Alan64

FEI(for everyone's information), the OP has this telescope... Personally, I'd rather this one... https://www.ebay.com/itm/1-25-Telescope-Digital-Electronic-Eyepiece-Camera-for-Astrophotography-USBPor-Nw/114197037466?_trkparms=aid%3D1110006%26algo%3DHOMESPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20200520130048%26meid%3D32282dac711d4f36b93d5a058a3a018f%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D12%26mehot%3Dco%26sd%3D383455271132%26itm%3D114197037466%26pmt%3D1%26noa%3D0%26pg%3D2047675%26algv%3DSimplAMLv5PairwiseWebWithDarwoV3BBEV2b%26brand%3DUnbranded&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851

In that a Newtonian was bundled with the mount, you received knobs. Had you ordered a refractor-kit, you might have received cables, or knobs. If you find that cables are needed after all, and with a Newtonian, they can be purchased separately. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5tfQ7v3GL0

Incidentally, I had that tutorial bookmarked, and for quite some time. But when I tried to access it recently, it took me to a site selling pills. Even when I tried to find the site by searching, pills still. I'm still scratching my head over that. Thanks for linking to it, as yours is genuine, and I've now bookmarked it.

Huygenian and Ramsden designs do conjure up visions of the older, Japanese .965" format, but thankfully the OP's telescope is configured for the 1.25" standard. Incidentally, I found this interesting... https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095952307 ...the original for f/10 and longer, and the modified down to f/8, at most, so perhaps the latter was included within the kit.

Yes, I suspected that JOC manufactured my only ES telescope.

My bad, yet both are manufactured in mainland-China, at least; apples and oranges in the end.

Barlow... https://agenaastro.com/meade-series-4000-126-1-25-2x-short-focus-barlow-lens.html You can convert that 2x into a 3x by placing the barlow into the telescope first... Zoom... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/202992-REG/Meade_07199_2_Series_4000_8_24mm_Zoom.html But it's back-ordered, and like a lot of stuff for telescopes, including the telescopes themselves. Keep in mind that a zoom-ocular is a bit large, and will probably throw the telescope off balance... I'd use Plossls with the 70/400 achromat. Plossls... https://agenaastro.com/eyepieces/1-25-eyepieces/shopby/gso-gso_plossl-gso_superview.html

I block the secondary-mirror's view of the primary-mirror, with paper in between the two, whilst aligning the secondary-mirror with the focusser, and I use the cross-hairs of the sight-tube(Cheshire) to centre it... ...nice, even slices of pie. It helps to zoom in with a camera, and for finer adjustments. The secondary-mirror rotates and tilts, both. It's like a gyroscope... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9zhP9Bnx-k It can be maddening, and is oft a source of fits. But once it's understood, calm ensues. By blocking the primary-mirror, you can see just the secondary-mirror, and to tend to that, first. After you verify that it's more or less a perfect circle, you then remove the paper and begin to slowly, carefully, aim the centre of the primary to the centre of the secondary. Patience is key in that. Once that's done, you should see something like this... Note that there is a blurred set of cross-hairs within the outer area, and a sharp set in the centre over the centre-spot of the primary-mirror. You want all three to line up with each other, as shown, and then you're golden. After that is accomplished, tighten the screws of the secondary, to secure it. When doing that, I use a collimation-cap whilst tightening, watching the scene to ensure no shifting takes place... I watch that black dot in the very center, and within that reddish centre-spot of the primary, and as I tighten the screws. You can tighten the lock-screws of the primary-mirror as well, but that's not as critical as those for the secondary. You want the screws for the secondary to be tighter than a shirt two sizes too small, but not to the point of breaking or stripping. This tutorial may be of help as well. The telescope used within is similar to your own... https://garyseronik.com/a-beginners-guide-to-collimation/

That is correct, as I had run across an incorrect listing, but then found a correct one; an 80mm f/5 it is in fact. At this point, I don't know if the OP is considering the Gskyer 70/400, or if they've already purchased one. I hope the former. If the former, then the following would be better by far. It's actually the closest to the Orion(of California) ST80, which has been discontinued here in the U.S. The mount is an AZ3-class, and with slow-motion controls... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1061428-REG/meade_209004_infinity_80mm_altazimuth_refractor.html There is also this variant, and for minimal outlay, although with a photo-type mount-tripod... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1295897-REG/meade_222001_adventure_scope_80mm_refracting.html/?ap=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxJO_nfGa7AIVjLLICh0NAQYhEAQYAiABEgLoCPD_BwE Of course, I would prefer an 80mm f/8 or f/11.

