148 replies to this topic

[Echolight]

I'll take the other side. I say, resist the temptation. They're cooler to look at than look through. A decent 10" dob with coma corrector will blow it away in almost every department.

But I want to be Galileo, not Newton.

 

And what's wrong with having a cool looking scope. A a big telescope that looks like a telescope should.

 

Plus, I'm not sold on looking through the wrong end. And I'd have to go to 12" to get it at a comfortable height for either standing or sitting on a tall adjustable stool.

 

I might try and build one intl the future, when I need something to make it all new again.

[Echolight]

There is no doubt that a CR150 can be fun. I had one for 2-3 years. I just see that, as a beginner, the OP had a well-considered scope acquisition plan, but then got distracted by a pretty girl walking by. 

 

I think the best thing he can do is splash his face with cold water, let the infatuation pass for now, and stick with his original plan.

I'm getting a Nexstar 8SE instead of the dob for now. And to use as my grab and go.

 

The big refractor is a bit of a dream at the moment. I don't know if the seller will accept my offer. And I'll still have to build a pier and acquire a mount before I can look through it. It'll be a fun scope to use if the plan comes together.

[Echolight]

Actually, in my opinion, it is one of the least fun scopes to use one could ask for.

 

See, to use these for anything above the treetops, the mount has to be very tall, or otherwise, you will be sitting on the ground to view, and at zenith, you will be practically laying on the ground. 

 

And when you make the tripod tall enough to avoid having to sit on the ground it becomes very unstable and even focusing will induce very long period oscillations.

 

The blue you see from chromatic aberration may not be offensive, but it is the Matrix's way of telling you that the telescope is not working very well.  People talk about the effects of an obstruction, but the CA in a 6" f/8 does considerably damage than a 33% obstruction.  It is more like a 45% obstruction in terms of contrast loss. 

 

If you just love the way it looks though, hey, grab one.  Life is short and if you understand that these scopes can be very demanding on the mount to be comfortable and don't mind loosing a lot of contrast for planets, then give it a whirl. 

 

The 10" dob though will be superior in every way. 

 

And yeah, you need a coma corrector and more expensive eyepieces (well the second one is debatable).   Is that going to cost More than a good mount for the 6" f/8???? I don't think so....

I don't think a 10" dob will be superior in every way. There's those spikes. And the non-ajustable viewing height from the wrong end of the scope.

 

But I'll probably get a 12" dob down the road. I think the 12 will put the eyepiece at a more comfortable viewing height.

Edited by Echolight, 03 May 2020 - 02:34 PM.

[Echolight]

And if you buy the big expensive mount, you won't have anything to put your 5" MCT and small refractor on.. Oh, sure, you can put it on a mount big enough to hold the 6" refractor, but if you do that, I can pretty much promise you that you won't use them very much because a mount big enough to hold a 6" refractor steady is so big and heavy that you will not find it to be an appealing proposition if you just want to take out a small scope for a quick look around. 

 

So, this means that one day you say "I think I need a smaller mount for my small scopes" and the Ka-Ching of the register sounds in the background. So now you have a 6" scope that won't be as good on planets or DSO as a 10" Dob on a mount that is too big to be desirable to use for your smaller quick look scopes, so you have more than the cost of the telescope tied up in a mount that you will find painful to use after the novelty of the big refractor wears off and you keep asking yourself "Where's the beef!"  

From a purely practical standpoint, you could be correct.

But none of this has anything to do with practicality. It's all entertainment. There's no monetary value in any of it. It's value is spiritual or educational...and visual.

 

Besides, I'm getting an 8SE for my grab and go to start with. I don't think I'll need the Mak. Not sure I need the little refractor either.. Thinkin a cheap 100 or 120, f7-8, might be portable enough for a quick look. And a more versatile tool as well.

Edited by Echolight, 03 May 2020 - 02:50 PM.

[Echolight]

I've had my Skywatcher version for about 20 years. It replaced my older C8. This refractor presented much better images than just about any 8" SCT.  Even with chromatic aberration you will most likely get very good planetary views at relatively high magnifications in concert with good seeing conditions at say 200x (Jupiter) to 330x (Mars & Saturn). Eventually I paired this refractor with a Chromacor II which corrects most chromatic aberration which, simply put, could buy an additional sharpness of about 50x more on your magnifications. I don't think I'd ever part with this setup even though I have a couple of other scopes.

