vlaiv

Check out your import fees and then decide based on that. I also live outside of EU (in Serbia) and sometimes order items from retailers in EU, and now soon to leave EU - FLO in UK. Whenever I order from EU retailers, VAT is not included in the price of item, but I'll have to pay 10% customs fee and 20% Serbian VAT on top of that (both calculated on top of full price with shipping included). We have one local retailer and sometimes items there are a bit less expensive but sometimes they are more expensive, and for most items - they simply don't sell it and I need to order it from either TS or FLO or somewhere else. There is of course longer wait time for items shipped from EU - I'm still waiting for adapter that I ordered from FLO on 25th of August for example. There is also issue of transport. Telescopes are sensitive equipment and they are usually packaged really good - one scope that I order from TS traveled to another country first by mistake, was returned to Germany and again sent over to me - it arrived in perfect condition, but I have read stories where items got damaged in transport - so that is another concern. Hopefully this gives you an idea of what is involved and will help you make your decision.

Correct. Side note - dynamic range is quantity that is important in single exposure. With astrophotography, it is really not important as each next image in the stack increases dynamic range of whole stack. Dynamic range of stack is much much larger than any single exposure and you can always increase dynamic range of final stack by adding more exposures. Some may say that Full depth well is important so you don't saturate your stars or bright parts of target - but again, we always have option of mixing different exposure lengths (needs to be done properly) and hence FW is not very important metric either. Not quite. It is number of bits needed to store read out value after gain has been applied. Designers of sensor make sure that you don't really loose much in rounding up because there is read noise and that masks what is called quantization error. Again - not really important metric. Have 12 bit sensor? Stack 16 subs and you'll have 16 bit precision. You can and will achieve much higher precision in final stack (20+ bits), and again single sub precision is not very important. It is usually well matched to read noise and FW by designers of the chip and appropriate shooting technique will make it equally effective as any other ADC version. For example, I have ASI1600 and it has 12 bit ADC. It has rather decent FW capacity per pixel, but the way I use it, by setting unity gain, I actually lower my FW to 4095 - maximum number that can be recorded by 12bit. Keep exposure times low and you'll have same effect as using 16bit 60K FW camera with 6e read noise. First part is correct - probability that incoming photon will be converted into electron and subsequently contribute to total number of electrons recorded by exposure. Second part I don't really get - scaling is linear. Out of 100 photons 60% QE sensor will capture 60e on average, while 40% QE sensor will capture 40e on average. Want to know how much you need to increase exposure time to match - use reciprocal of QE, or ratio of two QEs. In this case 40% QE sensor will need to record for 60/40 = 6/4 = 3/2 = 50% more time than 60% QE sensor to achieve same level of signal per exposure. In general - higher QE the better, however, do keep in mind that QE is not a single number, although single number is often quoted - and that single number is peak QE. One camera can have higher peak QE than other but lower QE in significant wavelength - like Ha. Most QE curves are fairly similar so overall performance will scale with peak QE, but there can be differences for narrow band. Indeed - very important metric, larger the sensor - means faster sensor / faster imaging. This can be somewhat strange when you hear it first time, but think of it this way: Take 14mm diagonal sensor and 28mm diagonal sensor. Pair first one with 80mm F/5 scope and second with 160mm F/5 scope. Each will cover the same amount of sky - will have identical FOV (provided that aspect ratio of sensors is the same), but first one will gather light with 80mm of aperture and second one with 160mm of aperture. Which one will collect more light in the same amount of time? (You can make sure to have same sampling rate of the two sensors by using appropriate pixel sizes and/or binning - so resolution can be fixed and then we only have aperture competing on same FOV and sampling rate). Larger sensors will be more expensive of course - no free lunch Important metric, but not as important as it might seem at first. Smaller pixels are better because you have more flexibility in binning them to achieve your target resolution. Tip - optimum sampling rate for long exposure is close to average FWHM/1.6 If you have 3.2" FWHM stars in your image - you need to sample at 2"/px, but for 1"/px you need your FWHM to be around 1.6". Do under sample if that suits the purpose of going wide field, but don't over sample as it serves no purpose at all. If you over sample - just bin until you get close to optimum sampling rate - you can bin both in hardware or software. There is difference only in how the read noise is treated. With hardware binning - nothing happens, but with software binning - read noise is effectively increased by bin factor. For example if you have 1"/px system with 2e read noise and you decide to bin to get to 2"/px, then you'll have 4e of read noise per binned pixel. (keep this in mind as read noise is related to exposure length). Rough guide - 80mm or less - 2"/px or more ~100mm - 1.6"/px to 2"px ~150mm - 1.4"/px to 1.6"/xp ~200mm - 1.2"/px - 1.4"/px (you can go with 1"/px if you have exceptional mount and exceptional seeing) (moral of the story - FWHM of your image will depend on how good your optics is, aperture of your scope, seeing conditions and mount performance and guide precision - small apertures simply can't create high resolution images because of this). Nope. This one is quite off. There are 4 principal sources of noise: 1. Target / Shot noise 2. Light pollution noise (same as above but light is provided not by target but by sky) 3. Thermal noise (also called dark current noise) - similar to those above, but electrons (not photons) are provided by temperature and electronics (behaves very similar to above ones - just different physical process produces it) 4. Read noise - this is noise injected in final value by act of reading pixel value First three grow with time. Their value is equal to square root of corresponding physical quantity that grows linearly with time. Either target photon count, or sky photon count or dark current electron count. Read noise is only one that does not grow with time and is fixed in value and happens once per exposure. Each exposure gets same "dose" of read noise. This is very important for stacking. There is no difference in single long sub or many short subs that are added together (stacked) and have same total duration as long sub - if you only consider first three noise sources. They behave in additive manner regardless if you add seconds or add exposures - as long as total time is the same. Read noise is different and this is factor that makes distinction between few long subs and many short subs (totaling to same total exposure time). Larger read noise - bigger the difference. In fact, there is rule of how this read noise contribution behaves. As long as read noise is comparatively large to any of other 3 noise sources - difference is noticeable. As soon as read noise becomes significantly smaller (about x3-5 smaller - depending on how much impact you can tolerate) difference becomes negligible. All other noises grow with exposure time and at some point, one of them will become sufficiently larger than read noise - that means you can stop your exposure there and there is no more benefit in going further. This other noise source is almost always LP noise (with cooled cameras and when chasing faint signal - both thermal and target noise tend to be very small, but light pollution is ever growing problem) and if you search topic here, you will find recommendations on how to best determine exposure length based on sky brightness and read noise. In the end, read noise is not that important either as it's impact can also be minimized with particular style of imaging (remember CCDs - those have higher read noise, but people also tend to use long exposures with them like 10 or 20 minutes). To some extent - choose camera based on this metric if you don't have the best mount or best guiding as low read noise means that you can keep exposure length down. HTH

