Zermelo

With velcro. I find that it's usually too effective. I've just made a dew shield and tried sticking the velcro, but it just lifts off when you try to undo it. I've now sewn it instead, but even then it's starting to strain the thread. For most applications it doesn't need to be that strong.

If you're after a zoom, this one is a great performer and reduced in the sale:

Welcome back

If you did want the 150i, there's one on sale now: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/offers/offer_sky-watcher-star-discovery-150i_157340.html

Hello, and welcome to the forum. I have no experience with that model, but Maksutovs are generally popular. It has a long focal length, almost F/13, but if you are interested in solar system targets then that brings the advantage of higher magnification, which you will need, and decent contrast. The downside is that it's not so easy to get wider field views of other objects. The 10mm and 25mm eyepieces will be Skywatcher's modified achromat stock models. I would suggest you see how you get on with them before buying any others. Stock eyepieces are usually mediocre, but your long focal length will be more forgiving than most scopes. If you do decide to supplement these, the BST Starguiders are often recommended as good value for money and are good for a variety of objects. If you want something more specifically for planets, then you could live with a narrower field of view that delivers very sharp detail - orthoscopics are popular. While a narrower view won't affect the display of the planet itself, it does mean that it will drift out of view more quickly, especially at higher magnification. So yes, a motor drive may be a good investment at some point. With your equatorial mount, after proper alignment you need only adjust the right ascension axis, so that will help if it's not driven. If you do decide to motorise, you can do so on the RA axis only.

Welcome to SGL. You appear to have enviably dark skies there.

Hi Christian, you might find this book to be useful. I don't have particularly polluted skies, but there are some useful tips, and the choice of targets - intended as being suitable for challenging locations - is also a good reference for starting out in any conditions. And did anyone mention Turn Left at Orion yet?

Hello and welcome to the forum. If you're not familiar with the way these communities work, the first thing you might want to know is that information that is important or widely relevant is sometimes turned into a "sticky" post that remains in a prominent position. I presume you already found the guidelines? And I would also recommend reading this one (or at least the article at the top) to set your expectations. If you're not in any hurry to buy a telescope you could do a lot worse than having a run through some of the threads in the 'Welcome' section - there are quite a few from new starters asking for advice on choosing or buying. There's also a guide here , and a glossary of terms here. Astrophotography is a whole extra can of worms, be prepared for a serious learning curve if you want to get straight into that (and put your credit card on standby). If you haven't already, it's worth getting hold of a 'planisphere', either physical or software (like "Stellarium"). You can use it to show what constellations are up and when, and then see how many you can recognise (I'm assuming you're not already familiar with this, and it will be useful when you start observing). There are also some great apps for phones, like Skysafari.

Have a look here to give you an idea: https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/196278-what-can-i-expect-to-see/ although what you can see of nebulae, in particular, is going to be affected by the light pollution at your observing site.

Hi George, and welcome to the forum. You might be interested in this recent discussion: https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/365881-buying-my-daughter-her-first-telescope/ . There are also a few beginners' buying pages online, e.g.: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes.html https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/top-astronomy-kit/best-telescopes-beginners/ https://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/beginner-telescopes.html https://uk.telescope.com/assets/articles/content-popups/whats-the-best-telescope-for-kids.html You mention planets, specifically, as being of interest. If you've not already read it, I'd recommend having a look at this thread: https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/196278-what-can-i-expect-to-see/

It might have been included somewhere in that long thread referenced above, but this list attempts to compare the respective merits of UHC and OIII filters against various nebula targets. Subjective judgement of course. I got the Astronomik UHC following advice on SGL. I agree they're expensive (well, compared with my other purchases). It doesn't get used frequently, but when it does it makes a significant difference, in some cases the difference between being visible or invisible. (Bortle 4ish here).

