Help with choosing my first scope

[v1ks]

Sorry for the long post...

Hi guys,

New to the hobby and forums, i have been reading various threads regarding beginner’s scope options and what one should go for. In particular after reading the below website the person suggests that make sure you buy parabolic Newtonian 130mm or 150mm. It’s a very detailed website with a lot of information.

https://supercooper.jimdofree.com/choosing-telescopes-complete-essentials/

My budget is around £300 for a scope and my 2 main requirements are:

1-      Easy enough to move around.

2-      Being able to observe planets primarily and if i can see more than it’s a bonus.

I have been on the FLO website and have gone through the list of beginners scopes , then emailed the team to get their suggestion and below is what they suggested.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/sky-watcher-heritage-150p-flextube-tabletop-dobsonian.html

­https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-watcher-az5-deluxe/sky-watcher-explorer-130ps-az5-deluxe.html

In addition to the above I have also seen the below ones too...

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-watcher-starquest/sky-watcher-starquest-102mc-f127-maksutov-cassegrain-telescope.html

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/sky-watcher-skymax-102s-az-pronto.html

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/sky-watcher-starquest-130p-f5-parabolic-newtonian-reflector-telescope.html

I am sure there are many more scopes but its just so confusing for a beginner like me to decide hence im here to get some help. I have read some good stuff about the skywatcher 150p Flextube as it a tabletop dob and ticks the 2 main requirements. However after seeing the other ones on this list im wondering if getting one with a Tripod mount would be a better option as my kids are keen on looking at the moon/planets and it would be easier for e.g if have gone to  an open field.

I know its important that if going for a tripod mount based scope one needs to make sure the Tripod is a good quality ones, so thus the ones from the list above are they good tripods?

Does anyone have any experience with any of the scopes above and what they would suggest in my situation or feel free to suggest any others scopes.

 

Thanks guys in adv for any help offered.

 

[cajen2]

I have a 150p Heritage Flextube as one of.my scopes and it's a great piece of kit: all-round ability (good on planets and the brighter DSOs), cheap, light, portable yet with excellent optics. It will let you see more than any of the other options. If you're worried about the dob mount, don't be. All you need is a stool or box which is sturdy enough not to shake. Alternatively, the Heritage has a Vixen-style dovetail so is easily mounted to a tripod; you'd have the best of both worlds. The only drawback might be the helical focuser, which some people don't like.

The 130p simply has less light-gathering power. You'd see more with a larger aperture. The 102 Mak is a nice little scope which is pretty good on the moon and planets but again gathers less light and has a narrow field of view. If you decide to go on and look for galaxies, nebulae, etc it wouldn't be a great option.

[cajen2]

Oh, by the way, there's a computerised version of the 150p which might interest you and is only just over your budget:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/heritage/sky-watcher-heritage-150p-flextube-virtuoso-gti.html

 

[Elp]

Is the scope primarily for you? Always welcome to ask questions here.

I ask this as a lot of people ask the same questions and one of the most important aspects in the purchasing decision is whether it's going to be used long term.

The heritage is generally one of the most recommended scopes for beginners as it has large aperture per pound and is on a alt az type mount so is easy to point.

One of the main things beginners fail to analyse themselves is what specific niche do you want to concentrate on first, solar system objects, open star clusters, DSOs? They also then add into the mix, "needs to be quick and easy to use", "portable" (everyone's definition of portable is different, for me if everything doesn't fit into a bag I can carry comfortably on my back for say around a km/mile, it definitely is NOT portable, most proper dark sites are all country uneven gravel grass mud type terrain, and if you're not carrying it whilst walking a bit, nope not portable). Generally one scope doesn't do it all. A long focal length scope like the mak will not be good for starting out as it will be quite zoomed in depending on what eyepieces you use (buy better eyepieces from the off like BST starguider), if you've got a planet in view, actually even something large like the moon you'll be surprised how quickly is moves across the field of view to the point you're constantly moving the scope. The goto option suggested will help with this as well as finding objects in the first place.

How mechanically minded are you? There's a reason many people go for refractors first as they're typically collimated and good to go out the box, most other scopes require a touch of tuning of this, it's not particularly difficult to do or time consuming but something to bear in mind. They do cost a degree of factor more however if you want to as best match the aperture of a Newtonian design, a Newtonian design will always win out for aperture per pound, aperture is only really needed though for deep sky mainly as larger aperture gathers more light so picks up fainter objects. A Newtonian acts like a wind sail though if it's not sufficiently mounted (dobsonians (it's a Newtonian scope, on a Dobson mount) are generally well mounted and centre of gravity is close to the ground which is always the best) which leads me onto the next query.

