What is the right telescope for me?

Telescopes come in many designs and a wide range of cost and quality. Which one to buy??

I've noticed Meade, a major manufacturer, has realized over the years that the tripod is NOT the most effective place to cut costs. Tripods have gotten more sturdy in recent years.

Biggest dividing line is "Computerized go-to" or "manual". Computer technology is so ubiquitous, few telescopes are made with simple "clock drives",anymore but they do make them, typically with basic refractor designs.

The biggest "bang-for-the-buck" (best value), and a very common first-scope is the classic 8" Dobsonian. It is a manual, general purpose observational scope (not suitable for imaging except very short exposures of VERY bright objects - ie. Venus, Moon).

it does NOT track so you have to continually re-position it and you must find your targets manually... but these skills are easy to acquire and is part of the fun. Also, they are not on tripods so they are fairly stable with respect to vibration. 

I have a Celestron, 41/2" (114mm), Newtonian Telescope 910 mm  FL,  made in china.   For $200 and maybe no shipping cost.  Like new. Ask if that is any good and let me know.

In fact I was undecided whether it is worth spending money on these "go to" computerized telescopes, or keep them for better eyepieces, tripod etc. After all, if most of the time is spent on moon and planets from town, no need for any goto. And even for deep sky, it looks like part of the fun is lost if you don't find the object yourself... When I was playing with my old 114/900 (same as RPaulB has; it was the typical beginner choice a while ago), goto did not exist. That seems one of the main novelties with respect with what I was used to.

The other question would be what do you think about Maksutov-Cassegrain vs Dobson, also in terms of weight and transportability. I do not have much storage space at home... How much space does the Dobson take? It seems that a typical choice is Dobson 8" vs MAK these days and I cannot make up my mind.

That's a good point about urban and small aperture observing. GoTo really isn't necessary. Clock-drive tracking is definitely a nice feature because you're not slavishly spending half your time keeping the target in the field of view, especially at higher powers. You can walk away and grab a beer!

I am very fond of the Mak-Cass design. It is one of the "compact" designs and the optics are usually VERY good. The reason for this is because the design is such that the Primary and Secondary mirrors, and BOTH surfaces of the correcting "Meniscus Lens" are ALL SPHERICAL SURFACES, and a spherical curve is by far the most easily generated and hence can be created with very high precision at low cost.

The only drawback is, because of the mass of the meniscus lens, it has a long cool-down time (but so will a full thickness (high quality, 1:6 thickness to diameter ratio) Dob mirror. Every scope needs a cool-down, so with a little planning, it'snot really a problem.

One thing though, a Mak-Cass gets prohibitively expensive above 6 inches. I will tell you this. I have many telescopes but probably my favorite rig is an Orion 6 in. Mak-Cass on an old LXD-75 GoTo mount.

A Dobson is a floor mounted manual altitude-azimuth. The optics are a simple Newtonian design with a parabolic curve primary mirror and a flat secondary.

Both scopes (6-8 in. Dob; 6 in. Mak-Cass) can easily fit in a typical closet.

I do mostly planetary imaging so I do need tracking, but I honestly can't even remember the last time I actually used the GoTo feature!

Thanks a lot for all the clarifications! One more questions for you  

I see this mak 127 telescope http://www.teleskop-express.it/telescopi-sc-e-mak/549-mak-1271500-eq3-skywatcher.html being produced by celestron, skywatcher and others. Is there a difference between models from several manufacturers, or they are essentially the same thing? 

Other question, how difficult to learn and time consuming is collimation if one gets a Newtonian telescope? 

As I said, I believe any mak-cass from any major manufacturer will have good optics.  "Toy telescope" manufacturers don't make Mak-Casses.

Looking at your link, I'm thinking that there is no particular advantage to a an equatorial mount without a clock drive.

I am assuming your budget and interest level is such that diving into the commitment of time and money (and hassle, learning curve etc.) to do imaging is not right for you at this time.

You also made a VERY good point about saving a good portion of the budget for EYEPIECES and other accessories. Neglecting this is a rookie mistake that almost everyone makes.

What may be best for you might be to put your money into APERTURE and accessories. Rather than going with an equatorial mounted Mak-Cass, which must be manually aimed like a Dob (although more precisely) get the biggest Dob you can afford with money left for a barlow, a couple of quality eyepieces, and a light pollution filter.

============================

We can zero in quickly if you can answer two questions:

1) What is the maximum amount you can spend?