Hi, and welcome to SGL. OK, so you have already addressed some of the decision factors. On the photography aspect, I think you're right to defer that if it's not an immediate priority and you want to get started for a modest outlay (which I'm afraid it is, in astrophotography circles). You correctly mention that alt-az is not good for most imaging, but it's also the case that you would be looking at more than your budget for a decent EQ mount, if you wanted to image deep-sky objects well with a larger scope (consensus seems to be that the regular EQ5 won't cut it, you need at least an HEQ5). You could of course always dabble with an alt-az mount while being mostly visual, and use a DSLR with a regular lens instead of a scope. With imaging not a requirement then yes, alt-az is probably simper than EQ. You mention GoTo as a requirement, but no reasons. A common one is having to observe from light-polluted skies, but not the case for you. You will realise that the inclusion of GoTo (and hence drives on both axes) adds expense that must be trimmed off elsewhere to stay within a budget - hence converging on something like the Star Discovery. Compared with a manual alternative, the 150i makes compromises elsewhere to maintain its price point. In particular, the focuser is quite basic and the primary mirror is fixed. You point out that this is actually an advantage as no collimation is required (not quite true - the secondary does have adjustment if needed). Well, I thought just the same when I bought one back in June, but I was concerned that there was no collimation possible if it were needed (well, not easily). The advice I got on this forum was split between those who would always want the option available to them, and those who pointed out that Skywatcher had been using the same system for several years so it was well tried. So far, I've not had any issues with the collimation (i.e. it hasn't shifted at all). I'm not trying to put you off GoTo, just be sure you want it. I definitely did, in my case because I usually share observing sessions with family and I want to minimise time spent finding targets. On the GoTo functionality itself, I'm not familiar with the Celestron version so I'm not qualified to compare. For SW I'm using the Synscan Pro app version that also supports their EQ mounts, only because it also gives you the option of 3-star alignment for alt-az. I use that in conjunction with SkySafari, which I would definitely recommend. Synscan controls the wifi connection and manual movements, but I use observing lists in SkySafari to drive the goto operations, and they communicate very well (I'm on Android). I did find it a bit of a learning curve, not helped by some poor instructions (there are better ones now online). For example, my phone kept losing connection until I realised I needed to change the power saving settings for the apps I was using so they didn't sleep. The accuracy I've found to be more than acceptable for my needs (i.e. targets placed comfortably within a 26mm eyepiece), provided I've successfully aligned first. If something goes wrong in a session (e.g. someone kicks a tripod leg) you'll need to re-align. The dual encoding functionality ("Freedom Find" in SW) seems to divide opinion. It is said that it degrades the pointing accuracy, though I always have it on and I have managed. I like it because (a) it saves my battery if I can rough-point the scope manually before doing a GoTo, and (b) when I was observing at 2 a.m. in the summer, I could eliminate almost all the noise by doing this. The mirror in the 150i is the same as you would get in the other SW 150 versions. Of course if you did without the computer you could get more scope for your budget - yes a 200P/EQ5 is fine for visual, but I wouldn't try it on your EQ3/2, it's too much. You will no doubt get some responses suggesting dobs, which give you the most diameter for your money. And being an optician, you will of course know that the light-gathering capacity increases with the square of the diameter. The really hard bit is going to be finding any stock at the moment, when you've decided. Good luck. [EDIT] PS I forgot to address your comment on preferred targets - both planets and DSOs. In some respects they are different beasts. DSOs are usually feinter but often not especially small, and some require quite a wide field to see in their entirety. Which (for visual observing especially) would push you towards a larger aperture and faster (shorter focal ratio) device. Planets are brighter but always small, so you usually want to magnify them as much as you can. That would suggest a longer focal ratio, which will give you greater magnification for any particular eyepiece you have. The 150i is a relatively fast F/5, so you have to push it, eyepiece wise, to get larger magnifications for planets. You can get a SW version of the 150 that is slower. However, in the UK you will very often find that the limiting factor in a session is not the scope, but rather the atmospheric conditions or else the position of the planet in the sky (e.g. Jupiter and Saturn are poor at the moment). I decided that an F/5 150mm was a reasonable compromise for DSOs and planets.

Welcome. You have the advantage of having already followed the advice that's often given to new enthusiasts here, i.e. (1) get to know the sky with just your eyes; (2) see what more you can find with binoculars; (3) think about a telescope. Good luck with finding something suitable that's in stock, in this Covid era. If you've not already realised, First Light Optics (who support this forum), have a sale on this week, you might find something.

Congratulations, the Heritage is well regarded as a starter scope around these parts. (yes, I do say "scope". No, I'm not cool).

Hi Neil, I echo the advice above, try for some easier objects first. M33 in Triangulum in particular is a difficult one, a difficulty made worse by knowing that it's large and photogenic! It comes up quite frequently, these are two recent threads: https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/364279-cant-see-m33/ https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/366028-triangulum-galaxy-query/?tab=comments#comment-3985083 I've tried and failed to find M33 myself. I have had more luck with globular and open clusters, and emission nebulae. Galaxies generally have been difficult, but I think part of that is down to my being an inexperienced observer. You might also be interested in this thread that discusses easier and harder DSOs (and in particular, the chart of Messier objects half way down).

Yes, that's it. The threaded inside of the "silver" end is really designed to take filters, which are not very deep. The "1.3" part of the Baader barlow is deeper than a standard filter. I only have three of the BSTs. I can tell you for sure that the 8mm and 12mm don't have enough room. My 18mm will almost accept it, but I haven't tried it out in the scope - I expect it will work, but might give a different magnification. To be honest, I bought the Baader to use at 2.25x, and anything else is a bonus. I haven't seen anywhere that will answer the question for the whole BST range. That internal measurement isn't one that is normally quoted. But I suspect several forum members have a full set and may be able to advise.

Yes, that's not unusual! And astrophotographers will often spend more on their mount than on the tube. It's a funny old hobby. Just one more comment - with the barlows liker the Baader that split and give you two magnifications, it's not always possible to use the smaller component with all eyepieces to give you the lower multiplier. For example, the Baader 1.3 option isn't available with all of the Starguider range, because there isn't enough room at the nose end of some of them to screw in the barlow piece. So you may not get as many focal length combinations as it might appear.