The three latter tripods in your example, avoid like the plague. They are the cheapest of the cheap and will take ages for vibrations to dampen down, when using a scope you do not want the view to vibrate due to wind, an adjustment, sometimes even people walking nearby, it will completely ruin the experience. General rule for quality gear is spend most of your money on the mount head+tripod and it'll likely last you a lifetime (at some point some maintenance will be involved). Scopes will come and go unless its a special one.

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by Elp

[Guest]

I am going to come at this from a different direction and tell you not to listen to any of us right now.  We will tell you what we would buy based on our preference.  What i will suggest is finding an astro club, even if you have to drive a couple of hours and go look at telescopes.  Amateur astronomers love to show off our telescopes and usually have no problems letting you play with them under supervision.  Get hands on as many scopes as possible and see what you like and don't like.  Pay attention to the accessories that come with each scope.  Then come back to us and let us know what you are looking at and why.  We can then be more helpful to you in making your selection 

[RT65CB-SWL]

Hi @v1ks and welcome to SGL. 

What do you wish to view? - the moon, planets, solar, DSO's, etc. Do you wish travel with it? - i.e. take it on weekends away or holidays with you and/or family.

You said that you are primarily interested in viewing the planets, then a refractor of no less than 70mm aperture, a Maksutov or SCT would be a good start.

Being short/stubby, with a long focal length, a Maksutov or SCT do not take up a lot of space. Below I have attached an image an image of my TeleVue Ranger and 're-modded' Meade ETX105 in 'grab & go' mode, mounted on a photo tripod and small/lightweight alt-az mount.
  

Below... same 'scopes, but on a heavier duty alt-az mount...

Edited December 30, 2022 by Philip R

[v1ks]

3 hours ago, Philip R said:

Hi @v1ks and welcome to SGL. 

What do you wish to view? - the moon, planets, solar, DSO's, etc. Do you wish travel with it? - i.e. take it on weekends away or holidays with you and/or family.

You said that you are primarily interested in viewing the planets, then a refractor of no less than 70mm aperture, a Maksutov or SCT would be a good start.

Being short/stubby, with a long focal length, a Maksutov or SCT do not take up a lot of space. Below I have attached an image an image of my TeleVue Ranger and 're-modded' Meade ETX105 in 'grab & go' mode, mounted on a photo tripod and small/lightweight alt-az mount.

Below... same 'scopes, but on a heavier alt-az mount.

Hi Philip,

 

Thanks for the reply, yes the main purpose if to view planets, Solar etc and yes id like take it with me if and when i travel around the UK mainly. I dont think i would take it abroad with me for sure. Mainly its when i drive to friend and family around the UK id like to be able to take in the car with me.

 

I dont have the skills to mod anything yet hence i need to get something out of the box for what i want, going fwd as i learn more about scopes i can explore the kit or make changes. 

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by v1ks

[v1ks]

11 hours ago, cajen2 said:

I have a 150p Heritage Flextube as one of.my scopes and it's a great piece of kit: all-round ability (good on planets and the brighter DSOs), cheap, light, portable yet with excellent optics. It will let you see more than any of the other options. If you're worried about the dob mount, don't be. All you need is a stool or box which is sturdy enough not to shake. Alternatively, the Heritage has a Vixen-style dovetail so is easily mounted to a tripod; you'd have the best of both worlds. The only drawback might be the helical focuser, which some people don't like.

The 130p simply has less light-gathering power. You'd see more with a larger aperture. The 102 Mak is a nice little scope which is pretty good on the moon and planets but again gathers less light and has a narrow field of view. If you decide to go on and look for galaxies, nebulae, etc it wouldn't be a great option.

ye it seems like the 150p is a very popular choice for begineers and yes i did read about the focuser issue on another thread but i guess sometimes you wont get everything. 

11 hours ago, cajen2 said:

Oh, by the way, there's a computerised version of the 150p which might interest you and is only just over your budget:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/heritage/sky-watcher-heritage-150p-flextube-virtuoso-gti.html

 

Thanks, i did see this on the FLO website but again wasnt sure if would be worth spending the extra vs going for the 150p (non wifi) as im only starting out....

