if you do decide to buy them separately i strongly suggest looking at the ds series as to the stand as i pointed out in an early post the ds has the dual speed crayford control on them this has two focue knob first is the standard found on the normal telescope control the second is a fine focue control to get a extra clear and chisper picture. also the dual speed crayford control is design to use both 1.25"/2" eyepiece which is a plus as 2" eyepiece give much better viewing experience and picture when compared to the standard 1.25" eyepiece. the standard non ds 150p is a 1.25" eyepiece only where the 150p ds is 1.25" & 2" eyepiece.
Telescope advice?
- Thread starter NeilF
- Start date
if you do decide to buy them separately i strongly suggest looking at the ds series as to the stand as i pointed out in an early post the ds has the dual speed crayford control on them this has two focue knob first is the standard found on the normal telescope control the second is a fine focue control to get a extra clear and chisper picture. also the dual speed crayford control is design to use both 1.25"/2" eyepiece which is a plus as 2" eyepiece give much better viewing experience and picture when compared to the standard 1.25" eyepiece. the standard non ds 150p is a 1.25" eyepiece only where the 150p ds is 1.25" & 2" eyepiece.
Some seem to come with one - http://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-150p-eq3-2.html - Although don't know if that's your dual speed?
Crazy thing is, it seems cheaper to buy a 200PDS with an EQ5 Pro mount, than a 150PDS - http://www.optical-systems.co.uk/skywatcher-explorer-200pds1000-eq5-pro-goto-tel-p-15431.html
But either way, we're now around £700... A good couple more than I'm confortable with ideally...
thing is if you were viewing only you could get away with a 150p ds eq3-2 goto and use a mod web camera to get 2 minutes of video on the moon and planets then stack them to create single image. but as you mention ap and hooking up a dslr for dso then the price will increase as you will need a tripod/mount that is up for the task which the eq3 series isn't design to do. as dso need 5-15min of tracking for long exposure which the eq3 cannot do you need eq5 motor tracking or above which can cost more than the telescope itself. the only way a eq3 series mount can do long exposure is if the mount is a goto and you put a 80mm-102mm apo refractor onit, but apo refractor cost between £500-£2000 and some cost even more.
just clear thing up incase anyone else come along and read this, looking for a telescope mount. im not say that the eq3 series is not good mount it when in fact it is a very good mount but for what OP wants to do and selected telescope it not very suitible for the task in hand. i've learn the hard way when try to save money when buying.
quite some time ago i bought the skywatcher evostar 80ed ds pro (now named "black diamond ds) it a apo refractor = 80mm apecture, 600mm focial lenght f/7.5 design for astrophotography now it cost me at the time £600 and thought i save by using regular camera tripod so i bought my red snapper as it rated for the weight of the telescope and my eos 550d. boy was i wrong yes it can handle the weight but when you add camera, extender tube their a backlash (inbalance) so i have to hold the head of the tripod/dovetail bar of telescope. when look above a 70 degree angle. plus when i add my 2" 2x apo barlow lens increasing the focial lenght from 600mm to 1200mm taking 1.5-5 sec picture of the moon is next to impossible as the moon move out the frame too quickly. so the reason why i be saying not go for the eq3 mount is that with the 150p on it plus camera you will experience simair problem occuring, not meantion if you add a barlow i reckon the tracking will not work as well with the weight. it these reason why many ap tend to go for a higher class mount than what need so that they avoid these problem so if you using a 150p or 200p go for the eq5 anything above their weight class go for the eq6. also as a side note the ne5q is design to be in a class between the eq5 and eq6 so comparing to the eq5 and neq5. the neq5 has much better tripod design lot more stronger than the eq5 so it has an increae payload. the gears and motor are build into it so their a handset port and aux port(guild port) on the mount where the eq5 doesn't have these feature but can be upgrade for motor goto handset but no aux port(guild port) neq5 and neq6 are design for ap so they have some extra bells and whistle which the normal eq5/eq6 do not have.
reason i bought my evostar 80ed ds pro was for a get and go setup telescope, it is first rate it just my idea of camera tripod is not good for ap and just bearly make the grade for using for viewing as i had to hold the base of the telescope dova bar but i did manage to view saturn with some of it moons quite clearly. so at some point i will have to get a tripod mount.
ps alt az mount are not good at ap you want an eq mount for any ap as their less movement on them compare to the alt az. plus with most alt az tripod you find when viewing stuff at various angles the camera boby or barlow len stacked will hit the base of the tripod were it this will not happen on the eq tripod in eq mode. also most eq tripod can be setup for eq or set up for alt az mode. why alt az mode on the eq because alt az is ideal for Terrestial viewing ( viewing land) as most telescope can be used for both Terrestial & astronomical viewing.
