You buy what you need, not what your friends and pundits say they need. If I were starting over, mirrorless would make sense. I shoot some conference video... and use a video camera for that, just as an example.

Look, I like my A6000 kit and my wife has long used small Fujifilm walkaround cameras and has started playing with a Canon RP (she's an event photographer using mainly 6D and Canon L glass). But in the snow and rain, and for the little event photography (conferences, trade shows that I help run or cover) I do, my Pentax K3 and K1 are awesome; lenses (especially second-hand) are a bargain. Even my old Fujifilm x30 12 MP point-and-shoot is great. Sooner or later I'll probably add a more weatherproof body in the Alpha series -- an A6500 maybe.

I see no particular obsolescence. If I did sports photography, I'd up my own game with a full frame mirrorless, but the A6000 focuses fast enough. If I bought all lenses new, or if we were a lot younger, I'd be nervous about the eventual dominance of mirrorless. Geez, magazine print and web need smaller file sizes, not greater resolution. My wife had a museum exhibition (homeless with pets) a decade ago, shot with a 6 MP Pentax. Yeah, the pix (11x16 matted to 14x20) would be slightly sharper at 24 or 36 MP. She'd have had more freedom to crop. But how often do we need to push it?

I used a 124g with 120 and 220 film thru most of the 1970s, along with Pentax 35mm SLR. The 124 was terrific. Loaned it to an astronomer friend, who died suddenly. Realized a year later that I never got the camera back. Sigh. And sigh.

Fair explanation but not perfect. It is not the infinity. It is whether the object is seen in the scope as a point source of light - photons but not spread out across a visible surface. The bigger the scope, the more photons it collects. F ratio does not count, as noted.

Stars (except for our own sun) are point sources. Planets or gaseous nebulae are not.

Get a T-mount. Best solution, and a good one. I have an old Swift 3-inch, 1000mm focal length refractor. I machined a tube to screw into an M42 mount (my first SLR, a Miranda, has its own bayonet mount and an M42 thread), then made one for a Pentax T-mount 50 years ago, and added a T-mount for my wife's Canon digital equipment about a decade ago. On a refractor such as the Swift, these all work flawlessly.

These days, most telescopes are T-mount-ready. The only issue with the Meade, which is a catadioptric, is touchy focusing, no matter how you mate the camera to the telescope. Not surprised they don't carry their own T-mounts. They'd need to keep 20 different mounts in stock.

The focusing will be manual of course, and the camera sensor may not be quite where the eyepiece might be. If the camera has a focus confirmation mechanism (zebra, red dot, whatever) it may get confused by the cat's center-mirror obstruction -- should work, but there are strange mirror coatings and lighting situations out there. So test carefully for infinity.

At Swift (where I worked in high school as an optical technician in the early 1960s), we used to focus on brick chimneys as much as a half-mile away to test equipment we were repairing or customizing. Once you test and get used to the rig, you will have a ball.

I've helped a lot of amateurs who just pulled stuff together and went off in the dark, or into the desert to focus on eagle nests. Sometimes it all works first time... sometimes it doesn't.

Brighter is better. Coatings and optics (roof or porro prisms, etc) matter. But binoculars meant for night use, like 7×50, aren't any brighter than 7x35 if you use them in daylight. The cone of light from eyepiece is wider at 7x50 than your pupil in daylight.

Indeed, the Swift 8x44 "Audubon" was very popular despite the weight. The extra objective lens diameter didnt matter in bright light but helped in shadow.

I used to repair binocs for Swift. Divide objective diameter by power to get exit pupil diameter. Thus 8x42 is 5.25 mm, which matches pupil in early dusk light, 7x50 = 7mm, max pupil size in darkness, 6x30 or 7x35= 5mm matching daylight pupil maximum.

I faced the same issue and stuck with K1. I o ly need.the shift doing studio.work. tripod fine. But also did not like the aggressive noise reduction on the K2

I have the Tamron-badged Pentax FA version and use it on a full-frame K1. I think it is a generation behind the new Sony E version. It is terrific. Not quite as good on the edges at F/2.8 as my wife's Canon 24-70 (used on an R and a 6D) and not as fast-focusing (the FA uses the camera's motor). But smaller, lighter, cheaper. I don't see a difference even at F/4 but the Pentax has more pixels to start with. Both are contrasty, low flare.

Nice. I note that you were using a kit lens (I have one). Bought my first SLR in high school in 1962 for what was then enormous amount of money... $128. Miranda, with a proprietary mount plus M42 thread. Still have it and use it. I'm amazed at our progression.

I have the Pre-ll K1. Not QUITE as happy with K1 Mll noise handling at high ISO. Love it. And you can use it to pound nails if you lose your hammer.

I knew there was an advantage in sticking to Pentax for my FF. Doesnt look like there will ever be a successor to provoke GAS.

Indeed, from the elevated rail platform above 125th. Use a long lens.

Go at dusk

125th St near Apollo Theater. BTW, Chinatown picture reminded me. Shoot after a recent rain, or during (I have Pentax...) to catch the reflections. City is converting street lamps to LED, so check your balance or shoot RAW.