Choosing telescope

Deep sky or planetary?

Motor drive is virtually essential.

>>2932330
Deep sky if possible with any but novice to a strong photography so gathering info before I buy anything.

"astro photography" not "strong..." Stupid phone.

>>2932336

Light gathering ability will be your #1 priority for deep sky, so generally speaking, bigger is better. You'll also want a good motorized mount though, so be sure it's decent build quality. A shitty mount will ruin your night.

For your budget, you seem to be on the right track, although you could probably find something much better in the used market. If I had to choose between these 3, I'd go for the Skywatcher. Celestron makes some excellent scopes (I have 3 Celestrons) but in this lineup, the Skywatcher seems to be a bit better quality, and doesn't have a fixed finder which is nice.

File: IMG_20160901_2159244.jpg (711KB, 1200x1617px) Image search: [Google]

711KB, 1200x1617px

>>2932329
One thing I learned from people on astronomyforums.net about doing astrophotography is your gonna need a good tracking telescope honestly I dunno if you can find a telescope that will work for that under $1,000 USD I mount the main two parts is a good tracking mount other wise your limited to short exposures and by short i'm talking less then maybe 5secs to like 1/5sec I also heard your gonna need a telescope that is like a ED optics I believe and even that OTA will run you like $400 just for the tube you could check out some used stuff maybe on a site like astromart but honestly if your new to telescopes look for an astronomy club near you and talk to them someone clubs will allow you to even loan their telescopes at least the local astronomy club down here where I am has that kinda program. the other thing is your possibly gonna want a refactor telescope the reflectors are hard as fuck to get focus on I mean it's possible but then your limited to just planets I mean shit even then your better off buying like a telescope then another $120+ on a CCD or astro camera because to be honest I think your better off using a camera like the NexImage 5 you connect into your telescope I have a website called juststargazing.com for all my astronomy stuff.
I got this goto mount from my local astronomy club the day I joined the president of the club got from from a donation and gave it away on September 1 2016 club meeting I got and it's the best thing I got for astronomy.

>>2932329
>Once again keep it below 200£
I really wouldn't recomend any of those 'scopes. The main problem is the mounts, they're really flimsy, will only accept very basic single axis drives and have no polar alignment. Can't you wait a bit and save a some more money? In the long term you will really regret buying any of them.

You see some real bargains on Gumtree and places like that sometimes, "used once, astro is hard", or check out:
http://www.astrobuysell.com/uk/

If you can find an extra few quid or wait a while this is a good 'scope for astrophotography. With dual axis drives it's above your budget (£360) but is miles better:
https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-150p-eq3-2.html
https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/enhanced-dual-axis-dc-motor-drive-for-eq3-2.html

>>2932385
>>2932550
>>2932591


Thanks for all your comments.

Unfortunately due to location (north of Scotland - north from Inverness ) there is no second hand offers and most online seller want stupid money because "Highlands are not UK mainland"

Will look into any local astronomy clubs.
> keep it below 200

I want to check is it something for me + added issue of Scottish weather. It is raining. Is there a point investigating more if main issue would be weather.

I do know that price = quality but investing 1000+ just to try it is it something for me is not an option. Would invest that money in better lenses for my camera.

>>2932591

Will definitely look in to this one. 200£ is a guide and I can wait.

>>2932600
>Highlands
>Scottish weather
Do you have dark skies? I've just about given up on deep sky because of light pollution. I'd rather have 13 days of rain and one clear dark night.

>>2932621
I do. Light pollution would be last of my worries

File: DSC_0154-1.jpg (2MB, 4608x3072px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4608x3072px

>>2932329
These are my babies. The black one I've had better luck taking pictures with but honestly I heard you need a good mount and tracking to be able to get long exposure I did pictures on my juststargazing.com most of my pictures were taken with my 80eq or my Nikon D 3100

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	828
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:22 21:06:36
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Auto, Return Detected
Focal Length	19.00 mm
Comment	JustStargazing.com
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	4608
Image Height	3072
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Portrait
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2932600
>I do know that price = quality but investing 1000+ just to try it is it something for me is not an option. Would invest that money in better lenses for my camera.
While I agree with your prudence, this is a case where cheaper stuff might break you from something you'd otherwise enjoy. Cheaper stuff is far, far more difficult to get setup, aligned, and actually find objects with. I don't think that it's necessarily a good idea to jump in at the higher investment levels, but do know that there's a massive drop-off in the difficulty the higher you go (it never really gets easy, but it gets far easier).

>>2934732

You huggable motherfucker, you.

>>2934741
Friend, you've been in the woods a bit too long.