2) Imaging ; YES/NO?

Maximum amount (including eyepieces), 900 euros. No imaging.

Ok.

This is quite fun. I just realized that I'm having the fun of buying a new telescope without actually buying one, which is fine because I already have six! (it's a mental disease!  :-)  )

With no imaging, I would definitely go Dobsonian. You can do limited imaging using the slo-mo controls on a non-tracking equatorial mount but for visual observing, nothing beats the simplicity and convenience of a Dob. Polar aligning an equatorial mount can be a pain in the ass (especially when it has to be precise for imaging, and you're getting old and creaky - it's HELL on the back and neck).

I looked into the Skywatcher Dobs and they are very well reviewed, especially with respect to the "action" (movement/bearings). Some Dobs can be "sticky" which can be frustrating when trying to center a target (which you do CONSTANTLY with any non-tracking scope, so it's important)... They are a bit heavier than some manufacturers but that is part of their value -  they put the money into the mirror. Unless you are physically disabled, any 8 in dob is handled without much difficulty.

You can find retailer's carrying Skywatcher products in Europe here. There is one in France, one in Belgium, etc.

http://www.skywatcher.com/where-to-buy/

We're just about there... Just one more question...

Now I'm asking myself, 8in. or 10in. ??.. or even larger.

In this game, size matters. If you really catch the astronomy bug as bad as I did, you're ALWAYS going to want a BIGGER telescope.... In fact, the last time I bought a telescope I finally just submitted to the inevitable... I knew if I just bought a slightly larger scope, I would end up buying one bigger eventually - So I skipped that step and just bought the biggest telescope I could handle alone, a C11 Edge hd... The last scope I'll ever buy, unless I hit the lottery (although I do have a 16 mirror! - I may make my own 16in. Dob someday).

At 10 inches, storage, transport and set-up of a Dob is no longer trivial... Not that it is prohibitively difficult, but it becomes a factor to be considered. Deep-sky objects are better in larger scopes, but the most popular, brighter DSOs can be well observed at 8 in., especially at a dark site (if there IS such a thing anymore). for Moon and Planets the extra aperture doesn't buy you much.

There is an old saying in amateur astronomy: When it comes to the various telescope designs..

... The best telescope is the one that gets USED THE MOST! ... So there is much to be said for keeping it light and simple (remember, my most used rig is a 6 in Mak-Cass, I have MANY larger scopes).

With your budget you can easily afford the 10 in., mindful of its size, with money left over for a few well chosen accessories. You could even go 12 In., perhaps with a collapsing truss design, and delay most accessory purchases. However, increased size and truss design adds considerably to the "Hassle Factor", and could turn into an expensive dust-collector parked forever next to the rusted exercise machine.  ;-)

That's about it. Tell me what you think, questions?

You asked about collimating.

It looks confusing, but it really isn't all that hard, and once done, usually holds for extended periods. You just check it once in a while... Further, unless it is WAY out of collimation, it's unlikely you'd even notice.

Easiest and most accurate is to use a laser collimator (about 45-50 Euro) but you can actually make a "pin-hole eyepiece" collimator and eyeball-it - probably good enough.

As to accessories, the basics are a second eyepiece (the scope will come with one, typically a 26mm basic plossle or super-plossle design), a Barlow ( 2x power doubler) and these days a light pollution filter for any DSO observing (this is where extra aperture matters - the filter will slightly reduce light transmission), and a Moon Filter (a color-neutral "dimming" filter. The Moon filter is not required if your observing session will be Moon ONLY. Otherwise, the Moon is so bright it destroys your night-vision instantly! - Just be careful not to trip over a lawn chair because you WILL be blind!

DON'T GO CHEAP ON THE EYEPIECE, this is another rooky mistake. The eyepiece is just as important as the scope, maybe MORE so. You want a WIDE FOV (field of view) eyepiece.

Now that I think about it, a KIT may be a good way to go, at least to start. The eyepieces are usually simple plossle designs (only 55 degree FOV) but they are typically decent quality and you get a variety of magnifications. There are NICE FEATURES... They are inexpensive, and best of all you get the Barlow and the Moon filter as part of the deal, PLUS a variety of color filters (that you won't use much, but can help with serious planetary observing to "tease-out" detail - and also can help with DAYLIGHT observing of Venus and the moon), AND a very nice carrying case that could be used later with any Wide-Angle eyepieces you may purchase. I have such a kit and use it a LOT!

