Cosmic Geoff

22 minutes ago, Balthazar Saissore said:

As for the dwarf or Seestar, I checked them out, and I don't know something feels off about a system like that of course you have a great deal of experience so I'll definitely be giving that a look, but as they have not come out yet I would wait to see how they fair before actually considering it. 

The Dwarf2 (already available) and Seestar S50 (coming soon) are apparently intended for EVA style quick imaging rather than traditional astrophotography.  I have done EVA (electronically assisted visual astronomy) with a 102mm f5 achro, ASI224MC camera and EQ5 Synscan mount, + laptop - all gear I had already.   The Seestar S50 does the same thing, but in a much smaller and more automated package.

Buying a used AVX would be a sensible move if you want to stick with Celestron.  The Nexstar system is relatively easy to use.

Or a used Skywatcher EQ5 Synscan if you prefer. The load capacity is slightly less than the AVX, IIRC.

A resurrected CG5 GoTo would not be a great choice from what I've read, even if you could find the parts and they fit a 20 year old mount.

Somebody somewhere might want a manual CG5.

If you intend to do anything with the Celestron mount it would be useful to establish what model it is - CG4 or CG5? - and how many teeth are on the wormwheels. Both were clones of Vixen mounts (as are, it seems the Skywatcher EQ3 and EQ5).  The GoTo version of the CG5 was superseded by the AVX. The CG4 is said to be similar in weight class to the EQ3.  Going by what I have read, the CG5 GoTo was not very reliable.

I tried my smaller planetary imaging setup in order to get Venus in twilight.  127mm Mak, SLT mount, ASI462MC, filter wheel.

Venus 15.7", Mars 5.7"  Ther Mars image is expanded x2.

The shot of Mars far exceeded my low expectations, given the smaller scope, a bouncy mount and the wind, and shows Syrtis Major, Utopia and the N. polar cap.

I suggest that you read reviews of the Svbony 105 and 205 with care.  One would not expect the 105 to do much at its low price.

The ZWO ASI224MC is a planetary camera which does work well for DSOs, asides from the comparatively small field of view.  There are other alternatives, and if you want worthwhile results, I suggest you study these products and get a camera with an adequate performance and chip size, and be prepared to pay for it.

As background, I have an old Celestron Solar System Imager camera (the cheapest in the range at the time, similarly priced to the SV105) which is not much good for anything, and a USB2 ZWO ASI120MC which works quite  well for planetary imaging but is useless for DSOs (far too noisy).

I also ordered one, and considered ordering direct, but they wanted an ID number I didn't understand, so mindful of potential customs and VAT charges I decided to order via an UK distributor.

A number of mounts in this class are basically the same. If this mount is sufficiently similar to a Sky-watcher EQ-5, you can bolt on the Synscan upgrade kit (about £359) and away you go.  For a little more money, you could possibly source a used EQ-5 Synscan mount, complete.

If not, there are DIY routes for adding a GoTo that can be controlled from a laptop, i.e source 2x motors and build a controller board. 

It depends exactly what usage you have in mind.  The C6 is more compact than the Star Discovery and being a SCT with a large range of focus will  accommodate a range of devices such as binoviewers, cameras, filter wheels etc more readily than the newtonian, which may prove useful in the future.

The narrow field of view of the SCT will be a drawback only on deep-sky objects that are bright enough to be seen easily and are big enough to fill up the Field of view, and asides from star clusters, there aren't many of those, especially if you are observing from a town.

As for the mounts, both mounts will work for visual use but will be a bit wobbly or limited for any kind of imaging. 

A bigger SCT (C8 SE) works well for viewing galaxies from a dark-sky site.  But a small 4" EVAA outfit works even better...

I suspect that we will see more of the integrated EV scopes such as the Dwarf2, Vespera, EVscope2, ZWO Seestar, offering EEVA in an (allegedly) easy to use package.  And maybe more new, lighter weight, cleverer mounts. Maybe computer-designed refits to keep older mounts and scopes turning.

Astrophotography will continue to be popular.

And some will continue to use the old-style no-electrics kit.

One thing that won't change is newbies complaining that they can't get their clever new electronic scopes to work. 😁

Depends on what exactly you want to do, but I have been doing EAA for a couple of years without the aid of any such device - I use a laptop connected by cables.

