Cosmic Geoff

Scopes with short focal ratios, e.g. a f4 or f5 newtonian, will require more exotic eyepieces than one with a long focal ratio like a f10 SCT.  I am something of an eyepiece sceptic - if a Plossl seems to do the job, I am not motivated to order an eyepiece costing hundreds of pounds.

FLO quote the payload capacity of the AZ5 as 5KG, so loading 6.3 KG on it is not recommended.  IMHO it is better to over-mount a scope rather than under-mount it.

10 minutes ago, Maideneer said:

224->Barlow (if used)->ADC->Scope?

I did use them in that order.

"Making Every Photon Count" has very little to say about planetary imaging.

A C8 or C9.25 would do nicely for planetary imaging. While an Edge HD would be very nice, IMHO you don't need this  for planetary imaging as the actual fields of view you will be working with are very small (except for the moon).

Likewise you may not need a CGEM II - the mount requirements for planetary imaging are not exacting, and I found I could get images with the alt-azimuth SE mount which were just as good as with a CPC fork mount.  But the SE is awful to use for imaging while the CPC is very pleasant to use - easy to set up, rock steady, low backlash.  If you do not intend to do deep sky long exposure imaging, you can dispense with an equatorial mount and also dispense with the aggro of polar alignment, meridian flips etc.

If you do intend to image galaxies.  the EDGE HD and CGEM II will be more appropriate.  Be warned that by all accounts imaging small galaxies with a SCT is NOT a beginner activity. (and check the price of a EDGE HD focal reducer 🙁).

As for cameras and workflow, for planets use an ASI224MC + ZWO ADC, and capture .ser files with Sharpcap and process with Registax6.  For DSOs, I don't even try using a SCT.

It is not clear why you want to convert to an equatorial mount. The CPC mount is a good one unless yur requirement is to do some advanced deep sky imaging with long exposures. (The alt-azimuth mount will gove field rotation).

So far as I am aware the CPC mounts do not have wifi at all, so you can't blame the mount for wifi disconnections - it must be the accessories.

The GPS saves you the bother of re-entering the time and date, and maybe the geographial position (though the latter seems less likely with a heavy CPC1100).  I have found that the saving of effort via GPS renders a Starsense less attractive.  You don't HAVE to buy the GPS separately - you could choose to dispense with it, but I like having GPS. I have not adopted it on all my mounts because of the cost and the inconvenience of having a dongle.

I use both red dot and optical finders on my small scopes.  On a larger scope it helps to have both, as it can be maddening trying to get a stubby SCT and its 9x50 RACI finder aimed acurately enough so that one can see the target in the finder.

3 minutes ago, Gfamily said:

My understanding is that refractors are the only scopes that are suitable, as glass has more or less 100% transparency for the IR light that is going to cause problems. 

Reflectors and Catadioptric systems are more likely to be damaged because a reflecting surfaces may only reflect about 95%, and if the light has been brought close to focus, that can be pretty intense. 

I note your comment, but I have not heard of any Mak or SCT suffering damage when used in this way.  I frequently did projections with my 127mm Mak without apparent damage (except to a cheap eyepiece with plastic parts 🙂.)  But a full aperture Baader film filter seems a better option, and that's what I use now.

A telescope can be assumed to be potentially suitable subject to certain warnings:

Any plastic parts eg components of eyepieces will melt if subjected to concentrated heat. ( I have a couple of eyepieces with melted retaining rings, and an eyepiece cap with a hole mented through it to prove this)

Multi-element eyepieces may be damaged by the heat (maybe the cement holding compound lenses together is vulnerable).

I would be wary of using a telescope of greater than 4" or 5" aperture.

Finderscopes are a potential danger and should be capped. 

Projection seems to be deprecated these days in favour of using a full=aperture filter made of special filter sheet (which you won't have time to buy now). This is safer provided that the filter is secure. Or a Herschel wedge (q.v) plus a filter.

With a budget of £300 and an interest in imagery you are going to have to make some serious compromises.  £300 may not even buy you a new 8" Dobsonian these days.  The Dobsonian design is not intended for imaging. Yes, some people have taken images with Dobs, but some people have also rowed across the Channel.

If you are interested in imaging, getting the 'right kit' could easily cost you £1500 or more.  Planetary imaging requires quite different kit, but not necessarily any cheaper.  I recommend you buy the book "Making Every Photon Count" by Steve Richards, available from forum sponsor FLO, £20 and a few hours reading could save you disappointment and a lot of wasted time and money.

Rather than worrying about 'replacing soon' you should note that many amateur astronomers have several scopes and mounts, each suoitable for a different task.  I suggest you buy either a basic manual scope to get you into visual astronomy, try hanging a camera on it and see what happens 😕, OR get a basic tracking mount and mount your camera & camera lens directly on it for widefield images.

