Skywatcher vs Celestron?

[PyxisPup]

Living in the USA, I am finding Skywatcher telescopes as recommended to be very expensive.  Is that due to optical quality or import fees to the country?  Starting prices are about $1000usd and that does not include shipping, or any accessories.

  Since my state has no stores that sell telescopes I will have to buy online, which is very difficult to make expensive decision.

The astronmical society at a University is 50 miles away and their meeting place ( dark skies) is over 100 miles from my home.  I'm fortunate to live in a dark sky area so my front porch is where I will set up a telescope.  The down side is not having people to talk to and learn from easily.     Yes, there are cheap "toy like" scopes at a Costco or Walmart but they seem a complete waste of money since my binoculars are probably better quality.

The stores that Celestron has on their site for NM are no longer in business or have changed to " a couple in stock used for sale" and now they only sell cameras.  I guess the economy is not condusive to the hobby here in my state.  Ironic since we're pretty much a dark sky state with only a few cities causing light pollution.  The rest is Indian reservations.  I live at 7000ft above sea level on a mesa.

At this point, I am going to forget my idea photography or potential upgrading to something with a camera.  

My son told me he would be happy just to be able to see the surface of the moon, and nearby planets.   Should I also forget about something with go-to since it wouldnt be strong enough to see most of the items in the database? 

I was prepared to spend about $800 on a Nexstar 5 or 6SE  but really didn't want to jump into the $1200 range.  Then I saw this one,  Celestron Advanced VX 6 SCT and $1200 didn't seem out of the question.

http://www.skiesunlimited.com/Celestron-Advanced-VX-6-inch-Schmidt-Cassegrain-Telescope.html

Any advice appreciated.  I know my dellimma is a common one with newcomers to the hobby.

Kind regards & Clear Skies!

 

[ronin]

I would suspect it is more to do with import fees. Over here (UK) Skywatcher are less the Celestron in general. They are both the same under the skin asn Celestron = Skywatcher = Synta and the range is amazingly similar if you dig down a bit.

Most goto's have more items then they can possibly see, nothing unusual. It is likely that they use the same database on big and small scopes and the more they advertise the better it looks - people are impressed by numbers. Also they probably just buy a defined database and drop it into their software.

Additionall items will have more then one identifier - messiers will have an NGC, stars have names, SAO, HIP and up to 3 other designations. Look up Betelguese for the fun of it. Ownig to multiple designations a 30,000 item database could be just 5000-6000.

From the post I assume you are in NM, try this for clubs: http://www.go-astronomy.com/

NM has 11 clubs so not too many but if possible you have the join the Roswell one I suppose. :grin:

If visual will be the only aspect then an Alz/Az mount would be easier, and if Alt/Az then you may as well look at goto.

As muchas goto they track the object.

If photography will come into it at any time then an equitorial mount is required and again goto is very useful as you need to track and tracking comes as part of teh package.

So really these days goto is getting to be normal and useful.

The scope link is nice but an SCT has a narrow field of view, and that can prove a bit of a problem, especially initially. But once understood and mastered it will be useful for many years. The SCT shown would be OK for also dropping a webcam into and imaging planets. You take a video of the planet then stack the good frames.

I like refractors and would suggest something like an ES AR102, easy to use although there will be some chromatic aberration on bright objects. It should delive 120x magnification with a 5mm eyepiece and that is enough for Saturn, Jupiter needs less and the Moon is simply big to start with. But as said I like refractors so I am a little bias.

If any of the clubs are close then get along to one and have a look.

A lot depends on expectations and waht it is that is expected to be seen.

[PyxisPup]

Thank you so much.  The link to the clubs is useful but unfortunately all would require hours of drive to get to since New Mexico is a vast state.   I also appreciate the info on the optical quality. 

Bottome line is - buying a telescope is a daunting process. 

[ronin]

Buying a telescope is or can be difficult. I was easy, if it wasn't a refractor I didn't care.

The problem of a refractor is they do many aspects well but are "out gunned" on single aspects. The old saying "Jack of all trades, master of none." However that is what I prefer.

The hiccup of an SCT is that narrow field. Means that manually locating anything is (especially at first) a bit of a problem, keeping it in view is a problem. SCT and Maks really do need to be on a goto. However that narrow field of view carries over to the goto.

To set up a goto you start from some initial position, on a Meade it is level and North, the scope presumes perfectly level and North. Now assume you are 2 degrees off perfect, when the scope goes to the first alignment star it will be 2 degrees off and in a field of view of plus/minus half a degree the star is out out view. So would have to have the finder accurately aligned with the main scope to complete alignment, or alignment fails.

