George Gearless

Pretty much sums up my deliberations.

I did consider your recommendation. You supplied me with a precise answer to the question. Alas, not the one I was hoping for 😀. Here's my reasoning for going with the 180 afterall. An EQ6 would definately be more suitable for this telescope. Looking at the numbers on the datasheets, it's hard to disagree that I am juuuust hanging on with my fingernails. However, I am not fincancialy capable of buying both at the same time. In time I will be getting the EQ6. Some time in the future. But for now, I have to make a choice. Even if I am just scraping along, I feel confident that I will be getting a lot of useful viewing time out of it with my current mount. And here's the clinching argument: When I do get a better mount, I won't be 'stuck' with a 150 Mak and feel that I have compromized. I just know I will be kicking myself. If all goes well, I can probably afford a better mount in time for the next winter season to start. Worst case, it'll be next year. In the mean time I don't think my setup is completely useless. It's just not as good as it can be.

This one I'm buying doesn't have tube rings. It has a dovetail. I think that's what makes the weight difference. Edit: I obviously can't speak from experience, but it seems to me that the u-tube reviews I've seen, people are not unanimously happy about the dovetail. Since I'm already used to this way of mounting, it doesn't make much difference to me. Perhaps it's a question of 'religion', which you prefer. But it does seem to grant a weight advantage.

The datasheet sets the weight of the telescope at 7 kg. In itself, well within the 10kg limit the mount can handle. Add to that a DSLR (let's say 500g just be sure), a red dot finder or finderscope, diagonal mirror and eypiece, well, then I'm getting up there. The mount 'head' and the gears should be able to handle it for viewing. But it may be lacking in sturdiness with regards to AP. But if I take extra care to balance it perfectly, then I'm hoping to get off a shot or two. Granted, it's not ideal. But it's what I have.

Thanks a lot for the photos in your previous post. I presume they're taken with the 180? I'll probably need to upgrade my mount before I can match those photos. But that is financially not in the cards for the imminent future. But I'll be sure to see what can be achieved with what I've got (EQM35). If it fails miserably, then we'll at least have learned that :).

Yeah I know I am getting close to the limit. But I don't feel I'm pushing it. Will have to agree though that I do have to consider what I pile on top of it. However, I don't think it should be a problem putting on my DSLR. Not weight wise anyway. Whether or not I can get enough stability to take photographs, only time will tell. But I'll surely make the attempt.

I'll definitely be absorbing all the hints I can get with regards to dew. So your tip is duly noted. Although I don't have an actual observatory, I do have a walled of section of my unheated garage that I use as a workshop. As I am writing this, I am envisioning how I will make room to store my new telescope there. So it'll always be whatever temperature it is outside. Btw, will storing it in subzero temperatures harm it in the long run?

Thanks :). It'll be going on Skywatcher EQM-35 PRO:

It's done. I've placed the order for the 180 at FLO. Hurry up guys!! 😋

Thanks for all the helpful replies. I started with the AZ GTI Wifi mount and the Mak 127 that I bought as a package deal. I still use it occasionally when I just want to 'hop around' a bit and see what's up there. Don't think I'll ever sell it. You can pretty much bring this setup with you everywhere. Then I got a Skywatcher EQM-35 Pro mount because I wanted to get into astrophotography. It supports a 10 kg payload. The 180 weighs around 7, so I should be ok. And for DSO I got the AP 80/600 Evostar And then I got into trouble with my girlfriend :). Anyway, the next logical step towards poverty seemed to be a bigger Mak. I was just trying to assess the difference in the two as experienced by people and not just salivate over the numbers on the datasheet. I'm leaning towards the 180 simply because I fear to regret it later on if I 'only' get the 150. But I have to admit that the good inputs about the SCT's got me thinking about the Maks being a 'one trick pony'. A good point for sure. It just seems to me that the SCT's are rather expensive. For instance, the 6" Celestron costs around the same as the 180 (7") Mak. Ugh...things just got more complicated.