I don't think it matters what you use so long as it stays in place.  I have two cardboard dew shields and one commercial one.

I have the (slightly heavier) C8 SE and I normally carry it around from indoors to yard or garden as a complete assembly.  It is not light but I can manage OK.  I would not want to carry it up or down stairs though.

The OTA/fork/mount can easily be detached from the tripod, which makes the upper part much more easy to carry, and the tripod itself is quite light.

I did make a triangular trolley for it (with small castor wheels) on which the tripod etc stood, but it did not work well.  I would suggest that if you find it too awkward to carry, get a carry case (with handles) for the OTA/mount assembly and carry the tripod as-is.  Once you have a carry case you still have the option of putting it on a shopping cart, sack barrow etc.

7 hours ago, Cherrie said:

Don't know what most of these are, will need to do my research lol! I think I will be pretty happy with something I can photo the planets with.

If that's what you want to do, an 8" SCT would be an excellent choice. You can take good planetary images with it even with the visual SE mount, though other mounts would be better.  I would caution that taking good deep-sky images with an 8" SCT is not really for beginners, and if that is your goal you would manage better with a small refractor, which as you will see if you research the topic, is what many deep-sky imagers use.

I have found that my SCT works well for planetary imaging, but my efforts to do deep sky imaging with it have generally been a failure.

Why do you want to fit new bearings? I am not familiar with bearing swaps on these mounts, but there can only be two reasons for changing the bearings:

1) the originals are worn out

2) to fit a better performing bearing

I doubt 1) very much, since my car engine does not appear worn out after 160,000 miles/ tens of millions of revs, so it seems unlikely that your mount has worn out after a few hundred revs.

2) Depends if the bearing you source is identical to the Chinese original, - they seem very fond of a thick gluey grease, or from a European aftermarket maker, in which case ask them about the grease.

The size of telescope is not the issue. Light pollution makes it harder to see objects that are very faint (stars) or of low surface brightmess (galaxies).  Planets are of high surface brightness and it is possible to see some of them in daylight if you aim your telescope in the right place - and you can't get more light polluted than daylight.

If you are looking at stars, higher magnification will dim the light-polluted sky background while the brightness of the star remains essentially the same.  It does not matter whether you choose a Mak or a Newtonian, or what the aperture is. 

  I assume your deliberation between a Dobsonian-mounted Newtonian and a smaller Mak is on the basis of total cost.  Either is suitable for viewing planets, but the Mak has a long focal ratio making it particularly suitable and usually never needs any collimation adjustment.

Don't buy in haste. Do your research first.  If you want to take spiffing colour images of deep sky objects you will need one of those GoTo mounts you say you don't like - they are needed for precise guiding and tracking. Be warned - astrophotograpy is an expensive and time-consuming hobby.

If you want to take great images of planets the hardware requirements are quite different, but not necessarily any cheaper.

If you want to do widefield images of the sky you can probably do it with your existing camera gear, plus a simple tracking mount. Place the camera directly on the tracking mount.

I used to own the very outfit you cite - a 203mm Newtonian on a motorised EQ-5 mount.  It was the most user-unfriendly and  awkward outfit I ever owned and within months I stopped using it, and later sold the OTA and upgraded the mount to GoTo.

I suggest you buy and read the book "Making Every Photon Count" available from FLO. It will cost you about 20 UKP and take a few hours to read, but could save you from wasting a lot of time and money.

You might find a 32mm eyepiece useful.  Whether you get a zoom is up to you.  I have a budget one and while it is quite good optically, the field of view at 24mm fl is very small (never used) and the action is so stiff I cannot adjust it while it is in the scope.

I have a permanently sited wooden tripod for some of my scopes.

I tried using my 102mm f5 Startravel as a solar scope during a transit of one of the inner planets a few years ago, to project the image.  It would not resolve it and I had to switch rapidly to projecting with my 127mm Mak in order to view this unique event.

Nowadays I use the Mak with a full-aperture Baader film filter.

I put a bit of spare film over the 2 inch hole in the 102mm scope's dustcap - very easy to do.  I will probably use this to try imaging the upcoming partial eclipse (wider field).

I think you will find it difficult to take images of the planets with a manual Dob - you really need a tracking mount, or a GoTo mount.  If your camera does not have 'live view' you will find it even more difficult.

The 4SE is unusual in having a built-in flip mirror - a handy device for imaging planets and similar objects. Find them in the eyepiece view and then flip the mirror to engage a planetary video camera fitted on the other port.

Better eyepieces - the 9 or 10mm one in particular needs an upgrade.  You will need a dew shield, but it is easy to make one.  An external +12v power pack if you are still using primary cells to power the mount.