11 hours ago, Elp said:

Is the scope primarily for you? Always welcome to ask questions here.

I ask this as a lot of people ask the same questions and one of the most important aspects in the purchasing decision is whether it's going to be used long term.

The heritage is generally one of the most recommended scopes for beginners as it has large aperture per pound and is on a alt az type mount so is easy to point.

One of the main things beginners fail to analyse themselves is what specific niche do you want to concentrate on first, solar system objects, open star clusters, DSOs? They also then add into the mix, "needs to be quick and easy to use", "portable" (everyone's definition of portable is different, for me if everything doesn't fit into a bag I can carry comfortably on my back for say around a km/mile, it definitely is NOT portable, most proper dark sites are all country uneven gravel grass mud type terrain, and if you're not carrying it whilst walking a bit, nope not portable). Generally one scope doesn't do it all. A long focal length scope like the mak will not be good for starting out as it will be quite zoomed in depending on what eyepieces you use (buy better eyepieces from the off like BST starguider), if you've got a planet in view, actually even something large like the moon you'll be surprised how quickly is moves across the field of view to the point you're constantly moving the scope. The goto option suggested will help with this as well as finding objects in the first place.

How mechanically minded are you? There's a reason many people go for refractors first as they're typically collimated and good to go out the box, most other scopes require a touch of tuning of this, it's not particularly difficult to do or time consuming but something to bear in mind. They do cost a degree of factor more however if you want to as best match the aperture of a Newtonian design, a Newtonian design will always win out for aperture per pound, aperture is only really needed though for deep sky mainly as larger aperture gathers more light so picks up fainter objects. A Newtonian acts like a wind sail though if it's not sufficiently mounted (dobsonians (it's a Newtonian scope, on a Dobson mount) are generally well mounted and centre of gravity is close to the ground which is always the best) which leads me onto the next query.

The three latter tripods in your example, avoid like the plague. They are the cheapest of the cheap and will take ages for vibrations to dampen down, when using a scope you do not want the view to vibrate due to wind, an adjustment, sometimes even people walking nearby, it will completely ruin the experience. General rule for quality gear is spend most of your money on the mount head+tripod and it'll likely last you a lifetime (at some point some maintenance will be involved). Scopes will come and go unless its a special one.

 

Thanks Elp for this questions, it does make me think twice before going out and buying something, hence i have come here to ask the questions and get Reponses. in term of portable for me the main use will be at home in the back garden but occasionally i may want to take it with me to a field for e.g or if i visited friend and family hence i looked into the tripod options. 

As for the scope the main focus would be to see planets and possibly clusters, i understand that one scope cant do it all hence im not saying i want to see everything because thats not possible so i fully appreciate your views above. 

I would like to think im ok (machinal minded) so if i have to tune a thing or two am sure i can do it if required, and yes regarding the ones i listed with Tripod i have read alot of how the mount+head is very important due to the issues you mention with the cheap ones, hence i listed on this thread to get views. 

11 hours ago, Mike Q said:

I am going to come at this from a different direction and tell you not to listen to any of us right now.  We will tell you what we would buy based on our preference.  What i will suggest is finding an astro club, even if you have to drive a couple of hours and go look at telescopes.  Amateur astronomers love to show off our telescopes and usually have no problems letting you play with them under supervision.  Get hands on as many scopes as possible and see what you like and don't like.  Pay attention to the accessories that come with each scope.  Then come back to us and let us know what you are looking at and why.  We can then be more helpful to you in making your selection 

Mike Q - thanks for the suggestion, i think there is a club not far from where i am (as i found on this forums) so i'll give them a shout and pop down there in the new year and get a "feel" of the different scopes they have. It certainly will help me in understanding the different types and also get a chance to speak to the people, and then as you say i can come back here with what they suggest and go for one.

 

Thank you all for taking time out to reply, this information has made things alot more clear - i can go away and think about what has been mentioned above.

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by v1ks

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, v1ks said:

ye it seems like the 150p is a very popular choice for begineers and yes i did read about the focuser issue on another thread but i guess sometimes you wont get everything. 

Thanks, i did see this on the FLO website but again wasnt sure if would be worth spending the extra vs going for the 150p (non wifi) as im only starting out....

