Spier24

On 15/02/2021 at 19:13, Sky-searcher said:

I have no experience with the mount. I would say it’s probably ok as it’s part of the package, but probably close to its limits with the 150 Mak. 

Yep the capacity of the mount is about 6kg and the 150 mak is 5kg

8 minutes ago, Sky-searcher said:

The Orion Mak is the same as skywatcher’s. They are both made by Synta in China as is the Celestron scopes. The Meade 150 Mak is also the same. 👍

I know about that, just wanting to make sure the mount will hold the scope well.

2 hours ago, Sky-searcher said:

Hi Spier24, as Louis has mentioned, the extra aperture does improve on resolution. Both scopes are great. I have both at present. Just to note that the 150 is a total different beast. Physical size & weight of the 150 means it needs a sturdy mount , whereas the 127 is a lot more compact & can be used on quite light mounts making it good for grad & go. I would recommend the 150 if you have a suitable mount or go for the 127 if being more portable is better for you.

https://uk.telescope.com/mobileProduct/Orion-StarSeeker-IV-150mm-GoTo-Mak-Cass-with-Controller/115273.uts

That's the 150 I'm thinking of 

12 hours ago, Louis D said:

You would definitely see an improvement in resolution for planetary observing and a slight improvement for extended objects.  This would be especially true for Synta 127 Maks which only have 118mm of clear aperture while the revised Synta 150 Maks have properly sized primary mirrors to yield a true 150mm of clear aperture.

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

Short question. What would the difference in observing ability be between a 127 Mak and a 150 Mak in bortle 7 skies?

23 minutes ago, John said:

I think the secondary mirror does have collimation adjustment with these. It is the primary that is fixed.

 

Yes that's right 

7 minutes ago, Louis D said:

There are other options such as DSCs and even manual setting circles for finding objects in bright skies.

Gotos are fine once they're aligned, but too many beginners are put off by the difficulty of some (older) systems.  There are newer ones that align themselves using plate solving, which is terrific for beginners.  The problem is, how to get a newbie into a decent sized telescope with plate solving goto for under $200 to $300 (the typical beginner budget).  It's a different discussion when their budget is $2000.

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.

20 hours ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

I've owned both the 130PS and the Star Discovery 150i (and vanilla collimatable reflectors). They are both nice little telescopes. When I sold the 130PS, the primary collimation was no different to when I bought it and the recipient was cock a hoop with his bargain.

Similarly, the 150i ota I own has brought me plenty of joy. It saw action on every clear night around Mars opposition. Having it track the red planet on an AZGTI resulted in a relaxed observation experience and added to the memorable views.

They're great introductory telescopes and also handy if you require something lighter than the standard fare.

Sky at Night Magazine has also recently printed a very favourable review of the Star Discovery 150i.

These telescopes have been around for several years and despite looking for it, I've yet to read any complaints from actual users about the lack of primary collimation. 

The only issue people have is usually with the somewhat flimsy focusers. Obviously designed to keep weight and costs down. This echoed my own feelings. Hence I fitted a rather nice TS-Optics crayford focuser to the 150i after reading a couple of other members some years back did the same.

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 😂

22 hours ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

Watch the article on the Astronomy and Nature channel on YouTube where he waxes lyrical about the 150p . As he rightly points out , skywatcher has a decent history of scopes and just because something isn’t “the norm” doesn’t make it inferior . In my mind anything that gets more people into this hobby  is a good thing .. and although collimation is a good “skill” to learn it often puts people off . I was discussing with another SGL member on Friday how much snobbery there is in astronomy. That’s almost understandable as traditional hobbies like ours generally  demand an understanding of the complexities involved in a scope or a mount . But , scope manufacturers are constantly trying to find new ways to produce a customer friendly product , and indeed to introduce low maintenance scopes . I think it’s a good thing . After all , who would have thought you would be using a smartphone to control your scope only a few years ago . I think the more people progress in this hobby  the more they want to learn . And the more they learn the more keen they are to learn about things like collimating a scope . There is definitely a market out there for these scopes . I’m just waiting for a maksutov Cassegrain  that never dews up without the need of a ridiculous dew shield .now there is an idea ! 

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 before so a GoTo is a must for me.

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.

4 hours ago, Zermelo said:

I got one last June, and have never touched the primary.   I did tweak the secondary a bit, but as supplied it was close enough and I didn't notice any difference.

The fixed primary design feature has been used for several years now in some smaller SW scopes.  Some in the community would not use a reflector that didn't provide a primary adjustment.  I am quite happy with one that - so far - has not needed it.

If it arrives out of alignment then you return it.  I'm sure SW wouldn't have persisted with the design for so long if it had a significant return rate, nor do I think FLO would sell it if that were true.  If you drop it and knock it out of alignment, it is actually possible to re-collimate the primary. The secondary adjusts like any other newtonian.

