Replacing my TravelScope 70

[Rzarector]

Hello!

I've been a happy user of Celestron's TravelScope 70 during the past two years that I entered the hobby. It was a cheap scope that ended up being expensive after buying a decent tripod, 90 degrees diagonal mirror, barlow lens, a few eyepieces and a laser pointer finderscope along with filters and such. The experience was great, it really is a decent "take anywhere" scope that can be set in under a minute, but I am looking to sell it and buy something of a level-up on the same kind.

I found SkyWatcher 102/510 to be the coolest dioptric (I don't want any other kind right now) with a very low price (around 300 euros where I live). It comes along with AZ3 and 25mm and 10mm eyepieces. I am also thinking about ordering it from abroad to get it with EQ1 instead of the AZ3, but I am also using my current scope during the day so I'm not sure I'd want this. Anyone owning/using this scope? Any opinions on the matter?

I know it won't be as handy and "traveler" as the TravelScope, but I find it quite compact. Is there anything better for the price?

[dannybgoode]

Would skip the EQ1 mount - I've had a look at a few mounts recently and the EQ1 is quite flimsy.  Same really with the AZ3.  

Personally if you are not looking at imaging then the Skywatcher AZ4-1 (aluminium tripod) or AZ4-2 (steel tripod) is great.  I have just bought one and it is splendid.

If you are thinking of imaging as well then an EQ5 as a minimum really.

What is wrong with the tripod you bought the the TravelScope 70?

[Rzarector]

Would skip the EQ1 mount - I've had a look at a few mounts recently and the EQ1 is quite flimsy.  Same really with the AZ3.  

Personally if you are not looking at imaging then the Skywatcher AZ4-1 (aluminium tripod) or AZ4-2 (steel tripod) is great.  I have just bought one and it is splendid.

If you are thinking of imaging as well then an EQ5 as a minimum really.

What is wrong with the tripod you bought the the TravelScope 70?

The tripod I have now for the TravelScope 70 is a photographic tripod that can't stand any additional weight and isn't that stable anyway. Not the best for astronomy, but much better that the unacceptable one included with the scope

[Scott]

I also would not be temped by an eq1 or any eq mount for that matter, unless you are intending to do astrophotography...I think (and it is just my opinion) that for visual work, an eq is hard work. yes, it's nice to be able to track your target with the twiddle of a knob, but you'll be doing it from awkward positions. I'd either get the az or better yet, get a dob.

[Rzarector]

I also would not be temped by an eq1 or any eq mount for that matter, unless you are intending to do astrophotography...I think (and it is just my opinion) that for visual work, an eq is hard work. yes, it's nice to be able to track your target with the twiddle of a knob, but you'll be doing it from awkward positions. I'd either get the az or better yet, get a dob.

I own a small car so I need my telescope to be small enough to fit easily. I suppose a dob would be a problem on that sector. 

Also, I like the fact that dioptics don't need any additional calibration or service/maintenance once you buy them. Not sure about the dobsonians but I suppose they do need some kind of maintenance now and then...

[happy-kat]

If you use the az3 seated then the tripod is not fully extended and quite stable. I like the slow motion controls one can end up where your nose is but not a total disaster. I am going to rig a counter weight bar for it when attaching a camera. I use a ST80 on mine. It was a cheap tripod and I needed one so I live with any flaws.

[happy-kat]

All your bits should be able to use on your intended purchase.

I would be tempted to hang on to the travel scope as it is so light and small easy to sling in a Rucksack.