Hey guys. I am in the very fortunate positon to be able to 'burn' €670 that I received as a gift, and I want to upgrade my 127 Mak to either the Skywatcher 150 or the Skywatcher 180. If I go for the 150, I'll have money left over to spend on some extras. Maybe a dewshield, dewband, perhaps an eyepiece or whatever. If I go for the 180, I'll have to chip in another €80 of my own money and may need to postpone the purchase of any extras for a couple of months. So the question I'm hoping to get the answer to is this; is the 180 worth it? I mean, it's only 30 mm more. But will I be kicking myself in a couple of months for not going big when I had the chance? Is the 180 significantly better thant the 150 or only marginaly so? Does anyone here have hands on experience in comparing the two? And if not, I invite you to partake in my dilemma and offer a cent or two on the problem.

I did use it for imaging. My very first nebula (Orion) was caught with a Skymax127 and the AZ GTI mount. I'll be honest with you; it is not ideal for deepsky. However, the moon and planets is where the maksutov truly shines and the GTI follows them quite nicely. Well enough for some realy good photos at least. Unfortunately I don't have any pics to show you of the moon or planets. My endevours has been drawn to deepsky the past couple of months. And for that purpose I have primarily used my new equatorial mount and Skywatcher 80 apo-chromatic refractor. If you already have a AZ Goto Synscan, opting for the AZ GTI is not much of an upgrade to be honest. You'll get the same 'precision' (or lack there of) as the one you already have. The only upgrade you'll experience, is that the App is intuitively much easier to use. Finding objects, reading info and such. Aligning is also a bit easier, because you can choose the stars from a dropdown menu, rather that stepping back and forth on your handset. So in that respect, it's an upgrade. But that's about it. The downside of using an App, is that when you adjust your telescope, be it while alignment or just regualar adjustment, you can't 'feel' the buttons on the App. So you'll have to remove your eye from the eyepiece to look at the App, then back to the eyepiece, etc etc. It is much easier to operate a handset where you can feel the keys. You may improve upon your mount (or the GTI) by getting a wedge for it. I did not get it to work properly before I got my equatorial mount, so I can't realy comment on its usefulness. You'll need to download a firmware update so that your mount operates in EQ mode (it's free to download). But you'll need to mount your telescope the other way round. And since it's a Mak, with fixed dovetail, your finderscope will be at the bottom of the telescope. Quite awkward position. I'd still recommend it to 'newbies' without blinking an eye. It is by far the easiest grab n go mount that I have seen. The App on the phone is intuitively much easier to operate (sets the time and location automaticaly) and is stabil enough to service a Mak127 quite well. Sure, you'll start getting in trouble at high magnification with a Barlow. But that'll happen on any mount at some point. My recommendation to you is to not buy it. Not because it is bad, but because what you have is just as good. PS: Sorry about the late reply. I've been away and without internet (gasp) since thursday

Jeezus H Krajst those are some absolutely stunning photos! Agree with above poster that these or publishable photos. They definately deserve a wider audience than just the 'nerds' on this forum.

What a beautiful image. Very 'moody'. I like it.

I have the AZ GTI mount, but not that telescope. I use a Skywatcher 127 Maksutov. So I can't offer any hands on experience. But here's something you may want to consider: According to the datasheet of the 130PDS, it weighs 4 Kg. The AZ GTI mount says it can handle up to 5 kg. So in theory, that should be ok. But it's a tight fit, if you're considering adding anything else. Just thought I'd mention it, without realy knowing what you want to know. Edit: Forgot to mention that you can actualy fit a counterweight to the mount. That'll propably help stability if you're pushing the weight limit.

Hi Jonathan, and welcome. Enjoy your stay.

Could you even imagine doing something like that 15-20 years ago? Now imagine what you can achieve with 'proper' equipment that is readily available to be purchased over the internet. Btw, agree with Graeme that the moon is so much more interesting to watch in the shadows. You really get a 3D sense of the sphere. Although still beautiful to behold, the full moon is more a 2D disc and becomes more featureless because of the evenly distributed light.

Probably. But only when you slew at max speed. I suppose that goes for all mounts.

