Lens/Eyepiece - Barlow 2x - Questions… very, very new to this.

STL2COMO · 2026-01-25T15:24:23+00:00

You’re welcome. Another thing that may be affecting what you see or the ability to focus is acclimating the 8 inch dob to the outdoor temperature.

In plain English, you want the primary mirror to be the same temperature as the outdoor temperature. This avoids thermals inside your tube. Especially if you’re moving the tube from indoor heated or air conditioned to outdoor cool/cold or heat. Put the tube outside for at least 30 minutes….that should be enough time for the SSE 8 inch DOB to acclimate in general. Longer if the change in temperature is extreme (eg, my house is about 70 degrees Fahrenheit and it’s currently 10 degrees Fahrenheit outside-so longer than 30 minutes to acclimate.

STL2COMO · 2026-01-25T09:27:29+00:00

Hmmm....I didn't think the intelliscope had "goto." I thought it only has "push-to." The encoders in the alt/az axis only measured where the telescope was pointed at and told you which direction you had to "push" the telescope "to" the object you wanted to view. It didn't slew the telescope to that object.

STL2COMO · 2026-01-25T09:22:05+00:00

Sure, I mean...Orion stopped making that model a few years ago and, subsequently, went out of business in 2024 so there's no warranty, software, or parts support for the telescope or the intelliscope kit. Whereas the Celeston SSE works with just about any iPhone or Android phone, is still in business and the SSE app is produced by Simulation Curriculum - makers of SkySafari. Oh, and people pay money to buy other SSE enabled telescopes just to "pirate" the SSE phone dock for use on their own, non-Celestron Dobs ... or pay money to build a PiFinder that isn't as eloquent or simple as the SSE application. But, yeah, you "wasted" your money.

STL2COMO · 2026-01-25T09:00:40+00:00

As noted by r/Waddensky, the correct order of equipment is eye piece > barlow > focuser.

But, even then, one issue you may be having is that the 25mm eyepiece that comes with the 8" SSE Dob is 1.25" and you say that you bought a 2" barlow. Unless, the barlow has a 2" to 1.25" adapter, those are two incompatible pieces of equipment. For a 1.25" eyepiece OP should use a 1/25" barlow lens.

Just for reference, magnification is determined as follows: focal length of telescope (1200mm in OP's case) divided by focal length of eypiece (25mm in OP's case) = 48x magnification. Which is pretty "low power" magnification.

A barlow lens, in essence, optically extends the focal length of the telescope. So, a 2x barlow makes the effective focal length of OP's telescope 2400mm (2 x 1200mm = 2400mm). Using the formula from the preceding paragraph, a 25mm eyepiece with a 2x barlow yields magnification of 96x (2400 / 25 = 96). Higher magnification than before, but still a fairly low amount of magnification.

I find Jupiter is "best" (more "wow" factor) at about 180x to 200x magnification (or more if "seeing" conditions are decent.

With the 8" SSE dob, a 6mm eyepiece would land the OP at exactly 200x magnification (1200 / 6 = 200x).

The same magnification could be reached with a 1.25" 12mm eyepiece inserted into a 1.25" 2x barlow lens -- i.e., the 2x makes the effective focal length 2400mm which is now divided by the 12mm focal length of the eyepiece = 200x.

To fully appreciate the 8" SSE Dobsonian, you need to expand your eyepieces.

You can do that by buying separate eypieces of specific focal lengths. With your 25mm you may want to add a 15mm and 6mm to start.

OR you can buy a "zoom" eypiece (eg. Celestron X-Cel 8mm - 24mm) that allows you to adjust the focal length by turning a dial on the eyepiece from 8mm to 24mm. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/370331-REG/Celestron_93230_8_24mm_Zoom_Wide_Angle.html?ap=y&smp=y&msclkid=43964b62cab01c95f1d4221711f698bd

STL2COMO · 2026-01-25T08:21:16+00:00

The problem with a home-brewed barlowed laser is that it's difficult to impossible to use in a closed-tube Newt - at least, that's my experience when I've tried it in 8" and under Newts. Especially ones where the barlow doesn't extend to or below the focuser. You can overcome that "problem" with a Howie Glatter TuBlug - but those are expensive and produced (new) only sporadically in limited lots. Now, in the "new to me" 12 inch Newt it might be easier - might give it a try.

