johninderby

This should help. Includes a calculatorfor working out the right pixel size for your scope. Has the ZWO cameras in the calculator.

https://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd_suitability

2 hours ago, Stuart1971 said:

I want it attached to both rings so no chance of too much strain on one ring alone...

Why would it put too much strain on the ring? If it is a CNC tube ring will be plenty strong enough for use with a refractor.

A carry handle like this StellaMira one would do but not available seperately as far as I know. Ypu could fry asking FLO if they could get one for you.

Or there is this Vixen one in white.

https://www.amazon.com/Metal-Carry-Handle-for-Refractors/dp/B0017WXO26

10” Bresser perhaps? 

OK that would blow the budget a bit. 😁

The AZ-GTi mount simply fastens directly to the 3/8 tripod. No mods needed.

Most of the Apollo eyepieces will probably spend their time in a display case untouched by human hands. 😢

10 minutes ago, bomberbaz said:

 

I would say maybe leave the finder scope until the OP's husband has a play with the red dot finder and see if he gets on with it.

Hmmmm......maybe a Telrad for now and a RACI later on. 🤔

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/finders/telrad-finder-astronomy.html

They are 1.25” and a great bargain at the price. I have the 7mm and 16mm myself. Go nicely with my Nagler 3-6 zoom.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/ovl-eyepieces/ovl-nirvana-es-uwa-82-ultrawide-eyepieces.html

I think a lot of people start out with the idea of lets buy a telescope and think it will probably cost a couple of hundred quid. So not so much a budget as a guesstimate. 🤔

The OVL Nirvana 82 degree eyepieces (4, 7, 16mm) would work really well in a 200p and would work nearly as well as Naglers.

I see it as making an informed decision. Weigh up the costs vs benefits and then decide. Unfortunately it's so easy to spend more than you really need to.

Now the OP can have a think about it and decide what they want to spend. There certainly is nothing wrong with buying a 200P and keeping the costs to a minimum for now.

The StellaMira 104mm or 85 perhaps?

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/stellamira-telescopes/stellamira-104mm-ed2-triplet-f6-25-apo-refractor-telescope.html

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/stellamira-telescopes/stellamira-85mm-ed2-triplet-f6-6-apo-refractor-telescope.html

Tele Vue Apollo 11 Special Edition Eyepiece

Just curious if anyone has bought one. Has FLO sold any?

And no I won’t be buying one at that price. 🙀

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/tele-vue-eyepieces/tele-vue-apollo-11-special-edition-eyepiece.html

Yes I was thinking about the 10” Bresser. 

The R&P will handle more weight as the R&P drive is more positive.

I think as the Skywatcher has been around for ages most are familiar with it but with the Bresser being new not many have actually seen one in person and it’s not until you’ve had hands on experience with both that you can appreciate the differences. 

Comes with a straight through finder scope but I replaced it with a RACI

The 1/10 upgrade is indeed very easy to fit and the rack & pinion focuser is an excellent bit of kit. Far superior to any of the Skywatcher newt crayfords. 

28 minutes ago, AliP80 said:

Ahhh damnit! Now you've got me thinking I should buy the Bresser! Haha...hadn't even considered it! I've not stumbled across it in any of the reviews I've been reading on various sites. I have a feeling my budget is going to keep going up! Lol. This is a great suggestion, thank you!

Items offered for sale online are often actually drop shipped from the distributor not the retailer and if the distributor has not updated stock levels the retailer may be going on the distributors out of date info. 

Hence buying from someone like FLO that actually stocks the items themselves and doesn’t use drop shipping. 

It’s not that the Skywatcher dob be it a  solid tube or collapsible is a bad scope it’s just that having had both I just prefer the Bresser. 

I think it just comes down to buying what suits you the best not necessarily what different people recommend.  👍🏻

Had a 10” collapsible dob and converted it to a solid tube. Wouldn’t have another collapsible of less than 12”.. Just prefer the solid tube in an 8” or 10” dob.

Few other points in the Bresser’s favour. 

• Rubberized anti refection coating on the inside not just a thin coat of paint.
• Proper 6 point mirror cell
• Adjusment knobs on the secondary not just hex screws.
• Tube rings allow the OTA to be moved up or down for balance
• Tube rings allow the focuser to be rotated into the most convienient position
• The alt bearings make great carry handles and also the OTA just drops into place on the base with no need to insert knobs .

Being collaoseable not needed in an 8” dob and is lighter and easier to carry. Collapseable makes more sense with bigger dobs.

Once you’ve actually seen the Bresser dob in person it’s game over for the Skywatcher. The Bresser is just so much better in build quality and features. You would spend more upgrading the Skywatcher than just buying the Bresser in the first place. 

You really should try to see both in person and then make up your mind. 

I would stay away from anything with an EQ2 mount. Minimum should be an EQ3. The EQ2 just won’t be very stable. Of course the EQ3 is more expensive but skimpimg on the mount is a false economy.

The 8” dob will show a lot more than the 130 and is so easy to use. Good reason that size is so often recommended. The Skywatcher dob is OK but if your budget will stretch to it the Bresser 8” dob has better build quality and is better equipped. You do get what you pay for.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bresser-telescopes/bresser-messier-8-dobsonian-telescope.html

or

https://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/bresser-messier-8--dobsonian-telescope-4716420.html#SID=1684

Yes a berrer equipped scope and very nice quality scope. Well worth the extra for the 8” or 10”.

Camera FV-5 Pro has an intervalometer option as well as long exposures etc. and histograms in RGB or luminance.

Did use Open Camera but now moved to Camera FV-5 Pro. Just so much easier to use with more options and makes Open Camera look rather primitive and clumsy in comparison.