Dr Strange

To be fair when I did this comparison I was very new to observing and I didn't pick targets that would put up strong CA. At that time, IIRC I did see it on the brighter stars I mentioned but passed it off. Now I find I am actually quite sensitive to it and very bothered by it. To the point now where if I see it I will become very annoyed and it will ruin the moment. Since gaining more "experience" observing I will not buy a scope where I see it. It has caused me to seek out the best quality scopes I can and not get any achromatic ones. Even the ones marketed by manufacturers as ED APO's. If it has two lenses, it is achromatic. If it has three lenses it is apochromatic. It has driven my scope purchases accordingly. There is only one exception for me. That was my purchase of the FS-60Q. I was very leery of buying the FS-60Q I recently did. I am happy to say that at f/10 there is so little that it is all but undetectable to me save on something very bright like Spica. I don't know if that is due to the long focal length or the fluorite glass or master opticians mating the two elements together or a combination of all three or two of the three by Takahashi but it is not a main scope for me and I can tolerate what little I see because it is for outreach and travel.

Cheers. I modified and pasted a review I wrote on it. I work for the government and used to be in consulting. We never use one word when four to five are an option...

I did a comparison between the ES AR 152 and the APO 127 FCD1 CF. My experience with these two scopes from a non-scientific/engineering (even though I was an engineer before I was shoved kicking and screaming into administration) merits standpoint since I see questions come up on line all the time asking which is better to get a 5" Apo or 6" Achro that many times end up in "discussions" about very esoteric and complex subjects like unobstructed vs. obstructed systems, Japanese FPL-53 vs. Chinese FPL-51 glass, Modulation Transfer Function, Schlieren tests, and times to reach thermal equilibrium between reflectors and refractors. For the record I will so stipulate that the best value for dollars spent will always be with a reflector like a Newt or Dob. You just can't beat the light gathering ability of these platforms at their given price point. While many times I will publicly profess that “Mirrors are for shaving!” I do also own reflectors. And the views from them are amazing as well as stomp all over my refractor’s on small targets and planets when they are properly cooled down. I still love my refractors though… Please note when I quote sizes of objects that is the size it looked to me. It may not have been that actual size were one to measure it in the EP but I am writing this from the working schlub perspective not a scientific/engineering accurate to the 5th decimal point one. The problem I was trying to solve was that I wanted something I could use on nights (like when I had to be up at 0530 the next morning for work) when I wanted to take a quick view of whatever might have been up and visible but would still give me views that were comparable (or better) to a 203mm reflector from my Bortle 8/9 Light Polluted front driveway skies. This would mean that I wanted to be observing in under 15 minutes start to finish of shlepping gear out, leveling the mount, balancing the OTA, and aligning. At the time based on the views I was getting out of my 102mm ES ED Apo FCD1 refractor I knew that a larger 127-152mm refractor was the best choice for me. However at the time of this shootout my budget of under $2,500 USD eliminated pretty much everything in the high end refractor range like Takahashi, AstroPhysics, Tec, and the like. This left Canadian Telescopes, Explore Scientific, Meade, Celestron, and Orion. My next criteria took all but Canadian Telescopes and ES out of the mix. That criteria being I didn't want something that looked like it came off of the Battleship Missouri's gun deck in terms of size and I could use for AP if I wanted to aka a "short fast tube". Because of my breath taking experiences (and by that I actually mean gasping out loud) viewing with the 102 ED, the great customer service experiences I have had with them, their attention to detail, quality, and because the ES line comes with a 2" diagonal, dual speed focuser, Vixen dovetail bar, illuminated cross hair finder scope, and scope rings included I decided that I would stay with that line. Again for the record CT, Celestron, Meade, and Orion make great OTA's but with them I would have had to purchase much if not all the kit that came with the ES line as extra's so value for money for me really was in the ES line. This had me looking at the ES AR 152, 127 ED, and 127 ED Carbon Fiber OTA's as my choices. I picked these because I could mount them easily on a mount that wouldn’t break the bank for that quick nights viewing. I was very fortunate in that Farrah from Woodland Hills Telescope and Camera was kind enough to offer me the use of an AR 152 and an 127 ED to see which one I liked viewing from better then purchase the one I decided to stay with. Down to brass tacks. What I saw and what I used. My targets for the comparison were Mars, Saturn, Spica, Messier 31 (Andromeda Galaxy), and Messier 5 globular cluster. I picked these because they all were moderately low on the West facing horizon for me so I wouldn't have to be laying down to see them based on where the mount I was using would place the EP, they would provide a fair diversity of objects