Advanced lesson 7 would be - you don't need any accessory to do collimation - go out and point your scope at a star - that is all you need

Hi and welcome to SGL. Old saying goes - if you get cheap accessories - most of your money went towards the optics - and that is a good thing. Eyepieces and diagonal mirrors supplied with basic / starter (and sometimes even more expensive models) - are very basic and are usually replaced right away by more seasoned observers (who probably have good items anyway since good eyepiece and diagonal will last a lifetime and can be moved from scope to scope). They are there to get you going with the scope but soon you'll want something better. Unfortunately same thing goes for the mount on those beginner scopes. For example, take a look a this: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1353449-REG/ioptron_8710_80mm_f_5_achro_refractor.html it is $130 for OTA only (optical tube assembly - means no mount). If you want a decent mount, you'll have to spend more than what you paid for that scope with the mount. Have a look at Sky Watcher AZ4 or AZ5 or Vixen Porta II or similar class AZ mount for that scope. As for focuser, well, you can adjust it somewhat to make it better and if you have prism diagonal - you will need to rack your focuser quite a bit out. Diagonal mirror will require less outward travel of focuser. So will 2" mirror/prism. Each of these components has certain optical path and longer their optical path - less compensation needed by focuser. If you are having trouble with focus distance after changing to mirror - you can always use extension tube before diagonal mirror to create additional light path so that focuser does not need to be racked all the way out. Have a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K89k3U9mPe8 It will show you how to adjust your focuser for best performance (replacing grease, adjusting tension and such). I think video deals with several different models, but I'm sure you'll find one that is like yours (there are crayford focusers and rack and pinion types ...).