quite some time ago i bought the skywatcher evostar 80ed ds pro (now named "black diamond ds) it a apo refractor = 80mm apecture, 600mm focial lenght f/7.5 design for astrophotography now it cost me at the time £600 and thought i save by using regular camera tripod so i bought my red snapper as it rated for the weight of the telescope and my eos 550d. boy was i wrong yes it can handle the weight but when you add camera, extender tube their a backlash (inbalance) so i have to hold the head of the tripod/dovetail bar of telescope. when look above a 70 degree angle. plus when i add my 2" 2x apo barlow lens increasing the focial lenght from 600mm to 1200mm taking 1.5-5 sec picture of the moon is next to impossible as the moon move out the frame too quickly. so the reason why i be saying not go for the eq3 mount is that with the 150p on it plus camera you will experience simair problem occuring, not meantion if you add a barlow i reckon the tracking will not work as well with the weight. it these reason why many ap tend to go for a higher class mount than what need so that they avoid these problem so if you using a 150p or 200p go for the eq5 anything above their weight class go for the eq6. also as a side note the ne5q is design to be in a class between the eq5 and eq6 so comparing to the eq5 and neq5. the neq5 has much better tripod design lot more stronger than the eq5 so it has an increae payload. the gears and motor are build into it so their a handset port and aux port(guild port) on the mount where the eq5 doesn't have these feature but can be upgrade for motor goto handset but no aux port(guild port) neq5 and neq6 are design for ap so they have some extra bells and whistle which the normal eq5/eq6 do not have.
reason i bought my evostar 80ed ds pro was for a get and go setup telescope, it is first rate it just my idea of camera tripod is not good for ap and just bearly make the grade for using for viewing as i had to hold the base of the telescope dova bar but i did manage to view saturn with some of it moons quite clearly. so at some point i will have to get a tripod mount.
ps alt az mount are not good at ap you want an eq mount for any ap as their less movement on them compare to the alt az. plus with most alt az tripod you find when viewing stuff at various angles the camera boby or barlow len stacked will hit the base of the tripod were it this will not happen on the eq tripod in eq mode. also most eq tripod can be setup for eq or set up for alt az mode. why alt az mode on the eq because alt az is ideal for Terrestial viewing ( viewing land) as most telescope can be used for both Terrestial & astronomical viewing.
Last edited:
Stumbled into this thread a little late. Sorry if it looks like I'm trying to derail it or be a bit contrarian but I am going to offer a different view from the one taken so far. At the very least I guess you can think it over to better understand why you're sticking to your current plans. Some of what I say may be inaccurate, and I'm afraid this was written a bit clumsily and in a hurry, but I'll throw it out there for what it's worth. I'll only be talking about visual observing as I know damn all about photography.
I kind of think that you need two telescopes for what you want to do. Get a decently large Dob for visual observing, and/or get a really hardcore mount and put a small scope on it (to start you off) for astrophotography. I just can't help but think that you are going to outgrow a mid-sized reflector on an OK-ish-sturdiness-EQ-mount. If you want to chase astrophotography more you'll want a sturdier mount and perhaps something with a short focal length for wide field imaging, and it's probably going to lead you down the path to some sort of apochromatic refractor. Whereas if you find you are enjoying visual observing more you will want a largeish Dobsonian because for visual observing aperture is hugely important. The view of many objects is just more impressive with larger aperture.
In my view it's just asking too much to want to do both decent visual observing and decent astrophotography with one scope. I also think that most, if not all, of the "scope + equatorial mount" deals readily available for purchase are not perfectly matched. The mount is rarely good enough for the scope it's sold with. To get a good enough mount for a given scope you may want to buy it and the OTA separately.
You might like the idea of tracking (or even goto, on top) in principle but in practice it can make life harder not easier. It creates more work in the stage of setting up your scope (polar alignment, and manhandling a tripod as opposed to a simple Dob mount), which is always dangerous in my opinion because with many of us the biggest limiting factor is motivating ourselves to get outside on a nice clear night when it's cold out and we're tired. Extra setup time can make it all seem like too much effort sometimes and keep you indoors. With an equatorial mount you're going to need to polar align your telescope, and the sheer joy and simplicity of just pointing the telescope at something and looking, with an alt-azimuth mount, is worth a lot in my opinion. Reflectors on EQ mounts can have the issue of the eyepiece steadily moving into an awkward orientation as the scope tracks, too, unless you have an easy way to rotate the tube at will (and even then it's another thing to fiddle with).
EQ mounts very much do have their uses. But I personally don't think they suit beginners all that well. You want something that doesn't get in the way while you learn all the other observing skills you need to learn. For what it's worth, there are Dobs available with tracking nowadays though I've not seen or tried one in person. The tracking won't be accurate enough for photography I'd imagine, and anyway the view will gradually spin because the scope isn't rotating with the sky, but if you want tracking for visual use the option is there.