to look at combining planets, bright DSO's, and bright point light sources (stars). Lastly they would provide "messy" air and light pollution conditions to best reflect what I would be seeing on an average night out. By the way I picked “work nights” because my primary use for this was going to be the times when I didn't want to bring out or had time to cool off a reflector. Setup time for each OTA was under 15 minutes including setup of the tripod, getting it pointed North, getting the OTA balanced, getting the OTA level, and alignment. The mount was a Celestron Advanced VX mount. The EP's used were the Celestron 40mm 1 1/4", the ES 82 degree 14mm, 11mm, 8.8mm and 4.7mm line. First up, the ES AR152. It wasn't anywhere close to the monster I thought it was going to be in terms of size and it was very manageable to mount and balance which surprised me. After hearing stories about this size of OTA I was expecting something much bigger than it was. As has been true for me and reported by others the ES folks check their gear before it goes out the door and this OTA was no exception. After balancing it I popped in the 40mm and pointed it towards a radio/microwave tower that was a good 45 km from me on top of a mountain and it was in perfect focus right out of the box! The mount I was using handled the large OTA with zero issue and it didn't' feel to me like it weighed 10.5 like it says it does. Side Note: I didn't (and rarely do) use the included finder scope on either OTA. With that 40mm and doing a gunsight aiming I can pretty quickly get the alignment stars in the FOV so I find the extra step of the finder scope alignment useless. A word about the dreaded purple haze aka Chromatic Aberration (CA) that everyone tends to bring up when talking about Achro's. In the case of the ES AR152 at a relatively fast f/6.5 it was barely there at all. The only time it was really noticeable was during alignment where I saw it on Arcturus and on Spica. The purple halo was there but it wasn't annoyingly bright and I would expect that a filter designed for Achro's would take care of it rather handily. Of note I did not see any of it on Saturn or Mars and saw it very faintly on Spica which really surprised me and reaffirmed my belief that ES makes darn fine quality scopes. Based on the EP's listed and the 988mm focal length of the OTA divided by EP mm I was going from 24.7 magnification with the 40mm to a mid range of 70.57-89.81 with the 14 and 11mm's to the 112.27-210.21 range in the 8.8 and 4.7mm EP's. Saturn in the 40mm was a bright yellow spec of light and I could just make out the rings with no detail. At 14 and 11mm it was a clearly defined crisp bright yellow and muddy yellow planet. No CA at all and not much difference in sizing. Jumping to the 8.8 it jumped up in apparent size with more detail visible keeping the same clarity and crispness of view and color. Though I was starting to see it "wiggle" a bit from atmospheric disturbance. At 4.7mm it got the overall best views. It was somewhat dimmer but with good detail accounting for those moments when atmosphere settles down and was stunning to look at. I could see bands of color and the Cassini divide was very clearly present. It presented on a dark black background and two moons were clearly visible. Again no CA at all. Mars was… Well it was Mars. That means that at 40mm it was a spec of dust. Clearly orange but still a spec. At 14 and 11 it was a bigger spec of dust. At 8.8 it started to look like a planet and at 4.7 was still small but very clearly orange with some hints of the black/brown mountain regions. Still no CA. Spica was… A star. A bright one and with a bit of CA to it but not too annoying or distracting at all. Again a filter would knock this down without problem I am sure. It had good clarity and while I had to focus each time I changed EP's the focuser worked very well giving good views. On to M5. In the 40mm it was a very faint puff of smoke with no definition or details. In the 14 and 11 it was a defined puff of smoke with some hints of individual stars with averted vision. There was little difference between the 8.8 and 4.7mm with it being “bigger” in size and more hints of stars when looking directly at it. It was still faint but not as faint as before and clearly visible and noticeable. I finished off by hunting for M31 the Andromeda Galaxy. I started with the 40mm but didn't see anything. The LP was just too strong. I didn't start to see anything even with averted vision until I plopped in the 11mm and only then I was able to catch it as a very faint puff with averted vision. It didn't become apparent until I was up to 4.7 and then it was still a very undefined puff of smoke. The ES 127 ED CF FCD1 glass scope. I didn't notice much weight difference between the two and including the CF one. None of them were all that heavy though there is a 2.5kg difference between the 152 at 10.5 lbs and the CF at 8.1 kg. It mounted up quickly and with the removable dew shield it did make for a smaller feeling scope. Once again the Pro's From Dover at ES really showed their stuff. Looking at the same mountain top antenna gave brilliant views though since I do like the removable dew shield and metal lens cap on this OTA better than the plastic one and non-removable one on the 152. Since this was an Apo there was zero CA at all on anything. And to be fair the views were overall more crisp, clean, and clear by a noticeable margin compared to the 152. But then at close to triple the price of the 152 I would