Alan64

Your telescope is a 6" f/5 Newtonian, like my own, and with a 750mm focal-length.... It's the focal-length that will help you determine the powers you're able to achieve, with an eyepiece, or an eyepiece combined with a barlow. You may want a short barlow for your Newtonian, one that doesn't stick up out of the focusser too high... https://agenaastro.com/meade-series-4000-126-1-25-2x-short-focus-barlow-lens.html A 2x-barlow, like that one, will effectively double the focal-length, and to 1500mm. You might want to consider a 3x even... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/206713-REG/Meade_07278_128_3x_Short_Focus.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=CjwKCAjwqML6BRAHEiwAdquMnYC6uu8R8l3JugusaPiRm2eLbuax_OAMGS3fsXxWx-gr82ocsI2FSxoCHW0QAvD_BwE That one would triple the focal-length of the telescope, and to 2250mm. For example, I like to combine a 12mm 60° eyepiece with a 3x... The 12mm inserted into the 3x-barlow becomes a simulated 4mm, and for a power of 188x. You can see the Moon and the planets up close with that combination; and the Trapezium within Orion this winter, a beautiful and tight cluster of stars. Higher powers do require that the collimation of the telescope be spot-on, almost perfect, and for sharp, pleasing views. We are at the mercy of the atmosphere however, and that will play its part, too, in your success. There are quite a few amateurs who don't use barlows at all in reaching the higher powers. But the high-power eyepieces they choose to compensate, where they can omit a barlow, are more expensive. Many deep-sky objects are best seen at low-to-medium powers, and with no need for a barlow. For your lowest power, and in helping the finder-scope or red-dot finder hunt for and then find objects to observe, a 32mm Plossl will serve... https://agenaastro.com/gso-32mm-plossl-eyepiece.html (23x, and nigh binocular-like) I have that one, and it's worth the wait. Many astronomical items, during this time, are in short supply. Do you have an idea as to how much you want to spend on eyepieces and accessories? Plossls are the minimum in performance eyepieces, and are a great value... https://agenaastro.com/eyepieces/1-25-eyepieces/shopby/gso-gso_plossl.html ...but when you choose shorter than 9mm, the eye-relief is tight, and where you have to almost touch the eye to the eye-lens of the eyepiece to see the full field-of-view. Also, the eye-lenses are tiny. This is my Vixen 6mm Plossl... The views are great, if you can get close enough to it. Next up from the Plossls are these... https://www.astronomics.com/eyepieces-barlows.html?manufacturer=360&filter_eyepiece_series=478 They offer greater eye-relief, somewhat wider fields-of-view, and larger eye-lenses through which to observe. Arguably, the best focal-lengths among those are the 8mm and 12mm.

The Sky-Watcher 6" "Dob" includes a Dobson-style alt-azimuth base; no need for any other support. The base is like a turntable, allowing you rotate the Newtonian left and right. The yokes that rise up from the base hold the telescope, and allows you to move the telescope up and down. The left-and-right and up-and-down motions work together, in unison, and in motioning the telescope across the night sky. The alt-azimuth base was made popular by John Dobson several decades ago, although he didn't actually invent it. Rather, I like to think that the Earl of Rosse did... Although, his Newtonian, a 72", could only move up and down. He was able to see the colour(s) of quite a few deep-sky objects, and with only his eyes; no camera. I can't help but think that John Dobson was inspired by that "kit". https://www.aavso.org/sidewalk-astronomy-evangelist-john-dobson-dies-age-98 Dobson enabled the owning of a larger Newtonian on the relative cheap, and for that he is celebrated. But it was Issac Newton who invented the telescope itself, and that bears his name. Now, if you ever wanted to take the 6" telescope off of its base, you would need tube-rings, a dovetail-bar, and this mount... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1334051-REG/sky_watcher_s30300_eq6_r_equatorial_goto_mount.html That small tripod to which you had linked would support this "Dobsonian", a 100mm f/4, and smaller telescopes in general...

My Orion 6" f/5 Newtonian("StarBlast 6") and the "XT6 Dobsonian" have always sported 1.25" plastic focussers. My own 6" is from 2012. Now, back in the day when Gieseler still owned Orion, who knows.