Thanks Elp for this questions, it does make me think twice before going out and buying something, hence i have come here to ask the questions and get Reponses. in term of portable for me the main use will be at home in the back garden but occasionally i may want to take it with me to a field for e.g or if i visited friend and family hence i looked into the tripod options. 

As for the scope the main focus would be to see planets and possibly clusters, i understand that one scope cant do it all hence im not saying i want to see everything because thats not possible so i fully appreciate your views above. 

I would like to think im ok (machinal minded) so if i have to tune a thing or two am sure i can do it if required, and yes regarding the ones i listed with Tripod i have read alot of how the mount+head is very important due to the issues you mention with the cheap ones, hence i listed on this thread to get views. 

Mike Q - thanks for the suggestion, i think there is a club not far from where i am (as i found on this forums) so i'll give them a shout and pop down there in the new year and get a "feel" of the different scopes they have. It certainly will help me in understanding the different types and also get a chance to speak to the people, and then as you say i can come back here with what they suggest and go for one.

 

Thank you all for taking time out to reply, this information has made things alot more clear - i can go away and think about what has been mentioned above.

 

Well you dont have to go away, that wasnt the intent, but you do want to get hands on time with equipment that is for sure.  You say you are a moon and planets kinda a guy and there is certainly nothing wrong with that as that is where most peiple start.  As a word of warning make sure you look at some deep sky stuff too as in the end we all end up wanting to see more and deeper.  Once you see the various things out there you may wish to reconsider your approach.  This forum is full of threads of people that buy a scope and send it back to get something else. This is why i always suggest hands on sessions with equipment. 

[v1ks]

On 30/12/2022 at 12:29, Mike Q said:

Well you dont have to go away, that wasnt the intent, but you do want to get hands on time with equipment that is for sure.  You say you are a moon and planets kinda a guy and there is certainly nothing wrong with that as that is where most peiple start.  As a word of warning make sure you look at some deep sky stuff too as in the end we all end up wanting to see more and deeper.  Once you see the various things out there you may wish to reconsider your approach.  This forum is full of threads of people that buy a scope and send it back to get something else. This is why i always suggest hands on sessions with equipment. 

 i meant go away and digest the info before coming back here... im reading this https://www.havastro.co.uk/what-telescope >> as i type this, and some good info here to. This is a club not too far from me so i will see if i can visit them. 

I am halfway reading the site above and they mention that its best to go for a Refractor telescope (also suggested by Philip R above), vs going for a Reflector/Dob due to the collimation required if it gets knocked and various other factors they mention.

Quote from the site...... 

So Which One Should I Buy?

My first response is that you should read what I have said and make up your own mind. Only you can decide what is suitable for you, based on what you want to do and what you can afford. That said, I can make a few suggestions. As you are a beginner, I would rule out anything which is very expensive but I would also rule out anything very cheap. I think it is essential to have go-to and not to have to collimate the telescope. This leaves us with refractors on one hand and Maksutovs on the other. It is hard to choose between them. If you are mainly interested in the Moon, planets and double stars, I would definitely go for the Maksutov. On the other hand, if you are more interested in star clusters and if you are lucky enough to have dark(ish) skies, galaxies, a refractor would be better. The aperture (the size of the telescope opening) depends on your budget, but basically I would go for the largest aperture you can afford, bearing in mind that you are going to have to buy more than just the telescope. If you can afford it I would go for a three (80mm) or four inch (100mm) refractor. Alternatively go for the five inch (125mm) Maksutov which will cost roughly the same and allowing for the central obstruction about the same aperture. Given that the Maksutov is almost the optical equivalent of the hugely expensive apochromatic refractor, the Maksutov wins hands-down in my purely personal view. However at about £500, it is not cheap – but you get what you pay for. If you cannot afford this or not sure you want to make such a large investment, an 80mm achromatic refractor with go-to would be perfectly OK and would cost about £350 Also bear in mind that with its long focal length the Maksutov is not suitable for imaging so if you can envisage getting into imaging at some point, it might be better to get a semi-apo 80mm refractor such as the Skywatcher Evostar 80ED, although they are expensive. 

 

[Elp]

Very important questions, what bortle (light pollution) zone will you be observing from? What kind of light glow is there directly around you? This will dictate more than anything the scope which will be the most beneficial.

[RobertI]

You might also find your local club has a scope you can borrow. 