Actually - go with the dob. For the time being, sacrifice photography for visual. Planetary photography is done in particular way with particular type of camera (planetary camera - often also used for guiding in long exposure photography - hence often advertised as guide camera as well) and results with phones or consumer cameras will be poor. Taking planetary images actually involves taking a video rather than single still image. That video is then processed, best frames are selected and stacked (averaged) and some more processing is done (sharpening, color balance and such). Dob is not well suited for this because it is not tacking - you need to push it, but there is a way to make dob track the sky - EQ platform that you can either purchase or build yourself (it is not overly complicated and blueprints can be found online). Using EQ platform will allow you to take above mentioned videos and do planetary imaging. Detail on planets requires aperture so scope with large diameter has potential to resolve more details (but there are host of factors that determine if telescope will perform close to its theoretical capability). 8" F/6 is very good planetary performer, so for the visual - it will beat anything in that price range or even more expensive scopes of lesser aperture. You can think of planetary photography later on when you get the chance to learn more about it (watch some videos and read about planetary or "lucky" imaging approach).

Where in Europe are you from? For most EU countries you can order online and only pay for transport (and hence you can choose where you order from as postage/transport will vary with distance). How about looking at 130PDS instead? It will not save you considerable amount of money, but it will save you some weight and it is still very good imaging scope (it is about 4kg with tube rings).

Get sharp eyepiece at about 5-6mm mark. Most nights you want to be around x200 with ability to go to x250 or even x300 on the best nights, so you should have suitable eyepiece. If your x2.5 barlow is GSO tripled triplet lens barlow - it is closer to x2.2 magnification and that will give you about 7.7mm from 17mm eyepiece - not entirely unusable but very close to 9mm that you have. Here is the list of things to watch out for: 1. Make sure your scope has reached ambient temperature - this means leaving it outside at least one hour prior to observing. Uncap the scope and point it slightly towards the sky to let hot trapped air escape the OTA. 10" is a large mirror and it might not reach thermal equilibrium on nights when it gets cold quickly - so watch out the forecast for those nights that don't have large temperature drops 2. Place your scope on the grass - not on pavement or concrete or anything that might soak up the heat during the day. 3. Make sure you are not observing in direction of houses, large bodies of water, roads - anything that will soak up heat during the day and then radiate it back creating turbulent air. Best is grass and parks / forests. 4. Keep an eye on jet stream and seeing forecasts: https://www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/global-jetstream#2020/09/08/1200Z/jetstream/surface/level/overlay=jetstream/orthographic=-6.72,57.59,712 and https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/outdoorsports/seeing/michigan_united-states-of-america_5060420 5. Don't get fully dark adapted for planets - keep a light on next to you so you don't get fully dark adapted. Dark adaptation is good for observing objects of deep sky but not good for planets as you loose ability to resolve and your color perception is lowered - both help see details on planets 6. Wait until targets are highest in the sky - then you observe thru the least of atmosphere. Wait until target is close to opposition - Jupiter and Saturn are now past opposition so they are getting smaller, but Mars is nearing opposition - it will be particularly interesting around first week of October 7. Sometimes seeing is good right after sunset - see if you can observe your target then. This is most useful for the Moon, but sometimes one can have very good images of Jupiter this way as well

I personally don't mind the math, but you need to be aware that above is correct only in one particular case - perfect dither. If you have opposite case - perfect alignment then same math applies not to single sub but to whole stack - which is important. If we take only read noise - let it be 3e and one does 100 darks (which includes that read noise as well), single sub calibration will be polluted with 0.3e of read noise from master dark alone - it does not sound much if combined with 3e of read noise of light itself. But when you have perfectly aligned subs - master dark can be "pulled in front of sum of lights" and it will act on stack of lights instead of each single light (like in case of perfect dither) - in that case, let's have 100 lights as well - so read noise in final stack will be again 0.3e from those lights, but now we are adding another 0.3e from master dark and we end up ~ 0.4243e of noise in total stack, or as if you only stacked 50 subs (with respect to read noise and other noises present in dark - not shot noise or LP noise which are related to lights only). Moral of the story is - dither and dither often, and people that don't dither will in all likelihood be somewhere in between prefect dither and perfect alignment. In fact - better the guiding - closer to perfect alignment one is and more calibration frames are needed ....

That really depends on your observing skills and observing conditions. I'm inclined to say - not as much difference as one would hope, but enough to justify upgrade What you can do is to use 8" scope to roughly see what you can expect. Going from 8" to 12" is adding 50% by diameter. Take a piece of cardboard and make aperture mask to fit over your 8" scope front opening. Make inner hole of aperture mask be 13.5cm in diameter (5.33"). Take a scope with mask and observe some objects, then take mask off and observe same objects (you can go opposite direction - find faint / threshold object in 8" then put aperture mask on to see if you can still see it). This will roughly give you sense of what to expect when switching from 8" to 12" - it will be like going from "with mask" to "without mask", as mask is just a right diameter to make light increase in % the same (however, host of other factors including low light eye sensitivity won't be the same so this is only rough guide on what to expect). HTH

Looks more like 53?