There are many kits online that have risen in price this year. But those four have not, not yet anyway. The Orion 6" has a plastic 1.25" focusser, and a black colour-scheme which is "cooler", I daresay. However, the Sky-Watcher has a 1.25"/2" focusser, and of metal. Metal focussers are superior, of course. The other advantage of the Sky-Watcher's focusser is that you can use 2" eyepieces, but you'd get one at most, most likely if at all, like this 32mm or 38mm... https://agenaastro.com/agena-32mm-super-wide-angle-swa-eyepiece.html (38x) https://agenaastro.com/agena-38mm-super-wide-angle-swa-eyepiece.html (32x) Either would be for your lowest power, to augment the finder-scope or red-dot-finder in sweeping the sky, hunting for objects to observe. Then, the Orion has one clear advantage over the Sky-Watcher. The primary-cell of the Orion, which holds its main(primary) mirror, is spring-loaded, and for greater ease when collimating... The Sky-Watcher's primary-cell uses rubber-grommets for tensioning, which eventually fail. However, it is possible to replace them with metal springs once you become more familiar with the telescope's construction. Newtonians are, albeit arguably, the most mechanical of all telescopic designs. It's a workman's telescope, but with the advantage of getting a larger aperture for less outlay. But that is not to suggest the Orion over the Sky-Watcher, not at all. In the long run, the Sky-Watcher is superior, for it would be far easier to replace rubber-grommets with springs than to replace a focusser. A comparison between the tensioners... There, the rubber-grommet(left) has been replaced with a metal spring(right). There are only three to replace. Afterwards, the telescope was much easier to collimate. Now, a 6" Newtonian at f/8 is easier to collimate than a 5" f/5, but the 5" isn't that bad in that. Also, at f/8, the 6" can make use of inexpensive wide-field eyepieces; for example... https://agenaastro.com/agena-10mm-super-wide-angle-swa-eyepiece.html I have an Orion 6" Newtonian... It's shorter, and at f/5. Inexpensive eyepieces do not play that well with it, with the f/5 primary-mirror at the bottom of the optical-tube.

There are two versions of a 5" collapsible "Dobsonian" in the U.S.... https://www.highpointscientific.com/telescopes/dobsonian-telescopes/sky-watcher-heritage-130-tabletop-dobsonian-s11705 ...and... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1466512-REG/sky_watcher_s11705_heritage_130mm_f_5_tabletop.html There is also this variant... https://shop.astronomerswithoutborders.org/products/awb-onesky-reflector-telescope Both kits are the same, and by the same manufacturer(Synta). The 6" "Dobsonian" is available from multiple vendors... https://www.astronomics.com/sky-watcher-6-f-8-classic-150p-dobsonian-telescope-s11600.html?___SID=U https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1141699-REG/sky_watcher_s11600_6_traditional_dobsonian.html https://www.highpointscientific.com/telescopes/dobsonian-telescopes/skywatcher-6-inch-dobsonian-telescope-s11600 There is also the Orion(of California) 6"... https://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Dobsonian-Telescopes/Dobsonian-Telescopes-with-Free-Shipping/Orion-SkyQuest-XT6-Classic-Dobsonian-Telescope/pc/1/c/12/sc/398/p/102004.uts?refineByCategoryId=398 Availability of those and other telescope kits are tentative these days. Patience is required in getting the one you want. It is better to wait than to get another, lesser one that may not satisfy. You do get a larger aperture with those Newtonian-Dobsons, increased brightness and resolution(detail), but they also require collimation on occasion, the alignment of the two mirrors within the optical-tube. Tutorials abound online on how to collimate a Newtonian, and to ensure success. The longer 6" is an ideal for observing the planets.

The conversion is only viable in a pinch, if you don't have a dedicated, tripod-type alt-azimuth. Still, one cannot deny the versatility in that. Also, the counter-weight must be used, and to balance that side of the mount, opposite the telescope. An EQ-2 may be converted as well, even an EQ-3, but as you go up in size modifications are required. The EQ-1 is the only equatorial that may switch back and forth between modes without modification.

I have this 4mm symmetrical-Ramsden, from a base Celestron telescope-kit, and I won't part with it, ever... But these three from a base Meade telescope-kit produce views that are grainy, lattice-like... I've looked through them once, but never again. With the entry-level kits, one takes their chances, as in roulette.

By the by, you can transform an EQ-1 equatorial into an easier-to-use "AZ-1" alt-azimuth... You simply throw the RA-axis body all the way back to the 90° mark on the latitude-scale, un-clamp both axes, and away you go. The slow-motion controls may be used as well.

I have that same kit. It's a hoot and a holler.