I saw Venus yesterday (29th) at about 9.30 pm with the naked eye, though it was not conspicuous.  I knew Mercury was supposed to be very close but could not see it with binoculars or even with a 102mm refractor.  But Mercury is about 6 magnitudes fainter.

I saw Venus again this evening (30th) but again no Mercury visible with binoculars.

32 minutes ago, cadred said:

I am now looking at different scopes and think I'll go for a Neutonian, but it's early days. I've watched Dobson's video on making your own telescope, but I know I'd go bonkers with the sanding.

Few people make their own telescopes these days. It is unlikely to save you much money, and only worth it if you have an irresistible urge to create one with your own hands.  The Dobsonian design has become a commercial product, available from various branded manufacturers.  Second hand telescopes are readily available, and if bought from an enthusiast should be in good condition and save you significant money compared with a new one. 

The Newtonian design is still popular, especially mounted as a Dobsonian.  You can put them on an equatorial mount, but the mount becomes a significant investment and the eyepiece can get into awkward positions.

21 minutes ago, AstroMuni said:

On 22/05/2021 at 21:37, Walker said:

I know deep space scopes are quite pricey though.

If you decide to go the astrophotography route for DSOs, then its doable in the ~£1000 budget. My setup is a classic example.

- Celestron 130EQ Newtonion ~£150 including EQ2 mount+RA motor (you should be able to get something similar second hand)

- Skywatcher HEQ5 mount second hand ~ £500-(£700 for Pro goto version). I bought the HEQ5 Pro as I wanted a GOTO

- ZWO ASI224MC camera ~£200

- PC (old win7 laptop converted to run Linux as Win wasnt supported )

you can get pretty decent images of DSO with this combination...See my post here https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/375208-imaging-with-a-celestron-130/

I'd second this: For looking at galaxies I can use a 102mm f5 refractor and an ASI224MC on a SLT or EQ5 Synscan mount.  This is a electronically-assisted rather than a true astrophotography setup, and gives a better view than a C8 from the same site.

17 hours ago, Walker said:

Yes, I have a 76/700 reflector.

The skies around me are varied, I have little light pollution as I am near the Surrey Hills, however, light pollution  can be bad. I do have a shed, so the bigger scope might be possible. 

My budget would be less than 1K, preferably £500-£700. I know deep space scopes are quite pricey though.

I wouldn't need to be carrying around too much as my garden is really good for observing.

Would it be best to buy new or go to reputable second hand ?

Thank you so much for your help! Sometimes, it can be quite overwhelming with all of the different scopes etc.

Unless you have dark skies, views of galaxies and nebulae will be disappointing regardless of what size scope you have. You could look up the Bortle value for your location which would give us a clue.

You have not said whether you want manual or GoTo.

£500-£700 would enable you to buy a new, manual Dobsonian-mounted Newtonian of substantial size.   However for £700+ you could look for a used 8" SCT, e.g. a Celestron C8SE (with GoTo).  I did, and have not regretted it. 🙂   Advantages: the SCT is lighter and more compact than a Newt, and the eyepiece remains in a more convenient position.  The GoTo makes the  setup more versatile (find planets in daytime, image planets) as well as enabling you to find faint elusive objects. All GoTo mounts track.

New or second hand: that's up to you.  There is a risk in buying second hand, especially if you don't know what defects to look for, but if you buy a well-cared for instrument from another astronomer here, there should be little risk, and you can save a lot of momey.

3 hours ago, Goldfinger said:

Does that mean Schmidt-Cass scopes are better for DSO'S than planetary viewing?

Does anyone here have a Mak-Cass scope? I'd sure like to hear from those that do.

One only has a choice of Schmidt Cass (SCT) or Mak-Cass (Mak) over a small range of apertures.

I have examples of both, and would say that unless you are an expert observer or have exacting requirements you may not notice a lot of difference at 6" aperture.  The typical f10 focal ratio of a SCT makes it a little more general-purpose than a Mak, as the latter have longer focal ratios.

There is a saying that 'nobody ever complained of having a bad Mak'  and the one I have performs very well, but anecdotally there seems to be more variation in the optical performance of SCTs.

If your interest is planetary viewing, that means aperture, which means a SCT, or Classic Cassegrain (CC) or perhaps a large Mak, and the latter will be heavy, have a long focal lengtth & ratio, and take longer to cool down.

What kind of basic telescope do you have?  Having had it for a year, what features of it don't you like and wish to avoid when buying a replacement?

What are the skies like where you live?

What is your budget?

Do you want a basic device, or high-tech?

How portable does it need to be?

If you want more specific advice than "buy a bigger one" you really need to give us more detail.