Looking to upgrade

[Handy]

I am looking to get a decent scope for not a huge amount of money. I have not had great luck with the couple of second hand scopes I've gotten. That's my mistake. 

My main concern is not wasting more money in buying a scope I'm not going to be happy with. I'm going to hope to get a scope that will allow for viewing planets and brighter deep sky objects. Portability is not a huge concern as I live in a relatively dark area. 

I would also like to be able to hook up my DSLR for imaging. Are there pros and cons between reflector and retractor OTA's for that? 

And while I recognize this is not going to get the best quality, I'm hoping to keep the price to around 500 USD. 

Any advice will be greatly appreciated. 

[Louis D]

First off, what did you buy used that you didn't like?  I've had great luck buying used over the years.  Two 127 Maks, a 72ED, a 15" Dob, and a 90mm FPL53 Triplet APO, not to mention DSV-1 and DSV-2B mounts, Manfrotto 058B and 475B tripods, and dozens of eyepieces.

I would look for an 8" or 10" Dob and forget about imagining for now.  Used 8" Dobs go for under $300 and 10" under $500 usually here in the states.  Check your local Craigslist listings because you don't want to be shipping a large Dob across the country.

Aside from quick afocal snaps with your cell phone at the eyepiece, imaging gets expensive quick.  Also, the best visual scopes don't tend to lend themselves well to imaging, either.

[Alan64]

Prime-focus imaging with a DSLR requires a LOT of researching, trial-and-error, and monetary outlay.  It is usually those individuals who dwell under light-polluted skies who are compelled to image rather than observe with eyepieces, but I've digressed.

A mount required for imaging with a DSLR is of prime importance.  Unlike our eyes and brains, which can compensate for tracking errors, the shakes and wobbles, a camera will tolerate none of that.  The camera, and the telescope to which it's tethered, must be held rigidly, like a rock, whilst they track an object during a timed-exposure(s).  Else, the images will be soft or blurred.  The mount must be able to track the celestial sphere, and in an arc, therefore an equatorial mount is practically necessary; for example...

https://www.telescope.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=116276&gclid=CjwKCAiAnfjyBRBxEiwA-EECLCGiyfb1vSjrpKsiu-Bu11YjwSTDh3-Upa7mzdLXy-goIe0ewuDKgRoCSHIQAvD_BwE

That mount supports up to 30 lbs. for visual-use, but only about 50% of that for imaging, 15 lbs.(telescope, DSLR, et al).  The mount is far more important than the telescope chosen to mate with a DSLR.  A modern DSLR's sensor, a CMOS usually, is much more sensitive than the eye, therefore large-aperture telescopes are not required.  Many start out with either an 80mm f/6 ED or triplet-apochromat refractor; a telescope with a short focal-length in any event. 

It is more difficult to image with a Newtonian or a Schmidt- or Maksutov-Cassegrain.  Those are the mirrored options.  A refractor, with a doublet or triplet as its objective-lens, is easiest.

It would be harder work, and more frustrating, to employ lesser components for imaging with a DSLR; but it wouldn't be impossible.  Somewhat near to the stated budget, you can choose an 102mm achromat with a 2" focusser, and a manual equatorial with its RA-axis motorised; for examples...

The equatorial mount... https://www.telescope.com/Orion/Orion-SkyView-Pro-Equatorial-Telescope-Mount/rc/2160/p/9829.uts

Motor-drives for the RA and DEC axes... https://www.telescope.com/Orion/Orion-Dual-Axis-TrueTrack-Telescope-Drive/rc/2160/p/7832.uts

The go-to upgrade, to be had in future perhaps, and for greater ease in imaging with a DSLR... https://www.telescope.com/Orion/Orion-GoTo-Upgrade-Kit-for-SkyView-Pro-EQ-Telescope-Mounts/rc/2160/p/7817.uts

The telescope... https://www.highpointscientific.com/meade-infinity-102-mm-altazimuth-refractor-telescope-209006?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cse&utm_term=MEA-209006&gclid=CjwKCAiAnfjyBRBxEiwA-EECLAbBy_jZogwsdCqK9U52ztKgfEgo_Xh63eIEgwadBofZ2xB-MozIchoCnT4QAvD_BwE

Now, if you chose to use a webcam-type camera instead, then you can use most any telescope and mount.

I take afocal-shots on occasion, by simply hand-holding a small point-and-shoot camera up to an eyepiece inserted into any of my telescopes, and snapping a shot, on the fly; no timed-exposures...

Of course, with the afocal method, I'm limited to the brighter objects.  If you can hand-hold your DSLR likewise, you can use any telescope on the planet, on a manual alt-azimuth even.  All of those images within the collage were taken through this 6" f/5 Newtonian, and on, again, a manual alt-azimuth...

https://www.highpointscientific.com/celestron-omni-xlt-150-newtonian-reflector-optical-tube-assembly-ota-31057ota

If you can precisely collimate a Newtonian, like that one, you can expect very nice images, during visual-use, or whilst imaging.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Alan64

[Louis D]

5 hours ago, Alan64 said:

If you can hand-hold your DSLR likewise, you can use any telescope on the planet, on a manual alt-azimuth even.

Only if the objective lens of the DSLR is smaller than the eye lens of the eyepiece; otherwise, you'll get vignetting.  Cell phone cameras work great with just about any eyepiece due to their tiny objective lenses and "fast" focal ratios which capture all incoming light bundles.

[Alan64]

32 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Only if the objective lens of the DSLR is smaller than the eye lens of the eyepiece; otherwise, you'll get vignetting.  Cell phone cameras work great with just about any eyepiece due to their tiny objective lenses and "fast" focal ratios which capture all incoming light bundles.

Those are the times where you'd simply zoom in to capture the full field-of-view.  In any event, the goal would be capturing individual objects, not vistas so much.