Good review. And as a owner of that same mount I see you noticed some of the same things that I did. There are however two points I think I'll mention: 1. The EQ download and the wedge poses problems for those who have a fixed dovetail mounting. Such as the Mak 127 that is often sold as a package with this mount. You must mount your telescope the 'wrong way round' in EQ mode, which leaves the finderscope at the bottom of the scope. Very awkward position. 2. I too on occasion pressed the wrong button on my app. Especialy when making adjustments. You cannot feel the buttons on your app, and will have to divert your eyes away from the eyepiece whenever you want to make an adjustment. Then back to the eyepiece. Rinse and repeat. Much easier with a handset that you can feel with your fingers. I downloaded the app from Appstore and did not encounter the problems you describe. I was pretty much 'plug and play' for me and found it intuitively easy to navigate in the menus. Something I am struggling with, with my handset. George

I don't feel competent enough to say what you can do better. In fact, I can't realy think of anything. But allow me to point out a few things that I think work very well in this forum format (in case you were thinking of removing them ? ) That you allow even newbies, such as myself, to upload pictures and thus bringing a strain on your bandwidth, is a big plus. It is also very easy and intuitiv to do even for a first timer. Making it so easy inherintly encourages people to do it in their threads. This livens up the thread tremendously instead of staring at a wall of text. Here's a picture of a firetruck ? The "like" and "thanks" buttons are extremely useful. In other forums I find myself compelled to write a bit more than just "thanks" if someone has responded to my post. Sometimes it's hard to come up with new reasons to say thanks. Clicking, and thereby sending your aknowledgement to the replyer, makes things so much easier. I bet people get a lot of aknowledgments and thanks that they would otherwise not have gotten. I would think that this encourages people to respond again to another thread, now that their effort are being appreciated. In the beginning I found that there were too many categories. But the more I delve into the subject of astronomy, the more I see the reason for the divide. It makes sense now. I also like the graphic design. The people in the forum is a chapter for itself (which I know is beond the control of the forum creaters). Rarely have I seen such a helpful bunch of people. The knowledge they collectively posses is staggering. And they share it readily just because they can. The forum is alive. The time I have to wait for a response to a post is usualy counted in hours (sometimes minutes). Not days. There's a free feeling of knowledge exchange which lessens my fear of saying something stupid or ignorant. If I haven't already, I most certainly will in the future ?.

I reluctantly agree with Olly. I say reluctantly, because despite the advice of my betters, I did pretty much what you are thinking of doing. In my own defense, I did not start out with the specific intention of getting into astrophotography. It just turned out that way :). I got a Skywatcher 127 Maksutov with an AltAz GoTo Wifi mount. Regardless of what I wrote above, I still maintain that it is a realy great mount (and telescope) at this pricerange. You will have hours and hours of fun with this setup. And yes, with a halfdecent digital camera and some T2 fittings, you will even be able to take some pretty cool pictures. Not only of the moon and planets (where the Mak truly shines) but also of nebulae and galaxies. Just know that your limit will be around the 20-25 second mark. Exposures longer than that, will start making trails and mess up your picture. But even with that exposure time, you can take some pretty great pictures and have a lot of fun doing it. I know *I* am :). Here are two pictures that I have taken of the same target (Orion nebula). One is taken with my AltAz Goto mount and the other is taken with an equatorial Goto mount. I feel confident that you will be able to determine which is which without help. These are not 'showcase' pictures. I am a true novice in astrophotography. They are just to show how big a difference there is, even to a beginner like me, between the AltAz and the equatorial mount. And keep in mind that a 127mm Mak is propably the least useful telescope for a target such as this. Still, I hope you get the picture (pun intended) :).

I think I've stumbled upon it before. And yes. It was very helpful.

True. But would that not also be the case if they didn't reverse the Dec motor? I genuinly applaud Skywatcher for making the EQ option. And to be honest, I'm quite excited about it. Reverse motor or not. I just found it odd that Skywatcher would make firmware that specificaly inconveniences Skywatcher telescope owners, and not the other way around. But that's all it realy is. An inconvenience. I fear I may have blown this up to be an insurmountable problem. It certainly isn't that.

You mean using less equipment than what you can physicaly pile upon the already strained mount?!? What is this herecy? No no... I refuse to listen to this bizar drivel. More is ALWAYS better, as we all know. ? No, seriously: A good point well made, Happykat. I'm sure some very viewable results will come of using just the camera and a good lense. But, you can't blame a guy for trying to squeeze every 'drop' of light out of the equipment that is already available to me.

It is quite easy to re-load the AltAz firmware. So it's not like you can't go back, once you've installed the 'EQ' firmware. But thinking of how bad my knees are going to hurt with this setup, I'll need to think of some way to re-position the finder. Not a huge deal. But I would have prefered that Skywatcher had thought of a solution themselves :).