That's probably a good way to go. It covers a lot of the basics and is so cheap, it barely dent's your budget. You may YET have enough left for that special eye piece.

http://www.celestron.com/browse-shop/astronomy/visual-accessories/eyepieces/series/eyepiece-and-filter-kits

Thanks for all the info! I was traveling for work and I did not have much time to read your posts in detail earlier, hence my silence.

You are definitely making me consider the Dobson more seriously. I was more oriented for the MAK earlier, but I do see the advantages of the Dobson now. I think I would go 8 inches because I want something light and as easy as possible to move around. For now I just want to have some fun, and see if my daughter (who is 4 now) gets curious over the next few years. I am interested in observation of the main DSOs when I go to nearby mountains, but that would be no more than once a month for now, and 8 inches look like more than enough for that. I would do planets and moon most of the time. I can plan something bigger and more expensive later on. 

The eyepiece/filter kit looks cool!

Two last questions. The reason for the equatorial mount I considered earlier is because I thought I could maybe add tracking later on. I am not sure whether that is even possible though.

MAK vs Newtonian. Since I would mostly planets than deep sky, I would have assumed that Maksutov-Cassegrain with f15 is a more appropriate configuration than Newtonian with short focal length. How much does large aperture compensate? I would have gotten a 5in MAK, significantly less than 8in Dob, so I guess that it does compensate. Since you have a telescope collection  probably you have direct experience of that .

Oooh! - Oooh!... I JUST THOUGHT OF SOMETHING!

Before I go into another thousand word "rap" on optical formulae and scope design (I will later, you have a couple of misconceptions, but think about this in the meantime), another option occurred to me:

Put a Mak-Cass ON AN ALT-AZ MOUNT!... This NEVER occurred to me because it isn't something I would ever consider for myself, but when you reiterated your interest in a Mak-Cass, it suddenly popped into my head.

1) This rig takes up virtually zero storage space, a really trivial amount!

2) It has the simplicity of a dob but is much more compact and much lighter! You can be viewing in minutes!

3) Add a 45-degree erecting prism (flips the image upright) and you have an IDEAL "spotting scope" for terrestrial viewing... Be a hit at the soccer game!... Take it to the lake!... Watch the neighbors down the block have sex!... FAMILY FUN FOR EVERYONE!

                                        Wow, Dad!... That was HOT!

4) The scope and mount are separate, not integral... When you are ready to step up to tracking/GoTo (they're ALL GoTo now),  you already have a high quality optical tube!! Just slap it on your new mount!

This is a Celestron Altazimuth mount with slo-mo controls... about 80 Euros.

A few caveats: This is NOT suitable for ANY kind of imaging, not even short exposure (except maybe lunar snapshots- The moon is SO bright, exposure times are negligible). This is because unlike a manual equatorial, the Field of View (FOV) will rotate. field de-rotators are available but would be it would be economically idiotic to go that route. Remember, polar aligning is a guaranteed back-neck ache and a general pain in the ass. And at this stage, you're only interested in visual observing anyway.

I would consider going to a 6 in. Mak-Cass. It would be slightly under-mounted on this mount (a little vibration prone) but you'd want that extra inch (44% more light!) for dim Saturn (also greater theoretical resolution), and if you go to a tracking mount later. Also, there are home-remedies to beef-up and stabilize a cheap tripod... However, 5 In. will get the job done.

The 6 in. is more pricey, though, at about 600-650 Euros vs. 350-400 Euros for the 5 inch. Also sometimes the erecting prism is included with the 5 In., as it is considered a spotting scope.

By the way, used equipment is always an option. Consider it later if you want to move on to a tracking mount. This is a hobby where people frequently buy expensive equipment then rarely use it. You can get like-new equipment at half the price. Just watch out for unscrupulous people who break their equipment then trying to unload it.

6in with Altazimuth, and possible future upgrades, sounds very interesting indeed! Your technical arguments are convincing, including the one about spying the neighbours. You also were convincing earlier about the Dobson though . So now I am still a bit undecided, although leaning more and more towards the MAK-Cass.

Regarding applied optics, I do admit having a poor knowledge of it, despite being a physicist. Just barely touched the topic in an old undergrad course. All I can say is that I expect of course better theoretical resolution for larger apertures (diffraction limit), but also larger magnification for larger focal ratio and given eyepiece. I also read general remarks about high quality optics being easier to build at high f. But I am not sure how general this is, and how much it depends on design and other details.