@kokomaung Sure, I'll try to help. As a beginner telescope I would either get a 80-100mm refractor, like the Evostar from Skywatcher on an equatorial mount or a 6" Dobsonian telescope like the 150p from Skywatcher.

I think that it's a great beginner telescope. It will work well both when observing planets and DSOs. The GoTo functionality will only make it easer to find targets in the night sky. Let me know how you like the telescope if you end up getting it.

Pillows are the best. I'm nervous every time I move one of my bigger scopes by car.

@@guarmiron5557 I put them in the bed of my pickup and they are acclimated to ambient temperature if I travel 30 minutes to my Bortle 2 spot, but if I only go out of town to Bortle 4-3 I still need some time, but I always leave before dark so it is usually no problem. All my scopes get tied down so they cannot move. I put the tripods in the back seat.

Fast (f/5 is pretty fast) Newtonian primary mirrors need to be paraboloidal, and coma is inherent to all paraboloidal mirrors, and cannot be fixed even by perfect figuring. You would need at least an additional mirror or lenses to correct this aberration, or you could just live with it. At f/5, coma is noticeable, but arguably not too severe. If you saw an aberration that was eliminated by expert refiguring, then it wasn't coma, it must have been something else.

@@rbrtck A Strehl of .98 and 1/12th wave is what they ended up at. I only sent the mirrors in to be re-aluminized on sale for both mirrors at $88 and they offered to refigure them on sale as well. I was blown away when I got them back. I put a new PMI 2" focuser to replace the old 1.25 R&P one.

@@MountainFisher Like I said, even a *perfect* paraboloidal mirror exhibits coma as its main aberration, and the faster the mirror, the more there is. I'm sure your mirror was highly improved, and possibly it used to have even worse coma (or excess tangential astigmatism, which can look like coma and/or make it worse), but coma cannot be eliminated with a single optical element (the objective mirror, and the diagonal doesn't count, because it's a flat mirror). Coma could be reduced, but then the mirror would no longer be paraboloidal (or "parabolic" as most people say) and other aberrations would increase, starting with spherical aberration, which is worse because it blurs the whole image, even in the center (on-axis, while coma becomes more visible the farther off-axis you look). In an f/5 Newtonian, coma is still not really all that severe, so it often goes unnoticed, especially because the off-axis aberrations of most eyepieces are more pronounced. But it's always there and can be seen, especially in premium, well-corrected eyepieces and at low magnification. The only practical way to correct coma in a fast Newtonian is to use a coma-correcting lens, which sits in the focuser and accepts eyepieces or cameras, much like a Barlow lens. Additionally, Schmidt-Newtonians and Maksutov-Newtonians (which have a full-aperture corrector lens in front of the *spherical* primary mirror to take care of spherical aberration) have about half of the coma of regular Newtonians (which have a paraboloidal primary mirror to correct spherical aberration) of the same focal ratio, but they're customarily considered different types of telescope.

@elray4832 I have a review of the 102 Mak from Skywatcher you could check out: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/prSZhryGmbrJhYE.html An SCT review is already in planing.

Cats certainly offer more compact tube size, no secondary spider and give high magnifications easily, but per price they're short in aperture compared to Dobsonian. And especially bigger MCTs have serious FOV limits for general use.

Very informative and interesting video Bogdan. Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us. Always look forward to one of your new productions. Keep up the great work! Ed.

@running2standstill685 Hi! If the seeing conditions are good enough and the collimation is spot on, then the telescope can show a lot of fine details.

@@BogdanDamian awesome! Thanks!

@randomthings8027 In my opinion the an 8" dob will offer best value for money. From there on up you get diminishing returns.

@SOLiDWiNG99 It depends on how bad the dent is and if the mirrors are intact. If you can repair the dent in a easy enough way and the mirrors aren't damaged, then keep it and get the 30% back. There are templates online that will help you center the mirror (put the sticker perfectly in the center) so this part isn't that bad. If all this sounds to much of a hassle to you, than send it back and simply get a new one. Maybe try out the telescope first and see if the mirrors are in perfect condition.