[v1ks]

2 hours ago, Elp said:

Very important questions, what bortle (light pollution) zone will you be observing from? What kind of light glow is there directly around you? This will dictate more than anything the scope which will be the most beneficial.

i just checked and its Class 7. 

[RT65CB-SWL]

4 hours ago, v1ks said:

Hi Philip,

 

Thanks for the reply, yes the main purpose if to view planets, Solar etc and yes id like take it with me if and when i travel around the UK mainly. I dont think i would take it abroad with me for sure. Mainly its when i drive to friend and family around the UK id like to be able to take in the car with me.

 

I dont have the skills to mod anything yet hence i need to get something out of the box for what i want, going fwd as i learn more about scopes i can explore the kit or make changes. 

 

For solar, then I would recommend a refractor and a Hershel Solar Wedge...
<--- an image my TeleVue Ranger with a Hershel Solar Wedge.

...simple reason is [and my opinon] is that a is much safer than a solar film or glass filter covering the front element. Reasons why are...

• solar film filters have to be checked every time before use for tears to the fabric film.
• glass filters also have to checked every time before use for scratches on its surface. 
• less chance of it falling off or being blown off if not secured to the telescope.
• a Herschel Solar Wedge is suitable for refractors only not Petsval type telescopes or camera lenses.

Below are a few images from my iPhone using the above setup...

 

The cheaper option is a solar film filter and they will give a pale-blue to white image of the Sun. You can make your own or purchase the ready made. 
If you make your own solar filter, remember to make one for the finderscope, or remove it before use.

Glass solar filters are more expensive and they give an orange/yellow image.

Should you decide on a Hershel Solar Wedge then please make sure it has a ND3 built in. For better results a Solar Continuum filter and a polarising filter will enhance the viewing and give a green image of the Sun.

 

Reference to the 'mod'... Many years ago, I was tightening up the retaining screw on my mount and the dovetail bar snapped and the ETX105 crashed to the ground. Fortunately it was grass, but the ETX series has a lot of plastic, so it damaged two of three mounting points on the plastic rear end. I politely enquired at a local engineering  workshop if they could make/fabricate a replacement back for it. Armed with a rough sketch/plan and using the damaged one as a template to align the mounting points, etc., they made the one as shown in my earlier reply from a billet of aluminium. As I lost provision for attaching a replacement dovetail bar, I secured it to the OTA with a couple of Jubillee hose rings, lined with neoprene strips.

Edited December 30, 2022 by Philip R

[cajen2]

People who have never collimated a scope are terrified of it (perhaps it's the strange name) but honestly, it's a simple job. Most adjustments take no more than 2-3 minutes. Today I went back to the beginning and recollimated the whole scope (an 8" dob) and it took 10 minutes max. Most scopes only need doing occasionally.

So please don't let scare stories put you off dobs - they offer extremely good value for performance.

[Guest]

Be careful in broad statements that say one kind of scope is better then others.  Yes refractors do give wonderful images of planets, there is no doubt about it.  But the money you pay to match what a reflector can do is considerable.  In a hobby where size matters, in this case aperture, we have to keep a open mind on such things.  i actually have a refractor as a finder on my reflector.  As to collimation.  The first time will take you a while as you will over think it and second guess yourself.  Eventually it turns into a two minute job.  So dont sweat it 

Edited December 30, 2022 by Mike Q

[mikeDnight]

You could do a lot worse than going for a 150P Dob, which is both within your budget and will suit both your planetary interest well, but will also pack a punch on deep sky. Easy to handle too! On sale at FLO. 

[Elp]

3 hours ago, v1ks said:

i just checked and its Class 7. 

You'll generally only be able to see solar system objects and open star clusters (stars) from my experience.

I'm bortle 7 too, even with a 6 inch scope something which is supposed to be easy to see like M13 a concentrated star cluster I cannot see directly. Finding it is even harder due to having to rely on averted vision, to a beginner it will be invisible. Bright dso like the core of Andromeda galaxy and Orion nebula, nothing but points of light (stars).

I doubt even with an 8 inch I'd see any better, so the best suggestion as mentioned by others previously get looking through other people's equipment first.