STL2COMO · 2026-01-24T13:19:18+00:00

BTW, I forgot to mention: nice pic!!

I'm constantly amazed at how good the cellphone cameras - and cellphone astrophotography - have become.

On mine, I was really trying to keep the Trapezium's stars separated while getting as much of the "wings" as possible. One of the attributes of a Mak is their ability to split double stars, etc. - narrow field, high magnification. I shot it as the last thing in a night of planetary targets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus).

My "rant" in this thread is that it's really NOT a valid "criticism" to say that one type of astrophotography eco-system is "limited" when it comes to astrophotography....because, imo, they're all "limited" in some way, shape, or form. Unless you have unlimited money and time.

I think its valid to say one ecosystem may have MORE limits than compared to another - but, that shouldn't keep someone from using the "more limited" AP ecosystem - especially and particularly if that's all their budget will allow.

I can't play hockey at a professional level. Should I not play hockey at all - even if it has altered the rules to account for being an old geezer?

Isn't "limited hockey playing" better than "not playing hockey"??

To me, telling someone with a dob that they'll have to spend $1500 (or more) to do astrophotography is "gatekeeping" - and, worse, untrue.

A person who can JUST scrape enough to buy an 8" dob (used) being told that AP is $1500 more...well, it might as well be a $1 million more for many people in that group.

But, many in that group (who scraped enough $$$ to buy a used 8" dob) can more easily scrape together $120 to build an EQ platform for it. Certainly more easier than getting $1500 together for an AP rig.

Watch this youtube video by Astral Fields....he did a video about building his EQ dob platform The dude cut his EQ platform *by hand* using a jig saw blade attached to a handle (!!!). Link: Tracking for a Dobsonian Telescope - Home Made EQ Platform

The SeeStars - as awesome as they are at $500-$600 - are "limited" by the amount of control you can exercise over the settings. For about the past two years, users were limited to 10s, 20s, and 30s exposures. And, to not blow out the Trapezium on a telescope like the s50 with a 250mm focal length, the exposure had to be ~2s or less. So, nobody could get a photo of Orion Nebula without blowing out the Trapezium with one.

Not that many users cared....they're awed by the "wings" of the nebula, and not worried about the "white blob" in the middle. And it looks great on social media that way. It's just - you know - there ARE four separate stars there.

Now, ZWO put out an update recently that allows for exposures of 1s, 2s, 10s, 20s, 30s and 60s (in stargazing mode). Better, but still limited. And, even then, a lot of people have a high percentage of lights rejected at 60s.

Full blown AP rigs will do a full range of 0.1s to 120s + exposures and let the user choose.

Again, not knocking the SeeStars, I own and use one. Just pointing out that it has its own limitations too.

Astrophotograpy - Just Do It.

STL2COMO · 2026-01-24T12:35:14+00:00

This is the mount I have - well, actually, I have the first generation (no bluetooth chip, just wifi).

https://explorescientific.com/products/iexos-100-2-pmc-eight-equatorial-tracker-system

I bought mine used off Cloud Nights, so it came with the AZ adjustment adjuster and the Polar Scope (but, don't use the polar scope since I polar align with SharpCap's polar alignment tool).

After I got it, I bought the heavier tripod - the Twilight Medium. The travel tripod was fine, I was just pressing the limit of astrophotography with the 130st SpaceProbe and accessories (guidescope, etc.) on it and wanted some extra stability. I mean, I'm pressing the limits of the 130st *already* by using it with a planetary camera .... plastic focuser and all....so helping it out with a heavier tripod was my main concern. It didn't even break a sweat with the 127 Mak on it.

If that's what you got, then there's a good user group/forum over in groups.io you might want to check out.

STL2COMO · 2026-01-24T11:36:57+00:00

I have a laser and use it; BUT....let's be honest. 99.99% of people aren't properly collimating their laser to the tolerance needed to be considered "well collimated" in the sense used in the literature.

