Getting Started Equipment - Help Sought

[Davidoff]

Hi, Not sure if this becomes a hobby and I a regular member/visitor. But right now I got very interested in getting a telescope (we live in the Algarve over the "winter" and the night sky from our premises is unbelievable).

New post, cause all other posts I saw here aren't actually answering my Q/forums headline. Mine really seeks such answer:

Getting Started Equipment - Help please!

to be precise:

Celestron 31051 Astromaster 130EQ-MD

Skywatcher Explorer 130m Newtonian Reflector Telescope

which one is "better"? Why?

(is my price range for now)

From a bit of research I understand it "must be" a Newtonian Reflector - although some scopes I saw write "refractor"... Puzzled. But not my point.

My point is:

- watching night sky (deep sky objects! for this money) + terrestrial (MILES from here! out on the sea too)

- attach camera (I have a Canon DSLR T2i to be exact) and shoot photos of what I see

For these two goals, which of the above telecopes is better? Or a third choice maybe? Does anyone here know? Opinions welcome.

Thanks a bunch - David

PS: I don't want to go for the dirt cheap ones (read they are Rubbish), but neither for the £xxxx ones, just £xxx for now, ideally pricerange of those above)

[Davidoff]

Oh, and which accessories would I need (for the 2 goals above) ? Anyone knows?

[rowan46]

welcome to sgl both scopes are ok entry level scopes both suffer from slightly wobbly mounts which with a little tlc can be improved.

The astromaster has a parabolic lens which means if its collimated gives a slightly better image at high magnification the explorer m has a spherical mirror but a good one in practice at lower magnification there is little to choose between them in optical performance. the explorer has the better finder and there is a bit less plastic in its general construction it also has a slightly better motor. Now the real problem with these scopes for your needs. 

Although the mounts can be improved somewhat neither is stable or accurate enough with a dslr for more than a few seconds long exposure and more importantly neither scope can focus a dslr without some extensive modifications.

In short they are ok entry level visual instruments but don't expect much out of then photograhically. You can use them with a webcam to take pics of the moon and planets but long exposure dslr photography is pretty much out.

I said that both are ok reading it again. that's damning with faint praise amongst their price group they are up their with the best the explorer 130p http://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors.html has the better optics of the celestron but the better build quality of the 130m but no motor thats best in class these 2 are only just below

[brantuk]

Of the two the Skywatcher comes better equipped - the finder is altogether better and the counterweights are more standard. But I would recommend a larger aperture for your stated objective of observing deep sky objects - maybe 6" or 8".

I wouldn't suggest either of these for imaging deep sky objects. The motor drive will allow limited photography of planets with a webcam, but for dso imaging with a dslr you need long exposures (typically 5mins+). For that you'd need a more accurate and solid  equatorial mount, and not inconsiderable experience with software for aligning, stacking, and processing your frames.

Best idea is to first get a copy of "Making Every Photon Count" by Steve Richards and give it a thorough read before even buying a scope. It'll tell you everything you need to know about imaging before making a cash outlay only to end up disappointed. Hth

[Laurie61]

Hi David, to answer your first question "which one is "better"? Why?". The Skywatcher uses a longer focal length mirror (900mm f6.9) and is not parabolic, the Celestron is a shorter focal length (650mm f5) and does have a parabolic mirror. The perceived wisdom is the parabolic mirror is the better option but at the Magnification levels you would use a 130mm scope at it really does not make a huge difference. Both scopes should perform nicely up to around 150X or so. This brings us to the mounts and of the two the Celestron probably has the edge with its tubular steel legs.  Both scopes would come with eyepieces ect to get you started. So in practice either one would do the job but the Celestron is probably the better option. As far as photography goes these scopes are not ideal for using a DSLR camera because they my not be able to produce a focused image unless using the afocal method, shooting through the eyepiece, and the mounts would struggle with all the extra weight hanging of the scope. If you buy a Newtonian design scope you also need to keep the optics collimated for a sharp view so a collimation cap or Cheshire collimator would be useful. ​If you prefer something which does not need occasional adjustments to the optics you could go for a Refractor, although more expensive they are easier to look after. You may also find a Refractor nicer to use for terrestrial viewing.

This is more expensive than the options above but comes with a better mount-

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/omni-xlt-series/celestron-omni-xlt-102.html

[baggywrinkle]

The Skywatcher is slightly better.