expect it to be such. Based on the EP's listed I was going from 23.8x magnification with the 40mm to a mid range of 68-86.54x with the 14 and 11mm's to the 108.18-202.55x range in the 8.8 and 4.7mm EP's. This is compared to the 152 which was 24.7x magnification with the 40mm to a mid range of 70.57-89.81x with the 14 and 11mm's to the 112.27-210.21x range in the 8.8 and 4.7mm EP's. Of noteworthy mention here was that to my eyes there was no real appreciable difference in magnification between the 127 and the 152 even though the numbers say otherwise. However overall the clarity, contrast, and crispness was apparent moving from the 152 Achro to the 127 Apo. I am not going to spend much time talking about Saturn, Spica, and Mars because in terms of overall size of object and brightness the views were very close. Close enough that I really couldn't see a difference between them. But as I mention above the clarity, contrast, and crispness were for sure apparent. What was of interest was M5 and M31. In the 127 M5 resolved with more detail at a lower magnification with the individual stars becoming more visible and clear. This was the same with M31. it was much more readily apparent at a much lower magnification and stood out much better than in the 152 which was a surprise. Up until seeing this I really did think that all that mattered was aperture. After looking at it in the 127 I still think that aperture does matter because seeing it in one of my reflectors at thermal equilibrium is much better than either the 127 or 152 because of the total light gathering difference between the two BUT in an Apo even at 1" overall smaller size the view was better than the Achro and I could see more detail. I attribute this to the clarity and contrast given by the triplet design in terms of focusing the light and that said light is unobstructed. Conclusions: Both the Explore Scientific AR 152 and 127 ED FC1 are fantastic scopes for the price and for all the extra's they come with. Both performed surprisingly well from my urban light polluted skies. Both were easy to handle and not cumbersome or heavy or hard to get onto the mount and balance. The adage about the best scope for you is the one you use applies very well here. Both gave really great views of DSO's, planets, and stars with time between setup to viewing really good for a working schlub who just wants to look at something before going to bed because they have to work in the morning. In both cases and at both price points if you are looking for that OTA that will keep you coming back for views of the stars instead of sitting on the couch watching Dancing with the Stars then these scopes are a option to strongly consider. If you are on a budget and you are looking for a very well made refractor at a very fair price for all of the kit included I strongly urge you to consider the AR 152. The value for the money really is there. For visual only this OTA will work on a HEQ5 with very good balance but just barely and I wouldn't recommend it. Plus any wind is going to be a problem and the vibrations could drive you up the wall. Better to put it on a EQ6-R and you can take photos with it as well. Just expect to have to deal with the purple and blue fringe in post processing. If you have the extra budget, want to have that extra bit of oomph and sharp intake of breath when you look through the EP, or even the slightest hint of CA bothers you then for the price the 127 ED is the way to go. For visual use only this OTA will work on a HEQ5 with good balance. However you would be better off putting it on a EQ6-R or AZ-EQ6 (a mount I really like because I like to do visual and AP and visual works best in alt/az mode) where it will perform well as an AP scope as well as a visual one with the added bonus of less time in post processing removing of the purple/blue fringe or star bloat that can and will happen with an Achro. I mention AP because I also did a comparison between the 127 and a AP 130. The AP 130 was noticeably better but at a much higher cost. Plus the AP uses FPL-53 matched with the other two elements by a well known very experienced master optician vs a mass produced scope using FCD1 glass mated by an optician with an unknown skill level. I should also note the AP 155 EDFS and TOA 150 comparison I did had the TOA remarkably and noticeably better in terms of colour and contrast. A surprising finding that lead to much hand waving, bellowing and cursing by AP fanboi's since AP is held out as the gold standard of best refractors of all time and that they walk on water and play a harp. I should also note that the new ES FCD100 scopes perform very well. For those of you who are all about glass, remember that RC of AP is now using FCD100 glass because FPL-53 is expensive and hard to find. Personally at the end of this I went with the the Carbon Fiber version of the 127 ED. It was worth it to me to spend the extra on the CF one because at the end of the day it gives those views that get you off the couch and under the stars and will do quite nicely for Astrophotography on a moderately priced equatorial mount like the HEQ5 or EQ-6R. The 127 was the most used scope of all of my scopes. I logged more hours with it than all my other scopes combined. In your use case if you want the aperture the 152 will do nicely for you at a good price point. However if you want the best quality for the price and a smaller less bulky scope that is similar in focal length I would strongly encourage you to get the new FCD100 ES 127.