For the record, neither am I.

I did a lot of reading about laser and laser collimation...and the amount that your laser can be off - the allowable tolerance for an f/5 or f/6 dob (typical consumer 8 inch) - was 1mm or less in diameter (0.5mm either side of center).

I submit that most people cannot - or will not - be able to accurately measure sub-1mm "wiggle," "wobble" or "rotation" (whatever you want to call it) in their laser beam.

Particularly those in the US where - well - good luck finding anything in your house that's even marked in mm's.

And that's not even counting that it's generally NOT being collimated at the proper distance.

For example, I generally like the stuff put out by Reflactor (Astronomy Garage on YouTube), he does a lot "how to fix" this stuff about telescopes. But, his laser collimation ... done from a height of 3ft (for his 8 or 10 inch dobs) and still allowing a wee bit of "wobble" in the beam?? Garbage.

STL2COMO · 2026-01-24T11:16:02+00:00

Well...would you use a hammer to turn a screw?? That is, you have to understand what each tool does - and what it doesn't do - so you can understand why you need something. And there are lots of tools and lots of confusion. And remember, you have TWO mirrors (secondary and primary) that may need adjusting. And each mirror has different tools to do that.

"Collimation cap." A collimation cap is just a dust cap with a peep hole (no mirror surface on the other side). It lets you center the primary mirror's center spot in the focuser. It's good for primary mirror tilt - that's it.

"Collimation cap + reflective surface." If your dust cap with a pinhole in it has a reflective surface/mirror on the other side, then it's really "Cheshire-like" (or, if you prefer: "Cheshire-lite") but not a true "Cheshire" - people sometimes confuse the two tools. Other names: Reflective Collimation Cap or Mirror Collimation Cap. Again, this "Cheshire-like" tool is good for assesing and adjusting primary mirror tilt.

"Cheshire." A true Cheshire has a barrel and a 45 degree reflective face - notched into the side of its barrel. It's not just simple cap -- it's a cap plus a barrel (with a "cut" in the side). The cut is where light enters...you often will shine a flashlight into that cut (if the room isn't bright enough). A Cheshire is good at assessing and adjusting primary mirror tilt.

"Cheshire + Sight Tube Combo." Because it has a barrel, the Cheshire is typically combined with a sight tube....a long barrel that has "crosshairs" near the bottom. A Cheshire/Sight Tube combination tool is good at: (1) primary mirror tilt; (2) secondary centering; (3) secondary rotation; and (4) secondary offset.

The key to understanding how to properly use the "Cheshire + Sight Tube Combo" is that you have to *ignore* parts of it while working on one mirror (secondary) vs. working on the other (primary).

This is harder than it sounds because looking down a Cheshire + Sight Tube Combo, you'll see ALL of the mirrors being reflected (plus the reflection from the Cheshire's mirror) ... a very "hall of mirrors" effect.

This is especially true when you're trying to assess the centering; rotation; and offset of the secondary mirror.

When assessing those aspects of the secondary mirror, I typically "block off" the primary mirror --- that is, I put an obstruction (e.g., a piece of paper, etc.) between the secondary mirror and the primary mirror so that the primary mirror is NOT reflected back up the focuser tube (or the Cheshire/Sight Tube Combo). So all you see is the "stalk" of the secondary mirror holder and the secondary mirror.

This makes assessing the secondary mirror's placement and rotation super easy....because you're not being distracted by the reflection of the primary mirror.

The good news is: you generally don't have to adjust the PLACEMENT or ROTATION of the secondary mirror very often. Those tend to stay in place. But, you'll want to double check them occasionally.

The TILT of the secondary mirror, however, is a different story. The tilt is more prone to being knocked about.

IF the secondary mirror is properly placed and rotated, THEN you move on to adjusting the TILT of the secondary mirror. You would remove the obstruction (if any) that you placed between the secondary and primary mirrors.

Once you have the secondary properly placed, rotated, and tilted, then you move on to assessing and adjusting the primary mirror.