Edited December 30, 2022 by Elp

[mikeDnight]

The Bortle scale can be very misleading however. If we all paid attention to this or that scale, seeing conditions or transparency,  I suspect none of us would observe. If planets interest you then you can ignore Bortle altogether; you can observe the Moon and planets from the centre of London. Looking at a Bortle map of my town, I should barely see any deep sky, but I can, and quite well, and my main scope has only a 4" aperture.There's little you can do about the atmosphere above you, but you can greatly improve your lot by shielding yourself from surrounding stray light entering your peripheral vision. Many observers use a blanket or blackout hood that covers the head and eyepiece of the scope. Also, spending time studying the faint smudge in the eyepiece will help you see much more subtle detail, than a quick minute or two and moving on to another disappointing fuzz. Observing is more than just looking at something; its dissecting everything that's on view, and that means taking your time and enjoying yourself.

The Bottle scale is a generalization, so you could very likely find that there is a sweet spot in your area. I found one near to me a few years ago, where a half mile in any direction was utterly futile, but at the sweet spot even M33 was detectable with the naked eye using averted vision.

Planets will thrill you in a 150mm scope and the Moon will leave you speechless. But you could easily throw a 150P  on the back seat of a car and shoot off to a darker site or astro club if your home site is a problem. And 150mm is plenty big enough for serious observing.

Edited January 1, 2023 by mikeDnight

[JeremyS]

2 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

The Bortle scale can be very misleading however. If we all paid attention to this or that scale, seeing conditions or transparency,  I suspect none of us would observe. If planets interest you then you can ignore Bortle altogether; you can observe the Moon and planets from the centre of London. Looking at a Bottle map of my town, I should barely see any deep sky, but I can, and quite well, and my main scope has only a 4" aperture.There's little you can do about the atmosphere above you, but you can greatly improve your lot by shielding yourself from surrounding stray light entering your peripheral vision. Many observers use a blanket or blackout hood that covers the head and eyepiece of the scope. Also, spending time studying the faint smudge in the eyepiece will help you see much more subtle detail, than a quick minute or two and moving on to another disappointing fuzz. Observing is more than just looking at something; its dissecting everything that's on view, and that means taking your time and enjoying yourself.

The Bottle scale is a generalization, so you could very likely find that there is a sweet spot in your area. I found one near to me a few years ago, where a half mile in any direction was utterly futile, but at the sweet spot even M33 was detectable with the naked eye using averted vision.

Planets will thrill you in a 150mm scope and the Moon will leave you speechless. But you could easily throw a 150P  on the back seat of a car and shoot off to a darker site or astro club if your home site is a problem. And 150mm is plenty big enough for serious observing.

I agree about Bortle scale, Mike. It’s become a bit of an obsession in recent years.

[v1ks]

On 30/12/2022 at 18:07, cajen2 said:

People who have never collimated a scope are terrified of it (perhaps it's the strange name) but honestly, it's a simple job. Most adjustments take no more than 2-3 minutes. Today I went back to the beginning and recollimated the whole scope (an 8" dob) and it took 10 minutes max. Most scopes only need doing occasionally.

So please don't let scare stories put you off dobs - they offer extremely good value for performance.

Thanks for the assurance, alot of the times you read stories online and it can easily put off an beginner like me. 150p is certainly on top my list at the moment. Im hoping to pop down to my local club soon so that will be helpful. 

[v1ks]

On 30/12/2022 at 19:50, mikeDnight said:

The Bortle scale can be very misleading however. If we all paid attention to this or that scale, seeing conditions or transparency,  I suspect none of us would observe. If planets interest you then you can ignore Bortle altogether; you can observe the Moon and planets from the centre of London. Looking at a Bottle map of my town, I should barely see any deep sky, but I can, and quite well, and my main scope has only a 4" aperture.There's little you can do about the atmosphere above you, but you can greatly improve your lot by shielding yourself from surrounding stray light entering your peripheral vision. Many observers use a blanket or blackout hood that covers the head and eyepiece of the scope. Also, spending time studying the faint smudge in the eyepiece will help you see much more subtle detail, than a quick minute or two and moving on to another disappointing fuzz. Observing is more than just looking at something; its dissecting everything that's on view, and that means taking your time and enjoying yourself.

The Bottle scale is a generalization, so you could very likely find that there is a sweet spot in your area. I found one near to me a few years ago, where a half mile in any direction was utterly futile, but at the sweet spot even M33 was detectable with the naked eye using averted vision.

Planets will thrill you in a 150mm scope and the Moon will leave you speechless. But you could easily throw a 150P  on the back seat of a car and shoot off to a darker site or astro club if your home site is a problem. And 150mm is plenty big enough for serious observing.

