Alan64

I understand, hence sacrifices to be made. Bortle-3 skies sound very nice; very nice indeed. I have Bortle-4 to -5 here at my home.

There is another con to the collapsibles: they tend to require collimation more often than a full tube. I also suspect, over time, that the mechanical aspect of it being a collapsible would wear out over time, eventually making collimation very difficult if not impossible. This, William Herschel's 6.13" f/13.7 "Dobsonian", and with which he discovered the planet Uranus... Does a 6" f/8 seem too big and unmanageable still? In hindsight, I would've gotten a 6" f/8 instead of that 6" f/5. But that's just me, as I prefer telescopes with longer focal-lengths. They perform better, optically. A telescope can be ergonomic; easy to store, carry about, tuck away. Or, a telescope can be an optical powerhouse, one's very own observatory. A Maksutov-Cassegrain comes closest to encompassing both aspects, but it has its own issues... Do you live in a city, or a suburb of same; or far enough away from either, under darker skies, a semi-rural to rural setting?

Both the 6"f/8 and 8" f/6 Newtonian-Dobsons have the same focal-length: 1200mm, and great for medium-low, medium, and high magnifications; not so much for low-power, wide-field views. But then, a telescope, in the first place, is for seeing faraway objects up close, and closer still if the collimation is spot-on. Else, you'd use a pair of binoculars. It just so happens that I have that Orion 6" f/5 kit... However, notice what I did. I couldn't stand the original Dobson alt-azimuth mount, so I moved the telescope over to a tripod-type alt-azimuth, and the experience was worlds better. A 6" f/5 Newtonian has it all, almost: a shorter tube, an appreciable aperture, and the ability to observe most everything in the night sky, from about 20x(binocular-like), up to 200x and beyond. It's quite the all-rounder. Although a 6" f/5 Newtonian is more difficult to collimate compared to a 6" f/8 Newtonian-Dobson, but not as badly as that might seem to imply. In addition, the secondary-obstruction is larger at f/5 versus f/8. Such will reduce sharpness, for it's an obstruction, like a cataract of the human eye. That of an f/8 is smaller, and negligible. If you're curious, you can peruse the finer GSO 6" f/5 OTA, and the same tripod-type alt-azimuth that I have, here... http://www.andrewscom.com.au/site-content-section-10-guansheng.htm#accessories ...decisions, decisions.

At one point, a few decades ago, Plossls were considered to be premium eyepieces. They still are to an extent, but currently they are among the most economical eyepieces you can buy. They are now regarded as the minimum standard in performance-eyepieces. Some beginner, entry-level kits include Plossls even, albeit the somewhat pricier kits. Plossls perform well with practically every telescope, specifically the short-tube Newtonians which are the most demanding and picky as to the eyepieces introduced to them. However, there is a catch: eye-relief, the distance that you have to hold your eye up to the eye-lens of an eyepiece to see the full field-of-view. Plossls shorter than 9mm have rather tight eye-relief(6mm, 5mm, 4mm), whereby you almost have to touch the eyepiece with the eyeball itself to see the full view. And to make matters worse, those shorter eyepieces are for the higher powers. One solution is to barlow one of the longer Plossls. With a 3x-barlow combined with a 12mm Plossl, you get an effective, simulated 4mm; with a 2x-barlow and a 9mm Plossl, a 4.5mm. With your telescope, that translates into powers of 225x and 200x, respectively. You do retain the longer eye-relief of the longer eyepieces when barlowing them. Sometimes the eye-relief is greater than that even when barlowing. But know that the Newtonian's collimation must be spot-on to make use of the higher powers. Fortunately, with your telescope at f/8, collimation is easier, than at f/5 or f/4.

Yes, that kit and the smaller "Heritage" 130mm f/5 are collapsibles, and with a helical focusser. In that you're wanting to take pictures, you may prefer a 150mm f/8 Newtonian-Dobson, and with a conventional, metal 2"/1.25" focusser... https://skywatcheraustralia.com.au/product/6-classic-dobsonian/ If you can find this 150mm f/5 Newtonian-Dobson kit there in Australia, it has a solid tube and a traditional(albeit plastic) 1.25" rack-and-pinion focusser... https://www.amazon.com.au/Orion-10016-StarBlast-Reflector-Telescope/dp/B00463ZK3O If you wouldn't mind bumping the aperture down a bit, yet with no collimation worries... https://skywatcheraustralia.com.au/product/90-eq2-refractor/

