|
|
Bushnell Voyager 4.5 |
||||||||||
|
REVIEW ARCHIVES Refractors Barlow
Lenses LINKS FAVORITE LINKS NASA
|
|
The Review Why I Bought This I began to get into astronomy (again!) a few
months ago when my sister dragged out my father’s thirty year old Sears
60mm telescope. While she gave up after a night, I continued every time
there was a clear sky, and began searching the stars. After I discovered
M51 through this scope (which was, truthfully, nothing more than a barely
visible blurry dot-- but hey, it’s a whole other galaxy!) I began
yearning for something a little better than the department store variety
telescope. Living in southeatern Wisconsin in a big city means that light
pollution is a problem, and so I can use the best light bucket I can buy
to pick up all the objects I can. Initially I was going to go for another
refractor (a 80 or 90mm) but when I found the Bushnell Voyager for $150
and with a 4.5” aperture, I decided to give it a try despite
Bushnell’s track record for cheap scopes. As usual, after I got the ‘scope it rained
for a week. The Telescope Stuck inside for a week, I
quickly got acquainted with my Bushnell. It is a small, very light (11
lbs.) ‘scope that is highly portable. It has a ball and socket design:
the bottom of the ‘scope is the ball, and the small ‘tripod’ is the
socket, and the design gives the Voyager a high degree of maneuverability
(but also has it’s downsides to be explained later). The eye pieces are
1 1/4” (I’m grateful to see Bushnell is beginning to use better
quality optics), the 27mm being a Plossl and 5mm being a cheapo Ramsden.
The Plossl brings in a lot of light and allows you to many more stars than
you can with the naked eye in the city, but is really no better than a
pair of binoculars (estimated mag. 15x), and the Ramsden gives decent
views, but a better qualified astonomer might say otherwise (remember, I
was weaned off of department store optics). I am happy to say that the
‘scope was perfectly collimated right out of the box. The ‘scope
allows the user to collimate the secondary mirror, but the primary mirror
is fixed in position at the factory, which eliminates some of the upkeep
that comes with Newtonians. There is a shoulder strap that can be attached
to the ‘scope that allows you to carry it anywhere you want. The
Performance The ‘scope definitely
brings in a lot of light. Looking through the eyepiece gives you a view of
dozens of stars, much more than can be seen with the naked eye in a city.
They are all very sharp and crisp, although some of this crispness is lost
with the Ramsden (no surprise there). Double stars are particularly
spectacular and brilliant (at least in my opinion) with their sometimes
constrasting colors appearing vibrantly through the Plossl and the Ramsden.
The Moon is well received,
too. The Ramsden has a bit of a problem focusing properly (even at best
focus everything looks a bit... off), but the Plossl gives very
detailed views of the various maria and craters, and you can see the
splash marks extending out from Tycho rather clearly, too. In fact, I took
several pictures of the Moon with the Plossl eyepiece. Although they
turned out blurry and gave me a red Moon (which reminds me of the song
“Bad Moon Rising”), I’m surprised they turned out as well as they
did. The only thing the Plossl
can’t really do well is look at planets. I wasn’t sure if that red dot
was Mars or simply a red giant star-- the astigmatism surrounding the
planet is pretty bad, and makes it look like a star. The Ramsden manages
to resolve it into a tiny red disc, but there is still a faint halo effect
surrounding it. I have yet to see Jupiter or Saturn, so I’m afraid I
can’t report further on planetary bodies. The
Negatives WHY can’t I find Jupiter
or Saturn? Simple: the ball-and-socket design, while a seemingly brilliant
idea for easy use of the ‘scope, is incredibly frustrating to use. You
have to move the entire ‘scope with your hands, and obviously your own
self can never be as precise as slow motion controls on a equatorial
mounted telescope, which I was use to up until this point. The first few
nights made it difficult to find anything (Hell, it took me a couple of
minutes to find the Moon!) and would probably turn off an amateur rather
quickly. Compounding that fact was
the lack of a finderscope. It is extremely difficult to find
anything without one, especially if your like me and can’t tell a
magnitude 2 star for a magnitude 5. At least with the finderscope you can
usually find key stars quickly; without it, it’s just a guess (is that
Albireo or Altair?). I finally stole the finderscope from my father’s
Sears ‘scope and strapped it onto the Voyager. Even then it’s not
perfect, but at least I find things quicker. What makes mounting a
finderscope difficult is the massive ball at the bottom of the Voyager; I
have heard there are special finderscopes that are used on the Edmund
Astroscan that deal with this problem; possibly they might work on the
Voyager, but I can’t be sure. Barlow lenses don’t seem
to work with it. I bought a Meade short barlow, and not only are the
eyepieces a difficult fit, the ‘scope cannot focus with the barlow
attached. Bushnell also advertises
this ‘scope as good for astrophotography, and even sells a seperate
camera adapter. However, I can’t see how this thing can be used on
anything other than the Moon. Without a standard tripod mount you would
have to track objects using your hands, rather than precision clock
drives. It would be impossible to get any good pictures of planets or
stars or anything else worth the roll of film and your time. Shame on you,
Bushnell. The
Conclusion Despite the drawbacks of the Voyager (and don’t get me wrong, they aren’t just trivial things), I still like it. It’s like the Jeep of telescopes. It needs minimal maintenance, is very sturdy, is lightweight, and can be taken anywhere in almost any environment. It needs no time to set up and dismantle, making it a huge draw for people who just want to toss a telescope in the back of their car and drive into the woods to check out the night sky without the hassle. For the price it’s not a bad deal; then again, for the price you’re not going to find many Hubble-beating telescopes-- but you will find few others with the same light gathering capabilities and portability the Bushnell Voyager affords. Submitted by Tristan Kloss
- Jdikght@aol.com
- USA
|