 

On an equatorial mount and the setting up that entails, I think you'll be pretty excited by what you can see. An AVX also has goto, which is nice especially at a dark site so you don't have to read charts with a red light.

 

I had a 10" Dob which was a bit cumbersome and I sold it. Different telescope designs to me seem to have a diiferent "quality" presentation which is indicative of its general individual design. I.E. refractor image, SCT image, etc.

 

You might want to consider larger wheels so they work well over rougher surfaces and grass.

 

Good luck with what you decide.

Yeah. I think the cart/wagon idea is better. Then I could use some larger pneumatic tires.

[John Huntley]

The good thing about these chinese 150mm F/8 achros is that they can be purchased cheaply on the pre-owned market so its quite possible to own one, have some fun with it and get that "big frac" buzz and the move it on without much impact on the wallet.

 

I seem to recall that the ones that I've owned (all pre-owned) cost $200 or less apiece as optical tubes.

Edited by John Huntley, 03 May 2020 - 06:49 PM.

[Echolight]

The deal fell through. I called the old man, who is 94, and he told me he still had it. But when I got there it was gone. I guess he forgot.

 

Made an offer on an old Synta 120 tube only with a ding or two that he was asking $250 for, and a couple of extra pieces just to help him out. I didn't really want it. And luckily he declined.

 

So maybe I'll be looking at a new 120 or 127. But I don't quite get the same buzz about those. Although they are much more grab and go.

Edited by Echolight, 03 May 2020 - 07:31 PM.

[MalVeauX]

Heya,

 

You will be delighted with the visuals from a 120~127mm ED refractor. Lifetime scope for all subject matter and reasonable to mount.

 

The 150mm achromatic doublet sounds great for DSO, but when you point it at a lot of things and see the swamp of CA you will see why these sell for cheap. They're awesome for narrowband imaging, and can be fun visually, but they are poorly corrected for color and the CA is all over with bright subjects. Plus they're enormous to mount. I only recommend them to narrowband imagers frankly. I think for visual, a 120 ED is way superior for almost anything visually. I think if you really care to have a 150mm refractor that is an achromat, the F5 and F6.5 variants are even better for wide FOV and low power where CA is less obvious for DSO sweeping. These are no good for solar system visual other than narrowband. The 150 F8 typically has a lens cap that stops it down to 120mm F10 and it still has CA.

 

That said, I love my 150mm F8 achromat. I use it for narrowband imaging and some minor visual. Mounting it is similar to mounting an 200mm F6 newtonian. I have an observatory and mount it permanently in there often for imaging (solar). I also use it manually on a Twilight II with my 200mm F6 newt and that mount can handle both at the same time (its a beast for a mobile mount).

 

Mobile mount (Twlight II) with 150mm F8 & 200mm F6 (they're similar weight and size!)

 

 

On the observatory mount with GoTo (usually this is for narrowband imaging, solar); and this is the 150mm F8 with its 80mm F5 companion for comparison.

 

 

For visual, I would suggest a 120~127mm ED instead.

 

Very best,

Edited by MalVeauX, 03 May 2020 - 10:01 PM.

[SeattleScott]

Of course a 120-127 ED would cost much more.

[Echolight]

Heya,

 

You will be delighted with the visuals from a 120~127mm ED refractor. Lifetime scope for all subject matter and reasonable to mount.

 

The 150mm achromatic doublet sounds great for DSO, but when you point it at a lot of things and see the swamp of CA you will see why these sell for cheap. They're awesome for narrowband imaging, and can be fun visually, but they are poorly corrected for color and the CA is all over with bright subjects. Plus they're enormous to mount. I only recommend them to narrowband imagers frankly. I think for visual, a 120 ED is way superior for almost anything visually. I think if you really care to have a 150mm refractor that is an achromat, the F5 and F6.5 variants are even better for wide FOV and low power where CA is less obvious for DSO sweeping. These are no good for solar system visual other than narrowband. The 150 F8 typically has a lens cap that stops it down to 120mm F10 and it still has CA.

 

That said, I love my 150mm F8 achromat. I use it for narrowband imaging and some minor visual. Mounting it is similar to mounting an 200mm F6 newtonian. I have an observatory and mount it permanently in there often for imaging (solar). I also use it manually on a Twilight II with my 200mm F6 newt and that mount can handle both at the same time (its a beast for a mobile mount).