33 minutes ago, Missy Astro said:

- Can I use a 1.25inch barlow on a 2inch eyepiece? 

No. A 2" eyepiece will be large and low-powered. The small barlow will block some of the light.   If you need more magnification, just use a 1.25" eyepiece of suitable focal length, or a zoom. 

35 minutes ago, Missy Astro said:

- How do you know what your sky limit is? 

That looks ' lost in translation'.  If you mean, how bad is your night sky, you should be able to find an appropriate chart online somewhere.

A 5x barlow is an extreme device, only useful (maybe) for planetary imaging with a f5 newtonian like yours.

You need a set of three or more eyepieces of good quality, plus a x2 barlow lens.

The SCT is f10, and that makes it tolerant of eyepieces like Plossls.  Unless you want to have eyepieces that are widefield and/or sharp right to the edge, you could save a lot of money by sticking with the eyepieces you've got.  If money is burning a hole in your pocket, buy a small number of high quality eyepieces one at a time and see if they do it for you.

You don't need a Barlow with a f10, not even for imaging with today's small pixel cameras.

I have never bothered trying to expand my limited selection of eyepieces, but then I am mostly interested in imaging these days.

What scope are you using for solar imaging? What technique are you using?  Unless you are also intending to use the same mount for deep-sky imaging, I can't see why you would want such a heavy and expensive mount as those cited.  Wouldn't you be using a small scope and a 'lucky imaging' video, with very short exposures, which would make wobble and tracking error in the mount unimportant?

Actually you need to ask solar imagers what they use.

Could you buy a used handset or dongle and re-sell it?  If the mount is good, a Nexstar*, Nexstar+ (or Starsense) will work - they all work with my C8 SE and SLT

It seems that the view through the eyepiece is out of focus.  As a novice, and with the telescope out of focus, it may take some time to figure out which way to wind the focus knob to get it in focus.  Note also that if you point the telescope at a bright point source (e.g. Venus) and it is out of focus, you will see a bright donut with a black hole in the middle (the shadow of the secondary mirror). In this case finding focus is a no-brainer - just wind the focus in the direction that makes  the donut smaller.

24 minutes ago, tezz said:

EDIT= When I see a roof of a house, its at and angle. Is that because I have the diagonal at a angle?

Yes. the view will also be reversed L-R.

If the 40mm eyepiece is a 1.25" fit, the field of view circle is going to be quite small anyway.

I have found that platesolving needs at least 7 stars in order to work. I can only see 4 in your sample image. Possible solutions: lengthen the exposure, or jab an up/down or L/R button to shift the scope to an adjoining bit of sky, hopefully with more stars in it. Check you have entered the focal length of the scope in the relevant field(s)

Check nexstarsite.com to see if it has anything relevant.

Or, if you contact your nearest astro club, somebody should be able to help you test the mount.

12 hours ago, devon goldblum said:

Hi Guys! i’m looking for a beginner telescope online and have a few different telescopes lined up but i wanted to know what’s the BEST beginners telescope out of the few. 

You will get a lot of different opinions.  

What kind of skies do you have? Urban skies will suggest a GoTo, so you can actually find stuff.

In an urban area, it would be a good idea to get something that will work well on planets and double stars.

Are you mechanically or computer minded? If not, maybe you should avoid the more complicated (equatorial) or Go To mounts. 

Are you interested (like many newbies these days) in imaging? Note that this is not as simple as you might think and could cost you a lot of money.

If you like gadgets and want some electronic aid, check out the Celestron Starsense smartphone-app telescopes. I have not seen one in action but people here write positively about them.

11 hours ago, Starfazed said:

I must be missing something but what's so good about catadioptic scopes of similar aperture that people pay three times the price of this for something like the C6SE, even the basic Celestron SLT or Astro FI  mentioned above is double the price of the Heritage. I appreciate that they have longer focal length at the expense of field of view, but if the atmosphere limits any 6 inch telescope to around 150x magnification, why would that design (or smaller like the 127) be more sought after for planetary observation if the Heritage can deliver the same view in a compact (at lest, once folded away) form factor and with a wider field of view for DSOs?

You won't appreciate the advantage of the catadioptic scopes just by reading about them.  You might if you actually used one for a while and experienced the advantages of the compact size, lighter weight and greater convenience of use in various roles, and the ease of inserting various accessories that lengthen the light path. 

