Alan64

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.

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.