peterjudge

Wait - Is that a possibility? On another thread, I just had the alt-az versus EQ decision re-opened. Could one really have both and not have to decide? (yes, I'm that kind of person) I can sort of see how that might work. but.,..'

These are all good points. I've got no illusions about astrophotography - it sounds like a recipe for throwing money at a goal of trying to reproduce what other people are always going to do better. I think it's a bit like trying to take photos at a sports match. You don't enjoy the game, and you get a worthless imitation of what the professionals get on the touchline with better kit. Plus, I know an MPhys whose dissertation involved capturing images of stars, so I've heard about the frustrations (she had a Meade with a digital-driven alt-az, but had to switch to EQ). I will confer on this one.... 🙂 Peter

Thank you! EQ mounts seem more logical for looking at things in the sky. I'm really not expecting to take great photos at this price range, and take your point about needing a motor. I have

Hello all - and thank you for having this forum! I'm about to invest £200+ in my first ever telescope. I'm hoping to look at planets mostly, and while I might try and take photos, I've got no illusions that I can improve on what others are already doing! I live in London, and plan to mostly use this in Cornwall, where I visit a couple of times a year. I seem to be settling on a Skywatcher Explorer 130P.... at least I was, until I noticed that there is a Skywatcher StarQuest, which costs almost exactly the same amount, and seems to have the same parabolic mirror. The StarQuest is described as a "grab and go" telescope, and it seems to have a much simpler looking mount, but without some of the knobs (slow-motion adjusters?). It also seems to be quite new, so I haven't seen reviews of it. Are there reasons to prefer the StarQuest? Peter Judge