I'll grant you there is something about an EQ mounted scope though. It looks like a "proper" telescope to most people. I made the mistake of buying a 114mm EQ mounted Newtonian reflector when I got my first telescope, and the fiddle factor involved in its use was bad for my enthusiasm at the time. I feel I'd have been better off starting with a Dob.
Since you used a telescope when you were younger it sounds like you will have reasonable expectations for how impressive the views through a telescope can realistically be. That's good. A well chosen modern telescope can do a lot better than your cheap old refractor but don't think that the views will be, in a way, too fundamentally different. Planets will always be a bit small and you'll always have to "get your eye in" a bit to start noticing the various details. DSOs, especially galaxies, will often be faint smudges (the big bright ones will show interesting details though).
You asked about light pollution and I don't think anyone has addressed that yet. Light pollution affects different object differently. The planets worth watching much are completely unaffected by it (I guess Neptune or Pluto might become harder to spot, but they're pretty much dots in any sane-sized scope anyway) - they are bright enough and the details don't wash out even in the middle of a city as a result of light pollution. Deep sky objects are affected by light pollution, though - galaxies most of all. They're so dim in the first place that much increase in the brightness of the background sky means that they are dimmer than the sky around them and hence invisible.
Seeing, on the other hand, can completely ruin the view of a planet but have little effect on a faint galaxy. Seeing is a word for the steadiness of the air - bad seeing looks like heat haze through the telescope and can be caused by a lot of moving air in the sky or by temperature differences in the atmosphere. Your telescope being hotter than its surroundings because it hasn't finished cooling down to the ambient level has a similar effect to bad seeing on the view.
Transparency is another thing. It's a broad term for anything that makes the sky background glow more brightly, all other things being equal. Having a lot of moisture in the air can harm transparency. It doesn't affect planetary viewing much but can hinder galaxy observers.
For visual observing focal length doesn't really, in my opinion, hinder planet viewing at all in either direction. If you have a shorter focal length telescope, you just need to use a shorter focal length eyepiece to get the same magnification as a longer focal length scope would provide with a given eyepiece. Well, to be fair, some problems do arise but they are more indirect consequences of the focal length. For example a short focal length eyepiece can have very little eye relief (you need to get your eyeball very close to the glass) if it's of a simple, minimum-glass-surfaces design. A telescope with a shorter focal length at a given aperture will provide a harsher test of the quality of the eyepiece, as the light is coming into the eyepiece at steeper angles, which means your eyepieces might need to be more expensive. Short focal lengths, for a given aperture, also mean that you get either field curvature in refractors (where the focus point is not the same in the center of the view as at the edges) or coma in reflectors (where objects at the edge of the view develop comet-like tails). Field curvature and coma can be corrected with additional optics but that increases the price. Then again, long eye relief telescopes have a limit to how wide a field of view they can ever give you, regardless of the eyepiece used. This can make a big difference to how easy it is to find an object, or to whether an object fits in the field of view well at all (and sometimes it fits but it's aesthetically pleasing if you can have a bit of empty space around the edges of the object, too, to provide context).
Image flaws at the edge of the field of view are less important if you have a telescope that tracks well, of course, because your object stays in the centre of the field of view. But an unguided scope needs those edges to be clean so that you can let your telescope stay still a while as you examine an object. So in the world of Dob users, you either get something with a not-too-short for the aperture focal length (this is one reason why the 8 inch f/6 Dob is so popular) or you accept that you're going to be buying expensive eyepieces and a coma corrector.
Oh and a fast focal ratio, on a reflecting telescope, means that you have to collimate your telescope more accurately to get the best views.
Dobs are great as far as ergonomics are concerned. The eyepiece always points out of the scope at the same angle, and they are often very comfortable to use while seated on a fairly normal-height chair. Tripod mounted scopes can often end up at an in-between height where you are too high up for most normal seats and a bit too low to not be bending your back while standing. Being able to sit comfortably while observing adds a lot to how much detail you actually notice. There are ways around the trouble, though - a nice adjustable chair works wonders.
I may have botched this post and gone off on one about aspects that aren't too important to you, sorry if that's the case. By the way there are some good dedicated amateur astronomy forums out there which are very welcoming and helpful to beginners - stargazerslounge.com is a good UK one and cloudynights.com is a very good American forum.
EDIT: Another thought or two. Keep in mind some other expenses, near-essential items you'll want to buy. You will probably want another eyepiece or two, even if your telescope comes with some. These are totally a sliding scale in terms of price and quality and are a whole kettle of fish in themselves to discuss. You may want a Planisphere for the basic task of finding your way around, a more detailed sky chart for narrowing down exactly where something is, a red torch to see in the dark without spoiling your eyes' adaptation to the darkness, and possibly even a pair of binoculars of say the 8x40 or 10x50 variety to give you the wider picture, to see some objects that are too wide for most telescopes, and to give you a preview of how to find things when you look for them in the telescope (they show a really wide chunk of sky, the "right way up", which makes it easy to find things, and show you many of the fainter stars you'll be hopping from/to closer to how they'll appear in the scope). Oh, and a guidebook for beginners full of useful advice and suggestions for good observing targets.
