I own a Meade LDX-55 AR6 6" Refractor.
It has the autostar system, which will automatically point to the correct star or planet you want to look at.
It works real nice, the only thing you have to be able to do is align the scope and calibrate it wherever you set it up (you have to align the tripod mount with true north and the autostar software has to calibrate itself by finding 2 stars and you have to look through the optics and 'fine aim' the star in the center of the optics).
The autostar will not only find the star or planet, but will also 'track it' , so you dont have to keep moving the scope. Very good for astrophotography.
Im an idiot and I havent been able to set the scope's autostar to work at home, but I took it to a stargazing event and an old vet set my scope up for me... WOW.
Just remember that there's different kinds of telescopes out there, just looking for a computerized one wont do much good if you're using a small telescope or a scope that isnt a good choice for what you want to see.
In general, ,you want to have the biggest aperture telescope you can get. Aperture=better viewing.
Depending on what you're interested in seeing, you choose the telescope type.
There's 3 'basic' factors that affect a telescope's performance:
Focal Ratio: Commonly reffered to as the 'speed' of the telescope. In laymans terms, A telescope with a low ("fast") focal ratio offers lower powers and a wider field of view. When using the telescope for astrophotography, smaller focal ratios mean shorter exposure times. Just the opposite is true for larger focal ratios ("slow" telescopes): higher magnifications but the field of view is more limited. And exposure times for pictures tend to be longer.
So if you want to take pictures, go for a fast telescope.
Aperture: The bigger the aperture, the more light your telescope gathers which means you get a better picture and get to see objects that are farther away. For example, you can easily see jupiter with a 10 inch telescope...but you'll have a hard time seeing Jupiter with a 3 inch telescope. The 3 inch just doesnt gather enough light coming from jupiter.
Resolution & Color : This is a biggie. Some telescope types, because of the way they gather light, will give you higher resolutions (better image quality) than others. Some telescope types have color problems (false colors displayed due to lenses used), some give you a balance of both. Read telescope types below.
Scope types:
Reflector telescopes (Newtonians) are the best bang for the buck. They usually have big apertures at low cost. The only drawbacks to these telescopes is that they require constant maintainance (align mirrors, dismantle scope all the time, clean it, etc), so if you're savvy with mechanical and optical stuff you'll want to get this scope.
Reflectors do not provide a high image quality like other scope types below do, but they make up for it big time thanks to the aperture size they offer and they have no color issues. Reflectors also tend to be 'fast' telescopes.
Good: Big aperture cheap, no color problems, 'fast' telescope.
Bad: Constant maintainance. While the image quality is GOOD, its not what you would want if you are into astrophotography.
Refractor Telescopes: Refractors use lenses instead of mirrors. This means you pretty much never have to open the telescope and never have to align any internal parts unless you somehow manage to shake something loose inside (like, you drop the telescope!). Refractors have one sole advantage over the other scopes: Image quality. The images taken from a 6" refractor will beat a 10" newtonian hands down, no questions asked. However, the refractor does have 2 big drawbacks: Its expensive (a 6" refractor costs a bit more than a 10" reflector) and the refractor suffers from false colors. False colors appear only in the 'aura' of planets or stars, its not like you're gonna see the moon in pink hues or jupiter as a big ball of green and purple. For serious astronomers the color issue is a downer, but there are special refractors which are free of this problem...but they cost thousands of dollars more. For the common enthusiast, color abberration in the aura of a star or planet aint a big deal.
For photography, the refractors tend to be slower. While reflectors are usually F3 or F4 speeds, ,the refractors start around F6 through F8. So if you want to take pictures with a refractor you need a decent auto-tracking mount
Good: Excellent image quality, practically maintainance-free.
Bad: Color problem, expensive aperture size compared to reflector. Slower speeds
Casselgrains: The casselgrain is like a combination of reflector and refractor. Theres the Schmidt-Casselgrain which you can consider as a reflector telescope that has much much better image quality (but not to par with a refractor yet) at the cost of speed (schmidts begin at F4 through F10 usually). The Matsukov-Casselgrains oth, are more like a refractor scope that has much bigger aperture..again, at the cost of speeds. Matsukovs are generally slow bellybutton scopes, but if you have a good mount, they are gold for picture taking.
Theres other scope types out there, but they are usually the 'giant' types that you wont be able to carry around or store in your home easily.
Choose a good mount with auto-tracking, without it no matter what scope you put on it, its going to suck if your mount sucks. A good mount can make a sucky telescope perform better at picture taking than an expensive proffessional scope mounted on a crappy mount.
Personally I reccomend the scope I bought. The AR-6 LXD-55 from meade is real nice for begginers. Lets you take pictures and see the planets and the moon in awesome detail.