Welcome to SGL. You might want a look at this thread:

Yes, that's a good source. Within this forum, this sticky is a good planning guide, and also this alternative that takes an approach based on exit pupil size.

Yes, your reasoning makes sense, it's certainly worth planning your eyepiece purchases to maximise your range of options, including the barlow; however: - sometimes you will get slightly better results with an "uncombined" eyepiece compared with an equivalent focal length using a barlow and doubled eyepiece. But often you see no difference, and occasionally the barlow combination may even perform better - it depends on the eyepieces and the barlow used, which is difficult to predict - yes, in theory 260 times is attainable but in practice you will be limited by observing conditions to a lower magnification. So I certainly wouldn't get a 2.5mm eyepiece, and since your use of even a 5mm with a barlow would be very restricted, you might be better getting something slightly longer, perhaps aim for a magnification of around 160 -180 when used with the barlow

Welcome Jason. Advice for new starters is often "see how you get on with your initial setup, then decide what else to get", but it's understandable that you want to pre-order in these Covid times. The Starquest 130P comes with the Skywatcher stock 10mm and 25mm eyepieces - they are a "modified achromat" design. I have both, and while they're perfectly usable, you will start to notice limitations, especially with the 10mm. Your Starquest is a "fast" (shorter focal length) scope. There are advantages and disadvantages, and one of the latter is that it will be less forgiving of mediocre eyepieces. If you do decide to splash out on another, then the BST Starguiders mentioned by Tiny Clanger are an excellent minimum step up. I'd recommend FLO but, as you say, stock levels are awful and I think they're out. But looking at their website, SkiesTheLimit seem to have just had a new delivery. Another option is to invest in a decent zoom eyepiece, which will cover a whole range. The image quality can be comparable with a fixed lens, but the field of view will be smaller. One that is often recommended is the Hyperflex 7.2mm - 21.5mm, another decent one is made by Svbony. A reasonable barlow such as this one will be worthwhile. Personally I'd hold off on the laser collimator for now, you may manage with cheaper alternatives like a cheshire eyepiece or cap. Filters - see how you get on with the moon. If you find it's too bright, then either the "neutral density" version (you buy one with a strength suitable for your telescope aperture) or the polarising version that lets you adjust the effect. Light pollution filters are increasingly ineffective against the modern LED streetlights. There are some that claim to, but they are expensive. Skysafari is great - I'd get the free one for now, maybe upgrade to the Plus later, but probably not worth getting Pro. Good viewing!

I'll trade you M31 for your Magellanic clouds and omega centauri 😁 (should this be in the For Sale/Swap section?)

Of the three that you mention explicitly: - Andromeda (nebula) M31 can just about be seen with the unaided eye in dark locations. It is certainly visible in small telescopes, though it is a bit of a fuzzy blob, and being very large, it can actually be quite hard to tell that you're seeing it, unless you're using a low magnification/wide field (e.g. decent binoculars) - Orion (I assume you mean the "Great Nebula", M42). Again, certainly accessible with a small telescope, though light polluted skies may prevent this. A good filter ('OIII' or 'UHC' type) will enhance the contrast. - Whirlpool, aka M51, is the hardest of the three. It is still a largeish DSO but the "surface brightness" (which describes the amount of light being emitted per unit area of the object) is not so good. Darker skies will definitely improve your chances. Newcomers are often inspired by, but also misled by, the amazing photos of these objects in books and websites. Bear in mind that these are: - photos, not actual views through an eyepiece. The camera can capture a lot more light over time than the eye can catch in an instant, and can show colour that the eye will not see, because of the low light levels (DSOs seen visually in a modest telescope are usually grey) - often taken using larger telescopes than you will be using, with state-of-the-art optics - sometimes taken from space (Hubble etc.), without the distortions of the earth's atmosphere to contend with - often taken with filters, may show light that the human eye just can't see at all, and then given false colours afterwards (yes, it's not just influencers on Instagram who cheat) - usually benefit from a lot of intensive computer manipulation that merges multiple images, intelligently removes the poor ones and combines the rest to give a "best average" picture If you've not already seen it, you might like to have a read of this item, which describes how objects appear through an eyepiece in an amateur telescope. It specifically covers the three you mentioned, and shows pictures comparing the stunning press photos with the views that an amateur is likely to see with reasonable skies.

The Celestron omni is not their premium model, but it has been good for me so far, and probably a match for your likely choice of eyepiece, in price/performance terms. I recently bought a Baader Q Turret and I could see no difference in image quality, at least when used with the other kit I have. The Celestron seems to be on sale here, and they claim to have stock (a lot of outlets won't at the moment).

Indeed. I started properly in the spring, and I've been waiting all year for this. I'm used to Orion being low in the south around Christmas time, which is inaccessible from my observing location. So it was a pleasant surprise on Wednesday to see it emerging over the south-east, visible for an hour before the cloud rolled in. I split Mintaka and Rigel, and M42 showed some nice detail with my 6" reflector, aided by an Astronomik UHC. I'm waiting to tackle more doubles in round 2.