Baldor, the galaxy in Andromeda is at least six full-Moons wide... Therefore, the lowest power possible among telescopes is required to view it in its entirety, even through a pair of binoculars, and the lowest power of all with the eyes only. The lowest power possible with your 114/900 is 28x, and with a 32mm Plossl; for example... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/astro-essentials-eyepieces/astro-essentials-super-plossl-eyepiece.html Not a bad view at all, and in almost encompassing the galaxy. Even the galaxy's satellite-galaxies, M32 and M110, are visible within the view. I would strongly suggest getting a 32mm Plossl. Now, if you had the shorter 114/500 Newtonian, the 32mm would offer this wide a view of the galaxy... As you can see, the galaxy is almost seen in its entirety, but your longer telescope is better for most objects in the sky; the planets and the majority of deep-sky objects, which are smaller and much smaller than the galaxy in Andromeda. Incidentally, I got a telescope primarily and specifically to view the galaxy in Andromeda in its entirety, a 100/400 Newtonian... This will be my own view of the galaxy when I get around to observing it with my 32mm Plossl(I haven't yet)... As you can see, that little star-box can show the entire galaxy. That 100/400 is the same as this one... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/heritage/skywatcher-heritage-100p-tabletop-dobsonian.html All in all, that should help you understand the nature of long-tube and short-tube refractors and Newtonians a bit better. Now, I'm not suggesting that you should've gotten a 114/500 or a 100/400 instead of the 114/900, for the short-tube refractors and Newtonians are not as observationally versatile as your own. I would never suggest or recommend a short-tube refractor or Newtonian as a first and only telescope, but I would the one that you already have. So, in my opinion, you made the best choice after all.

In that your C5 Schmidt is at f/10, you don't need corrective/expensive eyepieces for a good showing; instead eyepieces much, much less than £100 each. But do avoid ready-made sets. Plossls at 9mm and longer, up to 32mm, are a good choice. Others prefer a wider view. Those can be a bit more expensive, but for an f/10 telescope, not much more; and sometimes even less than an already-economical Plossl, if you know where to look. The choosing of eyepieces approaches the importance of choosing a pair of prescription-eyeglasses, particularly if one has to wear glasses whilst observing. There are more eyepieces out there in the marketplace at which you might shake a stick. I do know for the lowest power and widest view that a 32mm Plossl would be the ideal; a 24mm 68° ocular is a more expensive alternative to that. The width of the view would be the same as the 32mm, but the background sky would be darker, blacker, more contrasty. That's due to the somewhat higher power of the 24mm. Always, as you go up in magnification, the sky grows darker. Patience and research is key, and with no more than one eyepiece to consider at a time, ideally.

From your description, I assume you're needing that outlined in red, but do you have that outlined in green which secures the draw-tube within the focusser's housing? The upper, chromed part on the left is the draw-tube. The lower black part is the visual-back which screws onto the draw-tube and holds the eyepieces. The small parts on the right keeps the draw-tube from falling out whilst racking it in and out.

Yes, a refractor or Newtonian with a focal-length at 900mm and longer is ideal for the planets, the longer the better. Unfortunately, that requires the telescope tubes to be longer as well. Both designs are rather ancient, and from the 1600s. An alternative is a Newtonian at f/5, either a 130/650 or a 150/750. I have the latter... The 150/750 Newtonian is not all that long, and weighs about 12 lbs. or so, just the optical-tube, or OTA. But it can be a bit of a beast in its own right. At f/5, both the 130mm and 150mm are somewhat difficult to collimate, but with barlows both can produce quite good images of the planets, and close-up, and offer low-power wide-field views as well. These are examples of a smaller 130/650... https://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Reflector-Telescopes/Reflector-Telescopes-for-Beginners/Orion-SpaceProbe-130ST-Equatorial-Reflector-Telescope/pc/1/c/11/sc/339/p/9007.uts?refineByCategoryId=339 https://www.telescopesplus.com/products/zhumell-z130-portable-altazimuth-reflector-telescope Still, I prefer telescopes with longer focal-lengths, like this 90/900 refractor... Note how long it is in relation to your 70/400 refractor. A 90/900 kit for example... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1061423-REG/meade_216003_polaris_90mm_german_equtorial.html Now, if you were referring to a Maksutov, those are a bit of a specialty, and for those unfamiliar with one, a Makstov is best used with a go-to mount, for example... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/681797-REG/Celestron_22097_NexStar_127SLT_Computerized_Telescope.html This is because of the very long focal-length. It's quite difficult to find objects when using a Maksutov on a manual mount. The telescope is a bit blind in that, and needs help to find its way around the sky, hence a go-to mount. But, before you consider yet another telescope, try to exhaust all the possibilities with the 114/500 Newtonian.

