2 ms·
A bit of meta discussion that usually isn't mentioned in those advice threads: There's a big divide between visual telescopes that you can use to see things 'l
by hengheng 10y ago
A bit of meta discussion that usually isn't mentioned in those advice threads:
There's a big divide between visual telescopes that you can use to see things 'live' with your naked eye, and observing telescopes that are mainly used for photography.
The visual ones are more fun, used e.g. for the Messier rally where you try to spot all Messier objects in one night. Let's say it'll be a 12" f/4 to f/10 mirror, giving you suboptimal magnification but nice and bright images. Easy handholdability, difficult to attach a camera, imprecise tracking if any at all. Telescope usually fits in your trunk and is made to be assembled each night.
The telescopes that are used for photography are more akin to classical observatories. Guiding motors are now mandatory, usually you'll have a stationary place (concrete foundation and all) to have your scope perfectly aligned. You'll use it almost exclusively computer-operated, timing the images across different color channels and working only remotely. This way it is actually possible to do research even as an amateur ... but also to capture deep sky objects like nebulae in their full color detail.
There are hybrids, but those are quite niche, and usually not best bang-for-buck. Personally I'm considering to get myself a tele lens or two, and a cheap outdated digital camera body along with it. That way I'll only need a tracking mount, and I'll have enough to dip my feet into the water.