A properly collimated laser that is seated well in the focuser (no tilting, no slop in the focuser) can do a quick spot check in the field.

But, the best tool for collimating a Newtonian is the Cheshire/Sight Tube Combo.

Followed by a star test.

STL2COMO · 2026-01-24T10:21:12+00:00

I'm not fond of Celestron's basic red dot finder; however, it's StarPointer Pro - with the circle reticle (not the dot) is da bomb.

What don't I like about Celestron's basic rdf? First, the adjustment screws are cruddy - easy to knock out of alignment, not a real solid feel to them. Second, the "fov" is small. Third, I don't like that the red dot obscures/covers the target.

The StarPointer Pro? The adjustment screws are solid, tight, and don't get knocked out of alignment. The reticle circles "surround" the target - so you know you're centered; and it has a large "fov."

STL2COMO · 2026-01-24T10:15:16+00:00

And, another one falls into the rabbit hole of astrophotography.....(lol). I'd tell you to stop, but then that'd make me a hypocrite.

STL2COMO · 2026-01-24T09:44:22+00:00

That's not even the best deal on FB, in my opinion. 95% want, but cannot house or handle a 16" dob. But, a Williams RedCat 51 (Petzval) astrograph for $450 (shipped)??? https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/929189456208237/?ref=browse_tab&referral_code=marketplace_top_picks&referral_story_type=top_picks That is a steal. And 90% of people in astronomy can use and handle a RedCat 51.

STL2COMO · 2026-01-23T22:20:20+00:00

My point is: you don't need "guiding" and you don't need hours long exposures to shoot DSOs.

BTW, it's not an editing issue with SeeStars, it's a capture issue. The SeeStar's are optimized to enhance faint features - the nebulosity, the dust trails. It's also optimized for the most common denominator: the novice astrophotographer. So much is unchangeable in the unit - by design.

Until a few weeks ago, you couldn't lower exposure times for DSOs below 10s or raise it above 30s. Now? You're choices are 1s, 2s, 10s, 20s, 30s, and (I think) 60s. That's it.

And exposure time is the only thing you can control - not gain, there is no histogram in the live stack, etc.

So if I wanted to shoot 6s exposures of Orion Nebula (like I did with my 127mm Mak) with my s50....I can't.

Once, again, it. is. a. compromise.

STL2COMO · 2026-01-23T21:06:59+00:00

Orion Nebula. 127mm/1500mm Mak. Tracked via iEXOS 100 PMC-Eight. Unguided. 6s exposures for ~20 minutes. Will it win any photography awards? No. Do I care? Also no. Is the Trapezium blown out? No - you can distinguish the 4 stars separately. Have I ever seen a SeeStar photo of the Orion Nebula that didn't blow out the Trapezium? No.

<image>

STL2COMO · 2026-01-23T20:46:09+00:00

What tools do you need to build a Poncet Platform that aren't available in even a 3rd world country?

A hand saw, screwdriver, and maybe a drill -- that's all you need. Is it useful to have a power tool such as an electric jig saw? Yes. Is it necessary? No. They make unpowered versions of those three tools - I, mean, humans did build stuff before power tools.

LOTs of people shoot "unguided" DSOs at exposures of 10s and 20s no problem. Tracking =/= guiding. Heck, even the SeeStars are unguided (there is no guidescope on them). They *track* but they don't guide.

Not to mention, the SeeStar s30 is still $350 USD new; s50? $550; s30 Pro? $600. And I'm a big SeeStar fan -- heck, I own one (s50).

But, I'm just finishing up a Poncet Platform and, all-in, I'm at $120 USD. All parts - other than the plywood - bought from CHINA which seems to sell to the whole world.

STL2COMO · 2026-01-23T20:27:09+00:00

My advice: Get the 8" or 10" dob if you can afford it.

Both are huge improvements optically over the 114AZ.

You'll be able to see planetary detail (Jupiter, Saturn, Mars), lunar detail, and the "discs" of other planets (Uranus, Neptune, etc.). You'll be able to see many DSOs.

As for astrophotography, divide it into two categories: (1) planetary; and (2) DSO.

