Which telescope should I get?

Question

Currently I'm debating between the Orion SkyQuest XT6 classic and the Celestron Starhopper 8 Inch Dobsonian. The SkyQuest XT6 is about a $100.00 less than the Starhopper on most websites, but it's 6 inches, as opposed to Celestron which is 8 inches and better quality, apparently. The Celestron is also capable of astrophotography, which I can see myself doing on my spare time.

Which would be the best decision as an amateur astronomer? Also, any other recommendations would be appreciated.

Here are the links for the XT6 and the Celestron...

http://www.telescope.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=238462&itemType=PRODUCT&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=9&iProductID=238462

http://www.telescopes.com/products/celestron-starhopper-8-inch-dobsonian-25831.html

Answer 1

I have not checked the links but Celestron seems to be the right choice since it has a bigger reflector. If possible, check out both the models physically. If budget is not a problem, go for the better model. If you are unable to decide, go for the cheaper model which you can exchange for a better model a few years down the time.

Answer 2

I'd go for the 8" Celestron StarHopper: For $100 dollars more you'll be many times happier.

The claim that it can do astrophotography is misleading though. It is true you can do some astrophotography with the StarHopper, but this is true of any Dobsonian. The astrophotography you can do with it is short exposure astrophotography. This includes quick photos of things like the moon, and planets and maybe things a little dimmer. The exposure can't be more than a few seconds. You can get slightly better results by taking multiple photos and manually guiding the telescope to keep the object in view, and then stack them using a special program.

However, to take photos of things like galaxies, and dim nebula, you need to do longer exposures. In order to do this, the telescope has to be able to track the object to keep it in the exact same place in the field of view for periods ranging from a few minutes to over an hour. You can rig up a Dobsonian to do this but it's expensive. It involves buying or building something called an equatorial platform, or special encoders, such as those made by Wildcard Innovations: http://www.wildcard-innovations.com.au

Another alternative is to eventually mount the optical tube on a german equatorial mount with a motor drive.

Answer 3

If size is not an issue for you physically speaking, aperture wins hands down. Go for the 8".

I would add the Celestron is no more astrophotography-capable than the Orion. Both are Dobsonian mounts which are very stable and great for visual but very limited in regards to photography.

Have you looked at the Orion Classic 8" Dob? It's the same price as the Celestron but comes with a Crayford focuser, 2 eyepieces, laser collimator, sky chart and a much easier to use correct image right angle finder.

The Zhumell 8" is a good buy, too, but their popularity has driven them to "out of stock" status.

Bang for the buck I would recommend the Orion Skyquest XT8 Classic. It gets very good reviews on the Astronomy.com forums.

Answer 4

Both telescopes are fine examples of good dobsonian relfectors for general viewing including deep space objects. The aperature with the celestron is two inches bigger and without question will be noticeable on many subjects, particularly deep sky objects. Regarding astrophotography, neither platform is a ready for deep space photography as polar alignment and tracking systems with solid mounts are essential. Planetary photography will be confined to the brightest planets for the most part. If you are considering getting into astrophotography consider purchasing a smaller refractor with a solid mount german equatorial mount. Alternatively you can do wide field views with a simple mount and a DSLR camera. The astrophotography thing is whole other can of worms that can be costly but rewarding.
My final answer is go with the celestron.

Answer 5

Hi. Dobsonian telescopes are limited to very bright objects like the Moon as far as photography is concerned since they are not driven by motors. They are simple to setup and use though.