I had an Astromaster refractor (90mm on EQ) and it was like a jelly. Plus the Astromaster spotter scope is useless. The RDF on the Skywatcher is better.

[Schorhr]

I agree, I have a Heritage 130p and placed it on an Astro3 mount, that's a bit more rigid then an eq2 mount but less then a (REAL) eq3-2.

Sadly those names are not standarized, some vendors sell astro3 as eq3, and even eq2 as eq9 (!!!).

For serious photography, you will Most likely need a mount that is much more stable, thus usualy costing more then the Optics... OR a smaller telescope such as a 102/1300 Mak that still fits on a eq2 due to its compact size, but that's Not really a deepsky telescope.

Visually a larger aperture is key. A 5" (130mm) telescope will just start to show a few details, while in 3-4" most objects are just small fuzzies.

With 8" (270£ as dobsonian) you really start to see details:

http://clarkvision.com/visastro/m51-apert/

Visual views are allways different then photographs. The above example represents well the impression you get after an observation when you look carefully, change magnifications and let yourself time. Even in a larger telescope the first view will not show all the details at once.

As for photography, the amount of work is often underestimated; Long exposures, stacking multiple images on the computer, and so on.

Especially if you plan on imaging on such a wobbly mount, go for the shorter focal length, as the lower magnification is easier to handle; Stiill you will probably end up with many unusable images.

With my canon 450d on the 130/650 on Astro3 it was even worse then visually, so I would strongly recomend against it.

The only option might be a Phil Dyer Colour Camera and Laptop with USB video grabber as shorter exposure times from 5-20 seconds are enough, and the camera is lighter, though that's complicated for a start, and the results don't match a good DSLR setup...

But it's great to show "live" color views of deepsky objects, something that visually is not possible as our eye is not that sensitive regarding faint colors.

[66mikeg]

For your budget of £xxx forget photography of deep space objects a budget of £XXXX is a minimum. A webcam will take acceptable photos of the moon and larger planets. Neither of the reflectors is really suitable for terrestrial use but would be fine as an entry level scope for visual astronomy. Another alternative is a really good pair of binoculars which would be suitable for either use.

[Schorhr]

The Heritage 130p would be another alternative, and as you can get a Astro3 Mount or fake eq3 quite cheap used once in a while, you could "upgrade" later if you really wanted to with such a weak mount unter a 5" telescope.

The dobsonian rockerbox mount is not suited for photography, but rigid and the heritage mirror is more or less parabolized.

Also another vote for binoculars, they compliment a telescope well, help finding your target in the sky, and in case you get into imaging you'll have something to do during long exposures ;-)

Even inexpensive Bresser or Auriol binoculars for 15-30£ will be usable, but you get what you pay for. But you won't see much regarding planets, as the low magnification of 8, 10 or perhaps 15x won't reveal more then an oval shape of Saturn, and the moons of Jupiter for example... And 15x is already something that belongs on a tripod for astronomical use; Even 10x can be a bit tricky hand-held.

For details on planet's the fun starts at 100-150x magnification in my oppinion, amazing to see them up close (but still tiny compared to photographs, still, so worth it).

For visual use the combination of a 120£ 5" (or better 270£ 8" for deepsky) plus binoculars in the range of 8x60 / 10x5p for 20-30£ is a decent start. There's always better, sharper and closer, no need to debate that.

But binoculars have their use, and so do telescopes. For me, starting with binoculars would have been out of the question, as much as I like to use them, it's a bit of a different application.

Even if those starter optics turn out to need an upgrade, some neighbor kid, nephew, niece, or friend will surely benefit from them in the future :-)

We tend to forget what even little telescopes can show ever since big optics are affordable, and tend to want everything at once for as little money as possible. It all boils down to your expectations, and many who bought a telescope for planets end up needing a larger one for deepsky, or the different way around, downgrading to a nice refractor or smaller newtonian that's also more portable.

The best way really is to attend a local Star Party, Club or observatory to Get some first hand experience :-)

[AndyWB]

My point is:

- watching night sky (deep sky objects! for this money) + terrestrial (MILES from here! out on the sea too)

- attach camera (I have a Canon DSLR T2i to be exact) and shoot photos of what I see

So, a few points:

The image shown in a reflector is inverted (upside down), so they're not really suitable for terrestrial use, unless you like seeing ships sail past upside-down in the sky. You can get eyepieces that correct for this, I believe; I've never seen one, or heard good things about one.