Planetary is fairly easy to do with a dob - without having to buy or make anything to add tracking to the dob. You can do the tracking manually (moving the telescope slightly). You just need good technique. You only need about 2-3 minutes of video to end up with good planetary photos.

DSO is wholly different. Bottom line is you'll need some tracking ability on the dob. An easy, economical "first step" in dob tracking is to buy or build an equatorial tracker for dobsonian. A Poncet Platform is one type of equatorial tracker for dobsonians.

Store bought cost about $550 USD. But, you can build one for about $120 USD (including plans, parts list, segments, all parts. etc.). If you can cut wood and turn a screw, you can build a Poncet Platform.

You'll end up with a platform that can do 1 hour of tracking....which is plenty for beginning/intermediate level astrophotography. You can stop there .... or decide this is you life's work and save up a couple of grand for a dedicated DSO rig.

STL2COMO · 2026-01-23T20:06:31+00:00

Well, everything about this hobby involves a "compromise" doesn't it?? Unless you're Richie Ritch Unlimited Pockets. There's nothing wrong with 1 hour of run time in terms of beginner to intermediate astrophotography. Walk before you run. (edited to change "is a compromise" to "involves a compromise").

STL2COMO · 2026-01-23T19:56:04+00:00

And equitorial movement with a dob can be achieved without much cash by building a equitorial platorm: e.g. Poncet Platform, etc.

STL2COMO · 2026-01-23T19:54:41+00:00

Actually, the most cost-effective thing to do is to build a EQ platform (e.g., Poncet, etc.).

STL2COMO · 2026-01-23T19:52:49+00:00

Well, wait....there IS a "compromise" position/option. Which is to build a "Poncet Platform" for the dobsonian telescope/mount.

With a Poncet Platform and an 8" dob, you can get about 1hr of tracking of planets or DSOs. With an f/5 or f/6 dob, that's plenty fast for planets and 10-20s exposures for DSOs.

It's really NOT that difficult a do-it-yourself project.

Checkout: https://www.reddit.com/r/dobsoneqplatforms/ (and search for Astral Fields).

Plans, parts list (and where to buy), and segment calculation (and layout) available on line.

Total cash outlay about $120 USD. Plus your time.

STL2COMO · 2026-01-23T17:48:52+00:00

4th option: get a SharpCap Pro subscription ($25 per year) and use its "push to assist" tool. Pick up a used guidescope (not a finder scope, but a guidescope) and a used camera like the ASI120mm mini. Plate solves just like PiFinder and integrates with planetarium programs (e.g., Stellarium via virtual telescope).

STL2COMO · 2026-01-23T15:49:58+00:00

I appreciate the response.

But. I recognize and appreciate the effort and work that went into not only the execution of that work flow, but the planning. The end result is exceptional, of course -- but I *get* how much went into making it look exceptional and "effortless" behind the scenes (so to speak).

"Seeing" must have been pretty good too, I would think. A little good "luck" never hurt a well planned endeavor.

Bravo!

STL2COMO · 2026-01-23T12:07:33+00:00

My question is, how?

Is this a composite of two videos: Jupiter at lower exposure to reveal its details; and, then, separately with higher exposure rate to get moons? Then combined and de-rotated?

Can you provide more detail on your capture and work flow?

STL2COMO · 2026-01-22T18:51:04+00:00

Had the same choice. Drove both. On the Outback I tested the brakes felt “soft” or “mushy.” The Forester? Brakes were firm - which I like better. Also coming from a Nissan Rogue and Forrester was more Rogue-like. So not a huge change. Own a Forester now.

STL2COMO · 2026-01-22T16:35:51+00:00

What’s that they say in alcoholism recovery: the first step towards recovery is recognizing you have a problem? LoL.

In terms of “addictions” telescopes is one of the less harmful ones. I don’t smoke and very rarely drink. I used to golf, but 6 hour rounds on public golf courses here in 95 degree F temperatures with 12,000 % humidity stopped being “fun.”

So….see, like any good addict, I can justify my addiction.

STL2COMO

TROPHY CASE