It has to do with F/ratio of the scope. Fast scopes - meaning less than F/6 (so F/5.5, F/5, F/4.5, F/4 and such) have large angles of converging light rays and that causes issues with simple eyepiece designs. This usually manifests itself as eyepiece not giving sharp view in outer parts of the FOV - different aberrations can and will be present like coma and astigmatism and so on ... Same eyepiece in slow scope - F/8 and above will preform much better. In scopes F/12 and above all eyepiece designs work equally well in terms of performance to the edge of the field. Complex eyepiece designs solve this issue by using more glass elements and exotic glass types - but that raises the cost of eyepiece. Original scope is F/4.7 and is considered fast scope, so yes, most cheap eyepieces will perform poorly in outer parts of the field and one needs coma corrector + very good eye piece designs (like 100e+ per piece in terms of cost) to display perfect star fields to the edge of eyepiece. Some people are simply not bothered by this and enjoy view as is and don't use coma correctors nor expensive eyepieces. They concentrate on what is in the center of FOV and don't mind little "seagulls" at the edges.

There are a lot of options to figure out magnification: 1. On "paper" - you need to know focal length of barlow element and distance to eyepiece (not easy thing to know or measure) - there is barlow formula for that: magnification = 1 - D/F (where D is distance and F is focal length of barlow element - negative value! because barlow is negative lens element). This is more useful for imaging. 2. Using "ruler" of sorts - usable during the day. Find a brick wall or any other texture that provides some sort of linear division - stairs, ladder, anything with "steps". Take eyepiece of known focal length and insert without a barlow element - for example 25mm eyepiece which otherwise gives ~x10 magnification. Count number of "steps" that you see with that eyepiece on a distant object. Insert same eyepiece with barlow element and again count number of "steps". Divide the two and you will get how much barlow amplifies and effective magnification will be ~x10 times that ratio. For example you count 20 bricks from top to bottom of FOV with eyepiece alone and 8 bricks with barlow. Barlow gives 20/8 = x2.5 magnification and you are observing at ~ x10 * 2.5 = ~x25 magnification when using barlow like that. 3. Using stopwatch - same as above but usable at night. Find a bright star near meridian and equator and time how long does it take to traverse FOV from one side to other if scope is not tracking the sky (just sitting there on a mount). Insert barlow, repeat measurement and this time divide time intervals. Make sure star traverses at same elevation - near the center of FOV. This can be achieved if you have alt az mount and choose star near/at meridian and move scope in az only once you change configuration. I guess there are other options to do it, but above should be enough to get you going?

In all likelihood you won't get good long exposure photos with EQ3-2 and SW 150/750 scope. Eq3-2 and other EQ3 class mounts are likely to have rather big periodic error and that means either short exposures, throwing away a lot of subs in longer exposures or guiding. If you start guiding that will help, but then you'll have much more than stated 5kg. If you want to do astrophotography, then you'll want SW 150PDS version of the scope - it has 2" 10:1 focuser and is made with astrophotography in mind. That scope is already 5.3kg. Next, include camera and coma corrector and guide scope and guide camera. Total is likely to be 7-8kg of gear and EQ5 is minimum for that. Last sentence does not really make sense as neither of 150/750 nor 150/1200 is F/4 scope. 150/1200 is very nice visual scope and very very nice planetary instrument for both visual and imaging. By the way, planetary imaging is very different to ordinary imaging and you could do planetary images with 150/1200 and EQ3 type mount with appropriate camera. Maybe try to formulate your question in form of - I wand to do this, this and this, but mostly this. I have car / backyard / apartment on 5 floor with no lift / poor back / strength of a superman / whatever as constraints that need to be taken into account. What would be the best option? In all likely hood if you want to do it all - you'll end up with at least two scopes. For example, if you want to do everything, then smallish refractor on EQ3 mount + 150/1200 dob mounted with EQ platform will cover almost every type of observing and imaging. But will that fit your budget? Yes, include your budget into question as well.