@@BogdanDamian Thanks , sad how this business has turned out , I'm pretty sure they shipped me that one deliberately to get rid of damaged products they cant sell

Give it away

@mohammadyasar5113 Hello! If you have access to Omegon, then go for a telescope from their ProDob series. Alternatively look at GSO (Deluxe series) or Apertura. All three series differ only in terms of paint and price. Everything i the same as all are made by GSO. Regarding the size, I would get an 8" or a 10" Dob. A 12" might be too heavy and bulky to transport around. Also check out the Ultra Light Gen II series from Explore Scientific if you want something that is easy to transport around.

For visual observing bigger is better... For as long as you can handle carrying the telescope. 10" is already fatter and heavier than 8", but 12" is even bigger step larger than 10" with also more length making it lot harder to transport in car.

Salve Raimondo, grazie! Un Dob da 10" sarebbe un po' più grande e pesante da spostare. La differenza tra un Dob da 8" e uno da 10" non è così grande. Se nella tua zona ci sono cieli molto bui e non ti dispiace il peso, allora prendi in considerazione il 10", altrimenti opta per l'8". L'8" è un ottimo telescopio per principianti.

Sure, here you go: www.apm-telescopes.net/en/ts-optics-eq-dobsonian-telescope-drive-platform-for-40-ns

I live in bortle 5 skies. I own an old 6 in Edmund Scientific F6 with a 900 mm fl (As well as 11 other scopes . . . I have a problem). It is a great scope but I find that with even a little bit of atmospheric activity combined with the local light pool makes seeing nebulosity very difficult. I struggle with it a lot. The Edmund is loads of fun splitting binaries, clusters are amazing, and solar system views can make my heart leap (it is only 11 pounds so my EQ3 can just handle it visually). I hope to spot a well priced 8 inch dob on the used market soon (I own a 6 inch dob but I find it's 1.200 mm fl too long and getting it on faint fuzzies is challenging).

If you put a Barlow on that 6" 750mm focal length scope it will not fix aberrations if the mirror has any. Still GSO's are known for a little coma where the outer field of view has elongated stars or comas. I have a 6" Celestron with a refigured mirror and it needs no coma corrector. But the optical work I had done cost more than a coma corrector. Look at your outer fov and see how much coma you have, if it isn't much and you can live with it, you're good to go. If at high power you can't live with it the get a decent coma corrector. As for a Barlow get the Tele Vue 2x 1.25" with a two element lens, but with TV Barlows the lens screws off, but its threads won't fit anything except itself, no point to making it so it can screw off. They are without a doubt the best Barlow there is, but 2x is what you get. If I want that .5x I take the lens off my Omni.

@@MountainFisher I won't be getting a comma corrector/ reducer for the Edmund. It's views are shockingly clear. At the time Edmund was using great 1/10 wavefront PV mirrors. The main thing I need to do to the Edmund is put a better focuser on it. I have mirrors of the same quality in my old Celestron Super C8+ (an old hand assembled made in the states SCT with 1/10 mirrors as well). I bought the .63 reducer for it and I didn't notice much coma correction but the .63 is supposed to only correct a little. Not that the scope has a lot. I really have had a lot of luck finding old reflectors that are gems. I have an old Celestron Barlow that is pretty good but I do intend on getting the 2 inch by Tele Vue. At the moment I only own a Tele Vue Delite 7 mm. Beautiful eye piece and intend on slowly replacing my entire eyepiece collection with TV products. I do want to run a quick Explore Scientific test by buying one of their eyepieces to test against my TV eyepiece first.

@@guarmiron5557 I had my C6-N refigured to 1/12th wave and .98 Strehl ratio with 96% reflectivity almost the last refigure OWL did as the optics engineer went to better paying horizons. When I say near perfect .986 Strehl is pretty close. Farpoint had a sale on the JMI focusers and I bought one, they're out now. My $125 Pawn Shop scope with a 2x TV and 3 Fujiyama orthos turned into ow around $800. I use my Fuji's and the views I get of the planets is as close to perfect as possible with a 150mm mirror. I use them for M81 for instance and when the Jet Stream calms down I head to my Bortle 2 spot. Small galaxies fit in the field of view. I have some wide field EPs, but nothing beats those Orthoscopic Abbe design Fuji's.