I'm seeing at least two versions of the Gskyer 70/400 online... If you have the kit on the left, then transferring the telescope to another mount will be easy, in seconds. If you have the kit on the right, you will need to remove the "bar" that connects the telescope to the present mount, and purchase tube-rings and a dovetail-bar, as the kit on the left is equipped. The rings... https://agenaastro.com/agena-telescope-tube-ring-2-9.html ...and bar... https://www.ebay.com/itm/120mm-Telescope-Dovetail-Mounting-Plate-for-Equatorial-Tripod-Long-Version-BLK/193530516415?hash=item2d0f5153bf:g:NgsAAOSwcZ1cB4ON In either event, this is an alt-azimuth with slow-motion controls... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/570395-USA/Vixen_Optics_3992MINI_Mini_PORTA_Manual_Altazimuth.html Or, if you'd like to track the objects, and with either slow-motion controls, or automatically with a motor-drive possibly... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1291504-REG/explore_scientific_fl_exosnanot1_00_exos_nano_eq3_mount.html Incidentally, I have a Barska 70/300... But I found out shortly after its arrival that it has an effective aperture of only 30mm, and at f/10. I'm in the process of opening it up inside to enable the full 70mm of light-gathering aperture to be utilised; a bit of DIY there. Therefore, I would not be surprised if your own is also operating at either 30mm or 40mm of aperture, as well. This a little-known problem with these short-tubed refractors from China, so I'm spreading the word. I'll be using my own as a finder-scope for my relatively blind-as-a-bat Maksutov.

Whilst straying away, I did think that you might convey those aspects to your friend. The best of luck to both of you.

Welcome Baldor, This is your kit... https://www.bresser.de/en/Astronomy/Telescopes/NATIONAL-GEOGRAPHIC-114-900-Reflector-Telescope-AZ.html I have a 114mm f/8 Newtonian, too, a 114/900... Both are very nice telescopes, but the eyepieces and barlow that were included with my own are not very good, not at all. The images through the eyepieces are grainy, as though a fine lattice-like grid was laid over the images. The barlow introduced false-colour to boot. Hopefully, you can make use of the 1.5x erector-lens during the day; for birds in trees, ships at sea, et al. At f/8, and with a long tube, you won't need expensive eyepieces for a good showing. The ones included with your kit will be fine in the beginning. With entry-level kits like our own, we got a good, a very good, telescope, but often the included eyepieces and accessories fall short of that, and I as found out. Plossls ranging from 9mm to 32mm would make a fine set for the telescope, along with a quality 2x barlow perhaps; not a 3x. Plossls are the minimum in performance-eyepieces, the minimum standard currently, and are reasonably priced; cheap even, in other words. Being a Newtonian, you'll want to check the collimation of the telescope; any telescope upon its arrival for that matter. If it's mis-collimated due to either factory-neglect or during its shipment and handling from mainland-China, then being at f/8 there will also be the bonus that collimating it will not be as difficult as with a shorter f/5 or f/4 Newtonian. You will also enjoy the benefit of a smaller secondary obstruction, just like that of my own... As a result, the images will be slightly sharper and more contrasty. Incidentally, Meade and Bresser are subsidiaries of the same parent-company. Therefore, it is likely that both of ours were made in the same brick-and-mortar factory even. Enjoy your new kit.

Aha! I'm now starting to think that it's an EQ1-class mount after all, however that chromed, toothed wheel of the RA-axis is only on the EQ-2 mounts of today; stranger and stranger.

In so far as a motor-drive for the EQ-1B, this may be the one to consider... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-astromaster-series/motor-drive-celestron-astromaster-geq-93514.html The Celestron motor-drive kit has two mounting-brackets; one for an EQ-1(if the EQ-1B is an EQ-1 in fact), and one for the EQ-2... I don't know if the Sky-Watcher motor-drive includes both, or not. This US-sourced Meade drive is from the era of the EQ-1B, and most likely would fit it... https://telescope-warehouse.com/shop/ols/products/meade-telescope-533-ra-drive-motor-modified-as-a-531-to-fit-12-shaft-eq-mounts However, that's just an example, and not intended for purchase, as it has been modified. But you can see how it's practically identical to the Celestron.

True that, but despite its badge, it may be an EQ2-class mount. It is difficult to tell from the image, as I can't see the profile of the mount-head; only from the back. Modern EQ1-class mounts are noticeably smaller, the smallest of all, and with spindly legs... I renovated that mount, and to my liking... That's the 127mm f/8 catadioptric-reflector that came with it. The EQ series of mounts...