Cheers Stu. On the subject of outreach I was just asked to help about 60 Girl Scouts get their Astronomy Badge this coming November. Should be fun...

If it were permanently mounted I would have kept it. I actually went much smaller for outreach work. I use a Takahashi FS-60Q and a frankenscope FS-76DCU with Q module. I talk about it in another thread. Not including the outreach setup for my personal use I have a AP92 Stowaway for AP, NP101IS for EAA, TSA-120 and Mewlon 210 for visual. I use a AP Mach2 for AP and a DM6 for visual work. I am finding it harder and harder to get to a dark sky on a regular basis. I am thinking about putting a permanent pier in the back yard, mounting the Mach2 on it, and picking up a EdgeHD 11 with reducer. I thought about a 14 but the cost benefit is just not there. I am in a Bortle 7/8 zone and have a NVD since it is so bad. The 14 is nice but twice the price of a 11 and the 11 gives me plenty of light gathering with the NVD. Unfortunately I can only get it down to f/7 but that is better than f/10. I have used the NVD in the TSA which is f/7.5 and it does fine. Here is the link:

Cheers. The nice thing about the mount is there are built in encoders so if someone yanks on the scope (happens even after I repeat "please do not touch the telescope" and provide a step stool to use as a place to put your hands) it is a simple process to go back to the target. In addition you can slip the clutches and just swing the scope then reengage them and go back to GOTO plus it will track. I am considering a StarSense for Skywatcher addition to the kit since it will now work and I have a HC from Skywatcher but am hesitant. My targets are usually the moon, Jupiter, and Saturn since they are the most recognizable objects for most people. Occasionally I will use M42 Orion nebula and M45 Pleiades or NGC 457 Dragonfly cluster as targets if planets aren't up. The other nice thing is if I have one scope doing EAA and the crowd able to log in via their smartphones the AZ-GTi tracks and with total exposure stacks of under 30 seconds I don't need to use a EQ wedge.