 

Mobile mount (Twlight II) with 150mm F8 & 200mm F6 (they're similar weight and size!)

 

 

On the observatory mount with GoTo (usually this is for narrowband imaging, solar)

 

 

For visual, I would suggest a 120~127mm ED instead.

 

Very best,

Thanks for the encouragement.

 

It was a bit of a letdown. But I'll probably be better off with a new 120mm anyway.

 

Don't know about ED though. Was planning to pair it with a Nextron 8SE. And if bought new, an achro would be getting close to my envisioned budget before I even added any extras.

[MalVeauX]

Thanks for the encouragement.

 

It was a bit of a letdown. But I'll probably be better off with a new 120mm anyway.

 

Don't know about ED though. Was planning to pair it with a Nextron 8SE. And if bought new, an achro would be getting close to my envisioned budget before I even added any extras.

Keep in mind, a 150mm F8 achromat is fast for that aperture, so the CA is pretty profound. It's CA ratio is 1.33. This is similar CA you'd see in 80mm F4.5 or 100mm F5, etc. These are great for low power sweeping in DSO, but for anything bright, any solar system subject, double stars, or specifically studying a particular star, the CA is profound.

 

If it really must be a refractor, I would stress either a longer focal-ratio (which then puts huge emphasis on a much better mount, off-setting any cost savings), or going with an ED model....

 

If that's too expensive, go to a mirror, where a 150mm F6 newtonian is $200.

 

A 150mm F8 achromatic is really a niche telescope, not for everything. Mine is mounted most of the time. But again, I use it for its strength which is narrowband imaging. I don't recommend it as a visual scope honestly.

 

Very best,

Edited by MalVeauX, 03 May 2020 - 10:11 PM.

[SeattleScott]

The CA is mainly just a problem with bright stars and planets. For DSO, using typical moderate magnification as appropriate for a 6” scope, the CA is pretty much a non-issue other than Pleiades. And even then it still does great on Pleiades because it can actually frame it in the view.

However a 6” F8 achro isn’t really a great compliment to an 8” SCT. On most targets the views will be more similar than different. A 4” Apo would make more sense as a grab and go scope for quick sessions or wide field views. Or possibly a 6” F5 newt.

Scott

[Echolight]

Well, this 6" achro is pretty much dead in the water for now anyway.

 

Looking at the 4.7? 120 f8.3. Which I guess would be a little slower than a 150 with similar focal length ratio?  I'll have to look up the formula for that.

 

For new, Celestron seems to be the only game in town in f/8.3, with the Omni XLT.

 

The CG4 tripod that the XLT 120 comes with is probably a little light.

 

The Meade LX85 looks to be higher rated at 33 pounds, for not a lot more money. $699 with Go-to. But their 127 scope package($999) is an f5.8. 

And their rep with Go-to hasn't been stellar.

 

As far as grab and go. I don't know that the 8se or 120 f/8 would be terribly inconvenient. Sure the 4" would be easier to carry to the car. But too big for a backpack or carry-on.

And the 120 is already a substantial step down as far as portability from the 150 f/8.

 

But I won't rule out the 100mm. It does make sense as far as not overloading the smaller tripods. It might be right where I really want to be.

 

Not really interested in a newt right now..or a dob. Right or wrong. Eventually, a 12" sounds about right.

 

Oh.,..and MalVeauX, I love your solar photos. Makes me want to plan for attempting something like that. And I believe a few of those shots were taken with 120 and 150 achros if I'm not mistaken?

Edited by Echolight, 03 May 2020 - 11:55 PM.

[jag767]

It really depends what you want it for. Nothing wrong with a specialized instrument if it fits the bill. I'm very happy with my 6" f5.9, particularly because it does exactly what I hoped it would and then some.

The whole CA debate is so subjective since not everyone sees or observes the same. The compounding factor is most of us deal with varied levels of sky conditions/light pollution. Myself, I unfortunately deal with some of the worst light pollution ( 'burbs outside of Manhattan), and it makes this hobby look very different here than for others with more optimal situations. I guess I'd rather have some CA on a larger rig and have things to see than have a hard time seeing anything at all in smaller setup that could be had with the same dollars.

If you like low magnification wider field views, other than some off color stars (that many have commented they quite enjoy) it is a wonderful tool. Even on the moon, theres a lot of visible detail, CA or not. For years I had been brainwashed achro=bad, since they tend to get vilified for their weaknesses. Add to that the often cited perils of mounting a 6" refractor, and the not so easy setup, it's enough to push a big refractor out of the running when considering a new purchase. Again, all of that is very subjective.

