Cosmic Geoff

If you look on the website of forum sponsor FLO you will see that £100 does not go far when buying astronomical equipment. As suggested above, on a limited budget you could get the Heritage 130p or invest in a decent pair of 10x50 bimoculars. You can buy new telescopes for around £100 but they will be of poor quality and generally disappointing. How much did you spend on your smartphone?😀

Your request is a little too general for a specific answer. Do you want/can afford a GoTo mount? Visuals on deep sky objects requires a large aperture. Some setups which fulfil your other requirements will be useless for deep sky astrophotography. Requirement for planetary imaging is similar to visual, but different from deep space imaging. What do you want to prioritize?

I think you should download the specification and product description sheets and read them. You can buy any of the Celestron scopes without the Starsense if you shop around. The Starsense is an accessory which some dealers are bundling with the high priced scopes. Or you can order the Starsense separately at any time and attach it yourself. Briefly, the Starsense automates the alignment part of the setup procedure. It eliminates a tiresome operation and saves some time. Whether this is worth £300 in your currency is up to you.

One of my outfits has built-in GPS and Nexstar+. The GPS reduces the setup effort by half, to just doing a 2-star auto align and I don't feel the need to have the Starsense on it as well. I mostly use the handsets for controlling the scopes rather than introduce another level of complication and potential failure.

Thanks!

Barlow: your scope has a long focal ratio, so the use of any Barlow will tend to be overkill. (I don't use one with my 127mm Mak). You can reach the highest useful magnification by using eyepieces of practical focal lengths. For the same reason, while you could use expensive multi-element eyepeices, you will find that particularly at longer eyepiece focal lengths, inexpensive Plossl eyepieces will work pretty well. The 10mm Skywatcher eyepiece is unlikely to be of good quality though, and should be upgraded. Let's be clear: you do NOT use an eyepiece for serious planetary astrophotography. Instead, the planetary video camera replaces the eyepiece. In general, a DSLR is not used for planetary imaging, and planetary cameras have small sensors and high video frame rates.

What self auto align? I assume you have the Nexstar system. There is a two-star auto align, where after you align on the first star, the mount will swing to near the second alignment star of your choice, where you have to centre the 2nd star and align on it. The 3-star (3 object) align is no more accurate than the 2 star, but relieves you of the need to know the names of what you are aligning on. It can fail if one of the stars is not on the prime list of alignment objects (not bright enough). You should persevere with the Nexstar system. IMHO it is a bit easier to use than Skywatcher's Synscan.

I suggest you look in the 'Planetary Imaging' sub-section of this forum and see what the imagers getting great results are actually using. Briefly, the eyepiece magnification is not really relevant to imaging these planets. Also, getting the best eyepiece view takes some skill and experience. And yes, these planets do look quite small even at the highest usable magnification. A 102 Mak is on the small side for planetary imaging, though you will get a result. You should use a dedicated planetary imaging camera rather than a DSLR. Once you have mastered the techniques, you may well find that the results surpass what you can see visually.

The Bresser camera you cite is not equivalent to a DSLR. It appears to be a video camera designed for planetary imaging - the basic principle being to take a video and then process it to get a single image with the atmospheric shimmer edited out. For its maximum exposure, you'd need to find a data sheet. Given the price, I would not expect more than modest results from this camera. In principle, yes, but as the Starquest appears to be a lightweight budget mount, don't set your expectations too high.

I am not sure if you have understood what the Starsense actually does. Apologies if you do. It points its camera (and attached scope, etc) to various points of the sky, resolving stars and doing plate-solves, till it has calculated an alignment and declares that it is ready. Essentially it automates the 2-star/3 object align you would have to do manually if you did not have the device. Reports indicate that not everybody has happy experience of it, but when it works it is a great convenience, eliminating a tiresome procedure and instead allowing the owner to fetch some more gear while it does its thing. Whether it is attached to a refractor or a SCT does not seem relevant as the scope is passive while the Starsense is running. It is not possible to get a feed out from the Starsense for any other purpose such as imaging or guiding.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'size'. Fully extended the AVX will take up a fair amount of space. But if you check the spec you will see that the AVX is pretty heavy and I imagine to get it indoors you would at least take off the OTA, take off the spreader tray, take off the 11lb counterweight, fold in the tripod legs and lug its 46lb weight indoors. Propped against a wall it will not be taking up much floor space. I would not like to move a fully assembled AVX + scope even a couple of feet. As well as being really heavy it will have stuff up top that might swing around and whack you or get damaged. Only sensible if you can get it on wheels as a few other people have done with heavy setups, and have a clear run to a garage. The leg spread will be too wide to get through a standard door.

