startreker1

I recently got a celestron SE8 on the standard fork mount base, and it was the observers package, which included a power tank, power adapters, some filters, and a wifi module. I do want to get a dew shield, and am thinking of the Baader 8-24 zoom eyepiece. If I get that zoom, I think I should get one more eyepiece, and am wondering if it should be another in a lower power, but with as wide a fov I can get with a 1.25 setup, since the included 25mm is so small a fov.. I do not really want to go with a 2" setup, as I heard some cons on them with the SE8's. I know I could make it go with some reconfiguring, but I am going to stay with the 1.25. I do not have a big budget, but if I were to get one more eyepiece, I was thinking possibly of the orion stratuses, or something similar that is water (dew) proof. I want to do some deep sky viewing, besides the moon and planets. I do understand somewhat what focal reducers do, but not sure I really even need one, with not doing astrophotography. I know that the 20 and 24mm's on the zoom do not have a very good fov, but the higher x's do. I feel I would use the higher x's quite a bit to make it worth having the zoom tho. I like the convenience of not having to change eyepieces so much, and that zoom is parfocal. Does anyone have a recommendation for one more eyepiece of lower power? Thankyou

I have an 8" apertura Dobsonian and altho I finally did get the collimation understood and done, I still am having problems with actually locating objects in the sky. My last question I asked on here was about the finderscope alignment, and I understand better what I need to do now, thanks to a reply I received, and watching a video. If I were to sell this one, and get for example a celestron se 6 or 8 (may be out of my budget tho) Schmidt-Cassegrain computerized, would that really keep me from being so frustrated doing these searches, because the computer will do it for me, once I locate 2-3 major objects in the sky and put them into the computer? If the telescope is put away, and I take it back out again, will that computer know where to find the same objects for me again on its own, if I do have the telescope level? I am a beginner, and honestly, I feel this dobsonian has been a pain with all the collimation necesssary, and the weight especially, being I always have to take it apart in 2 pieces and carry them around. I thought of a cart or wheels on a base, but still I have the issue of the bulk and weight. I'd like some opinions please. Almost thinking if maybe I should give up this hobby, due to the frustrations. Would I also have to be doing collimations on that celestron type too? Thankyou for your advice and thoughts.

Thankyou! I also found a beginners video that said to do that too, so I will. My instruction manual I got is really useless, except for putting it together. I am getting used to trying to eyeball the object in the sky first with figuring out where to center my scope for finding it. Still working on that. maybe a computerized scope would have made that much easier for me.

I have an Apertura 8" Dobsonian, and I have gotten it collimated, but am having problems with the attached finding scope not being accurate to what I am seeing in the focuser. Is it true that if I add the Rigel Quick finder I bought I will have an easier time finding the targets I want in the sky, and should I be alright then with the telescope showing it accurately then too, as long as the telescope is collimated correctly? It has been frustrating seeing the object in the center of the crosshairs in the finder scope, but not seen in the focuser for viewing. Also really hard just trying to aim the finderscope to find the object in the sky. I have to guess alot. Maybe this is where a computerized scope would have been easier I think.