I guess my point is there's no way to really know if it's for you til you actually pull the trigger. Obviously it's for some of us, or they wouldn't still be making them, lol.

[MalVeauX]

Well, this 6" achro is pretty much dead in the water for now anyway.

 

Looking at the 4.7? 120 f8.3. Which I guess would be a little slower than a 150 with similar focal length ratio?  I'll have to look up the formula for that.

 

For new, Celestron seems to be the only game in town in f/8.3, with the Omni XLT.

 

The CG4 tripod that the XLT 120 comes with is probably a little light.

 

The Meade LX85 looks to be higher rated at 33 pounds, for not a lot more money. $699 with Go-to. But their 127 scope package($999) is an f5.8. 

And their rep with Go-to hasn't been stellar.

 

As far as grab and go. I don't know that the 8se or 120 f/8 would be terribly inconvenient. Sure the 4" would be easier to carry to the car. But too big for a backpack or carry-on.

And the 120 is already a substantial step down as far as portability from the 150 f/8.

 

But I won't rule out the 100mm. It does make sense as far as not overloading the smaller tripods. It might be right where I really want to be.

 

Not really interested in a newt right now..or a dob. Right or wrong. Eventually, a 12" sounds about right.

 

Oh.,..and MalVeauX, I love your solar photos. Makes me want to plan for attempting something like that. And I believe a few of those shots were taken with 120 and 150 achros if I'm not mistaken?

Heya,

 

The 120mm F8.3 is a pretty good scope too, easier to mount than a 150mm F8, lighter, much easier to use in that way. It also has less CA, but it still has CA on bright objects. I have this scope too and visually I like it better than my 150mm F8, largely due to being light and less CA. I use it for planets mostly. I have a 120mm F5 (lots of CA) for low power DSO sweeping and love it for that job. But the 120 F8.3 is a good inexpensive way to get refractor views on planets and all that, plus deep space, without breaking the bank and is friendly to eyepieces with that long focal length.

 

The 120 F8.3 is still no slouch to mount though, typical mounts for 80~102mm fracs for grab & go are not sufficent for this scope. This scope is quite long and while a mount head can handle the weight, its not the weight that matters so much as the length. It generates a big moment arm and so it will bounce and wobble on lesser mounts and after mounting it on several things, it really does come down to the legs of the mount. For example I tried using the 120 F8.3 on a Twilight 1 (stock) and it was not usable, it simply couldn't handle it, it wobbled forever. I changed the legs to beefier legs and it improved but was still too much scope for that mount head. Well, I recently put that mount head into a cinder block pier and now the head of the Twilight 1 on a pier (no legs) can boss my 120mm F8.3 around, totally different mount head on a pier, the instability was the legs each time. Funny how that worked out.

 

The CG4 can hold the 120mm F8.3 totally fine with its head, but the weak point is the tripod/legs. I think if you want a pair of legs under a tripod for a 120mm F8.3 class scope, an EQ5 mount or Twilight II class mount really is unfortunately where you need to go if you want a smooth wobble free experience. I know that seems a lot for a mount for a cheaper scope, but these 120 F8.3's are no joke for mounting and while you can mount it on less, it will wobble and bounce on most heads with tripod legs and its all preference of course, but focusing a long focal length while it's bouncing around on a planet is no fun and by the time it settles it's out of the FOV. This scope behaves so nicely when mounted properly and it's a very pleasing view when its steady and held rigid.

 

A 102mm frac (F7 to F9) is a lot easier to mount. The AT102ED is a very friendly visual scope and easier to mount. Always a compromise.

 

Here's a 120mm F8.3 on a Twilight II next to a 200mm F6 Newt. The 120's are still big scopes and require rather beefy mounts for a pleasing experience (despite the weight, as they're light weight).

 

 

Here's the 120mm F8.3 on a Twilight I head mounted on a cinder block pier (cheap and extremely effective, bosses this scope around like a whole new mount when pier mounted) and a few examples of other scopes for reference (a 120mm F5 and a 127mm F12 Mak to show size differences):

 

 

 

++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++

 

So in the interest of having a mount that can handle the weight, length and size of larger scopes and still provide a nice pleasing experience, I would look into over-mounting them early on so if you change scopes you're not also changing mounts. Also, while still being portable and not requiring crazy setup or alignment stuff, you can look into a heavy duty alt-az mount with slow motion control. Check out a SkyTee2:

 

https://www.teleskop...adjustment.html

https://www.teleskop...nd-cameras.html

 

You can mount a 6" refractor on that, no problem. It'll handle a 8 inch newt too. It will handle 11 inch SCT. With a counter weight it will hold a 10" newt even.