There's lots to learn. I used to have a similar setup, but not GoTo. If you want to view anything near the zenith, you will have to retract those tripod legs. And if you have occasion to use the finder near the zenith, it makes things much easier if you replace the straight-thru finder with a right-angle or RACI type. And, in common with other larger scopes with higher powered finders e.g. 9x50, it is helpful to add a red dot or suchlike wide angle finder to get the scope roughly aimed and the sought object into the finder field.

My Nexstar 127 SLT has been relatively trouble free. Asides from "wrong input data" a possible cause is low battery voltage or bad connection at the power plug. It is much better to use an external power pack rather than using internal dry batteries. If you know your bright stars, it is quicker to use an auto 2-star align, and this seems just as accurate as the skyalign.

To answer some of your questions: Unless you have the mount permanently set up, you will have to polar align each time you set up. But how accurately? For general visual observing or planetary imaging a rough align should suffice, but for long exposure deep space imaging it should be polar aligned as accurately as you can get it. For the kind of observing and imaging I do, I have regarded polar alignment and equatorial mounts as a nuisance to be avoided if at all possible. However a solid mount like the AVX should cover all bases in the planetary and deep space long exposure imaging departments. (note that you don't need an EQ for planetary imaging as a Goto alt-az will work just fine). The Nexstar 6 SCT is a fine instrument for visual observing and planetary imaging, though for the latter you could consider going up a size to the C8. But you would struggle to use it for deep space imaging, and all the advice points to using a small APO or ED refractor for this. I have the Starsense attached to my alt-az mounted C8, and have found it a great help in avoiding annoying faff each time I set up. In short, if you don't want to do deep space imaging you could go with the C6 Evo, but if you do want to do deep space imaging you should think in terms of a heavy EQ mount and a small APO or ED scope.

I have wondered about alt-az Goto mounts in this range in the past. It seems that there isn't anything other than an Ioptron AZ Mount Pro or a Skywatcher AZ-EQ5GT, which cost twice as much as a 6" Mak. Or you could look out for an unwanted Celestron C8 SE or Evolution mount. In the absence of any mount, the most sensible budget option would seem to be the EQ3 Pro Synscan, at around £400, which supports 7Kg (visual).

Beginners frequently express an interest in astrophotography. With equal frequency we have to point out that attempts to do astrophotography with budget visual telescopes are doomed to disappointment. The requirements for deep space astrophotography are quite different, and much more exacting for the mount, where it has to hold the telescope and camera completely steady for long periods of time with a high degree of precision. A heavy and expensive GoTo mount is the basic requirement. Planetary imaging is another ballgame with different requirements, and if you look at what planetary imagers actually use, it is mostly large aperture SCTs. Many Newtonian telescopes will not bring a DSLR camera to focus unless the telescope is specially modified for astrophotography (PDS). If you buy the Skywatcher 130PDS, apparently this is is suitable for astrophotography if mounted on an EQ-6 mount or similar. I have taken a lot of short exposure & live stacked images using alt-azimuth GoTo mounts and planetary cameras, but this is because that was the kit I had rather than by planning. I suggest you forget about astrophotography for the present, and read the book "Make Every Photon Count."

I don't know how keen you are on the 200p/ EQ5 combo, but I had this configuration for a while and I didn't like it. The mount seemed adequate for visual use, but with the legs fully extended the eyepiece was too high at zenith (around 7ft!) and got into awkward positions, and with the legs retracted it would not see low objects over a 6ft fence. I found it very difficult to find anything with it and felt it really needed a GoTo, but was not willing to spend that much on it. But the few DSO's I managed to find looked great through the 200P. £450 does not seem cheap - there is a brand new 200p/EQ5 on Ebay for £519. I have since disposed of the OTA (for a very low price 😦), and have upgraded the EQ5 with a Synscan kit at a cost of around £300 for another project, but have not tried it outdoors yet for various reasons.

I have a Startravel 102mm (which I think costs rather more than £165 these days) and a Nexstar SLT mount, and have used this combo with an ASI224MC planetary camera to image a few galaxies - essentially this is an EEVA setup. With live stacking and exposures measured in seconds, I produced some images that accurately imitated the visual view through my 203mm SCT - in other words, faint fuzzy grey blobs, looking nothing like the images captured by other people's long exposures. To do much better than this, I expect you would have to spend the neccessary budget on a serious mount and scope, as advised (often) in this forum and in the book "Make Every Photon Count." Trying to do deep space astrophotography on the cheap is almost certain to lead to disappointment.

