Naltar

Thanks for the tips, re. daylight use, I only mentioned it as a 'potential', it's all so easy to 'think' about taking it on a cycling trip, and very much different actually doing it. That said, SkyMax-102S AZ is... interesting (though 'mobile' daylight use is pretty much discounted given the weight, but it's not essential). Regards, N.

Again, my apologies for using the word 'good', which very much depends on who's using the word (and I should know that 'context rulez'). For an average person, a 'good' photo would be, I imagine, a 'relatively large' and sharp image of the Moon (yes, seriously) and, presumably, a photo of other planets big enough to distinguish them from a star. And, crucially, it's not the photo itself of course, as you can get better ones off 'internets', but a photo taken personally. Something to do with hunter mentality, perhaps And we're looking to buy a product for somebody who's never looked through a proper telescope, and who's been delighted to capture Moon images with her mobile phone, by putting the phone lens against the viewpiece of a horrible plastic toy scope worth perhaps up to 30 quid. I suspect 'anything' would be a _significant_ improvement over that. If interest is... sustained, then we'll be happy to look higher Regards, N.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough, when I meant 'good photos', I didn't mean 'professional-quality', etc. I meant it from a view-point of a teen-ager, from my observation, for teens, 'good-quality' is 128kbps mp3 files, and when you mention flac and 96khz etc, they give you a blank stare (I'm not arguing for this or that format, just by comparison). Likewise, 'good photos' for them is 'sharp / clearly visible, BIG objects (well, if big, then the Moon). p.s. unfortunately, the ZWO Seestar is way out of the budget. We generally don't mind spending a lot of money, though I realise that 600 quid is NOT 'a lot' in the scope 'business', but teens' interest are relatively short-lived, and then the purchase gets relatively little use as we have found out with other products, though I'm generally a fan of high-quality products in any field of consumer goods. If interest is sustained long enough, then we'd look at transfer from 'a decent one' to 'a better one'. p.s. I haven't looked at the FLO, no, thanks for this, I will have a look. Regards, N.

Hello, I would be grateful for any thoughts/comments and possibly advice on the 'classic' - beginner's telescope. Disclaimer: I'm not the end user, my teenage daughter (17) is. Our 1st telescope purchase, a good few years ago, was a 100% failure (we broke the eyepiece, or mis-attached it and broke it in the process, even before she ever saw the telescope). In the meantime, she's been using... what I can only describe as a cheap-and-nasty 'toy' (how did we get there?!) that we bought for our younger son who had a fleeting interest in birdwatching. Nevertheless, our daughter has kept her interest in astronomy (she's also into astrobiology now). I've done some basic research on scopes and settled, provisionally, on an Acuter voyager MAK-80 (approx. 165-170 quid), mostly based on the bbc sky at night review and lack of negative reviews elsewhere (other than one hilarious product description on grovers optics). What is additionally attractive to an idiot like me in this scope is that the setup is lightweight, 1.8kg, and comes with a ‘killer’ feature in a teenage context: mobile phone mount. Plus, if I understand correctly, with this scope mirror setup, the image is not reversed, so it can be used as a daylight scope. Occasionally I do take my son on cycling trips (wife and daughter don't enjoy this pastime, sadly), so the scope might get extra usage, as I hate when things sit unused. Obviously, the 'lightweight' aspect needs a mount / tripod and the combination of light / cheap / nasty has not escaped me The dilemma is another telescope in the price range of around 200 quid, Skywatcher Explorer 130. Do I understand it correctly, that with explorer 130 we’d be getting - on paper at least – a significantly 'better' magnification, aperture, plus a tripod (cheap & nasty, presumably) and a red dot finder, plus a couple of other accessories, but losing, primarily, on portability (the ota is about 3.5 kg v.1.8 kg of mak-80), uninverted daylight view and that ‘key’ accessory i.e. mobile phone mount? Whether I like it or not, taking good photos is VERY high on the teenage list of must-have factors. However, given that thread: - presumably it's not a major problem to get a mobile phone mount off ebay or aliexpress? Would anyone have specific recommendations, before I end up with a pile of mostly-useless plastic mounts? Ali / ebay IS like a box of chocolate. I have no specific information, but speculate that another drawback of the Skywatcher Explorer 130 might be that it needs a bit more... initial ‘involvement’, e.g. calibration / collimation, or am I wrong? And what about the quality of the tube assembly for the explorer 130? I do realise 'all' telescopes at this price point come from the same couple of Chinese plants, I'm just worried, that the current price difference between MAK-80 and Skywatcher Explorer 130, around £35 (retail), for which you get a mount/tripod and accessories, is not that large, which might suggest that they 'saved' on the quality of the tube assembly elements in explorer 130. The last question, going back to the issue of photography and mobile phone mounts, is it not a gimmick, unless combined with motorised movement, given so little light comes in and that the sky, well, 'moves'? Or is it still possible to take decent pics of the moon and perhaps a couple of planets? (well, with a moon filter). Regards, N.