A refractor is more suitable for terrestrial use through a diagonal (a diagonal mirror at the end of the tube), though everything is a left-right mirror-image. However, reflectors typically have smaller apertures for the same cost, so you won't see as dim deep sky objects.

(You're starting to see why often people have multiple scopes)

Photographing deep sky objects is basically another sport to visual astronomy - and it does seem to be very expensive. I would recommend trying just visual to start with, and seeing if you want to save and invest in an imaging rig.

Oh, the exception to this would be planetary photography, as 66mikeg says. I've seen some stunning images done with small refractors, a butchered web cam, and a lot of patience!

Edit: I notice that the Celestron comes with a 20mm Erect Image Eyepiece, so that would be suitable for terrestrial use. There's more about this in the manual - http://www.celestron.com/c3/images/files/downloads/1219957574_astromasterinst.pdf - it seems to suggest that the other eyepiece is not erect image (i.e. is the normal 'upside down' variety.)

[LTB]

Astronomy is a technical hobby.  This is one hobby in which the more you spend.....generally(Not always and not always a necessity....see 8-12 inch dobsonians for example) the happier your going to be with the results.  Rare is the person who spends a few bucks and is happy doing Visual Astronomy as well as Astro Photography as well as watching boats sail by on the horizon with the same inexpensive telescope.

I would spend some more time reading and studying up on the hobby your about to enter.  Ask more questions on these and other forums.   Research Reviews of telescopes and eyepieces and imaging equiptment from various online stores that sell telescope equiptment.  Generally as you study you will begin feeling comfortable with what type of get up will work best for what you want to do along with your own viewing demands.

I am 60 years old.  I got rid of my dobsonian and 12 inche Meade SCT and dropped down to a 5 inch Refractor on a relatively light GoTo mount.  The reason being was that for me and my health issues it was just easier to break the unit down into 3 pieces........OTA, Weight, Tripod and move it to my viewing area without needing oxygen....when It became necessary to have my son in law put my 12 inche Meade SCT on the mount for me....it was time............so this is what I mean by your own personal needs/wants and abilities...both physical and financial.

[Davidoff]

I didn't get a forum's message aka "you have replies" but thought: Hmm, has anyone answered yet?

Bang! So many replies already, thanks so much guys! (no gals here)

Impressed!

Hmm, I should have added: "I understand ZERO of the scope specifications..." - so most of the above is a bit confusing (so much so that I read every reply now three times and still can't decide; obviously you have different opinions too, I understand that).

What I DID understand, I shall go for a 8"? Okay. But what does that refer to? Let's take the link from Laurie61: http://www.firstlightoptics.com/omni-xlt-series/celestron-omni-xlt-102.html, and I scroll down to the "Specifications": There are several things measured in inch. Which one should be 8" please?

I also understood that RefRACtor is better, and the linked scope actually has one. But it looks so much smaller (thinner) than the other two I found, hm? (do my two linked ones have a refractor too?) If the scope is thinner, the mirror (or lens?) must be smaller in diameter. Doesn't that mean I catch less light, so I can't see as far? I am puzzled!

Schorhr's tip "attend a local Star Party, Club or observatory to Get some first hand experience" is a great idea, needa look if they have sth like that here in the Algarve????
Reminds me: Normally having lived in London I tell ya: The sky here is SOOOO MUCH different/clearer, you can't believe it if you haven't seen it. We are on the mountains here, no city lights, no lights at all, ha. Makes a difference. I've seen falling stars already, just by looking up at the right mo.

Brantuk, "get a copy of "Making Every Photon Count" by Steve Richards and give it a thorough read before even buying a scope", great tip too! I feel I have to do exactly that, cause at the moment I don't understand a thing. Which specs to look for. So I'd probably end up with sth I would be unhappy with the next day.... - But: Neither amazon.com nor uk has that book. Or do you have a link where to get it?

Mikeg, Rowan, and Brantuk, you mentioned "webcam". Would be easy/easier for taking a photo through the scope. How? Do you guys just hold the webcam before the eyepiece, or do they get screwed on, or how does a camera "see" what the scope sees?

[rowan46]

If astrophotography is where you want to go then definitely the book is the place to go first it takes you through first principles in astronomy right through to imaging with a dslr. The only reason I mentioned the webcam was for information its not really where you say you want to go. If you are interested in webcam astronomy of planets after you have read the book We will be delighted to give you all the info you need.