Yes, that's when they were manufactured in Taiwan, and what I call "Free China", at present. The mount is an EQ2-class equatorial, and just as my own... Celestron offers a 4.5" f/8 kit, too, but it comes with the smaller EQ1-class equatorial mount; less stable, less supportive... https://www.celestron.com/products/powerseeker-114eq-telescope The Meade is the better value, of course. I wish you and your friend great success in collimating the telescope and observing with it.

Then you'll see that an off-setting at f/8 is practically nonexistent, off-set very little, if at all; a 6" f/8 for example... Again, the higher the focal-ratio, the easier to collimate; so there's some good news, and encouragement. I have a 4.5" f/8 myself, but I haven't touched it yet, as in having renovated it, for as telescopes come from the factory, particularly the entry-level, and those bit advanced even, they can use some improvement here and there... It's also the reflective equivalent, yea, a "doppleganger" even, of my 4" f/8 refractor.

No, it should not be any bother at all, for, again, the off-setting occurs automatically, with nothing for you to do. Some do tweak it further, and for that last iota of sharpness. There is another aspect of off-setting a secondary-mirror, and in relation to the mirror itself and its stalk to which it's attached; not in relation to the optical-system in toto as discussed previously. But we seem to rely on that type of off-setting being done properly at the factory, however I encountered one that required correcting. Your 8" f/6 will have an off-setting, although not as drastic as an f/5 or f/4. Do you know the focal-ratio of your friend's telescope? It will be at either approximately f/4, or f/8; a short or long tube, respectively.

I use both a Cheshire and a collimation-cap, with one serving as a fail-safe for the other, in verifying the collimation. A cap will definitely get you within the "ball park", but for that extra measure of sharpness, for the higher powers where a telescope must work harder to produce pleasing images, a Cheshire(or a simpler sight-tube with cross-hairs) serves best. This, the secondary-scene of my 127mm f/4 catadioptric-reflector, albeit at an effective f/8 with its integrated, correcting lens-assembly... On the left, you can see the actual cross-hairs, and blurred; in the centre, over the primary's centre-spot, the reflection of same, and sharply-defined. On the right, the same, yet with the various components highlighted. Note how the yellow circle is not quite centred within the green. That's the secondary's off-setting, and normal for an f/4 reflector. At f/5, the off-setting is little less wonky, at f/6 a bit less than that. Lesser still as a telescope reaches f/8 or more, and then almost perfectly centred. The good thing about a reflector's off-setting is that it occurs automatically during a normal collimation procedure, and without intervention on the user's part. Once the two sets of cross-hairs, blurred and sharp, are lined up together, and both centred over the primary's spot, you're golden. After I photographed that scene, I saw Jupiter's "Great Red Spot", sharply, and incidentally for the very first time in my life. Our eyes are rather weak, having evolved for use during the day when there's plenty of light, and more besides; up at the break of day, then to bed as night falls. That's why we tend to gravitate towards telescopes, and in going against the mold. In the instance of collimation, our eyes have a difficult time looking down into a focusser. The tiny peep-hole of the tool isn't very accommodating. It's almost dead-black down there, for another, and our eyes cannot zoom in, like a camera, for yet another. When collimating indoors, which is far easier, unless travelling, I like to illuminate the tube with a small lamp, and its shade overlaid with gift-type tissue secured with a rubber-band... I then take a small point-and-shoot camera, zoom into the secondary-scene, and snap a shot, albeit through a collimation-cap in this instance... There's no question in that one being ready for a show.

Just dive into it with no holds barred. Collimating is a gradual learning experience. Don't expect perfection during the first attempts; but who knows you may surprise yourself, particularly with that premium Cheshire, of which I'm familiar, and would love to have one myself. If your friend's 4.5" is at f/8, it will be easier to collimate; if at f/4, more difficult. Of course, the 8" at f/6 will be middling in difficulty. I ensure that the secondary-mirror is directly under the focusser, and the mirror itself circular in appearance... Then, I begin to collimate from there. When collimating, you want the tool in the same position within the visual-back, perhaps skewed slightly to one side when clamped, and as the eyepieces will be whilst secured during an observing session. That ensures that the centre of the tool corresponds exactly with the centres of the eyepieces, and for the sharpest images.

If you reinstall the screws only, to seal the tube, they will need to be shortened so as not to intrude into the light-path.