On the Star Discovery 150 more generally, the aim seems to have been to keep down the weight (to keep it under the mount's 5kg limit) and cost (bearing in mind that tracking and Goto are also included in a £389 package).  So, you get a short dovetail bolted directly onto the tube, no rings. You get a minimal red dot finder. The focuser is a plastic rack-and-pinion job. But the mirror is the same as in any of their six inch scopes, and I'm happy with the performance for the price I paid.

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.

1 hour ago, Tiny Clanger said:

 

There seem to be mixed thoughts about the claim of the telescope not needing collimation.

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?

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.

24 minutes ago, wulfrun said:

Actually, I totally forgot the "Heritage" dobs, which collapse down to about half-size. Great for storage or travel. If you only want visual, you could do far worse. Some are tabletop models though, a table or similar platform is required unless you're willing to contort on the floor or change the mount.

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.

2 minutes ago, wulfrun said:

Worth pointing out that even a 150 Newt isn't actually small; depending which you choose it's around three-quarters to a meter-plus long. Mine is the "PL" version, i.e. the longest but it fits easily across the back-seat of a typical family hatchback though. Then there's the mount and tripod, whichever sort you went for.

As for needing bigger, I'd mention that as the aperture increases, ALL light is increased - including what you don't want. Admittedly, you have more "spare" to lose in a LP filter etc but it's still a truism.

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.

53 minutes ago, Zermelo said:

OK, so not great then (if you click on the map at your location, it will show you an actual number).

Would you normally be observing from home, or would you be looking to travel to a darker location?

@Tiny Clanger will no doubt set you straight on the reflector vs mak comparison as she has both (I don't).

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.

2 hours ago, Tiny Clanger said:

As own a 150 heritage dob, a 127 mak and am currently obliged to observe from my light polluted suburban garden I can say with absolute certainty that the dob is better for the majority of DSOs. exactly as pretty much every website and discussion thread will tell you.

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.

2 minutes ago, Zermelo said:

Do you know how polluted your skies are?  You can put in your location here to get a rough idea.
It's perfectly possible to see some of the brighter DSOs even from poor locations. I don't agree that you would need 8" minimum.
Sometimes the difficulty can be finding them rather than seeing them when you've found them, because you may not be able to see many guide stars for hopping. I see you are considering the Star Discovery, which has GoTo - are you also presuming that the SkyMax would also be on a GoTo mount?

The 150mm will gather over 30% more light than the 127mm, which is significant for DSOs. As others have said, they are better at different targets.

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.

2 hours ago, wulfrun said:

DSOs generally require low-ish magnification and a wide field of view because they are (mostly) large and dim. I think the plain fact that they are dim is inevitably going to mean you just can't see some things in light pollution, pretty much irrespective of scope. My level of experience so far it too limited for me to give you any serious advice so I'm mainly basing what I've said on my research and general knowledge of physics/optics.

For planets, they're small but relatively bright, so you're far less affected by LP but you need a scope that gives high magnification (and need good conditions). As far as I understand, a Mak would be better for planetary but a short-focal Newt is better for DSOs. Conflicting requirements to do both, so a compromise somewhere.

Ask your friend what their logic is, there are plenty of experts on here who can say if it's sensible advice or not.

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.

1 hour ago, Beardy30 said:

Also depends if you are wanting to do some Astro photography - the dob will be no good for that as you’ll need an eq mount to track effectively 

Astro photography isn't of much interest to me. I just want to observe.

4 hours ago, wulfrun said:

It'd help if you explain what you're hoping to see. I don't think it's true that you need at least an 8" newtonian just because of light pollution, there's more to it than that. I use a 114 and 150 newtonians from a city light-polluted back-yard and I can see quite lot. The Mak and Newt are different scopes and each is better at different things.

DSO's are what really fascinate me but I also like a bit of planetary viewing too. I'm just not sure about a 130 or 150 newt as I've been told by some people that because I'm a light polluted area I may as well go with the 127 Mak. If you have experience with newts of a similar size in a light polluted area then I'd be happy to hear more details about what it's like viewing DSO's with them in a light polluted area.

I live in a light polluted area and am currently deciding between the Skymax 127 Mak and the start discovery 150 newt. I was told by a friend that I may as well go with the Mak as a newt smaller than 8 inches wouldn't be of much use in a light polluted area and that I'd get a better experience with the Mak. Said the same for a 130 newt too. 

Just want to know if you all think it would be worth getting the 150 newt or just sticking with the Mak.

1 hour ago, LeeHore7 said:

Yes I agree, it would be a good goto package, maybe I could work for skywatcher marketing team 😉, there may not be a lot of difference in price if it was a whole set up or modeled together 

It may be quite pricey as the GoTo mount and tripod would both have to be upgraded for the scope. Although it would be a nice package.

51 minutes ago, LeeHore7 said:

Would maybe upgrading the tripod to a https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-star-adventurer/sky-watcher-38-stainless-steel-tripod.html

And adding a counterweight bar and weights would it manage it perhaps. 

That could work, although it would be nice to have it all together in one package on a GoTo mount for people who'd want that.