I kind of think that you need two telescopes for what you want to do. Get a decently large Dob for visual observing, and/or get a really hardcore mount and put a small scope on it (to start you off) for astrophotography. I just can't help but think that you are going to outgrow a mid-sized reflector on an OK-ish-sturdiness-EQ-mount. If you want to chase astrophotography more you'll want a sturdier mount and perhaps something with a short focal length for wide field imaging, and it's probably going to lead you down the path to some sort of apochromatic refractor. Whereas if you find you are enjoying visual observing more you will want a largeish Dobsonian because for visual observing aperture is hugely important. The view of many objects is just more impressive with larger aperture.
In my view it's just asking too much to want to do both decent visual observing and decent astrophotography with one scope. I also think that most, if not all, of the "scope + equatorial mount" deals readily available for purchase are not perfectly matched. The mount is rarely good enough for the scope it's sold with. To get a good enough mount for a given scope you may want to buy it and the OTA separately.
You might like the idea of tracking (or even goto, on top) in principle but in practice it can make life harder not easier. It creates more work in the stage of setting up your scope (polar alignment, and manhandling a tripod as opposed to a simple Dob mount), which is always dangerous in my opinion because with many of us the biggest limiting factor is motivating ourselves to get outside on a nice clear night when it's cold out and we're tired. Extra setup time can make it all seem like too much effort sometimes and keep you indoors. With an equatorial mount you're going to need to polar align your telescope, and the sheer joy and simplicity of just pointing the telescope at something and looking, with an alt-azimuth mount, is worth a lot in my opinion. Reflectors on EQ mounts can have the issue of the eyepiece steadily moving into an awkward orientation as the scope tracks, too, unless you have an easy way to rotate the tube at will (and even then it's another thing to fiddle with).
EQ mounts very much do have their uses. But I personally don't think they suit beginners all that well. You want something that doesn't get in the way while you learn all the other observing skills you need to learn. For what it's worth, there are Dobs available with tracking nowadays though I've not seen or tried one in person. The tracking won't be accurate enough for photography I'd imagine, and anyway the view will gradually spin because the scope isn't rotating with the sky, but if you want tracking for visual use the option is there.
I'll grant you there is something about an EQ mounted scope though. It looks like a "proper" telescope to most people. I made the mistake of buying a 114mm EQ mounted Newtonian reflector when I got my first telescope, and the fiddle factor involved in its use was bad for my enthusiasm at the time. I feel I'd have been better off starting with a Dob.
Since you used a telescope when you were younger it sounds like you will have reasonable expectations for how impressive the views through a telescope can realistically be. That's good. A well chosen modern telescope can do a lot better than your cheap old refractor but don't think that the views will be, in a way, too fundamentally different. Planets will always be a bit small and you'll always have to "get your eye in" a bit to start noticing the various details. DSOs, especially galaxies, will often be faint smudges (the big bright ones will show interesting details though).
You asked about light pollution and I don't think anyone has addressed that yet. Light pollution affects different object differently. The planets worth watching much are completely unaffected by it (I guess Neptune or Pluto might become harder to spot, but they're pretty much dots in any sane-sized scope anyway) - they are bright enough and the details don't wash out even in the middle of a city as a result of light pollution. Deep sky objects are affected by light pollution, though - galaxies most of all. They're so dim in the first place that much increase in the brightness of the background sky means that they are dimmer than the sky around them and hence invisible.
Seeing, on the other hand, can completely ruin the view of a planet but have little effect on a faint galaxy. Seeing is a word for the steadiness of the air - bad seeing looks like heat haze through the telescope and can be caused by a lot of moving air in the sky or by temperature differences in the atmosphere. Your telescope being hotter than its surroundings because it hasn't finished cooling down to the ambient level has a similar effect to bad seeing on the view.
Transparency is another thing. It's a broad term for anything that makes the sky background glow more brightly, all other things being equal. Having a lot of moisture in the air can harm transparency. It doesn't affect planetary viewing much but can hinder galaxy observers.
For visual observing focal length doesn't really, in my opinion, hinder planet viewing at all in either direction. If you have a shorter focal length telescope, you just need to use a shorter focal length eyepiece to get the same magnification as a longer focal length scope would provide with a given eyepiece. Well, to be fair, some problems do arise but they are more indirect consequences of the focal length. For example a short focal length eyepiece can have very little eye relief (you need to get your eyeball very close to the glass) if it's of a simple, minimum-glass-surfaces design. A telescope with a shorter focal length at a given aperture will provide a harsher test of the quality of the eyepiece, as the light is coming into the eyepiece at steeper angles, which means your eyepieces might need to be more expensive. Short focal lengths, for a given aperture, also mean that you get either field curvature in refractors (where the focus point is not the same in the center of the view as at the edges) or coma in reflectors (where objects at the edge of the view develop comet-like tails). Field curvature and coma can be corrected with additional optics but that increases the price. Then again, long eye relief telescopes have a limit to how wide a field of view they can ever give you, regardless of the eyepiece used. This can make a big difference to how easy it is to find an object, or to whether an object fits in the field of view well at all (and sometimes it fits but it's aesthetically pleasing if you can have a bit of empty space around the edges of the object, too, to provide context).