I think the EQ6R would work. I have also seen this done over here on a CGEM. The key will be in the balance. The scope weight all up is 20.5 kg per my scale. That was with a Losmandy dovetail bar. No finder, diagonal, or EP. The mount description on the Skywatcher site in the US says 44 lbs which translates to 19.958kg but they can take more than that. The Skywatcher mounts, even though they are both built by Synta, tend to be better made and more robust than the Celestron mounts. However the HC software is better designed on the Celestron mounts. This always puzzled me. Several of us would use a EdgeHD 11 on a Advanced VX which is slightly lighter and less robust (and well made) than the Skywatcher HEQ5. I would recommend vibration suppression pads if you are using it on a hard surface.

I am a NASA/JPL Solar System Ambassador and do quite a bit of sidewalk astronomy outreach. Prior to the global mess we are in I was doing about 2-3 events per month. I am just starting up again. I went from the absurdly large kit using a EdgeHD 14 on a CGX that was difficult to deal with (see my other thread) I completely revamped my kit. I was tired of having to use a trolly and several firm grunts to cart everything around. I also wanted something I could take on an airplane without checking it. I decided the Takahashi FS-60Q was the best route to take. I started my research. During it I found Matthew Hodgson's review of the FS-60 (http://alpha-lyrae.co.uk/2016/04/03/takahashi-fs-60-review/) and the interesting things he had done with it. Including his creation of two scopes from one. I went the same route and took it a step further. I tell She Who Must Be Obeyed that my astronomy hobby keeps me out of the pub's so it is money well spent. She patiently smiles and nods as though she were dealing with very dim Border Collie... In addition to the FS-60Q I bought the 76DCU, a second Q module, a Lunt 60mm HA etalon and B600 blocking filter, a Lunt white light herschel wedge, two AZ-GTi mounts, the ADM Accessories Losmandy saddle, Nagler 3-6 zoom, 11mm, 17mm and 24 Panoptic EP's, ASI 553, ASI Air Pro, and misc other kit to round things out. The Lunt HA uses a adapter that fits in front of the 76DCU or 60. They are the same diameter so they are interchangeable. This gives me a very flexible two scope outreach setup where I can have one scope doing EAA and the other for visual, Solar HA and white light, or two visual scopes for outreach. It also gave me a nice setup that I could take on an airplane as overhead/under the seat backpack as well as my roll on so I would never have to check bags. The two scope setup gives me: A 60mm f/5.9 355 mm focal length scope With the Q attachment a f/10 600mm focal length scope A 76mm f/7.5 570mm focal length scope With the second Q attachment a 76mm f/12 900mm focal length scope I also added a 2" Feathertouch focuser (FTF2015BCR-LW), Starlight Instruments Takahashi Adapter (A20-302) the FS-60CB tube (TSK06211) per Matthew's site's recommendations. All of the above fits in a camera backpack. So I am now able to carry my outreach kit on my back instead of lugging everything in a trolly. I like to visit the local Farmer's Market and ocean pier to do sidewalk outreach and having everything on my back makes things so much easier! I recently started back up on the outreach front and the system worked very well on the moon and Jupiter. I am only doing verified carefully controlled scheduled NASA/JPL events now like schools and libraries but as soon as the pandemic is finally over I will go back to the sidewalk stuff. On to the photos. I only had one AZ-GTi at the time I took the pictures but since I have put the second one in the bag and the tripod fits on the other side. It works very well and is very comfortable. For airline travel I would slim things down by removing the 60mm setup. This will free up some space for toiletries and a change of clothes as a "just in case" emergency kit in case I have to check my roll on and the airline loses my luggage. Unfortunately this has happened before and I am now the wiser for it.

