bomberbaz

Ain't gonna get any rotation on that once it's tightened up

What he said basically. On the same note I would challenge anyone to notice any difference that would make a real difference to your viewing pleasure.

Using a bigger aperture then an OIII works amazing on Orion however using a 120mm aperture I would say a UHC would serve you better. The astronomik from FLO have a nice tight tight bandpass across the relevant frequencies although the much less expensive Explore Scientific are not a million miles behind it if your on a budget. https://www.firstlightoptics.com/uhc-oiii-visual-filters.html

I just went outside to have a gander at the moon with the intention of carrying out some testing of my binoviewers, conditions seemed fair and so yeah, let's go for it. I came inside, set up the mount/tripod and mak then went outside. Where did the wind suddenly come from, brrrrr that's me back inside fgs. 🌬️ 🌬️ 🥶 🥶

I don't think the 150p would work, its the length as well you see. Slightest bit of wind and it will flap like a flag

Imaging eh, that's my que to leave this conversation. I have "very" limited experience with this and will leave it there. Strange you say a 200P wouldn't fit in the car, it is only around 1.2 metre in length once removed from base but as you say, not fit for imaging so it matters not.

The moon is under rated by many. One man's pain in the A... is another mans beauty. Planetary is not affected by the moon, doubles and clusters (to a certain limit) are not effected by the moon that much. Get yourself a pair of binoviewers and look at the moon and you may find something completely new and beautiful in terms of what you see.

Another consideration for you. I get your aims regarding footprint but maybe you are not fully aware of the space involved with a 102 refractor plus mount and tripod or a simple 200 dob. I have not owned a 200 dob but have used one and am aware of the size of it. I do have a 102 frac plus mount/tripod and I don't think the difference in space used is that much different. Also a 200P dob is around 200 quid cheaper which would easily cover the cost of extras such as a decent zoom eyepiece, a telrad finder and maybe a barlow.

Would work fine, no problem whatsoever

As per the above you just set your phone so it does not auto sleep, also make sure your phone is connected to the mount wifi and away you go. It really isn't complicated and I have never had any problems with it. As mentioned above mine is also flashed to do EQ mode and I added a cheap wedge so now it has multiple uses.

I have never used one of those but I use this regularly. It is goto and tracks, operates off AA batteries which last for ever and operates via a smart phone app. https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/sky-watcher-az-gti-wifi-alt-az-mount-tripod.html BAHHH you beat me to it John, haha 😆

if you wqanted the sybony zoom then its apparently available hee https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SVBONY-1-25inch-Zoom-Eyepieces-7-21mm-8-24mm-10-30mm-FMC-Metal-for-Telescopes-/283962379034 However i would check first

happened a few times, one recent where i set up my truss dob back to front. Any idea how hard it is centering a star when the finder is under the scope 🤣

That Bresser looks a very nice starter version of the 150 OTA. If the friend can push the budget, then I would go for that everyday. However it only comes with one eyepiece, a zoom on top might be needed. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00EL5XU9S/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=A2QGSSHY6RX5FN&psc=1

Welcome to SGL, I haven't read all the above replies so sorry if I am repeating. Both the 130 and 150 dobs are great starter scopes. There is a slightly better light grab with the 150 of course but either will suit you and your son initially and maybe for very many years. With the right attachment you could attach your camera and do very short exposures of the night sky but I would say no more than a few seconds at most. As others will have said dedicated astrophography is both more complicated and much more expensive.

why not get a mount that is goto https://www.firstlightoptics.com/computerised-goto-astronomy-mounts/sky-watcher-az-gti-wifi-alt-az-mount-tripod.html that can be converted to EQ https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-star-adventurer/skywatcher-star-adventurer-equatorial-wedge-white.html You need to flash the mount but it is simple, I did the same. It can be controlled from your computer. Downside I don't think it is a tracking mount but I have managed imaging planetary of 15 minutes without drift. Just a thought.

I have played around with filters on planets myself in the past although not to the depth that you have gone Bill and your efforts are to be commended. I played around with a basic set of R.G.B.Y filters on Jupiter and the Moon, nothing else. I did find results to be improved by filters. I also tried using a Baader UHC-S on Jupiter which has a relatively broad band pass compared to other filters, much more so than other premium UHC filters and I noticed a considerable increase in contrast when viewing Jupiter. The bands and GRS stood out much easier as it seemed to darken/enrich reds more than the other colours although everything was a little darker. However I was using a 12" dob so with such a light grab the darkening was not an issue.

With @jonathan here, I have owned/used the WO version twice and it is well built, nice to use and aesthetically pleasing to look at. (think it was on the back of a conversation we had that I opted for the WO version) However if you are budget conscious, then the SW version will optically perform to the same standard for £23 less.

I always thought our brain was smarter than that too 🙄. Seriously i watch a lot of science and nature type TV and am always amazed at the things animals, including ourselves achieve or perceive because of the power of brain power. Anyway, I had no plans for deep sky viewing with BV's but just wondered. Thanks for the input Peter.

Thanks Peter, good point well made. However then how is an object noticeably dimmer given you have only the BV prism and some extra glass of one more eyepiece? still don't get that.

Seen this mentioned several times, maybe some one can shed more light onto this. My thought being we all know the brain to sight link a smart thing and play strange tricks on you making things look different than they really are. So I had the idea that your brain might stack the images it is receiving to actually make them look brighter. Two being better than one as they often say.

Great little app mate, just saved it to my favourites. Also in asgreement with CO and BBC weather for tomorrow, Mars here I come 😉

arguments for both. If all you are using the finder for is to get it close then jump to a RACI, then a RDf does the job perfectly. However if you want to use it as above but have the fall back for star hopping where you use a Telrad to get you close and then a RACI to check and then hone to the object, then I go telrad.

Just looked outside as i did 2 hours since and it has been the clearest evening we have had for ages. however based upon weather reports I decided against planning a session. Kicking myself now.

Same here John, CO is very hit n miss, more miss recently.