Image flaws at the edge of the field of view are less important if you have a telescope that tracks well, of course, because your object stays in the centre of the field of view. But an unguided scope needs those edges to be clean so that you can let your telescope stay still a while as you examine an object. So in the world of Dob users, you either get something with a not-too-short for the aperture focal length (this is one reason why the 8 inch f/6 Dob is so popular) or you accept that you're going to be buying expensive eyepieces and a coma corrector.
Oh and a fast focal ratio, on a reflecting telescope, means that you have to collimate your telescope more accurately to get the best views.
Dobs are great as far as ergonomics are concerned. The eyepiece always points out of the scope at the same angle, and they are often very comfortable to use while seated on a fairly normal-height chair. Tripod mounted scopes can often end up at an in-between height where you are too high up for most normal seats and a bit too low to not be bending your back while standing. Being able to sit comfortably while observing adds a lot to how much detail you actually notice. There are ways around the trouble, though - a nice adjustable chair works wonders.
I may have botched this post and gone off on one about aspects that aren't too important to you, sorry if that's the case. By the way there are some good dedicated amateur astronomy forums out there which are very welcoming and helpful to beginners - stargazerslounge.com is a good UK one and cloudynights.com is a very good American forum.
EDIT: Another thought or two. Keep in mind some other expenses, near-essential items you'll want to buy. You will probably want another eyepiece or two, even if your telescope comes with some. These are totally a sliding scale in terms of price and quality and are a whole kettle of fish in themselves to discuss. You may want a Planisphere for the basic task of finding your way around, a more detailed sky chart for narrowing down exactly where something is, a red torch to see in the dark without spoiling your eyes' adaptation to the darkness, and possibly even a pair of binoculars of say the 8x40 or 10x50 variety to give you the wider picture, to see some objects that are too wide for most telescopes, and to give you a preview of how to find things when you look for them in the telescope (they show a really wide chunk of sky, the "right way up", which makes it easy to find things, and show you many of the fainter stars you'll be hopping from/to closer to how they'll appear in the scope). Oh, and a guidebook for beginners full of useful advice and suggestions for good observing targets.
Last edited:
GHarris - Thanks for all that advice.
Light Pollution
Where I am I can just about make the milky way over head. But towards the horizon there's clear light pollution.
I thought I'd do a little test as regards light pollution. I've taken a couple of 20-30second shots of the night sky where I am with my DSLR. Straight up I can see a fairly good star field, but lower down (eg: 45 degrees) there obvious increased (bad) in light pollution.
I thought I'd try a light pollution filter to see how much this might help. ie: If my DSLR's performance is clearly improved, then it's reasonable to expect it to help on a telescope too.
As such I thought I'd buy one of these - http://www.firstlightoptics.com/light-pollution-reduction/skywatcher-light-pollution-filter.html
I've pinged them a question first to ensure the size/thread on this thing will allow me to connect it to my Nikon 50mm lens as per a normal (camera) filter.
Telescope
Assuming the light pollution is not a killer, then I suspect I would like to photograph nebula etc, which means an motor driven eq mount. So my current guess is a Skywatcher 150p on an EQ5 pro mount. This seems to be a good way of getting my feet wet by allowing me to do some planetary and deep sky viewing/photography.
Light Pollution
Where I am I can just about make the milky way over head. But towards the horizon there's clear light pollution.
I thought I'd do a little test as regards light pollution. I've taken a couple of 20-30second shots of the night sky where I am with my DSLR. Straight up I can see a fairly good star field, but lower down (eg: 45 degrees) there obvious increased (bad) in light pollution.
I thought I'd try a light pollution filter to see how much this might help. ie: If my DSLR's performance is clearly improved, then it's reasonable to expect it to help on a telescope too.
As such I thought I'd buy one of these - http://www.firstlightoptics.com/light-pollution-reduction/skywatcher-light-pollution-filter.html
I've pinged them a question first to ensure the size/thread on this thing will allow me to connect it to my Nikon 50mm lens as per a normal (camera) filter.
Telescope
Assuming the light pollution is not a killer, then I suspect I would like to photograph nebula etc, which means an motor driven eq mount. So my current guess is a Skywatcher 150p on an EQ5 pro mount. This seems to be a good way of getting my feet wet by allowing me to do some planetary and deep sky viewing/photography.