After being told no way on CN I decided to give this a try. I first reached out to Celestron tech support to gain their blessing. They said it would be no problem. So I went ahead and did it. I was using both a finder scope and Star Sense. This was going to be a outreach setup since the pikers tend to drift to the biggest scope on the field. They just don't know any better. SS works best for outreach because of heavy LP. I can 2+4 align much faster using a laser pointer/Telrad and Finder but it isn't easy to do in Bortle 9 skies. I am in a Bortle 7/8 so it is easier. I ultimately sold the scope because even though I was a Uni Rugby player (this explains why I am built like a tank but not very bright) the bloody thing is heavy and unwieldy. I never mastered the mount from a chair technique and like a typical rugby player I solved the problem with brute force and ignorance. See my previous comment about not being very bright... CW were about 18kg to make it work. The mount never strained. And views were very good. So if you are thinking about it but don't want to deal with a CGX-L then here is proof that it works...

Hi and welcome to SGL

Hi and welcome to SGL

Hi and welcome to SGL

Hi and welcome to SGL

Interesting albeit brief article on an upcoming NASA mission to study stars via the use of a balloon: https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/upcoming-nasa-mission-payload-bearing-balloon-stratosphere/?utm_source=All+About+Circuits+Members&utm_campaign=fde62d9803-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_07_29_02_28&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2565529c4b-fde62d9803-270438757

Hi and welcome to SGL.

Hi and welcome to SGL.

Hi and welcome to SGL.

It is almost 50% of what you weigh. I would not recommend it. If you want a 11" SCT I would recommend the EdgeHD 11" OTA by itself. I would add the TEMPest fans from Deep Space Products to it. They cut the cool down time on the scope by about 50%. I am speaking from personal experience here. I find the scope is useable after about 30 minutes and by useable I mean the stars are not wooly flaring messy balls. And total cool down is about an hour. This is vs. the 2+ hours that it normally takes. I would mount the scope on a Skywatcher AZ-EQ6. That way you can use it in alt/az mode for visual and not be overwhelmed by the weight and bulk of the scope. I would replace the mount's stock saddles with at least one replacement from ADM Accessories. The ADM saddle is much more robust. The other benefit of the EdgeHD is it gives APO refractor like views once properly cooled and properly collimated. The major benefit of both the mount and the OTA are they break down into much lighter, ergonomically friendly, and less bulky pieces. The CPC is one monolithic big bulky heavy object that you will rapidly tire of lugging about. And the most important factor in a scope that is right for you is to make sure the scope you pick is one you use. If you spend more time finding excuses not to use it than you do using it, it is not the right scope for you. And I am afraid the CPC will rapidly become one that you look for excuses not to use.

Welcome to SGL!

Welcome to SGL. I would strongly suggest the Skywatcher AZ-GTi and 130mm Newtonian package from First Light Optics. Link is below. It comes with everything you need to observe and can do both star hopping or GOTO. It is also well under budget at £359. I would use the extra funds budgeted to get a comfortable chair. It is for your eyes not your rear. You see more when comfortably seated. I would add to that the Pocket Sky Atlas from Sky and Telescope. It will act as your roadmap to the stars. Much like the Thomas Guide we used to use before the advent of GPS and the like. Lastly I would also get Turn Right at Orion as well. https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-watcher-az-gti-wifi/sky-watcher-explorer-130ps-az-gti.html

Yes it is fine. Should last you a couple of evenings.

Welcome aboard Lou!

Are you buying the CG-5 used? It is no longer made by Celestron. It has been replaced by the Advanced VX mount. I have owned both and both will serve you well and are good mounts at their price point. As to a refractor there are a couple of options in your budget. If you would like to do visual as well as AP (Astro Photography) then a 120mm Skywatcher Evostar would be a great option on either mount. It is a bit slow for an imaging refractor but it can still be used to image and it does very well visually. It is also very affordable and has very good glass for a doublet. In the middle of your price range would be the Williams Optics 2019 Zenithstar 73 II. At the top end of your price range would be the Takahashi FS-60. It can be resold at about 80% of its new price if you decide you want to sell it. It is the very top shelf of refractors. I provided you links to all three below. A flattener will likely not be needed for these three telescopes if your DSLR is using a APS-C sensor. Anything bigger than that will likely require a flattener. There is a reducer for the 120 that, with the 120's price, is very affordable. My choice in your shoes would be the 120 because I can do both AP and visual with it. I had a great view of Mars with a friend's 120. Saw the ice caps and some detail on the mountain ranges. Small DSO were small but not too bad. https://www.firstlightoptics.com/evostar/skywatcher-evostar-120-ota.html https://www.firstlightoptics.com/william-optics/william-optics-2019-zenithstar-73-ii-apo.html https://www.firstlightoptics.com/takahashi-fs-60-series-refractor-telescopes/takahashi-fs-60cb-f5-9-doublet-fluorite-apo-refractor.html