I would hardly look upon a 114/500 as a "beast"; not even this 114/900 as such... Both, the short refractor and the short reflector, are configured for low-power wide-field views; well under 100x. At least you'll have the full 114mm aperture, the brightness and resolution, with the reflector; if it's collimated well. Short Newtonians are more difficult to collimate. Then, there's the secondary-obstruction: a long 114/900 on the left, and a short 100/400(similar to your 114/500) on the right... A reflector's secondary-obstruction is like a cataract of the human eye. The images are not as sharp and contrasty as a result. The shorter the Newtonian, the larger the obstruction; conversely, the longer, the smaller. The one on the left is ideal for high-powered, close-up views of the planets; the one on the right, not so much, I'm afraid. 400mm and 500mm focal-length telescopes do not play well with the focal-lengths of eyepieces, in realising the higher powers. The planets become interesting around 150x. With your 114/500... 500mm ÷ 150x = a 3.3mm eyepiece; for example... https://agenaastro.com/bst-1-25-uwa-planetary-eyepiece-3-2mm.html (156x) But I'm not suggesting that you purchase that eyepiece, for I do not know if it will play well with the 114/500; perhaps, perhaps not. It would be a gamble. A safer alternative would be a 9mm Plossl eyepiece combined with a 3x-barlow, and for an effective, simulated 3mm(167x). I would stick with Plossl eyepieces for the 114/500. Plossls perform well with shorter Newtonians; the cheaper of wide-angle eyepieces, not so much. Plossls... https://agenaastro.com/eyepieces/1-25-eyepieces/shopby/gso-gso_plossl.html A 3x-barlow, for example... https://agenaastro.com/meade-128-3x-barlow-07278.html To see details, and the natural colouring, of Jupiter, through the 114/500, a variable-polariser is suggested, for example... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1454232-REG/celestron_94107_variable_polarizer_filter_1_25.html?gclid=CjwKCAjww5r8BRB6EiwArcckC2NP7CaaTx33ZFxqisaX_US26SewSrZ9um39UpPWT-2DqQxmVPukuBoCnZ0QAvD_BwE You've made strides in getting a telescope to see the planets, but you're not there, quite yet. Now, all of those eyepieces and accessories can be used with other telescope that may be acquired in future, therefore they're a sound investment, although a 3x-barlow might be too much for a longer focal-length telescope. For high-powered, close-up views of the Moon, the planets, and the single and double-stars, along with the smaller deep-sky objects, a telescope should have a minimum of 900mm in focal-length. This telescope of my own has a focal-length of 1900mm, a 127/1900... It's not much larger in aperture compared to your 114/500, and short, too, but its focal-length is almost four times that of your own. Of course, high-powered views are its forte. It's like a microscope, but for the night sky. You might want one of those some day. It's a Maksutov, a modified-Cassegrain.

Initially I thought that you had gotten this one, the long-tube 114/900... I have one like it, under a different brand. The main mirror is a spherical, yet it performs quite well at f/8; 1/5th-wave actually, and it's easier to collimate when needed. It's ideal for close-up views of the planets and other objects. It's easy to reach those higher powers with eyepieces, with the longer telescope. The views are sharper as well. This is the one you received instead... This is a video of the current model, the 114CF... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMzEHfx45wA The 114/500 Newtonian will be more eye-opening than the 70/400 achromat. The main mirror should be parabolic instead of a spherical, but I have my doubts. It will be rather difficult to reach the higher powers, for the planets. For example, this a view of Mars through a high-power, 4mm eyepiece inserted into your 114/500... The view of same through the longer 114/900... I think I see a polar-cap in that. However, Mars is closer to the Earth during this time. Best of luck.

A refractor, along with a Maksutov-Cassegrain, has the focusser at the rear, which is actually, in my opinion, more user-friendly... With a reflector(Newtonian), the focusser, with the eyepiece inserted, has to be at the front of the tube on the side. That is how it was designed by Issac Newton over 300 years ago... There is no advantage, no pro, a con instead, with that design, for observing is best conducted whilst seated. Form simply follows function in that. You cannot change either design. They're "set in stone", forever... Any questions?

