limited possibilities for moving the telescope back and forth on the mount, or even does not have them at all; and the bars and slots can vary in shape and size, which makes it somewhat difficult to select third-party mounts.

— Mounting screws. Mounts with such a mount have a seat in the form of the letter Y, between the “horns” of which the telescope is installed. At the same time, it is attached to the horns on both sides with screws that are screwed directly into the tube; there are at least two screws on each side so that the pipe cannot rotate around the attachment point on its own.
In general, this fixation option is highly reliable and convenient in the process of using the telescope. The screws are tight, without backlash, hold the tube; when they are weakened, the very backlash may appear, but that’s all; in addition, the telescope will stay on the mount and will not fall if at least one screw remains at least partially tightened. In addition, the fixation point is usually located near the centre of gravity, which by default provides optimal balance and eliminates the need for the user to independently look for an attachment point. On the other hand, the installation and removal of the pipe in such mounts requires more time and hassle than in the systems described above; and the location of screw holes and mounting threads are generally different between models, and designs of this type are usually not interchangeable.