There are a few things here that need to be pointed out. 1st, as Peter noted it is likely a combination of factors that lead to your disappointment. They would be: seeing conditions were likely poor; your friend likely didn't have the scope collimated well; the scope was not fully cooled; and your expectations. Visually it will never look like the pictures you see. Our eyes work "in the moment" meaning that when a photon hits our eyes that is what we see. A camera can leave the shutter open for as long as the user would like which means a much bigger amount of photons are gathered which means a lot more color and detail on the image. The image is further enhanced by post processing where the data is manipulated to bring out the details the photographer wants. In the case of planets, because they are so bright, the photographer takes multiple short exposure images and stacks them together. That is what gives the end image its pop. In the case of Deep Space Objects (DSO) the same is done (multiple exposures) but each exposure can be as short as 15-30 seconds or as long a 2+ hours. And again the image is enhanced in post to bring out the details the photographer wants. Astro Photography (AP) can be a very expensive, time consuming, and frustrating part of the hobby. And even someone who has lots of experience doing terrestrial photography can find AP very difficult. In general common wisdom says the following about AP: 1. visually observe for at least 6-9 months before attempting AP. That way the person has time to learn his/her night sky, their equipment, and how things work. It also gives them a chance to enjoy visually the objects that are out there before shoving a camera in the rear end of a scope and going forth. 2. The scope used for visual astronomy is not the scope used for AP. Trying to buy a single scope to do both is usually an exercise in frustration, especially for someone just getting started. In visual astronomy quality aperture (meaning size of the scope) is key. In AP first comes the mount so spend most of your money on it, then the scope, then the camera. And for those just starting out in AP it is best to get a low f/stop short focal length APO or ED refractor. The reason for this is because the longer the focal length and/or slower f/stop the scope the more precise one has to be with how the mount functions, tracks, and is aligned to the celestial pole, and if using a focal reducer then spacing for the camera. In addition with a reflector (mirror based telescope) the collimation (alignment) of the mirrors is very important. More so the longer the focal length. With a short focal length fast f/stop refractor (lens based telescope) there is no added complexity from collimation or having to be precise in the polar alignment or tracking because it is more forgiving thus more enjoyable for the photographer to work with and a good platform to learn on. With that said and based on your comment that you had funds for a 10 or 11" telescope that would work for both AP and visual use I would suggest the following. Forget the 10 or 11" scope. The best telescope is the one you use. If it is too big, too heavy, or both you will not use it. And a 10-11" telescope is pretty big. Instead consider a 8"/203mm SCT package from Celestron. I would suggest the EdgeHD Advanced VX package. The EdgeHD will be a scope you will grow into for AP but it is a cracking visual telescope. Add to it an Explore Scientific 80mm APO FCD1 refractor. That will be your AP scope to start with. The Advanced VX mount is not top shelf in terms of an imaging mount but those can be in the 10's of thousands of dollars. Add to that package a Tele Vue SCT to Compression fitting, 18mm, 14mm, and 8.8mm Explore Scientific 82 degree eyepieces, a comfortable chair (for your eyes not your rear. You see more when comfortably seated), TEMPest fans from Deep Space Products for the EdgeHD which will cool the telescope faster than if you just had to do it normally, and the Pocket Sky Atlas from Sky and Telescope. That will be about what a 11" computerized telescope will cost. And will do very well for what you are looking to do.

Welcome aboard!