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/books/making-every-photon-count-steve-richards.html

[rowan46]

visual astronomy and astrophotograhy are slightly different. The eye cannot retain an image like a camera sensor can, to get more light into the eye to see things you need more light coming in that's the primary function of a telescope,  to collect light the bigger the apparture the more light it can funnel into your eye. A camera doesn't need that if you want to get more light in you just open the shutter for longer. this means big scopes for visual but not a necessity for photography.

However what is a necessity is a steady mount that tracks the stars (you've seen the long exposures done on city streets where cars appear as streaks of light) The stars move (more precisely the earth moves but it amounts to the same thing as far as photography goes)with a long exposure and imprecise tracking stars show up as streaks rather than dots so if you want to do long exposure astrophotograhy first principle is the mount.

[brantuk]

I'll try and answer your question about the 102 scope specifications, but can't explain all of them here without going into some considerable depth. Bear in mind that my answers apply to most regular scopes. Compound scopes, astrographs, and solar scopes may differ in some (or all) respects.

OPTICAL DESIGN:  Refractor - You can get refractors with lenses, or reflectors that use mirrors
APERTURE:  102 mm (4.02 in) - This is the diameter of the lens or mirror. An 8" would be designated as 200mm mirror.
FOCAL LENGTH:  1000 mm (39.37 in) - This is the distance the scope takes to focus an object (often it's also the tube length).
FOCAL RATIO:  f9.8 - This is the ratio of the diameter to the focal length (ie if fl=1000 and dia=102 then fr=1000/102=9.8) This is very important when choosing an imaging scope For dso's imaging typically fr=7 or less, for snapping planets typically fr=10 or more)
EYEPIECE 1:  25 mm (0.98 in) - This is the focal length of your eyepiece. Magnification = scope fl / ep fl and for this scope magnification = 1000/25 = 40 times. A 10mm eyepiece would give you 100x magnification. A good view of a planet is typically around mag=200.
MAGNIFICATION 1:  40 x
FINDERSCOPE:  6x30 - The finder scope has a diameter of 30mm and magnifies x6. This will be a wide field low power to help find your objects.
OPTICAL COATINGS:  StarBright XLT - All scopes have coatings on the mirror or lens to protect the optics but allow light through. The XLT coatings on my reflector are very acceptable.
MOUNT:  Omni CG-4 Equatorial - You can get EQ mounts or Alt/Az mounts. EQ mounts allow "natural" tracking of objects against the rotation of the Earth. Alt/Az mounts can track but only with up/down and left/right movements.
TRIPOD LEGS:  1.75" Stainless - Get a good solid stable tripod (especially for imaging).
COUNTERWEIGHTS:  7lbs (3.2 kg) and 4lbs (1.8 kg) - These are used to counterbalance the scope on it's mountings.
HIGHEST USEFUL MAGNIFICATION:  240 x - Beware most manufacturers exaggerate this figure. As a general guide 80% of that figure is often more appropriate, and what you see will depend more on prevailing weather conditions, sky transparency, and temperature.
LOWEST USEFUL MAGNIFICATION:  15 x - Generally use low magnification for looking at larger objects like galaxies and nebulae. It's  more rewarding - you can use higher powers on planets.

I'll leave the remaining specs for you to look up - some are obvious (weights etc), and some require more explanation than I can give here - or are better explained with practical demonstration.
LIMITING STELLAR MAGNITUDE:  12.5
RESOLUTION:  1.36 arc seconds
RESOLVING POWER:  1.14 arc seconds
LIGHT GATHERING POWER:  212 x
ANGULAR FIELD OF VIEW:  1.25 °
LINEAR FIELD OF VIEW (@1000 YDS):  66 ft (20.12 m)
OPTICAL TUBE LENGTH:  39.5 in (1003.3 mm)
OPTICAL TUBE WEIGHT:  9.5 lb (4.31 kg)
EQ MOUNT WEIGHT:  21 lb (9.53 kg)
TRIPOD WEIGHT:  12.5 lb (5.67 kg)
WEIGHT:  43 lb (19.5 kg)

[Schorhr]

Great post!

