Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_2.thumb.jpg.72789c04780d7659f5b63ea05534a956.jpg

Spier24

Members
  • Content Count

    91
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Spier24

  1. The small issues you've highlighted there are the ones that niggle at me. With the Orion skymax 127 it only costs about £3 more to get the model with the handset. What's sky safari like to use? I've heard a few things here and there about it but I haven't actually learnt about it in depth.
  2. I saw a video on a Celestron astro fi kit. The guy tried for hours to get it to work and ran into multiple issues and eventually gave up. There have been quite a few complaints about that particular range. I was leaning towards a WiFi mount but a handset is the safe option.
  3. What are your experiences with WiFi mounts? I've been looking at the Skywatcher az gti mount but remain undecided as I know some people have had issues with various WiFi mounts.
  4. Just had a look, the Orion 150 optical tube weighs in at about 5.5kg and the capacity of the star seeker IV mount is 6.0kg.
  5. Yep the capacity of the mount is about 6kg and the 150 mak is 5kg
  6. I know about that, just wanting to make sure the mount will hold the scope well.
  7. https://uk.telescope.com/mobileProduct/Orion-StarSeeker-IV-150mm-GoTo-Mak-Cass-with-Controller/115273.uts That's the 150 I'm thinking of
  8. Thanks. I'm trying to decide between a Skymax 127 and the Orion star seeker 150. Wanted to know if the difference is worth the extra £200
  9. Short question. What would the difference in observing ability be between a 127 Mak and a 150 Mak in bortle 7 skies?
  10. The Celestron sky align system is pretty full proof. I know that the deal-breaker for quite a few people when it comes to choosing between a skywatcher and celestron scope is that the celestron alignment system is easier to use. You don't even need to use a star for it.
  11. I've also seen very encouraging reviews about the scopes. The one thing that worries me is if the scope did go out of collimation. I imagine it would be harder to collimate than a scope that is designed to be collimated. There's a saying that says if you build something that's impossible to break then it'll be impossible to fix when it does break
  12. Very well put, I'm still deciding on what scope to get and collimation is being a pretty influential factor in that as I'm always swinging back and forth on which scope to get based on which scopes require collimation. The community seems quite friendly but I can see what you mean about the snobbery, the most common things I see from that is people getting scoffed at for wanting or owning a GoTo scope. Personally I think GoTo scopes are a god send in light polluted areas as star hoping isn't easy there, especially for a beginner. I live in a Bortle 7 area and have never owned a telescope befor
  13. What are your views on Skywatchers range of newts that are non collimateble and supposedly don't require collimation? I know they have it on a few scopes now. A 150, 130 and some smaller scopes. What's everyone's experience with any of those scopes if you've owned them? Or your reasons for not buying one.
  14. I think it's quite good for the price you pay, putting a 150 newt on a GoTo mount at that price was always going to require some cut backs here and there. I do like the idea of a pre collimated primary though, Allows people who would otherwise be put off buying a newt due to collimation to try one out and see what they think.
  15. There seem to be mixed thoughts about the claim of the telescope not needing collimation.
  16. Has anyone had any experience with the star discovery 150? The main thing I'm interested is the claim that the scope doesn't have to be collimated. Can anyone who's used the scope vouch for this?
  17. Thanks to the guy who told me about bortle numbers. So this is apparently what bortle number 7 entails. The entire sky background has a vague, grayish white hue. The Milky Way is totally invisible or nearly so. M44 or M31 may be glimpsed with the unaided eye but are very indistinct. Clouds are brilliantly lit. Even in moderate-sized telescopes, the brightest Messier objects are pale ghosts of their true selves.
  18. I'm quite set on a GoTo model so I'll give those a miss. Although the heritage 150 does look like a great scope for someone who's okay with having a tabletop scope.
  19. Oh I know it's not small, but it's definitely not too big for me to travel with. I wouldn't go any higher than that though.
  20. I take it it's the Bortle number you're talking about? If so then my exact location is class 7. Yes I'll normally be observing from home but will be taking it town to dark sky areas every now and again.
  21. That's what I needed to hear. Would you be able to go into a little more detail. Give some notable examples from when you've used both on DSO's.
  22. The map shows a pink colour for my area. I know that about the 150 newt, if I do go for a newt I'd probably go for that one over a 130 as the light gathering power on that won't be much better than the Mak.
  23. I think it's because the biggest scope I'd go for is a 150 newt, anything bigger than that wouldn't be ideal as it has to be something that isn't too cumbersome and tricky to travel with. They seem to think that due to the light pollution in my area, a 150 or 130 newt wouldn't be ideal as quite a few DSO's wouldn't be viewable with a scope of that size due to the light pollution. I'm looking into all that and asking around to see what others think before making any decisions.
  24. Astro photography isn't of much interest to me. I just want to observe.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.