Remember that you don't stricly speaking need a telescope to do wide field photography. You can have an OK EQ motorised mount (with polar alignment, thats pretty much essential for longer exposure) and mount your DSLR straight on it... I use a cheapo "one motor" chinese mount that would (do) get true amateurs run around like headless chickens, but it was very very cheap and I get pretty nice wide fields with it... I'll certain upgrade, eventually...
Then you can buy the "light bucket" for just watching. I use a "Skywatcher 250P Flextube Auto" that does track pretty well for viewing -- the tracking is pretty handy especially if you invite people to watch etc. You get very nice views of most things, including planets. The tracking works as good as you take care to make sure the scope is on a flat surface, and start the scope tracking computer when pointing to the pole star, as much as you can. I can keep say Jupiter for several minutes in the viewfinder that way.
Then you can buy the "light bucket" for just watching. I use a "Skywatcher 250P Flextube Auto" that does track pretty well for viewing -- the tracking is pretty handy especially if you invite people to watch etc. You get very nice views of most things, including planets. The tracking works as good as you take care to make sure the scope is on a flat surface, and start the scope tracking computer when pointing to the pole star, as much as you can. I can keep say Jupiter for several minutes in the viewfinder that way.
I didn't even realise they did a motorised dobson like that!? How does it rotate left & right?
I suspect if you put a DSLR on it throws if off though? Ie: Viewing only?
You have to ask why haven't they got these with autotracking?
Last edited:
I didn't even realise they did a motorised dobson like that!? How does it rotate left & right?
I suspect if you put a DSLR on it throws if off though? Ie: Viewing only?
You have to ask why haven't they got these with autotracking?
It has motors in the base and axis, so it's alt-az not EQ.. Does work pretty well tho, given a bit of practice.
You /can/ mount a DSLR on it (it even has the 2" mount, so it's really nice and sturdy), but the field rotates (alt-az will) so you can't do long exposure, but it'll definitely work for stacking with a timer, or for planetary/moon... But it's clearly no replacement for a super-aligned EQ mount for astrophotography...
They do have a GOTO option, apparently you can upgrade the 'computer' handheld to the Alt-Az goto and it will work. Quite frankly I'm not too bothered. I use the iphone/ipad app to point to the sky and find the bits I want to see, then align the scope to watch them. I digital compass an a good digital protractor (about 20 quid of eBEEEPy) even allows you to just copy the alt/az values you find on the app...
Last edited:
Ahh, I suppose the scope simply won't 'rotate' along with the object being tracked! So for a minute long exposure although the object may stay centered, it would have rotated a bit during that time?
But boy do you get a lot of scope for your money with that combination!!!!!
the thing you need to bear in mind is that the alt az mounts is easier to setup and use but it will require you to make 2 adjustments continually, where the EQ mount if you set it up correctly will only require one adjustment to be maded to keep what you are looking at in the field of view. Hence it will be much easier to track what you are looking at. also eq mount create far less vibration compared to the alt az mount as vibration is a real killer in ap.
How much a mount vibrates is a function of its build quality and design, not inherently whether it's Alt-Az or EQ. A lot of super-cheap department store scope+mount deals are Alt-Az and a lot of them are very unstable, but that's as far as the association goes in my opinion.
Dobsonian mounts are alt-az, but they are VERY steady and stable. They have an extremely low centre of gravity and are just a very sound design. You could say they're a special case in the Alt-Az world. Often when people talk of Alt-Az mounts they mean ones on top of a tripod, and refer to Dobs almost as a different class altogether. It's effortlessly easy to nudge a decent Dob mount in two axes, without it causing a particularly large or long-lasting vibration, and with good ones you can just lightly push with a single finger to get very precise movement. If your Dob happens not to move as smoothly as you'd like, you can mod it by various simple means. People can and do track objects (by hand, I mean) at rather high magnifications with Dobs, though the higher you go the more sense motorized tracking makes***. Arguably (or should that be "argumentatively"?) it's as easy (or more so) to move a Dob than an Equatorial mount atop a tripod since you just give any convenient part of the tube a light push rather than fumbling around for a slow motion control or handset.
*** Then again, typical seeing in the UK rarely permits you a decent view above 200x magnification, and that's very much in the manageable range for hand-tracking with a Dob (and even more so if you choose wide-field eyepieces, at a particular magnification, to give you the maximum possible "drift time" before you need to nudge the view again).
It's a matter of personal preference. I'm just voicing this side of the argument because nobody else had happened to so far in the thread and it's only fair for a beginner to hear about it, to make an informed choice, even if they decide they disagree. Sorry if I'm sounding a bit argumentative. Once again I'm writing this post too much of a rush.
But yeah Alt-az just doesn't work for AP because the field spins. And the tracking motors fitted to the widely available Dobs are slightly crude - they are intended for visual use, for which they are good enough, but don't track accurately enough for photography as I understand it.
