Planetarian

I see, it makes sense now. Thank you both. I can set the NSEW button speed in the controller and wondering if that speed is applied to the camera guiding as well or just to the physical buttons in general? Have you got any recommendations for a basic guide camera / software combo that would do the job?

There's an 'AutoGuider' input in my controller, which looks like an RJ45 socket. As a beginner in astrophotography, I'm not sure if that needs to be connected to a computer which already has a guiding camera connected and use a software or to connect it directly to a camera. I've seen cameras with an RJ45 socket. Does that mean they can track stars automatically without connecting them to a machine? Also I know about guiding scopes with a separate camera, but not sure how to connect everything together. (I was thinking to have just one camera and use it for guiding at the same time, but I realised that during exposures it wouldn't be able to guide.) So at the moment I only have a tracking mount using this SkyWatcher controller (see below) and would love to get some guidance how to connect it up to a camera and software.

Thanks, that's reassuring.

Since you've flocked the tube, have you noticed lint from the flocking paper being collected on the mirror surfaces? I'm planning to flock mine, but a bit worried about residue.

After your comments, as I see, for a portable one the best could be an apo. refractor while for home use a large Newtonian or Dobsonian. For the most contrast/sharpness. Thanks for the replies!

I'm just a beginner, but looking at many photos and videos I have the impression that a refractor telescope can produce a little sharper, more crisp image, than a reflector one. Could this be just because some people don't collimate their reflectors well or is there really a difference in sharpness of the two types, let's say, with the same aperture and magnification? (I know there are many other factors like the material and coating of the objectives etc. )

Thanks for the info. It seems like the P1000 can't beat serious telescope setups, so still worth going with a proper rig instead of the camera.

Mainly the Moon. First I used the Super 10 that came with the telescope, then I tried my Ostara 10mm SWA 70 FMC which was a little better. Now that I'm thinking about it, it might be possible that the secondary mirror got steamed up somewhat from be breathing while observing. As the tube is extended, there's nothing between my mouth and the secondary mirror. I might try to add some kind of shield next time. I'm thinking to get a Bahtinov mask as well.

Yes, outside, cooled down. Without barlow. If I insert the two times barlow (metal, not too bad quality one) with the 10mm lens, I can still focus, maybe it's the contrast that gets less and the image seems less sharp to me. The sky was very light polluted as well. I'm gonna experiment more when it's fully clear outside.

The conditions were definitely not perfect, that must have been the issue then. Collimation was fine, optics quality is good too.

Just thinking how this setup would compare to normal astrophotography setups. Imagine a Nikon coolpix p1000 on an equatorial mount. Has anyone done that yet? As I saw in the YouTube videos about the camera, it has absolutely no chromatic aberration, so I assume it's got apochromatic lens. It's magnification is extremely good (125x with 16MP sensor). The aperture is quite small tho compared to many different refractors available. So what do you think about the idea: astrophotography with a Nikon?

Hi, I've got a Skywatcher Heritage 130p reflector, and if i insert anything less than 10mm eyepiece, the image won't get crisp. I guess it's normal, but as I'm very new to astronomy, I'd like to know what the sharpness depends on exactly. Is that the focal length (how fast the telescope is? ) or the size of the mirror and how much light it gathers? Or both affect it the same way? Are things the same with refractors in this regard? Thanks.

As there are almost 3000 satellites on orbit, I was wondering if they ever become an obstruction of our stargazing. I'm just a beginner and don't know much about it. Spacex has started the Starlink project which consists of thousands of satellites. Are those ever gonna be in the way when observing, or there's nothing to worry about? I know they won't be in focus but can decrease contrast i guess.

First Moon sighting with the Heritage 130p and a phone camera.

I'm at about 30 miles from the sea.

I'm just starting observing the night sky with a telescope so I'm just a beginner. I've seen images online of nebulas that look great and full of colour. I'm just wondering if we would actually see them colourful if we looked into our telescope, or people colour them in on purpose. If they do, then what's the point of doing so?

Thanks for the replies, I'm feeling more relaxed about the longevity of my telescope now.

Thanks, that's good news. I'm gonna make sure my mirror stays clean but one day if it will be necessary to give it a wash i guess I'm just gonna need washing up liquid, some sterile cotton balls and distilled water to rinse it.

Update 2: I've got my heritage 130p and I haven't regretted buying it. There's no double image, it's brighter then the other telescope and gives a great image. It was the first time i could see Jupiter's bands, but wasn't too visible, probably because the planet is too close to the horizon nowadays and can't get a great viewing condition.

I've got a SkyWatcher 130p, and just wondering if the primary mirror got any protection on top of the aluminium coating. As I know aluminium gets an oxide later on it's surface after a time. In case they coated it with an extra layer of some kind of protective material, then it will stay shiny for a long time. I hope this is the case.

Update: So I've done a little experiment (still without the laser collimator). I aligned the mirrors using a pinhole cap, and the situation is this: the image is not sharp, I mean everything has a shadow. For example a distant telephone wire looks double, or as it has a shadow very close to it. This happens with any eyepiece. When I cover half of the front opening with a piece of paper, the image becomes crisp and perfectly sharp even with the highest magnification that I can achieve (350x). Of course the image is dimmer due to the paper I covered half the aperture with. Then I removed the paper to open up the whole front again to see if adjusting the primary mirror does anything to the image. It did nothing. The shadow of the objects still remained, no matter how I moved the primary or even the secondary mirror. My conclusion is that the primary mirror must be really bad quality or the secondary mirror is not at the right distance from it. Anyway I decided to return my scope to the seller I bought it from. Now I'm thinking about getting a SkyWatcher Heritage 130p Flextube Parabolic Dobsonian as a starter telescope. I like the portability of it. Or something similar.

That's a nice large dobsonian. Is it stable with those extending bars? Do you also do astrophotography?

Oh I've just found the info under your comments. I'm too new here yet. Anyway I'm still curious at which occasions or for which targets do you use refractor and when to use reflector.

Haha, good answer. I know it's a 'dangerous' question, but if I asked in a separate topic, after a big argument the result would be probably 50 - 50 for each which is useless to me. Just wanted to know your opinions. Or pros and cons. Or what instrument do you have?

Yes, very weird, but anyway, after a proper collimation I'm gonna post an update here. Hopefully with good news. Thanks for the replies so far. Also wanted to ask if it's worth going with reflectors in the future if I decide to invest in a more serious telescope, or might be better off with refractors?