Ah, ok, I did not get that with my ASI1600 (not pro version, one prior to that). This is the part: (it looks like it is ZWO filter wheel accessory after all). Do you need that spacer though? CC has M48, right? OAG has M48, so that part is sorted. If you go OAG route - you can get T2 male part for OAG, so we now have male T2 scope side. What is your FWH like? I'm guessing one side male, one female? That still means we are on scope side male. ASI1600 is also male, but 11mm extension should connect two male threads, right? We now have 16mm + 20mm + 11mm + 6.5mm = 53.5mm. Add 0.5mm for filters and add 1mm T2 spacer somewhere and you are at 55mm. There are 1mm spacers - you can cut one out of thin plastic (3d print even) or purchase set like this: https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p7894_TS-Optics-Aluminium-Fine-Tuning-Ring-for-T2-thread---thickness-1-0-mm.html Just took a look at EFW from ZWO - it has x2 female T2, so one goes on camera directly and then you don't need to use 11mm female / female extension as you'll have male T2 on telescope side and female T2 on FWH side - you just need regular T2 extension to connect them.

I guess that depends on your CC. Filters also shorten light path by about 0.5mm if I'm not mistaken, so what is in reality 55.5mm will be 56mm due to filters. You might get some residual coma in the far corners, but you better ask someone who actually used coma corrector - how sensitive they are to spacing. I have not used CC, so can't really give comment on that. What is 2mm in above list? Can you skip that and use 1mm spacer somewhere? That should get you closer to 55mm when filters are taken into account.

Well, most people that complain about OAG say they have issues with guide stars, but I haven't had any. I use OAG (one I linked with 16mm thickness) on 1624mm of focal length and find guide stars always (or at least - so far). You improve your guiding with OAG because you eliminate any differential flexure, mirror flop and such - what main camera sees - OAG sees for the most part (it sees same thing only to the side of main FOV). Also - you use full focal length of your main imaging telescope - so guide precision is always sufficient. Problem with newtonian scopes is mostly due to coma correctors - as most have 55mm working distance. If you have mono camera and need filters - you need to "pack" OAG, filter wheel, all the needed "adapters" (M48/T2 and other "converters" that you may need) together with camera back focus into those 55mm - which sometimes is not easy thing to do. For example, let's say you have CC with 55mm back focus and M48 threaded connection. OAG 16mm screws into that, and then you need T2 camera side thread for that (it adds no optical path). Then you need filter wheel - manual basic filter wheel is something like 23mm, you already have 11mm T2 female / female extension (which you will need) and 6.5mm of camera back focus. 16 + 23 + 11 + 6.5 = 56.5 See the problem? You need really thin components - like thinner filter wheel / filter drawer instead, or shorter T2 female / female extension (then one included with camera). Other coma correctors require longer distance and there you have more room to fit it all, so it depends on what sort of CC you have, or alternatively - you can go for really short 9mm OAG. In any case, focus will be at the same point as it is now, but you will have to replace some spacers with OAG+spacers combination if there is enough space. I used OAG 16 with my TS80 F/6 refractor without issues - it uses x0.79 FF/FR with has working distance of about 61mm and I managed to pack OAG, T2 ring and Filter drawer (don't know exact length of it but it is <=18mm). I think I needed to use 5mm extension as well.

I guess then planetary filters can be used to improve perceived contrast? Red / Light blue filters for the Mars for example will make it better contrast target (different features), so it could look sharper?

Not sure it is nonsense - I also think it could be distance related. It could be related to spectrum as well? Maybe Saturn has the least light in blue part of spectrum - one that is the most affected by atmosphere? If it is distance related - here is what I think is going on - place where closer objects get to focus is too close to where atmosphere gets into focus. I've noticed that when searching for that perfect focus on planets - there is a spot, usually "closer" (or focuser racked out further) where seeing is in focus. I'm not sure I can explain this, but it almost seems that I'm focusing on the blur rather than the planet that is behind the blur. It's a bit like this image: Front car is in focus - but so are distortions by heat rising from the road. Look at the second car - it is not in sharp focus - yet one sees same ripples - as if ripples themselves are in focus. Similar effect happens when observing and it makes sense - one can focus on jet stream distance and any disturbance in jet stream will be in sharp focus and planet behind this will be out of focus. When we know this - then it sort of makes sense - further away from these seeing disturbances you focus - less of an immediate effect on picture quality they'll have and hence planets further away may present better quality of view? Or it could be due to different reasons - position in the sky or similar, but yes, I've noticed that too - Saturn seems to be "calmest" planet in terms of seeing influence for some reason.

