Several questions from a newbie

I'm looking at Orion's site and catalog. I'm aware they don't have the
absolute best, but for the money spent they are said to give excellent
value in return.

1) The mount. I'd rather get a Losmandy G11, but can't justify that
much expense at the moment. So I'm looking at the Orion Atlas and
Orion Sirius. The Atlas is beefy and apparently not recommended for
portable gear. The Sirius, however, is, at least according to the
blurbs.

I've got an 8 inch Newtonian from Orion, got it in a package with the
SkyView Pro mount, which is obviously inadequate for any form of
astrophotography (no guidescope provisions, etc). And I'm thinking
about getting Orion's guidescope package to mount on the 8 incher.

So will the Sirius mount work well for me, or do I really need the
Atlas? Also, I'm given to understand that the Atlas is quiet in its
slewing movements; is the same true of the Sirius?

What am I completely missing in all this?

2) Viewing (and photography?) filters: Orion has the Skyglow filter
and the Ultrablock narrow band filter. They show DSLR shots using the
SkyGlow filter, although nothing with the Ultrablock. And I've read
conflicting reports and comments about the two, and about such filters
in general.

My situation is that I live on the north shore of the Olympic Peninsula
in Washington State, and there is sky glow from Seattle as well as from
surrounding towns. Clear dark skies on the west end. When it isn't
raining, that is, which it does a *lot* (no vampires as far as I know,
though...) But that's a couple hundred miles away, so I'm more or less
limited to where I live. Don't know if anyone reading here is familiar
with the area, but I can say that I can make out the Milky Way on clear
nights (when it isn't raining, that is), but just barely.

Which of the above filters would work better for me? Or do they do
quite different things? Or would either of them be worth getting?

Again, what am I completely missing in all this?

3) I'm still confused about astrophotography with regard the size of
the target of choice. Obviously Andromeda needs a wide view, but what
of the much smaller objects? I can pull Orion fairly well and fill a
Plossl at 100x; using an ocular isn't prime focus photography, but is
eye-piece photography that bad a practice? Seems to me that image size
in the field of view as against optical degradation is worth
considering. Are some of the astrophotos I see actually taken with
oculars, or are they blowups of smaller images? Can someone explain all
this to me, please?

Yeah, I know I must be missing something completely here, but what?

4) When viewing with an 8" reflector, I'm not going to get any color in
any case. Are the planet filters worth having? Do they really allow
that much more detail to be seen? What experiences have readers had
with these, if any?

That's enough for now.

Thanks to all for reading, and thanks to all responders.

Longfellow