Dobsonian mounts are alt-az, but they are VERY steady and stable. They have an extremely low centre of gravity and are just a very sound design. You could say they're a special case in the Alt-Az world. Often when people talk of Alt-Az mounts they mean ones on top of a tripod, and refer to Dobs almost as a different class altogether. It's effortlessly easy to nudge a decent Dob mount in two axes, without it causing a particularly large or long-lasting vibration, and with good ones you can just lightly push with a single finger to get very precise movement. If your Dob happens not to move as smoothly as you'd like, you can mod it by various simple means. People can and do track objects (by hand, I mean) at rather high magnifications with Dobs, though the higher you go the more sense motorized tracking makes***. Arguably (or should that be "argumentatively"?) it's as easy (or more so) to move a Dob than an Equatorial mount atop a tripod since you just give any convenient part of the tube a light push rather than fumbling around for a slow motion control or handset.
*** Then again, typical seeing in the UK rarely permits you a decent view above 200x magnification, and that's very much in the manageable range for hand-tracking with a Dob (and even more so if you choose wide-field eyepieces, at a particular magnification, to give you the maximum possible "drift time" before you need to nudge the view again).
It's a matter of personal preference. I'm just voicing this side of the argument because nobody else had happened to so far in the thread and it's only fair for a beginner to hear about it, to make an informed choice, even if they decide they disagree. Sorry if I'm sounding a bit argumentative. Once again I'm writing this post too much of a rush.
But yeah Alt-az just doesn't work for AP because the field spins. And the tracking motors fitted to the widely available Dobs are slightly crude - they are intended for visual use, for which they are good enough, but don't track accurately enough for photography as I understand it.
Saw a "the sky at night" episode a few days ago where they said that if you contact your local council you can get the street lights changed to the newer motion sense ones as the councils have an energy policy they must try and meet, so only using a streetlight when its needed works well for all parties.
As for the telescope, I can't advise on that I'm afraid
from what i understand it varies between different councils on policy, a lot of area need upgrades to the existing infrastructure to allow the new tech to work. then their social factor to take in to account as to weather someone will take advantage of a area being dark. now some of the new tech solution cost at lot to put into place. so a lot are simply replacing the bulbs in the street light to the new energy saving bulbs. as it far cheap to do that than to overhaul the infrastructure to allow the new tech.
Ok....Something I can get my teeth into here 
Decide what you are going to do with the scope...that's the most important thing.
I'm an astrophotographer, started it out like everyone with the visual side of things, then realised even with an 8" reflector you don't really see much except fuzzy blobs (Saturn does look good though and always blows people away when they see it for the first time)
so moved over to the photography side.Now I'm a few grand down AND still have only a very modest setup.
So you think you may want a reflector, all well and good.Bang for buck you are getting more aperture BUT they come with there own problems, Collimation for one (look that one up it's fun!!) so you'll need collimation tools.Then when you start hanging cameras on the end you have to worry about the focuser flexing (couple of hundred quid to upgrade one of them).Refractors on the other hand smaller aperture and cost a lot more,and if you want to photograph things I'd look at a semi-apo minimum (I use a William Optics Megrez72) also known as a "doublet" but you aren't going to be able to see objects that you would ina larger aperture reflector.
I'm only skipping over stuff here as there is so much more than just saying this scope and that scope, in fact the more I think about it I could be typing all day!
Join this forum www.stargazerslounge.com and look through stuff there and ask as many questions as you want! It's a really friendly forum.
Then you start getting into the territory of mounts. I use a HEQ5 at the moment and with a skywatcher 200p on that with a DSLR any amount of wind will cause your image to have misshapen stars and that's with autoguiding! The rule of thumb is whatever the mount loading capacity is, halve it for Astrophotography and you are about in the workable limits.
GOTO mounts are excellent, don't let anyone tell you otherwise! I used to spend night after night star hopping trying to find this galaxy and that nebula OK you learn the sky but at the end of the day you want to be set up and looking at stuff while the sky is clear and not spending 2 hours looking for one object. Old school astronomers will tell you GOTO is the devil's work they just don't want to move with the times!!
Right I've had another think......Budget...it's all about the cash...If you can, try and get to a local observatory and have a look through a scope this will give you a rough idea of what you might want to buy. If you really do want to go down the astrophotography route it's going to cost a fair bit of cash, then you have to learn processing the image, it's not all about point and shoot, my longest image up to now consists of 27 hours of exposures! and it still could have done with more.
Just go to the stargazerslounge and read up there, reflector wise I'd say a Skywatcher 150p and a minimum of an EQ5 (goto if you can afford it). It's a steep learning curve but you'll get there in the end.
Just for bragging rights here's a piccy that I took with a 72mm scope. Pacman nebula...cos it looks like the pacman obviously!
Decide what you are going to do with the scope...that's the most important thing.