:-)

Sorry for all the confusion, it's hard to guess how much experience or reading someone has done, just post your questions and they'll be answered, no mater how basic they may seem.

it all boils down to get the largest aperture visually, and a stable mount for imaging. Often this calls for a compromise if combined, thus starting visual with a larger, and imaging later with a seperate smaller, is a valid way.

There is no cheap all-in-one solutions, it's all about compromises... Smaller refractor with no obstruction through a mirror, or larger and cheaper reflector... Decisions, decisions ;-)

Your best weapon in the decision process is reading and do try to find some local star gazers, as you can try different telescopes, good luck!

But be aware that four hobby astronomers will reccomend five different telescopes to you ;-)

[bingevader]

Refractors and Reflectors are two different types of telescope.

Refractors use lenses to focus the light, Reflectors use mirrors.

The "8 inch" reference is to the size of the primary lens or mirror.

Refractors tend to have a smaller lens for the same money because it is more expensive to produce a lens of a given size than a mirror.

Also, the length of a refractor becomes a bit of a problem as the size of the primary lens increases. A 6" refractor is BIG, a 6" reflector can be much smaller.

Schorhr has made several good points.

Get down to a local club if you can. Read as much as you can. And at the end of the day, unless your funds are limitless, there will be a compromise. You won't get a 'scope to fill all your needs without compromise I'm afraid.

Cheers

[Davidoff]

Howdy rowan very well explained, even I understood it! :-) Makes total sense. Sadly, some reviews and posters above mentioned that both my linked scopes have a rather wobbly mount. Also, both are rather huge. So I take: Both are really rather for visual astronomy, not astrophotograhy. Okay.

Also, after having seen Steve Richard's Chanctonbury Observatory I realize we need to cut more trees here to make space ;-)

Why is everyone linking the firstlightoptics site, is that bec affiliate? No problem, just I'd recommend the author to get his book up on amazon kindle. Is the place to be. At least as paperback if he wants some publicity/sales. Like others I shop on Amazon bec of the reviews. If 50 people found his book great (and why), I know if I am likely to find it great too. May want to tell him when you see him on your next local Star Party, Club or observatory.

Great legend brantuk! I'll bookmark this page. So, this means that the £370 scope there

- neither is good enough for For dso's imaging (typically fr=7 or less)

- nor for snapping planets (typically fr=10 or more)

- nor for A good view of a planet (typically around mag=200) cause the eyepiece offers only 40 times

(even 80% of 240x is just 192)

Makes it a pretty bad scope the way it's offered, eh ;-)

Also schorhr says it all boils down to get the largest aperture visually, and a stable mount for imaging. The linked scope "only" has APERTURE:  102 mm (4.02 in), while the ones I linked have Aperture (mm): 130mm (5.12 in), and ... amazon doesn't say for Skywatcher but looks similar in size. So, at the mo I am still in favor of the bigger ones (aka BIG looks good :-)

If "mount" refers to fixing on tripod then I have a good tripod already - may well be better than what either of the two sell with their scope.

And thanks bingevader, now I understand those differences too! This page has shed a lot of light into the night sky (we have here now). Helpful to many.

Just one more point maybe: I understood from the earlier posts above that, ideally, a refractor it should be, unless it's a Newtonian Reflector (hope I got that right). Refractors use lenses to focus the light. So lense is better than mirror (makes sense so far), but why, because mirrors "disjust" easily?

I understood that both my linked scopes are REFLECtors (use mirrors), while Laurie's linked Omni is a ReFRACtor (and thus smaller, more expensive with lens, all understood, makes sense).

But the above posts brought up another Q: Skywatcher has a EQ2 Equatorial Mount, Astromaster a CG-3 Equatorial, and Omni a CG-4 Equatorial.

Is a higher number always better? (more stable or whatever)

That was last question, promise! ;-)

[Davidoff]

Oh by the way, amazon US has different scopes (and 10 times as many), different manufacturers I saw. Have some of you gotten shipped your stuff from the US?

Is not a question (just looks like it), I said the prior was the last. Am just wondering, what the experience with US scopes and shipment was...

[Schorhr]

Hello

what trripod Do you have?

The proplem is that tripod and mount are usualy weak on budget deals, but the eq tracking is neccesary for photography.