 

Get a solid mount that is portable now and you'll no longer worry about what you can get in terms of a telescope and then just enjoy viewing with anything you want. No electronics to fail.

 

Very best,

[GOLGO13]

The Omni 120 xlt would be a nice scope. Get some Celestron vibration pads and that should take care of any shakiness in the mount.

[dusty99]

Echolight:  A C8 doesn’t go into the back seat of a car any easier than a 120mm f/8, and although you could get it into a big backpack you’d still have the mount to deal with.  I would encourage you to get your C8 with an AVX, not the SE mount, which is barely enough to hold a C6 steady in my opinion after a couple of years of using that combination.  Plus you could share that mount with a 120-130mm refractor.

[Echolight]

Heya,

 

The 120mm F8.3 is a pretty good scope too, easier to mount than a 150mm F8, lighter, much easier to use in that way. It also has less CA, but it still has CA on bright objects. I have this scope too and visually I like it better than my 150mm F8, largely due to being light and less CA. I use it for planets mostly. I have a 120mm F5 (lots of CA) for low power DSO sweeping and love it for that job. But the 120 F8.3 is a good inexpensive way to get refractor views on planets and all that, plus deep space, without breaking the bank and is friendly to eyepieces with that long focal length.

 

The 120 F8.3 is still no slouch to mount though, typical mounts for 80~102mm fracs for grab & go are not sufficent for this scope. This scope is quite long and while a mount head can handle the weight, its not the weight that matters so much as the length. It generates a big moment arm and so it will bounce and wobble on lesser mounts and after mounting it on several things, it really does come down to the legs of the mount. For example I tried using the 120 F8.3 on a Twilight 1 (stock) and it was not usable, it simply couldn't handle it, it wobbled forever. I changed the legs to beefier legs and it improved but was still too much scope for that mount head. Well, I recently put that mount head into a cinder block pier and now the head of the Twilight 1 on a pier (no legs) can boss my 120mm F8.3 around, totally different mount head on a pier, the instability was the legs each time. Funny how that worked out.

 

The CG4 can hold the 120mm F8.3 totally fine with its head, but the weak point is the tripod/legs. I think if you want a pair of legs under a tripod for a 120mm F8.3 class scope, an EQ5 mount or Twilight II class mount really is unfortunately where you need to go if you want a smooth wobble free experience. I know that seems a lot for a mount for a cheaper scope, but these 120 F8.3's are no joke for mounting and while you can mount it on less, it will wobble and bounce on most heads with tripod legs and its all preference of course, but focusing a long focal length while it's bouncing around on a planet is no fun and by the time it settles it's out of the FOV. This scope behaves so nicely when mounted properly and it's a very pleasing view when its steady and held rigid.

 

A 102mm frac (F7 to F9) is a lot easier to mount. The AT102ED is a very friendly visual scope and easier to mount. Always a compromise.

 

Here's a 120mm F8.3 on a Twilight II next to a 200mm F6 Newt. The 120's are still big scopes and require rather beefy mounts for a pleasing experience (despite the weight, as they're light weight).

 

 

Here's the 120mm F8.3 on a Twilight I head mounted on a cinder block pier (cheap and extremely effective, bosses this scope around like a whole new mount when pier mounted) and a few examples of other scopes for reference (a 120mm F5 and a 127mm F12 Mak to show size differences):

 

 

 

++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++

 

So in the interest of having a mount that can handle the weight, length and size of larger scopes and still provide a nice pleasing experience, I would look into over-mounting them early on so if you change scopes you're not also changing mounts. Also, while still being portable and not requiring crazy setup or alignment stuff, you can look into a heavy duty alt-az mount with slow motion control. Check out a SkyTee2:

 

https://www.teleskop...adjustment.html

https://www.teleskop...nd-cameras.html

 

You can mount a 6" refractor on that, no problem. It'll handle a 8 inch newt too. It will handle 11 inch SCT. With a counter weight it will hold a 10" newt even.