I'm an astrophotographer, started it out like everyone with the visual side of things, then realised even with an 8" reflector you don't really see much except fuzzy blobs (Saturn does look good though and always blows people away when they see it for the first time)
so moved over to the photography side.Now I'm a few grand down AND still have only a very modest setup.
So you think you may want a reflector, all well and good.Bang for buck you are getting more aperture BUT they come with there own problems, Collimation for one (look that one up it's fun!!) so you'll need collimation tools.Then when you start hanging cameras on the end you have to worry about the focuser flexing (couple of hundred quid to upgrade one of them).Refractors on the other hand smaller aperture and cost a lot more,and if you want to photograph things I'd look at a semi-apo minimum (I use a William Optics Megrez72) also known as a "doublet" but you aren't going to be able to see objects that you would ina larger aperture reflector.
I'm only skipping over stuff here as there is so much more than just saying this scope and that scope, in fact the more I think about it I could be typing all day!
Join this forum www.stargazerslounge.com and look through stuff there and ask as many questions as you want! It's a really friendly forum.
Then you start getting into the territory of mounts. I use a HEQ5 at the moment and with a skywatcher 200p on that with a DSLR any amount of wind will cause your image to have misshapen stars and that's with autoguiding! The rule of thumb is whatever the mount loading capacity is, halve it for Astrophotography and you are about in the workable limits.
GOTO mounts are excellent, don't let anyone tell you otherwise! I used to spend night after night star hopping trying to find this galaxy and that nebula OK you learn the sky but at the end of the day you want to be set up and looking at stuff while the sky is clear and not spending 2 hours looking for one object. Old school astronomers will tell you GOTO is the devil's work
they just don't want to move with the times!!Right I've had another think......Budget...it's all about the cash...If you can, try and get to a local observatory and have a look through a scope this will give you a rough idea of what you might want to buy. If you really do want to go down the astrophotography route it's going to cost a fair bit of cash, then you have to learn processing the image, it's not all about point and shoot, my longest image up to now consists of 27 hours of exposures! and it still could have done with more.
Just go to the stargazerslounge and read up there, reflector wise I'd say a Skywatcher 150p and a minimum of an EQ5 (goto if you can afford it). It's a steep learning curve but you'll get there in the end.
Just for bragging rights here's a piccy that I took with a 72mm scope. Pacman nebula...cos it looks like the pacman obviously!
Thanks for all that advice.Ok....Something I can get my teeth into here
I actually am on the Stargazers Lounge forum, and actually have a somewhat parallel thread/discussion on there.
As regards, what I want to do, I suspect:-
- Some visual - Mainly the moon, and obvious planets (Jupiter & Saturn etc).
- Some photography - I suspect the more obvious object (at least to start with). eg: Moon and some deep sky stuff.
Now at the moment, to give me this, and allow a 1kg DSLR to be attached, I am indeed looking at a Skywatcher 150pds + EQ5 Pro (goto) mount.
Now, your wonderful image (& others like it) make me wonder if there's an alternative direction to go in instead with a refractor? The reason I would consider a refractor? Size & calibration. ie: Be easier to store, move around and easier to get up and running with.
while it is true that a refractor would indeed be easlier as there is no calibration, cool down is also lot quicker on refractor and it size and weight is much less than the reflector. they do tend to cost more well at least the apo one's do. currently you can get a SkyWatcher Evostar 100 ED DS PRO Refractor Optical Tube Assembly with free 0.85x REDUCER for £639.00 that Objective Lens Diameter: 100mm, Telescope Focal Length: 900mm (f/9) with a dual speed crayford Focuser (Backlash-Free). or their the SkyWatcher Evostar 80 ED DS PRO Refractor Optical Tube Assembly for £469.00 that Objective Lens Diameter: 80mm, Telescope Focal Length: 600mm (f/7.5) with a dual speed crayford Focuser (Backlash-Free).
Last edited:
Add a EQ5 mount onto that, and we're heading towards £1000
What about something like this? http://www.f1telescopes.co.uk/shop.php?id=2639&level=
That's about the same price a 150pds with EQ5 pro mount would be... (I think the weight of the scopFrom es are basically the same too!?)
Given they weight and cost about the same what are the pros/cons?
From my noddy understanding the Evostar 120 will offer a higher usable magnification than the 150pds? So if you were to look at the moon or planets through both, the Evostar would be superior? But if you were say photographing the andromeda galaxy, the 150pds would require less exposure time? But I assume you could still use the Evostar 120 for such a purpose?
On the subject of payload limits. If we consider the EQ5 Pro, it has a payload limit of about 9kg. So the above scopes are about 5kg, so that would leave 4kg or so to play with? I assume the counter weights do contribute to this total? ie: If the 5kg of weights are employed, you still have 9kg of payload weight?
Last edited:
the thing is that evostar isn't even semi-apo where the evostar ed is apo their big different in the quality of the image. but you could use that to get you going and if you decide you wish to go foward you could pick up the apo at a later date.