My experience of small refractors is limited. I had a 70/700 mm refractor I bought at a Lidl store for very little money. The objective lens, I eventually concluded, was no good, and the mount & tripod (a EQ-2 clone) too wobbly for my liking. I also have a 70mm vintage Ross which does everything a 70mm telescope should, but is long, heavy and requires a mount in the AZ-4 or EQ-5 class. So my advice is: avoid the cheapies and be prepared to spend a bit more for a quality instrument on a decent mount. For reference, my 102mm f5 Startravel comes with some chromatic and other aberrations but is nicely made with metal parts rather than plastic. They cost around £230 for the telescope alone (no mount).

So even a Skywatcher Telescope N 150/750 Explorer BD EQ3-2 would be out of the question for astrophotography? Neither the telescope nor the mount (without drives) is particularly suited to astrophotography. Trying to do astrophotography with inadequate kit will merely lead to disappointment. You need to decide priorities. Either aim for a visual outfit for 300 euros, or choose a lightweight GoTo mount for 300 euros and mount a DSLR camera directly on it for some widefield imaging. Have a look in the Imaging sections of this forum and see what kit the successful imagers are actually using.

Just to echo what has been written above, the Celestron Nexstar Evolution 9.25 is a fine outfit for visual use, and with a camera like the ASI224MC (not a DSLR), you can successfully do planetary imaging with it. In this role any slight lack of stability in the mount is not critical. Re accessories, you will need some additional eyepieces and possibly a dew shield, but no need to rush into buying accessories before you have given the scope a good tryout. (IIRC the Evolution does not need an external power tank). As for deep space imaging, as has been remarked, the Evolution 9.25 is not suited for this (regardless of what the manufacturers may suggest) and if you want to do this, you should read "Make Every Photon Count" and then buy some completely diferent (and equally expensive) kit. One telescope does not fit all uses.

Dobsonians have their fans, but as you are already aware, you have to do all the finding and tracking yourself. People have taken photos with them, but if you want to image you should buy something that is suitable for imaging. As a beginner, you should avoid EQ mounts unless you particularly value the ability to track an object using a RA motor. Otherwise, an equatorial only comes into its own for deep space astrophotography (an expensive exercise) where it is essential to avoid field rotation on long exposures. Some people like small refractors, but you should be prepared to pay a bit more for a good one. I have had two, a department store one which was very cheap but the objective lens was no good, and a vintage 70mm Ross which does everything a 70mm scope should, but is very long and heavy and requires a substantial mount. The modern ED and APO refractors are much shorter. Like many of us, you will probably end up owning more than one scope, so pick something and get started.🙂

The EQ-1 is a very lightweight and wobbly mount. Since it is broken, that is the perfect excuse to bin it (mount and tripod) and upgrade to something better within your price range. You should then find that your telescope is easier to use and you may see more with it. Scopes can be attached to any modern mount via tube rings and a standard dovetail. If you don't have a suitable dovetail you can buy one of a suitable length and bolt it to the tube rings in your photo. PS I think I have the same scope as you, and I use it on a SLT GoTo mount with stiffer wooden legs, or an AZ-4 steel legged mount.

The Skywatcher MC127 is similar to my Celestron 127mm Mak and should be a fine scope. As for the mounts, some of these mounts may leave the Mak rather under-mounted. Not sure what to suggest except that you view some mounts in a showroom and give them a poke. 🙂 The EQ-5 Synscan GoTo mount is a fine piece of kit which will mount the Mak very solidly, but it's not cheap or particularly light, and you are unlikely to be needing an equatorial with this telescope. As has been mentioned above, the MC127 and ASI120MC (and an alt-az or EQ GoTo mount) will do well for planetary imaging, but will not be good for DSO imaging. For serious DSO imaging, you will need an entirely different, and rather expensive outfit. "Make Every Photon Count" is the standard reference.

The Celestron C8 SE is a very adequate visual scope so the Evolution Edge HD version should be even better. The Starsense does save time and bother when setting up. From what I have read, the Hyperstar conversion is really not for 'basic' imaging, and once you have got it to work you will not want to swap between this and visual mode. You will want some eyepiees to supplement what comes in the retail kit, and no doubt you willl get plenty of advice on this, but for a f10 scope the choice of eyepiece is not that critical.