AA is showing the Celestron star-prism as being out-of-stock. If you want a prism, you can get in line for the Celestron here... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/201981-REG/Celestron_94115_A_Star_Diagonal_1_25.html They will fill the order once the stock is replenished. I've ordered from them many times, and the prices are great, too, with free-shipping just as with AA. Or, you can go with the mirror-star from AA immediately. I've purchased a few entry-level telescope kits in the last few years; to get a feel for what's currently out there in the marketplace. I've found that you do get a good telescope, and where it really counts; the mount often lacking here and there but doable; in getting the telescope up off of the ground at least. Then, the eyepieces and accessories thrown in are only to get one started, with at least something or other. Here are the few that I got with those kits... The lens(es) and bodies of the barlows are of plastic. I tore the one at upper-right apart to find that out. It produced false-colour, and with a Newtonian no less. Those three Meade eyepieces there at bottom-left produced views that were grainy; lattice-like. Eyepieces are the whole other half of a telescope. You can't use one without the other. The two are one, yet separate. Eyepieces are made with costly optical-quality glass, therefore the manufacturers are not going to include even middling-quality eyepieces, diagonals and barlows within an entry-level kit. But again, you do get a good telescope generally, and where it really matters. Here's something you might find somewhat startling. The 70mm f/10 achromat of your Celestron "PowerSeeker" kit comes with a much better focusser than that of the 70mm f/13 achromat of my somewhat more costly Celestron "AstroMaster" kit... It came with a focusser from heck... I won't be satisfied until I replace it with one like your own. If I had it to do all over again, I would've gotten the same kit as yours, albeit at f/10 as I do prefer the longer f/13. Eyepieces, barlows and diagonals are like luggage, and for life. As long as they're not damaged or spirited away, you'll always have them, and for other telescopes that may be had in future. Therefore, don't hesitate to invest in them, and over time. You don't have to get them all at once, and you don't have to get expensive ones either. When I say "expensive" I'm talking over $50 each or so. You may want a barlow in future, to see the glimmering, shimmering diffraction-rings of Polaris, and with one of its companion-stars there within the view as well.

That's an EQ-1 mount. I have one, too. Used ones often have one of those missing... https://agenaastro.com/agena-flexible-slow-motion-cable-with-rosette-handle-6-5.html

I've found Agena Astro to be a very good source for accessories... https://agenaastro.com/eyepieces/1-25-eyepieces/shopby/gso_plossl-gso_superview.html The 20mm "SuperView" would work very well with the telescope. Plossls are the minimum in performance-eyepieces, and a great value. Again, no shorter than 9mm; you can barlow a 9mm for a simulated 4.5mm... https://agenaastro.com/meade-series-4000-126-1-25-2x-short-focus-barlow-lens.html A prism star-diagonal... https://www.highpointscientific.com/celestron-1-25-90-prism-star-diagonal-94115-a A mirrored-star, however I've read of one instance where the user had to collimate, shim, the mirror within... https://agenaastro.com/gso-1-25-90-refractor-mirror-star-diagonal.html EBay is a source for other types of eyepieces, diagonals and barlows, for less in many cases... https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=eyepieces&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&Brand=SVBONY&_dcat=29954&rt=nc&LH_PrefLoc=1 https://www.ebay.com/itm/1-25-Barlow-Lens-2X-Metal-Coated-Camera-Interface-for-Telescope-Eyepiece/171773170616?hash=item27fe7a93b8:g:1pYAAOSwJ15eqihr Some, if not many, of those have a plastic lens or two. I suggest that the star-diagonal to be had elsewhere.

This is what came with the kit... I have that same 4mm from a Celestron "AstroMaster" 70EQ. I like it a lot. The 3x-barlow pictured there is junk. I also got the same diagonal within your image... That's an Amici, correct-image diagonal. It's best for daytime/terrestrial use; birds in trees, ships at sea, that sort of thing. It can be used at night, but on brighter objects you may see the Amici-line; an illuminated streak across the object... For use at night, you may prefer a STAR-diagonal; for example... https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/celestron-90-degree-star-diagonal-125.html The light-port of the Amici(left) compared to that of the Star(right)... That of the Star being ideal for illuminating your eyepieces at night. In so far as eyepieces, Plossls offer great value for the outlay, but don't choose a Plossl shorter than 9mm; for examples... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-eyepieces/celestron-omni-plossl-eyepiece.html To reach the higher powers, you might prefer a barlow; for example... https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/antares-x2-achromat-fmc-barlow-lens-125.html Incidentally, you can convert a 2x-barlow into a 3x by placing the 2x into the refractor first, then the diagonal and eyepiece into the barlow. It's actually more ergonomic that way.