A reflector - Newtonian - will collect more light, the mirror is bigger.

An SCT/Mak will deliver more magnification, keeping the magnification low could be the real problem.

People "like" bigger and more, a refractor is smaller then a reflector and delivers less magnification then a SCT/Mak so gets ignored.

On a US forum they once said the best all round scope was an 80mm ED refractor. Small, easy, will see 98% of everything, good optics. I have a 90mm ED refractor (pretty close) I will never be parted from it.

As long as you appreciate the "downside" of the SCT you linked to then it will be a good scope.

However a goto is not automatic, the computing power in it is miniscule - forget Smartphone think Abacus.

You have to do some bits and you have to supply correct data - it will be wrong at first.

Nearest club may be an hour away but consider it as an option, seeing scopes in use is a big advantage.

Really all anyone can do otherwise at this stage is offer an opinion which may not be the best answer.

If you get one then come back and ask!

Ask just about anything, people here will supply the data you need to enter and any other strange and weird bits you need to know.

[hullobservertory]

I bought celestron 15x70 binoculars on amazon and I saw the moon surface a tripod is needed though bit heavy lol but are good for beginners

[riklaunim]

Celestron and SkyWatcher are brands owned by Synta so they are almost one company To some extent the USA Orion company is reselling some Synta/SkyWatcher equipment so you will have to check them in the first place. Celestron as native to USA have been left nearly untouched and not it's used for SCTs and electronics - like cameras.

[Cornelius Varley]

Many of Orion Telescopes and Binoculars products are rebranded Skywatcher products http://www.telescope.com/

[Chekov]

I recently bought my first telescope as well and was facing a similar question: Do I want a Celestron NexStar SE5/6 or a SkyWatcher SynScan 127. In the end I went with the Sky-Watcher because it offers more bang for the buck (the 6 being out of the total price range I set for myself). Here in the Netherlands, the Sky-Watcher is around 300€ cheaper then the NexStar SE5 which left me with more money for good equipment (the Baader Hyperion Zoom eyepiece is really nice ;-) ).

Below some of the stats I had a look at, maybe they will help you as well:

Meade ETX 90

Focal Length: 1250.00 mm

Aperture: 90.00 mm

F-Number: 13.89

Angular Resolution: 1.29"

Minimum Magnitude: 19.54

Maximum Magnification: 135.00x

Optimum Magnification: 30.00x

Minimum Magnification: 12.86x

Maximum Eyepiece: Focal Length: 9.26 mm

Optimal Eyepiece: Focal Length: 41.67 mm

Minimum Eyepiece: Focal Length: 97.22 mm

 Celestron NexStar 4SE

Focal Length: 1325.00 mm

Aperture: 102.00 mm

F-Number: 12.99

Angular Resolution: 1.14"

Minimum Magnitude: 20.17

Maximum Magnification: 153.00x

Optimum Magnification: 34.00x

Minimum Magnification: 14.57x

Maximum Eyepiece: Focal Length: 8.66 mm

Optimal Eyepiece: Focal Length: 38.97 mm

Minimum Eyepiece: Focal Length: 90.93 mm

 Celestron NexStar 5SE

Focal Length: 1250.00 mm

Aperture: 125.00 mm

F-Number: 10.00

Angular Resolution: 0.93"

Minimum Magnitude: 21.18

Maximum Magnification: 187.50x

Optimum Magnification: 41.67x

Minimum Magnification: 17.86x

Maximum Eyepiece: Focal Length: 6.67 mm

Optimal Eyepiece: Focal Length: 30.00 mm

Minimum Eyepiece: Focal Length: 70.00 mm

 Sky-Watcher Skymax-127

Focal Length: 1500.00 mm

Aperture: 127.00 mm

F-Number: 11.81

Angular Resolution: 0.91"

Minimum Magnitude: 21.26

Maximum Magnification: 190.50x

Optimum Magnification: 42.33x

Minimum Magnification: 18.14x

Maximum Eyepiece: Focal Length: 7.87 mm

Optimal Eyepiece: Focal Length: 35.43 mm

Minimum Eyepiece: Focal Length: 82.68 mm

[John]

Hello Chekov and welcome to the forum

I believe the actual useable aperture of the 127mm maksutov-cassegrain is 120mm, maybe a little less ?. It's still a very good scope though.

Your minimum magnitude figures are a little optomistic I think !

[Earl]

How do Meade price up in comparision?

[hullobservertory]

I got celestron skymaster bins and they are good for beginners but I think so far all astronomy stuff is reasonable priced

[Chekov]

@John: Thanks :-) I know the numbers are the more optimistic once, I chose them because I tried to reproduce the results of a nice eye piece comparison website ;-)