The idea was to not compromise on either - the quality of optics, or the needed accessories.

I formulated my goal in familiarizing myself with  all the major planets, constellations and star clusters within our galaxy, and larger neighboring galaxies. 

Task required either a set of powerful binoculars or an acceptable size telescope.

I approached the problem from both theoretical and practical perspectives, in two phases:

Phase one entailed a few weeks of reviewing basic principles of optics, terminology, types and prices of available equipment, communications with vendors, manufacturers and optical technicians, purchasing and reading few volumes on history and theory of astronomy etc. I also went over the last four years of major product reviews in leading astronomy magazines and ordered catalogues, some videos and samples of available products from leading telescope manufacturers, and talked to vendors and optics engineers in Russia, China, US and UK. And, having realized the depth of field of my ignorance ... came to some well founded conclusions :

1. Do not rely on labels as indications of origin or quality, as excellent (and not so excellent) optics are often made, labeled and sold by different parties.

2. If you buy mail order, make sure they take returns, no questions asked.

3. If you purchase at a local store, do not spend twice as much.

4. Provided the lenses and mirrors are the state of the art (and in this age of high-tech components do not be embarrassed to ask who and to what level of tolerances produced this or that lens or mirror, and with how many and which coatings -- as some anti-reflective coatings have excellent scratch-resistant properties, while others do not...), the larger the aperture and corresponding light gathering capacity of an instrument (diameter of the objective lens in a refractor, or primary mirror in a reflector), the more and with higher contrast resolution you may observe. The only limits here are budget and portability (more on that later).

5. The 'faster' the optics (the smaller the focal length to objective lens or primary mirror diameter ratio) the more wide field  astrophotography adept and, often (aside from Newtonians), more complex and expensive is the instrument. 

6. Be ware of X vs. Y, and 'best in it's class' product reviews. Who cares if X is better than Y, if Z is cheaper (or reasonably more expensive) and better than either. Who cares if X is best in it's class (of aperture, type of construction, or price), if no instrument in this 'class' will be adequate for the purpose (be it deep-space viewing or astrophotography), or will not be outgrown in six months time. Watch out for the double negatives and do not buy optics on basis of marketing eloquence alone.

7. Very few optics are of vari-focal nature allowing for optimal wide field of view astro- photography and high power of magnification narrow field of view observation. (Many professional models consist of a fast 'photo' telescope attached to another observational unit, which combo is outside of most budgets under $20,000). Even fewer allow for coupling with a medium format photo camera, such as a Pentax 6x7,  as opposed to a standard 35 mm.

8. In early days of serious amateur optics, the often accentuated difference was one between refracting (dioptric= utilizing lenses) and reflecting (catoptric or catadioptric= utilizing mirrors, or mirrors and lenses, respectively).

In the middle ages of telescopicing, when complex aberration correcting systems were advanced, primary distinctions were accentuated between the simpler large Newtonian tubes with their curved primary and flat secondary mirrors, and more complicated and portable Shmidt-Cassegrain (with parabolic mirrors) or Maksutov-Cassegrain (with spherical mirrors), or hybrids with spherical and parabolic primary and secondary mirrors and correcting menisci of varying aberration-correcting qualities... 

Now, it is the 'maintenance-free' versus 'cost-efficient' (dollars per unit of aperture) distinction that often delineates practical alternatives for the end user.

Most closed optical tube systems (refractors or reflectors with a front lens or a correcting meniscus) allow for maintenance-free use, with the total loss of light due to extra multi-coated glass element being less than a negligible 1%! Unfortunately, due to cost of extra components, closed optical tube systems are typically more expensive than  their Newtonian counterparts. If you don't mind cleaning, re-aligning and re-coating mirrors now and again, save money and buy a Newtonian.  I, unfortunately, prefer  the maintenance-free concept of  astro-navigation. 

Surprisingly, stargazing trips to clear skies locations made two points abundantly clear. 

First. Anyone who cares about practical astronomy will get out of the city light pollution (instead of splitting hairs and a gnat's ass by impressing themselves with how relatively well they can actually see through that smog...)
Amazingly, some people actually get paid to review professional optics systems just so...

Second. Binoculars are not an option but a 'must'!  -Why? After all, to many first time astro-optics purchasers it is not entirely obvious. When left behind occasionally star sprinkled city skies give way to shimmering vicissitudes of the glittering sea of a myriad heavenly wonders, the advantage of the wide angle binocular panorama becomes self-evident. 

Whether you do or do not ever obtain a serious telescope, a powerful pair of large aperture binoculars is a must and a panacea for anyone entering the field of stars.

A set of powerful binoculars, like Tasco 124 RB1, is essentially a set of two joined 70 mm refractor telescopes bringing to your mind's eyes (the visual cortex, if you will) an equivalent of light gathering quantity of an about 100 mm (4'') refractor telescope. Price-tag of a 100 mm apochromatic refractor is over $2,000.
And it will not give you quite the View. 
But I am getting ahead of myself.

Whatever the instruments, optics and accessories must suffice for the applications.

Optics:

Optics must allow to observe the desired range of stellar and planetary cosmos (be of substantially large primary aperture to not require periodic upgrading to larger models), and be of textbook perfect quality (for lack of contrast, coma or other avoidable optical defects negate the whole purpose of sky watching). Review of resolved galactic images suggested that 150 mm (6'') is the minimum of aperture which would allow for the high contrast and resolution viewing and astrophotography desired.

In light of the stipulated budget, this requirement displaced otherwise excellent apo-chromatic (corrected for 3 primary wave-lengths) refractors, as well as the less expensive (yet, too expensive) and portable catadioptric Cassegrain models from my consideration.

Accessories:

The system(s) should allow for uncompromised quality of stellar observation at full range of magnifications (and hence, include the requisite variety of eyepieces and barlow lenses to allow powers of magnification for planetary and stellar observation), as well as allow for serious astrophotography work (which, in addition to availability of a suitable camera with adapters, requires a sturdy tripod and an equatorially mounted motor drive.)

For one thousand dollars I had to find an optically perfect set of two instruments:

A. Giant binoculars (aperture of at least 70 mm), and
B. Closed tube maintenance free reflector telescope of no more than F10, of at least 150 mm unobstructed aperture, with tripod, equatorial mount, motor-drive, eyepieces and barlow lenses, included.

Please, don't take my word for it! Try it!