>>3299376Well first off, yes, astrophotography is something you can spend arbitrary amounts of money on. You need to either a.) be rich, or b.) be willing to prioritize, save money, buy used, and so on.
That said. What equipment you want strongly depends on what you want to photograph. The moon and planets are fairly bright, but the moon has lots of detail and planets are tiny, so you need a long focal length but don't care if its slow. (note: astronomy types usually say "focal ratio" for what we would call maximum aperture or lens speed. What they call aperture is closer to what we would think of as filter size - the diameter of the front element.When you're observing visually and can't adjust exposure time, this, rather than f-number, determines how much light you get and the dimmest things you can see.)
These attributes, however, make a telescope suboptimal or useless for lots of "deep sky" astro (nebulae, galaxies, etc), which tend to be significantly larger but vastly dimmer. For those you want something shorter in focal length but faster.
For everything you want to pay careful attention to the mount - it's common to spend more on a mount than on a telescope. Altazimuth mounts (think a cheap pan-and-tilt tripod head) are no good for astrophotography, even the fancy "fork mount" versions, which are common on some kinds of telescope. You need an equatorial mount (as shown in your image) and you need one that has a load capacity of much more than what you put on it, and that can meet much more demanding standards of tracking than are needed for visual observing.
Also very nearly all of Europe has pretty bad light pollution. This isn't a big deal for the moon and planets, but makes it difficult to impossible to do deep-sky stuff. If you've any interest in nebulae or galaxies you should expect to have to hop in your car and drive to somewhere as far away from civilization as you can reasonably reach.
