John

I've tried binoviewers a few times and currently have a set of the William Optics ones on loan from FLO. I've not really taken to them to be honest. I get nicely merged images and the view of the moon (for example) looks nice with both eyes but I've not felt them to be something essential in my toolkit. Maybe I'll become converted someday ?. Or possibly not.

Its best to align them with the scope optics using as distant an object as possible just for this reason.

Just another note on aligning the mount with Polaris before observing - a rough alignment of the right ascension axis with Polaris is sufficient for visual observing. I find that getting the "north" leg of the tripod (arrowed in the pic below) pointing in the direction of Polaris is sufficient to give reasonable tracking for visual observing. Imaging is different - the alignment needs to be much more accurate which is where the small telescope built into the RA axis comes into play.

You have got it right. It does seem a fairly basic way to mount a scope but it is the way it's generally done. Tighten the clamp and the smaller security screw onto the bar firmly. It will mark the bar but thats what the bar is for.

I was also thinking that the Pan 24 ticked all the OP's boxes with the exception of eye relief ! Plus he already owns one .....

Yes, things a looking a little brighter here on Monday afternoon too.

Sounds hopeful. I'm sort of in the SW but I can go further !

Getting eyepieces that are wide, well corrected at F/4.7, have decent eye relief and are light in weight is a tough order. To get the well corrected performance at fast focal ratios and good eye relief, quite a lot of large glass elements are needed with some radical curves on them and those are what weighs the most of course. Of those discussed here, I've owned the Nagler T4 22mm and thought it a very good performer and comfortable to view though. I now use the Ethos 21 and a Nagler 31 but those are definitely in the heavyweight category.

Reduced light pollution makes a lot of difference when observing deep sky objects. Hardly difference any when observing the Moon, planets and double stars. It's difficult to be precise but my guess is that he would need something like 150mm get anything like the views your 80mm will show of deep sky objects at your location Of course when he comes to your place, his 150 will outshine your 80mm by quite a margin ! Edit: then you will want to upgrade, then he will and so on and so on !

Is that the Gibraltar 5 Cleetus ?

I'm going to be there on Friday - hope to see FLO friends there

Imagers tend to prefer GOTO systems with both axes driven. The simple single axis drive system is handy for high power observing for not many £'s.

I've used good quality plossls and orthos in my F/5.3 12 inch dobsonian and they have worked very well. Your F/10.75 refractor will pose no challenges to such eyepieces

If you want a low cost single axis drive (RA) for the EQ5, Telescope House have one branded Orion in their clearance sale currently: https://www.telescopehouse.com/offers/clearance/truetrack-singlel-axis-drive.html

So was the design of a long focal length achromat refractor like your 93mm f/10.75. Well executed plossls and orthoscopics will serve very well in such a scope

Friday for me. Family stuff happening at the weekend.

A good decision I think. An undermounted scope is very frustrating.

Length has more impact than weight mostly but there are exceptions when the optical tube weight is close to the mount limit. With the weight of your scope I don't think it's possible to say with any certainty whether or not the star discovery mount would be able to handle it For low to medium magnifications it might do OK but become less easy to use with higher powers.

I'm glad that I managed to get a glimpse of the last one ! Still got my fingers crossed for Monday though.

Personally I would go for either a Telrad or a Rigel Quikfinder to use alongside the supplied optical finder and then think about upgrading the optical finder to a righ angle correct image one in due course. I use the word "Personally" here because I feel that finders are a personal preference thing. Over the years I've found having a right angle optical finder alongside a Rigel / Telrad works best for me with my dob. Others will find different approaches work best for them. No right or wrong answer really other than that you do need a finder of some sort on the scope !. Maybe the suggestion of going with what comes as stock with the scope then seeing how your preferences develop is the most sensible option ?

I've assumed that Anthony1979 is talking about the F/5 150P optical tube. I agree that the F/8 tube as used in the Skywatcher Skyliner 150P dob would not be suitable on the mount.

In terms of optical performance I don't think the Bresser would be better than the Skywatcher and £110 can be a lot of cash if you are starting out. One of the joys of dobs is that they can be modded over time to improve how they work but the Skywatcher 200P dob is very useable straight from the box in my view.

Skywatcher sell that mount with an F/5 150mm newtonian on it so I'm sure it would be OK for visual observing at least. Not for imaging though.

I expect the Earl of Rosse had a servant or two at the bottom end of the scope to tilt the primary while he was observing a star. Adjusting the secondary must have been risky though !

If it is going to be used for deep sky photography, an 8 inch newtonian needs a more stable mount than the EQ5. At least an HEQ5 and preferrably an EQ6. For a strong start to visual observing I think your shopping list is fine. I would get a Telrad if you can - it will make finding things easier than just using the stock 50mm optical finder. I've lost count of the number of happy owners of the Skywatcher 200P dobsonian that we have on this forum. I was one not so long ago and found the scope excellent