@@MountainFisher I have some Research grade Meade Orthos (came in a box I was given with a used scope) that were made in Japan back in I believe the '70's. I really like them a lot but I must admit that the eye relief on the 4 mm is a bit close for me.

@lazernteebbee Thank you! Yes an f4 reflector will be good for planetary observations as well. Just keep in mind, that the faster a reflector telescope is the bigger the secondary mirror needs to be, which in turn will lead to more image diffraction. The image will also be a bit dimmer compared to slower reflectors because of the larger secondary mirror covering more of the the primary mirror.

So for visual observation F5 is better than F4? Sorry just trying to understand this.

@lazernteebbee Not necessarily. Both have their pros and cons. An f4 for example telescope will be more demanding on the eyepiece and require a wider secondary mirror, but will offer the advantage of being more compact and having a wider field of view which is great for DSO observations. So it all comes down to what the main purpose of the telescope will be.

@@BogdanDamian Thanks for the reply! I was think of getting a Meade 8" f/4 LX85 Astrograph Reflector Telescope with a Tele Vue DeLite eyepiece for moon/planets and a Panoptic eyepiece for DSO.

@lazernteebbee I believe that that's a good telescope and eyepiece combination. Should work well for planets and DSO. Clear skies!

@oninoyakamo You have a valid point there. In the city, space is indeed limited and there is seldom place for a big dob, but even so the cost per optical performance is unbeatable in a dob and for me, this alone puts them in front of catadioptrics. Catadioptrics, however, definitely make more sense as an ideal telescope the more experienced you are and/or if the budget isn't limited.

6 inch Mak is best if all you can look at is planets and the Moon (and the Sun with a full aperture filter) and don't have the room for a Dob. Still not as good as a well set up 8 inch Dob, but shows a fair bit of detail on Jupiter, Saturn and Mars at opposition. But if the astronomy bug really bites a city dweller they will make the effort to travel to darker skies for nights/weekends/extended holidays away to observe. I know because it happened to me. Dobs all the way! 8, 10, 12 inch...

I've read reviews and watched some videos on the brand. I believe you made an excellent choice. Congrats. Clear skies because I just pray for gaps in the clouds now. LOL.

@@guarmiron5557 thankyou✌️

@user-rr4sj1tl2p That is a great dob! Stellalyra is a GSO brand and they put only the best stuff they have on these telescopes. Clear skies!

The alt bearings on the Skywatchers aren't great and they get worse with use (eventually the friction pads fall off; they can be improved but it's a hassle). Don't know what the new fancy roller/ball bearing GSOs are like but their old simple teflon pads + spring tensioner was already a lot better than the SW setup. The AZ bearings are easy enough to redo with dimpled laminate and teflon pads, but the Alt axis is trickier so you'd want it to be decent out of the box.

We chose the same. No regrets, it’s a great telescope.

@rainmaryann1741 Unfortunately not a bit.

No

That's my concern. You're back has to fit the scope because you have no option to rotate the tube or raise or lower the scope (assuming you are doing visual work, of course).

Interesting, what do you think about the new short tube F4 newts at 16 pounds ?

@@lavers_1 I currently own an Edmund Scientific Newt that is f/6, 900 mm fl, and weighs 11 pounds. I really enjoy the scope and it is quite easy to set up. I like some of the f/4 newts on paper but that is starting to get fast for most of my eyepieces and even some of my filters for astrophotography. A 16 pound Newt would not stress my mount at all (my 6 inch achromatic Meade AR-6 weighs 27 pounds). If I was going to buy another newt (not on a dob mount) I would buy this scope: Sharpstar Optics 150mm f/2.8 Parabolic Newtonian Astrograph. I am very pleased with my APO from the same company.