No objections, just a suggestion, or rather a question: did you consider OAG instead? It can be cost effective solution and probably provides best guiding results. Only problem that I could see is the fact that you have newtonian scope and those have issues with back focus. Not sure if you could spare additional 15-20mm of you light path behind coma corrector. I personally use this: https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p8319_TS-Optics-Off-Axis-Guider-TSOAG16---stable---length-16-mm.html and with addition of this for example: https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p1649_T2-Ring-for-TS-Off-Axis-Guider-TSOAG9-and-TSOAG16.html You have complete solution that is guaranteed to provide good guiding resolution and very precise guiding. It is also half the price of EvoGuide 50ED. Back to original question - yes, EvoGuide 50ED looks like excellent little guide scope to provide you with needed guide resolution.

Yes, I did it on a real star, but doing it on artificial star should work without any problems - it should even be easier since you don't have to worry about atmosphere and changing FWHM values (I did not use a Bahtinov mask but instead looked at FWHM values to see which corner is out of focus) - just place star some distance away - like 10-15 meters (you don't have to go long distances like when checking the optics - as long as artificial star is unresolved you are fine and a bit of spherical won't make the difference).

Well, that might happen for some - under right circumstances but I think it is better to be prepared and manage your expectations and learn to find joy in all of this in different ways then being instantly hooked on views - there are other things to be instantly hooked on here. Have a look at these two short videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6NIBBldy8U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI7IPPmu76U As for "hooking on" factor - rather than seeing images - think about what you are seeing. When next observing Saturn - think that it is a gas giant ~1.4 billion kilometers away. That little disk that you are observing is in fact 116460 kilometers in diameter. It floats there in emptiness of space and you get to observe it - to see its bands and its rings and few of its moons - yes, it's got moons - you see them and then you get a chance to find out more about them by reading relevant texts online (wiki is decent place to start). Think about that galaxy M81 that you are seeing - it is about 12 million light years away. It is large spiral galaxy, billion of suns out there and you get to see them all. You get the idea ... Important thing is - the more time you spend and more you learn - more you will be able to see. Observing is a skill and you learn it with practice.

It is indeed lighter than other options. F/6 version is said to be 8kg and that is without any other gear attached to it - you'll need rings and dovetail and finder at least. I think that could easily get to 9Kg and again weight limit of Eq5.

Probably no. I used 8" dob tube on Heq5 mount and it did not give me much confidence. Tube of 8" Skywatcher dob is 11Kg, and payload capacity of Eq5 is about 9-10Kg, so less than OTA weight. There might be lighter 8" F/6 tube out there - maybe Bresser one is lighter? Nope, it is 11.5Kg as well (just checked).

Hi and welcome to SGL. You've got yourself a very nice scope and that scope is capable of showing very nice planetary views if that is what you are after. 6mm and 8mm eyepieces might not be the worst things in the world although they are cheap. Do you know what make/brand did you order? I usually don't use filters on the Moon, but yes, I know it can be very bright, so variable polarizing filter could be an option - you can tune that one to level of brightness you like. Moon is best observed when not full - it is both less bright and more surface detail can be seen due to shadows. You can now observe Jupiter, Saturn and Mars with your scope and if you take some measures to ensure quality views - you should be able to see plenty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM9g18Q109o Your scope is potent for viewing deep sky objects (yes, that is what DSO stands for - in time you'll learn all these abbreviations) and you should try looking at some of them too. How much you'll see depends on light pollution you live in. Get a copy of Stellarium - it is free/open source planetarium software and it will show you what is in the sky at any given time and what you can observe. It is not easy to recommend an eyepiece unless you state your preferences. Budget is also critical part of the equation. Do you wear eyeglasses when observing? You don't need to wear them if you are just near/far sighted - telescope focus will compensate for that, but you do need to wear them if you have astigmatism or other issues. Eye relief of eyepieces is important if you use eyeglasses - if not, then it is only matter of comfort and different people have different preferences. Same goes for apparent field of view and other characteristics. Here is rather nice mid power eyepiece that has overall good characteristics (good eye relief, budget friendly, wide(ish) AFOV - apparent field of view, another thing learned): https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bst-starguider-eyepieces/bst-starguider-60-15mm-ed-eyepiece.html

Dob can also track - if you are good with DIY - it might be a cheap option as well. EQ platform is a solution for planetary observation with dobs. Commercially available ones are not cheap, but you can build one yourself - just look up plans online.