I have this 127mm f/8 catadioptric-reflector, a "Bird Jones" it is often called, and here on a manual alt-azimuth... This is an old point-and-shoot camera, made in 2002; and with which I've taken numerous afocal-shots through this eyepiece and that, and through this telescope and that... I centre the brighter object in the eyepiece, position the camera, and snap a shot; the mount with no electronics, no motors, and with a rudimentary, manual tracking capability. With that telescope and camera, I took these... Again, that was with a manual alt-azimuth. If you equip the EQ-4 with a simple motor-drive, for the RA-axis only, I don't see why you couldn't do better than that, much better even. Here's what I took through the 150mm f/5... ...and a collage of pot-shots through the eyepiece.

To add to a previous reply to your question, I got this kit a year or two ago... It's smaller than the one you're considering. It's a 114mm f/8 Newtonian on an EQ-2. I've used it at least once, in motioning it about the sky, and it wasn't bad, not at all... Incidentally, I didn't use the mount properly there, but it worked nonetheless. In most aspects, the kit you're considering is more like that configuration. Still, the telescope is under-mounted there as well. On another night, I placed it upon this tripod-type alt-azimuth... The telescope was supported more closely to the ideal in that instance, as that's the alt-azimuthal equivalent to an EQ-3. But, that's an alt-azimuth. Now, this is a 150mm f/5 Newtonian, mounted on an EQ-3, and with a pier attached(for refractors). The telescope is the next size down from a 200P... In that instance, the telescope is supported ideally, for visual-use with eyepieces at least; hence, a 200mm f/5, a 200P, on an EQ-5 is ideal. Aside from that, always keep in mind that whilst a telescope may shimmy and shudder on its mount, it may also be steadied with the hand(s) when placed correctly. I'm no stranger to larger telescopes on smaller mounts. One learns to adapt.

That does beg the question as to why there never was an EQ-7. However, the numerical designations haven't been in existence for that long. I think Sky-Watcher started that, and at the turn of this century.

The saddle differs on my EQ-2, but here is the DEC's adjustment assembly exploded... That's the only spring within the entire mount-head, I believe, there partially seen on the left. The saddle of the OP's is most like that of my EQ-1... ...although I had swapped that original saddle out for a Vixen-style, and just as that of my EQ-2.

It's the moment-arm effect that you may encounter, particularly when the winds blow, as a telescope tube of that size will act as a sail. It may shake and quiver. On still nights you may find it to perform satisfactorily.

Too many, indeed, but I like them one and all. Hence, ne'er to part, ne'er that final kiss goodbye.

I have a 90mm f/10 achromat, and almost identical to that of the Orion kit... 90mm, in a refractor, would put on a fine show. My first telescope, and a refractor: a 60mm f/11(700mm focal-length), and from the early 1970s... The minimum to get for a refractor, to make it worth the while, is an 80mm f/8 or longer, so you're on the right track.

Yes, I'm aware of Orion's offerings, and their analogies. The internal enhancements do result in somewhat greater carrying-capacities. For visual-use, an "HEQ-5" may carry 15 kgs; a base EQ-5, 10 kgs. Then, an "NEQ-6 Pro", the next size up, may carry 25 kgs. In any event, per the OP's posts, an interest in afocal-shots of the Moon was expressed. However, if the OP wishes to integrate a DSLR-camera with the telescope in question, then an "NEQ-6 Pro", or perhaps even a "EQ6-R Pro", would be required.

You can ask the seller if they'll knock the price down in light of the smaller mount. Or, if you're handy, you can craft a Dobson alt-azimuth base for the telescope. There are many tutorials online on how to go about that. If you'd prefer an equatorial for the telescope, you can sell the EQ-4 and put the proceeds towards an EQ-5. Then, you can always wing it with the EQ-4.

I would've preferred an image of the manual version of an EQ-6(even an EQ-8), but alas, they're no longer available, and haven't been for quite some time. An HEQ-5 is merely the go-to variant of a base EQ-5.

Those are aperture-stops. If your achromat is a 120mm f/5, the 40mm stop will transform the refractor into a 40mm f/15 achromat, and with virtually no false-colour to be seen. On the other hand, I would enlarge it to at least 60mm(f/10), if not 80mm(f/7.5). In the case of a Newtonian, the stops are to simulate the clear aperture of an apochromatic-refractor, and in avoiding the diffractive effects of the telescope's spider-vanes. With a proper solar-filter film fitted over the stops, sun-worshipping is made possible... The light-gathering capability of a full, large aperture is not required for the Sun.

To the OP, these are the sizes of equatorials, from the smallest to the largest... An EQ-4 is actually closer in size to an EQ-3. That could very well be a 200P within your image. I tried to enlarge the specs label, but to no avail; too blurry. The 200P is oft combined with an EQ-5 rather... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-200p-eq5.html