In that it was inserted, it can be removed, if with persistence. You don't want to pour oil or other inside to loosen it. If you don't have a set already... https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rolson-59136-Probe-Set-Pieces/dp/B001MJ0JOU/ref=pd_lpo_60_t_0/260-8574297-3163865?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B001MJ0JOU&pd_rd_r=2e2ab246-55a1-49a2-a8f8-e93e32d541b1&pd_rd_w=jmBct&pd_rd_wg=CwlxB&pf_rd_p=7b8e3b03-1439-4489-abd4-4a138cf4eca6&pf_rd_r=ZRTEMT7CSDB1YZ3462VA&psc=1&refRID=ZRTEMT7CSDB1YZ3462VA

If the eyepieces bundled with the kit allow for screwing a filter onto the bottom of the barrels, you might consider a variable-polariser... It's like a dimming-switch for a light-fixture within the home, but for the brighter and brightest objects of the night sky instead. One section of the filter rotates against the other for adjustments. I've used that one with great success, for Jupiter, Venus, and Mars... For Venus, and in seeing its Moon-like phases more distinctly.

I've read of this being used... https://www.amazon.co.uk/SuperFOIL-General-Purpose-Insulation-Wrap/dp/B075XKJ9LQ/ref=psdc_1938186031_t1_B07NS6BB89 I made a dew-shield from the stuff for a relation's C90 Maksutov...

Two to three eyepieces would make for a useful set for a long time. Plossls are the minimum in performance eyepieces, and are economical; a 32mm and a 12mm, along with a 2x-barlow perhaps. The 32mm would be for your lowest power and brightest/widest view of the sky, and for hunting objects to observe. The 12mm, with and without a barlow, for the higher powers. Plossls... https://www.365astronomy.com/32mm-GSO-Plossl-Eyepiece.html https://www.365astronomy.com/12mm-GSO-Plossl-Eyepiece.html Barlow... https://www.365astronomy.com/GSO-2x-Barlow-2-Element-Achromatic-Barlow.html Those are just examples. If you want eyepieces that will show a wider view of the sky at the medium-to-high powers, those are available too.

You do have an alternative, if it's only the Moon... I took all of those with a point-and-shoot digital-camera. A "smartphone" camera might do the trick, as you've done already, but perhaps not as well as the aforementioned.

One focal-reducer I'm aware of for Schmidts is this one... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reducersflatteners/celestron-f63-focal-reducer.html There is also the Meade... https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/meade-f63-focal-reducer.html Both will reduce the focal-ratio from f/10 to f/6.3, and consequently the focal-length of your C5. Both are quite possibly manufactured in the same factory in China.

The first listed is a refractor, an achromat. The second is a Newtonian, a reflector, and that may require routine collimation, alignment of the optical-system. If this is your first telescope, I would suggest the refractor, the PowerSeeker 70AZ Telescope. You might want to get a star-diagonal for it, eventually, as the one that comes with the kit, an Amici erect-image, is not ideal for use at night; during the day rather, for birds in trees, ships at sea, et al. You can use the Amici at night, but the performance will fall short compared to that of a proper star-diagonal. The second kit, the Newtonian, does not use a diagonal. The refractor comes with an easier-to-use mount, an alt-azimuth. The Newtonian comes with an equatorial mount, which may seem difficult to use, at first, but practice makes perfect. So there you have a refractor which will not require collimation, generally, and mounted on a simpler alt-azimuth. Then, you have the Newtonian which will require collimation on occasion, and on a more complex equatorial mount. The equatorial will allow for manual or automatic(with a motor-drive) tracking of any object in the sky. The refractor can be used day or night; the Newtonian at night, although solar-observations are possible during the day with the reflector, and with a safe solar-filter fitted over the front of the telescope. The refractor is more the ideal for planetary and stellar(single-and double-stars) observations. On the other hand, the Newtonian would be false-colour free, when viewing brighter objects. Those are the differences. In so far as brightness(light-gathering) and ease of achieving higher magnifications, the two are practically identical. The eyepieces provided with each kit are essentially of the same type. You may find that upgrading to better eyepieces, like Plossls, and perhaps a quality 2x-barlow, will enhance the enjoyment. If we knew your location, we could suggest other and possibly better options for you to consider.

Now, the aforementioned images were taken through a 4mm eyepiece, and at 250x. I did not need to use a filter in those instances. The camera will not collect much light well under a second. To the OP, you'll need at least a 2x-barlow to get closer, if not a 3x, but the higher you go in power the faster the object will move across the field-of-view. Sub-second shots are mandatory if you're to catch them at or near their best, their sharpest.