Newtonians/reflectors are "worse" because a part of the aperture gets covered by the secondary mirror that reflects the light to the focuser at the side; but over 100mm reflectors/mirrors are cheaper to make then lenses, and up to 25% obstruction is hardly noticable visually. So a 10" mirror with 20% obstruction is basically as good as a 8" lens regarding light gathering and offers higher resolution (aperture)... And a 8" refractor is verrry expensive, while a 10" reflector costs 400£ or so.

mount numbers are not standarized, I know a German table for visual use, perhaps someone knows an English comparison site. Els use the web shop maximum weight reccomendation and subtract 20%, hehe. Also the telescope length does play a role due to leaver forces.

First light optic is a popular webshop with good reputation and they have many telescopes and accessories, thus often used as referance when linking to products.

newtonian mirrors need to be adjusted at least after rough transports, but that can be learned and after following one of the great tutorials can be checked within a minute or two.

visually deepsky starts at over 4", 5, better 6", and amazing at 8".

160-200x is often the limit depending on how bad/good the seeing conditions are and how far up the target object is standing, on good nights 300x is possible though.

Astro photography is expensive and usualy not ideal to start with right away, you could get a small dobsonian and start imaging later, or you'd have to save up for something like a short 6" newtonian and a eq5 mount...

Results may vary with a less stable mount. But I am no photography hobby astronomer, but getting a video astronomy camera now, seems more up my alley

[Schorhr]

Amazon is not the ideal shop to order telescopes in my oppinion. Sure, many astronomy shops sell there, but you are better off buying at a astronomy place. You wouldn't (or should not) buy a telescope at a hardware store either ;-)

iport tax and duties as well as shipping usualy make ordering larger stuff overseas not so attractive, as well as customer support issues. For some smaller accessories this is not so problematic of course.

[brantuk]

"

Great legend brantuk! I'll bookmark this page. So, this means that the £370 scope there

- neither is good enough for For dso's imaging (typically fr=7 or less)

- nor for snapping planets (typically fr=10 or more)

- nor for A good view of a planet (typically around mag=200) cause the eyepiece offers only 40 times

(even 80% of 240x is just 192)"

The XLT102 has a focal ratio of 9.8 (or near enough f10) making it a not bad ota for looking at planets and maybe doing a bit of webcam imaging of them. However - you can look at dso's with it too - just not as effectively as other scopes. The big limit here is that the mount (CG4) is manually operated. You need to have at least electronic tracking for imaging because the Earth spins.

Magnification of 200x is a general figure - you can achieve different magnifications with different size eyepieces so don't base a scope purchase on the supplied eyepiece alone which is usually just enough to get you going "out of the box".

Snapping planets is more straightforward than imaging dso's because planets are closer and brighter. For dso's you require a very  accurate equatorial mount which is polar aligned accurately and at least has electronic tracking. Deep sky objects are very distant and very faint.  Lower focal ratios enable you to collect subs more quickly and are more controllable than longer focal ratios. Even given a good tracking mount and an ota circa f5, you'll find the accuracy required also needs a guide scope and camera to feedback tracking adjustments to the mount.

There's a lot to consider buying a scope for imaging and a lot of interacting and mutually dependable variables. I would suggest you learn the observing basics first with a standard newtonian scope around 6" or 8" diameter on a dob or eq mount. Don't forget you have the whole sky to learn as well (which alone can take a lifetime lol). Whilst doing so, study Steve Richards book in order to appraise yourself fully on imaging and the kind of gear you will need before making any purchases.

[Russe]

Could I suggest you read a book first that helped myself and my brother a lot: "backyard astronomer". Explains all different types of equipment and what to expect etc.

Get some light binoculars first and read the book. Once you salivated enough over the pictures you will have thought about it long enough whether you want to spend money on a scope.

Your area sounds like as if visual astronomy is actually possible because of low light pollution levels. Therefore, you'll have several choices to make. The scope you use for visual astronomy is not the greatest for astrophotography (AP).

The basic idea is: large aperture for visual astronomy and short focal ratio (~f/6) for AP.

For visual the mount is not so important. You don't really need goto technology. For AP you'll need a VERY sturdy mount which needs to be motor driven. These are VERY expensive.

Visual astro is very cheap. Start out with a 2nd hand scope of a reputed manufacturer.

AP is VERY expensive!!! And VERY challenging! In short - good fun...

Hope this helps.

[impactcrater]

I like this fellow's commentary on scopes and it helped me decide to buy smaller ....

http://www.youtube.com/user/wwgeb/videos

impactcrater

[rowan46]

Howdy rowan very well explained, even I understood it! :-) Makes total sense. Sadly, some reviews and posters above mentioned that both my linked scopes have a rather wobbly mount. Also, both are rather huge. So I take: Both are really rather for visual astronomy, not astrophotograhy. Okay.

