8" Newtonian-astrograph vs 10" Dobsonian

[hisuv1909]

I am new in astronomy and am very confused between an 8" f/5 Newtonian-astrograph and a 10" f/5 Dobsonian for my first telescope. I prefer deep-sky viewing but would also like to do some astrophotography.
 

[uhb1966]

Hi and welcome!

I was at the same point. Generally speaking, Dobs are for observation only while astrographs can be used for , well, astrophotography and eyeball observation.

However, a Dobson does per definition not use any mount - maybe a wedge - while an astrograph needs a precision mount. 8" usually get mounted on an EQ6 or EQ-G(same mount w different paint jobs). It's currently being sold at around 1450EUR if new.

10" vs 8" will not make a huge difference in observation and also not in astrophotography.

IF you can financially stem the astrograph and the mount and are willing to put a lot of effort into AP, go for the astrograph.

HOWEVER, many people do AP with smaller scopes and mounts if the have a lot of time on their hands for longer exposures.

===> Plunge into the getting started with AP discussion forum and read,read,read! Best, U.

 

[Louis D]

Check out the weight difference between an 8" f/5 Newt on an EQ-6 and a 10" f/5 Dob.  Roughly 100 pounds versus 60 to 65 pounds.  If you've got to move the scope around to dodge trees and buildings to see various parts of the sky as I do, those extra 40 pounds are a killer unless you're built like a tank.  That, and every EQ mount is really top heavy fully assembled and wants to turn turtle the moment you try to pick it up and move it.  Dobs are inherently bottom heavy and very stable during moves.  If GEM style EQ mounts didn't require counterweights like a split ring Newtonian EQ mount, then the gap would be somewhat narrower.

[John]

34 minutes ago, Louis D said:

..... If GEM style EQ mounts didn't require counterweights like a split ring Newtonian EQ mount, then the gap would be somewhat narrower.

My society has one of those - except that it is the 18 inch