VigdisVZ

It's offers great value for the money, but as a fully manual telescope it takes a bit of getting used to navigate with it. However, once you're used to a dobsonian, you can easily upgrade to the larger models with great ease. If you're just starting out I'll recommend the book "Turn Left At Orion" as a good guide to what objects to chase down with your new little dobsonian. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Turn-Left-Orion-Hundreds-Telescope/dp/0521153972/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

You could potentially use narrowband filters, but RGB filters are a waste of time. However, since a DSLR already filters away much of the narrowband signal, that also is waste of time. A modded DSLR however....

Excellent for an alt-az mount.

+ 1 fpr Turn Left at Orion

Yeah Robin and Nicos is right, if you're looking at spending only 250£, don't spend it on electronics. Get a 150P Skywatcher Dobsonian, and get a nice eyepiece , a Telrad and start learning your way around the sky.

With an unmodded DSLR, don't bother with a filter.

A 120mm APO is quite heavy. I'd settle for an NEQ-6 (Syntrek is the version without GOTO).

Hi again. The Orion 80mm has cheap lens setup (does not have ED glass) and will give chromatic aberration, hence not suited for photography. It's more suited as a guide-telescope or for simple visual observations. The CG4 is weak and will struggle to give consistent results compared to a HEQ-5 or better mounts.

Hello and welcome, you came to the right place There are a few things to consider in this case since we're talking about a kid, not an adult: Binoculars is the adult solution. Versatile, but very fidgety to use if you're not patient. Binoculars are excellent for their versatility but not for "wowing" a budding astronomer.You risk having him lose interest in astronomy by giving him the wrong choice here.I believe that a kid wants something that looks and feels like a real telescope or they'll lose interest. Again, the "wow" factor.There are also good and bad choices for telescopes, and much has to do with budget here. Reflectors are best at collecting light, but hard to aim due to a mirror design. Refractors with a star diagonal are easier to aim, but tend to have smaller aperture, and give color-errors in the cheaper models.You will need to be an active part in this, finding the "interesting stuff" apart from the moon is hard, even harder with bad equipment. Even fully grown adults with starmaps and computerized telescopes stuggle at first.There are a lot of junk telescopes and binoculars out there on the market, be sure to consult this forum before you buy anything.With that being said, there are a few choices: Regular binoculars, versatile, but low magnification, and "shaky".High power binoculars with a tripod. A bit of a mix between binos and a telescope.A dobsonian newton, the 130p Heritage. Cheap, best visual quality for the money. However doesnt look like a telescope. Hard to aim. http://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/skywatcher-heritage-130p-flextube.htmlA newtonian on a regular mount. Still hard to aim but more ergonomic usually. Hard to set up. Looks like a telescope. Something like this: http://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/celestron-astromaster-130eq-telescope.htmlA refractor, a classic telescope, bit worse on the optics quality not that bad. Very easy to aim if you got the 45-degree diagonal at the eye-piece. Looks like a telescope. There are many examples, heres a slightly better one, been looking at this kit myself as grab-and-go. http://www.firstlightoptics.com/startravel/skywatcher-startravel-102-az3.htmlHope this helps. Please ask away if you got more questions. I probably raised more than I answered.

Are you looking for a DSLR to dual-use for daytime or one for only deepsky?

Sorry, mean to say HEQ-5 and NEQ-6. The Celestron equalivents are Advanced VX and CGEM. Can't speak about any other mounts since I have no experience or know any people who use them. THere are more expensive APO-refractors than the 80ED, also the 80ED is a type that comes from several manufacturers. The PDS-range newtonians are good, using the 150 myself, but they need a coma corrector to take a flat field image, much the same as refractors need flatteners. It's a jungle of equipment out there, so be sure to read the book I recommended first, before buying ANYTHING else. You can also look at the MN-190 if you want a good quality astrograph with high aperture, decent cost.

Hi again The 10" solid tube is not suited for imaging. Way too large, heavy and bulky for a normal mount to handle. Even the NEQ-6 will struggle with it. Unless you start looking at the really expensive mounts... but those are not good for beginning. When you read about the load capacities of different mounts, you should always count that in half when imaging. A NEQ-6 will handle 20kg or so for visual, but it's only recommended to load 10kg for imaging. You honestly need a mount that can carry the telescope + extras and not struggle. If you overload the equipment you will have to throw images away. You can always get some results, but the goal is to get consistent results, not having to throw away 75% of the images due to vibration and backlash in the mount. I would suggest getting a refractor like 80ED and a HEQ-6 or NEQ-6 mount to start out with astrophotography and keep your excellent dobson for visual. However the first piece of advice is always, read Steve Richards book "Making Every Photon Count" before you buy anyhing else. It's an excellent guide and will probably save you a lot of money by avoiding costly mistakes. http://www.firstlightoptics.com/books/making-every-photon-count-steve-richards.html

No wonder it was getting cloudy here... Congratulations

Can in theory be done with Live View or live video output on a computer, but its going to be hard and even more super hard once you start stacking the magnification...

A) Yeah, video for Jupiter and Saturn. It really helps with a tracking mount but you can if you're really good push the scope in order to capture enough frames. It'll probably be extremely hard since the starlight is a very narrow band of light, and the atmosphere makes it move. Longer exposures with a tracking mount is probably better, plus you get more context by seeing the surrounding stars. You could however try with high ISO and short exposure times, you might get lucky if the star is bright enough... C) M31 is faint compared. You need to be using equatorial, tracking mount for this.