 

Get a solid mount that is portable now and you'll no longer worry about what you can get in terms of a telescope and then just enjoy viewing with anything you want. No electronics to fail.

 

Very best,

That Twilight II looks like a great option. Lightweight and hold a heavy payload.

 

The TS products don't appear to be available here.

 

I like the pier on it also. Was looking at elevator tripods for construction, because I like the idea of being able to raise or lower with the crank handle. But didn't see any that looked super sturdy.

Had considered getting a standard heavy duty tripod with large diameter legs and bolting a trailer jack on top.

 

The cinder block pier looks easy enough. I'm not ready to put in a permanent pier right now, but was contemplating a large diameter wooden pole,  railroad tie, or even a treated 6x6.

 

I also like the idea of the 127mm f/12 Mak. Or even the Skymax 150.

 

The Skywatcher comes with the 2" diagonal and eyepiece. Which it looks like you prefer. And I think I would also.

Edited by Echolight, 04 May 2020 - 01:09 PM.

[Echolight]

Echolight:  A C8 doesn’t go into the back seat of a car any easier than a 120mm f/8, and although you could get it into a big backpack you’d still have the mount to deal with.  I would encourage you to get your C8 with an AVX, not the SE mount, which is barely enough to hold a C6 steady in my opinion after a couple of years of using that combination.  Plus you could share that mount with a 120-130mm refractor.

That looks like a terrific mount!

I know there's a risk of electronics failing down the road. But for moon and planets I seem to have a hard time keeping up with their speed. And if I want to get into long exposue photography, it might be indispensable.

[Echolight]

I'm probably going to go ahead and buy a portable mount with tripod.

 

But thinkin I could put a secondary mount on this...somehow.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Eddgie]

From a purely practical standpoint, you could be correct.

But none of this has anything to do with practicality. It's all entertainment. There's no monetary value in any of it. It's value is spiritual or educational...and visual.

 

Besides, I'm getting an 8SE for my grab and go to start with. I don't think I'll need the Mak. Not sure I need the little refractor either.. Thinkin a cheap 100 or 120, f7-8, might be portable enough for a quick look. And a more versatile tool as well.

Then get both.. 

[Echolight]

Then get both.. 

I can't get both.... That would be too impractical.

 

Acually, I'm backtracking on the SCT idea.

 

I really wanted a big backyard behemoth refractor for my first telescope. No muss no fuss. And for me, I think a 6" f8 would be a plenty versatile viewing instrument.

 

Thinkin a whole lot about a new AVX 6". Maybe a skosh undermounted. But I'd sure appreciate the tracking for moon and planets. And should have a big enough FOV for bigger targets.

 

Then get a little refractor too...for AP maybe...on the avx. And grab and go. That avx mount is probably near beginner stage for that kind of work. But that's exactly what I am.

[GOLGO13]

If it's your dream I say go for it. Equatorial mounts do take a bit of setup. And this is a big scope. That would be things to be aware of.

I have looked through the 6 inch F8 and it was very nice for DSOs. A good amount of chromatic abberration on planets, but still a nice view.

A 120mm F8 scope would probably be better if planets and the Moon were the primary focus. But the 6 inch should give a little boost on dimmer objects.

Although a lot of people discourage these scopes, I think they can be quite nice for the right person.

[Rutilus]

The good thing about these chinese 150mm F/8 achros is that they can be purchased cheaply on the pre-owned market so its quite possible to own one, have some fun with it and get that "big frac" buzz and the move it on without much impact on the wallet.

 

I seem to recall that the ones that I've owned (all pre-owned) cost $200 or less apiece as optical tubes.

This is the way I have gone with my 6 inch f/8 scopes. Around my neck of the woods I see them going

for less than $200.

[Rutilus]

If it's your dream I say go for it. Equatorial mounts do take a bit of setup. And this is a big scope. That would be things to be aware of.

I have looked through the 6 inch F8 and it was very nice for DSOs. A good amount of chromatic abberration on planets, but still a nice view.

A 120mm F8 scope would probably be better if planets and the Moon were the primary focus. But the 6 inch should give a little boost on dimmer objects.

Although a lot of people discourage these scopes, I think they can be quite nice for the right person.

I have both the 150mm f/8 and its little brother 120mm f/8.3. What I like about the bigger scope is that I can use it 

with an aperture mask, so it becomes a 120mm f/10 scope while still having the option of being used at full aperture 

for DSOs.