Also, after having seen Steve Richard's Chanctonbury Observatory I realize we need to cut more trees here to make space ;-)

Why is everyone linking the firstlightoptics site, is that bec affiliate? No problem, just I'd recommend the author to get his book up on amazon kindle. Is the place to be. At least as paperback if he wants some publicity/sales. Like others I shop on Amazon bec of the reviews. If 50 people found his book great (and why), I know if I am likely to find it great too. May want to tell him when you see him on your next local Star Party, Club or observatory.

Great legend brantuk! I'll bookmark this page. So, this means that the £370 scope there

- neither is good enough for For dso's imaging (typically fr=7 or less)

- nor for snapping planets (typically fr=10 or more)

- nor for A good view of a planet (typically around mag=200) cause the eyepiece offers only 40 times

(even 80% of 240x is just 192)

Makes it a pretty bad scope the way it's offered, eh ;-)

Also schorhr says it all boils down to get the largest aperture visually, and a stable mount for imaging. The linked scope "only" has APERTURE:  102 mm (4.02 in), while the ones I linked have Aperture (mm): 130mm (5.12 in), and ... amazon doesn't say for Skywatcher but looks similar in size. So, at the mo I am still in favor of the bigger ones (aka BIG looks good :-)

If "mount" refers to fixing on tripod then I have a good tripod already - may well be better than what either of the two sell with their scope.

And thanks bingevader, now I understand those differences too! This page has shed a lot of light into the night sky (we have here now). Helpful to many.

Just one more point maybe: I understood from the earlier posts above that, ideally, a refractor it should be, unless it's a Newtonian Reflector (hope I got that right). Refractors use lenses to focus the light. So lense is better than mirror (makes sense so far), but why, because mirrors "disjust" easily?

I understood that both my linked scopes are REFLECtors (use mirrors), while Laurie's linked Omni is a ReFRACtor (and thus smaller, more expensive with lens, all understood, makes sense).

But the above posts brought up another Q: Skywatcher has a EQ2 Equatorial Mount, Astromaster a CG-3 Equatorial, and Omni a CG-4 Equatorial.

Is a higher number always better? (more stable or whatever)

That was last question, promise! ;-)

Firstly Amazon reviews. A review is only a good as the reviewer if 50 novices say a scope is good does that make a scope good? Not necessarily they may not have the experience of anything better to compare it to and the chances are nearly all of the reviews found on amazon of theses scopes are done by novices. After all people with more knowledge and experience have already moved past the amazon starter scopes onto something a little better. People are linking to first light optics because besides the website its the only place to get the book. It started out as a labour of love by the author and grew from there. I can't speak for this particular author but I have friends who are authors who find Amazon doesn't serve the small volume seller that well so they don't sell there it doesn't mean their books are not good its just economics.

as for the scopes the first thing to get out of your head is that you can find a scope that's big enough to see most things visually. small enough to put on a cheap mount photographically, fast enough to get data quickly.  with optics good enough for photography  and visual and cheap. such a scope doesn't exist. There are scopes that are relatively cheap and good for visual but that makes them poor candidates for cheap astrophotography, Conversely there are scopes that are relatively  cheap and good for astrophotography but this makes them a poor candidate for visual astronomy.these are the 2 best cheapest scopes for the 2 disciplines

This one for visual

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-skyliner-200p-dobsonian.html

this one for imaging

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/pro-series/skywatcher-evostar-80ed-ds-pro-ota.html

as you can see they are quite different they both as they say bring something different to the party

on top of your imaging scope you need a mount, this one is the absolute minimum and truth to tell its still sub optimal

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-mounts/celestron-cg-5-gt-goto.html

This one really is the minimum optimal  mount

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-heq5-pro-synscan.html

 as to the number on a mount its a nomenclature adopted by the manufacturers  but generally the higher the number the better the mount but thats in relation to mounts by the same manufacturer so an eq5 by skywatcher is better than an eq3 by the same company whereas a cg4 by celestron is only very slightly better than an eq3 by skywatcher they are near as dammit the same mount.

As to questions if you keep asking somebody will answer  we have no problems with that, It's why the forum exists

Hope some of that helps