The closest to an all-round telescope is a 130mm f/5 or 150mm f/5 Newtonian, and with magnifications ranging from 20x to 200x and beyond; for observing practically everything in the sky. A 130mm f/6 apochromatic-refractor would be an ideal all-rounder, too, with little to no collimation worries, but I digress. When wanting to take pictures, many begin with a short 80mm ED-doublet or -triplet refractor, or a 130mm f/5 Newtonian; for examples... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/pro-series/skywatcher-evostar-80ed-ds-pro-ota.html https://www.firstlightoptics.com/esprit-professional-refractors/skywatcher-esprit-ed-80-pro-triplet.html https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-130p-ds-ota.html https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/210593-imaging-with-the-130pds/ I would choose a 130mm f/5 Newtonian, and an EQ5-class go-to equatorial mount; the HEQ5 listed below. But you will need to learn and master the art of collimating a Newtonian, in addition; for imaging, to the point of fanaticism even, and in making the master, Newton, proud. He observed with a 33mm f/5 instrument. Alas, if only he had had a camera. When imaging with a DSLR-camera, the mount used must be much larger than the telescope, and supportive of the imaging equipment attached in addition; for examples... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/equatorial-astronomy-mounts/skywatcher-heq5-pro-synscan.html https://www.firstlightoptics.com/equatorial-astronomy-mounts/skywatcher-eq6-r-pro-synscan-go-to-equatorial-mount.html The telescope and camera must be held rigidly, steadily, like a rock, whilst tracking and photographing an object, during timed-exposures, so as to avoid soft and blurred images. That's just the basest of basics. The photographic endeavour can be a real money-pit; or not if you choose a more casual approach.

It appears that even a 70mm aperture may make merry use of a variable-polariser, and to dim things down a bit. The objects within the FOV of an eyepiece are constantly on the move... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-9oFxYFODE The camera must be held steady, and the shot taken in a fraction of a second, at least 1/10th. I use a point-and-shoot camera. That's my knack... Jupiter is still too bright there, but that's through a 127/1016 reflector.

I was under the impression that the telescope in question did not come centre-spotted, like this one... Do you see a white ring like that, more or less in the centre of the mirror? If it is, and you confirm that it's definitely off-centre, you can remove that one and replace it. But you would need to research on how to go about that, thoroughly before attempting. It can be a bit difficult to remove the primary cell and mirror with that particular make and model. Also, I would suggest using a passive-tool, like a Cheshire and/or a collimation-cap, to collimate. I use both, and for the telescope that houses that mirror within my image... My own arrived without a spot, so I applied one, carefully and precisely as I could. If you purchased an entry-level laser-collimator, those oft require inspection and collimation themselves, and before using one to collimate the telescope. Else, inaccuracies will result.

My 150/750 is on a manual mount, therefore maxing out the aperture is more difficult. 750mm is a bit short for a 150mm aperture. For the higher powers, I use a 2.8x and 3x barlows with a 12mm 60° eyepiece, and for effective 4.3mm(174x) and 4mm(188x) eyepieces, respectively. I've had great success in that. But you also have the option of sourcing a dedicated 4mm wider-angle eyepiece, with a larger eye-lens and greater eye-relief. Same goes for a 6mm, then to barlow that with a 2x, and for an effective 3mm(250x). Then, as you go up in power, the telescope, and anything else present within the light-path, must work harder to produce sharp, pleasing images. The atmosphere plays its part in that as well. Equipment-wise, collimation of the Newtonian must be spot-on, and the eyepieces and accessories of a quality to complement. But the latter doesn't necessarily require "breaking the bank". Careful consideration when purchasing the other half of a telescope(eyepieces, et al) will go a long way in ensuring a successful experience. For it is the higher and highest powers where exclamations of "Wow!" and "Look at that!" are emitted.

I don't know if my situation will apply, photographically, but I have a 150mm f/5 Newtonian myself. During Mars last opposition, I had to use a variable-polariser, to reduce the flares from the telescope's spider-vanes, and to enable the planet's features to be seen more easily... That's exactly how Mars appeared through my own, before and after the variable-polariser. You do retain the resolution afforded by the 150mm aperture, but the light-gathering capability of same is not our friend when viewing the brighter of planets, at least among apertures at 150mm and somewhat smaller. With the larger apertures, higher magnifications are possible, well over 200x, and that will dim the objects and vanes suitably in addition.