SCTs are generally bought for their mechanical and physical properties, rather than optical.

In the same vein, what is the advantage of buying a Mercedes-Benz motor car when a Skoda does basically the same job for much less money?

Re. Meade SCTs, the OTA optics have a fine reputation, the electrics and mechanics of the mounts not so much.

12 hours ago, Starfazed said:

though it would be nice if the planets could be a bit bigger to avoid disappointing the children..... What would be considered the highest practical magnification on a 150mm 750mm focal length scope (or smallest decent eyepiece), and what advantage if any do I gain by adding a Barlow? If if makes reduces field of view so I'm looking down a straw that's no good. But if it doubles focal length, does that effectively give me back the optical advantage that comes from a compact SCT design scope (like the C6SE, at three times the price)?

You can quite easily get whatever magnification you like with any telescope by fitting a Barlow and/or short focal length eyepiece. Even dimestore telescopes with Hubble pictures of Saturn on the box offer high magnifications.  The question is whether the view is sharp or blurred, and whether the mount is stable enough to make using a high magnification practical.

The highest practical magnification depends on many factors, not least the quality of the atmospheric 'seeing' and also the target. Personally I hardly ever use a higher magnification than 250x with an 8" SCT.

You may well find backyard telescope views of the planets disappointing. Not being a particularly keen-eyed observer, I did, until I resorted to planetary imaging.

All these matters will become much clearer to you once you actually have a telescope and use it.

Yes, you can pay a lot more than the cost of a Virtuoso for a Mak or SCT of similar aperture.  What you have to bear in mind is that the advantage of the more expensive setup may only be apparent once you try using it.  Try, for instance, using a filterwheel or a binoviewer with a Newtonian, or plugging in a planetary camera. Oh dear...

I have a 127mm Celestron Maksutov (similar to the Skywatcher offering). It's a really well-made instrument, a handy compact size, works really well for its aperture and I have no plans to sell it.

I had noticed the Celestron C6 SLT - superficially looking like a bargain, with almost a free mount (if you look at the price of an OTA only). But I acquired the same mount with my Mak, and it's just a beginners' wobble-mount which I try to avoid using.

One can now buy a new Windows 10 laptop for around £100, (yes, really) apparently good enough for basic emailing and typing etc . But would you want one?

My point is that you can buy cheap, or you can buy quality. Which you go for is up to you.

There is also the second-hand market.  SCTs in particular are heavily discounted when used and you can find some real bargains. 

10 hours ago, Starfazed said:

Bonus question - would any of the StellaLyra Cassegrain or Matsutovs fit on a goto mount and be a credible alternative to the Celestron?

You mean the Classic Cassegrains? Attractively priced, but with long focal ratios more suited to planetary work? The problem then is to pick a GoTo mount for it, bearing in mind the remarks above. An AZ/EQ should work, but at a cost.

4 hours ago, Shimrod said:

while an 8" SCT might be lighter (around 15-20kg)

A C8 8" SCT OTA weighs about 6 Kg.  The SE6/8 mount weights about 6Kg.  An 8" f5 Newtonian OTA weighs about 10Kg.  You can expect a Dob base to be as heavy as the OTA. e.g. 60 lbs for the whole Dob outfit. 

Note that I did have an 8" Newtonian + EQ-5 at one point, and I ditched it in favour of an 8" GoTo SCT, which did not cost me a lot of money, and has proved much easier to use and move around. (It is possible to pick up the whole assembly and carry it outdoors.)

Beyond the 5Kg class, your choice of separate alt-az GoTo mounts is largely confined to convertible AZ/EQ mounts with large price tags.

Since you have the equipment in front of you, you are best placed to answer these questions.  It would be an advantage to get a digital multimeter for testing.

Is the 17 AH power tank fully charged? Do you have a connecting cable? (Typically a car cigarette lighter style an one end, plugging into a large round hole on the power tank. The other end is typically a 2.1mm/5.5 mm centre positive, plugging into a small round hole on the mount.)

Is the mount switched on? Typically there is a power switch on it.

Is the cable continuous (no breaks or blown internal fuse)?

If you have no clue about electrics, it might be wise to get help from someone who does.