Appreciate the detailed info, yes 150p seems a good choice in term of mobility as well which is one of the key things i need as i want to be able to take to local field away from the noise or even when going away to see friend and family. 

[allworlds]

On 29/12/2022 at 23:23, v1ks said:

Being able to observe planets primarily and if i can see more than it’s a bonus.

I read this from beginners quite often. Personally I think viewing planets is more demanding on the telescope than viewing DSOs, since planetary viewing is done at high magnifications where flaws in the optics or mount are most apparent. DSOs are harder to find and affected by light pollution but more forgiving of flaws in the equipment.

But £300 is plenty of money to get a telescope that's good all round.

Anyway, the Heritage 150P and the Explorer 130P AZ5 are both good choices. Optically they're good all-rounders and the difference between 5 and 6 inch aperture isn't much. I say "It's the mount that counts" and I think they're both simple and stable. With the tabletop Dobsonian you probably want to put it on something though some people do use them on the ground. That's not much trouble at home, a wooden stool or small table does the job nicely, but it can be an issue if you're going somewhere to observing; lightweight camp tables or plastic garden furniture won't cut it. The tripod mount avoids that concern but you can see the price of a good mount like the AZ5 Deluxe. Either will easily fit in a car boot and won't be too hard to carry.

Regarding the two 4 inch Maksutov-Cassegrains. I have an ETX 105 myself (same as Phillip R). It's compact enough to fit in a backpack or a bike basket and it gives very nice planetary views but it is a drop in aperture. I also find the long focal ratio makes star hopping to deep sky objects that bit harder because it limits the maximum true field of view. I can still view DSOs with practice, patience, and good star charts or a phone app, but I think a shorter focal ratio is more beginner friendly. My bigger reservation is the mounts and tripods - they are not as good as the AZ5 Deluxe. That said maybe some owners of those mounts can chime in.

I don't like Newtonian reflectors on equatorial mounts, so I'd give the StarQuest 130P a miss.

Don't let Bortle class stop you observing DSOs. True, they will look better from dark skies, but most DSOs are still observable in the city. What matters more is getting away from nearby lights and getting dark adapted. If you have streetlamps or insecurity lights shining into your garden that's a problem. I'm forced to find a park to have any hope of serious deep-sky observing, which then gives me concerns about personal safety.

[isolli]

On 30/12/2022 at 08:36, Philip R said:

mounted on a photo tripod

Hi Philip, what tripod is this, if I may ask? I assume you are happy with how stable it is, aren’t you?

[Blueearthling]

On 30/12/2022 at 17:32, Philip R said:

For solar, then I would recommend a refractor and a Hershel Solar Wedge...
<--- an image my TeleVue Ranger with a Hershel Solar Wedge.

...simple reason is [and my opinon] is that a is much safer than a solar film or glass filter covering the front element. Reasons why are...

• solar film filters have to be checked every time before use for tears to the fabric film.
• glass filters also have to checked every time before use for scratches on its surface. 
• less chance of it falling off or being blown off if not secured to the telescope.
• a Herschel Solar Wedge is suitable for refractors only not Petsval type telescopes or camera lenses.

Below are a few images from my iPhone using the above setup...

 

The cheaper option is a solar film filter and they will give a pale-blue to white image of the Sun. You can make your own or purchase the ready made. 
If you make your own solar filter, remember to make one for the finderscope, or remove it before use.

Glass solar filters are more expensive and they give an orange/yellow image.

Should you decide on a Hershel Solar Wedge then please make sure it has a ND3 built in. For better results a Solar Continuum filter and a polarising filter will enhance the viewing and give a green image of the Sun.

 

Reference to the 'mod'... Many years ago, I was tightening up the retaining screw on my mount and the dovetail bar snapped and the ETX105 crashed to the ground. Fortunately it was grass, but the ETX series has a lot of plastic, so it damaged two of three mounting points on the plastic rear end. I politely enquired at a local engineering  workshop if they could make/fabricate a replacement back for it. Armed with a rough sketch/plan and using the damaged one as a template to align the mounting points, etc., they made the one as shown in my earlier reply from a billet of aluminium. As I lost provision for attaching a replacement dovetail bar, I secured it to the OTA with a couple of Jubillee hose rings, lined with neoprene strips.

Hi, can a hershel solar wedge be used with a schmidt cassegrain?

Thanks.