The EQ-5 mount would be the barest minimum for your purposes, nothing smaller. The EQ-5 is the sweet-spot among all sizes of equatorials. It's large enough to support a wider range of telescopes, for imaging as well, yet small enough to be manageable; portable at that, when disassembled. In so far as the 150mm Maksutov, the longer the focal-length contained within... ...the closer to the planets, and other. The Sky-Watcher 150mm has an 1800mm focal-length, 600mm longer than the 150PL Newtonian, and the EQ-5 will support it, but not as well as it would this one... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bresser-telescopes/bresser-messier-mc-127-1900-maksutov-cassegrain-ota.html The Bresser 127mm f/15 has a full, effective 127mm of aperture; that of the Sky-Watcher 127mm: 118-120mm. In addition, the Bresser has a 1900mm focal-length -- 100mm longer than that of the Sky-Watcher 150mm -- thereby even closer still. I have that same Maksutov... No pesky spider-vanes to muck up the images further, and the tube is short, both apparently. Just as the EQ-5 is the sweet-spot among equatorials, so a 127mm Maksutov is that among the varying apertures of the design. For any modified-Cassegrain, Maksutov or Schmidt, a dew-shield is mandatory... You want to keep dew, insects, dirt, pollen off of the meniscus, the "lens" at the front. I didn't even take my own outdoors until I got a dew-shield. I made one out of black art-paper initially. Fun fact: The manufacturers and their vendors make absolutely no mention whatsoever of a dew-shield within their advertisements and listings; not even within the "Suggested Accessories". Yet one is needed, badly, direly, and absolutely. Users of Maksutovs, a closed telescopic system, generally set the telescope outdoors for an hour or so prior to observing or imaging. That allows the telescope to acclimate per the outdoor conditions, and for best results. Some even store the telescope outdoors, protected of course, and to be ready to go when they are. Then, if not the Bresser, consider the Sky-Watcher 127mm. After all, its focal-length is 1500mm, 300mm longer than that of the 150PL Newtonian. A 150mm Maksutov is a good bit heavier, cumbersome even, and requires an even longer acclimation period.

Actually, it's quite similar to your own. It's a short Newtonian, it once had three spider-vanes like your own, and it once had a fixed primary-mirror(which it still does in a way). It is at f/4, whilst yours is at f/5, but it has a parabolic primary-mirror like your own. But my mirror is not certified as being diffraction-limited, which means that the images may or may not be as good as one that is certified as being so. Yours most likely is, so that is another difference. I have purchased a few entry-level telescopes, and I feel that the user does receive a good, yea, a very good telescope, but usually everything else within a kit falls short, from the mount, to the eyepieces and accessories. But the heart of any kit is the objective of the telescope, whether a primary-mirror(Newtonian) or a crown-and-flint doublet(refractor). That's what really matters in the end, and what really counts. I was impressed somewhat once the collimation was confirmed. I'm still testing it however, and at the higher powers. I will need to check its collimation, tweak it perhaps, and test it again in future. It has to wait its turn, as I have quite a few telescopes. All are not listed within my signature.

For that celestial, at night, there are at least three telescopes that come rather close to being all-rounders. I have one, a 150mm f/5 Newtonian. Another is the next size down, a 130mm f/5 Newtonian. Lastly, a 130mm f/6 ED- or apochromatic-refractor. The refractor would also be an ideal for that daytime/terrestrial(birds in trees, ships at sea, et al), including solar observations; but for a price however. Obviously, said refractor would be the ultimate in all aspects; a bit of this, a bit of that, and a bit of everything else.

I hear you, friend, but we wouldn't want you to choose the wrong equipment. Consider... When imaging the planets, or deep-sky objects, no matter, a telescope with a large aperture is not required. Rather, it's the camera's sensor that collects the light for the images being desired. I take instant snap-shots of the planets, and I hope to get better at it... I simply held a point-and-shoot camera up to the eyepiece, then snapped the shot. I know that you're wanting to take it to the next level, and with a planetary-camera. I've thought about doing that myself. The 150PL, a 150mm f/8 Newtonian, is a fine telescope in its own right, but when used for astro-photography I've only seen it done with that telescope attached to a much larger mount, an EQ6-class equatorial mount at that. When imaging, the mount is more important than the telescope. This is because when using your eyes and eyepieces, the eye doesn't mind the shaking and wobbling of the telescope. A camera, however, is a robot, and will not tolerate even the slightest of wobbles. The images would be soft at best, or blurred at worst... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/skywatcher-skymax-102-ota.html ...or the 127mm, but certainly no larger. https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-eq5-deluxe.html https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-watcher-mount-accessories/single-axis-dc-motor-drive-for-eq5.html There are also go-to kits, with automatic-tracking for the Maksutov... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/skywatcher-skymax-102-synscan-az-goto.html For use with a "smartphone" app... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/sky-watcher-skymax-102-az-gti.html A hand-controller may also be used with that kit, and purchased separately. I, personally, am in earnest to hear, to read of your success in this.