Portability

[inksmithy]

Hi all.

In about a weeks time, I'll be putting an order in for my new telescope. Currently I am using a 76mm CrudScope McSeeFuzz on an indescribable Deluxe WobbleMount which is driving me a bit mad.

At the moment, I have it sort of narrowed down to 3 telescopes, but I'm having difficulty choosing between them.

The first is the SkyWatcher 200p eq5, which is a 200mm aperture telescope, with focal length of 1000mm.

Second is a SkyWatcher 150pl, 6 inch, 1200mm focal length.

3rd is a SkyMax 127 Maksutov-Cassegrain, with all the computery bits.

The first two would have the motorised options.

I have a few questions about them though. For a start, what are the physical dimensions of these telescopes? How much do they weigh, with mounts?

Probably more to the point, how portable are they? How awkward to handle? Like most people, I find carrying a moderately heavy item is easy if it isn't awkwardly balanced with no useful handles.

I understand that aperture equals brightness and clarity, but how much difference is there between the three?

The mounts make a difference as well. I know the EQ5 is considered to be a fairly table mount, but in the SkyWatcher manual, the assembly instructions are the same as the EQ3-2, even to the point of being in the same pdf.

As I day, I want to put my order in next Friday and I'm really looking forward to it, but I want to get it right, I'd hate to regret it later.

Cheers,

Alan

[Moonshane]

It would help with a recommendation if you could confirm:

• Are you likely to remain solely interested in visual astronomy or is there a chance that in due course you might wish to undertake some photography? AP is very expensive for DSO's but potentially you could use a webcam and laptop to take some solar system images. Personally I cannot be bothered with all the paraphernalia.
  
• What are your main interests? I presume 'everything' like most people, but will you spend most of your time on the moon / planets? Or galaxy hunting?
  
• Would you be adding the scope to a lot of other gear (e.g. camping) of just putting you and maybe a passenger (plus the scope) into the car to get to a darker site?
  
• Would you find the (sometimes frustrating) challenge of locating objects manually from maps too much or would this spur you on for more?
  

There's no doubt that all the scopes you mention will be a substantial improvement on your current scope but you have selected three very different scopes.

Assuming you are not really into photography, want a good general all rounder and are happy to manually locate things, I'd personally suggest a manual 200mm Dobsonian. For the same money, this will leave you around £200-300 for accessories which will enhance your enjoyment a lot (such as a Telrad).

If the opposite is correct and you may want to try some basic AP (this is all the mounts you mention could do I think) then I'd suggest the 200p on EQ5 driven at least in right ascension. The 200mm aperture will open up many more objects in the sky than the others.

In terms of weight and size etc, the 200mm tube is relatively small and can easily fit across the back seat of any car. The dobsonian base is reasonably large but again fits in the boot easily. The tripod and EQG is quite heavy but you need this for stability (I feel a dob base is often more stable than an EQ base unless you buy a much more expensive mount than is usually suggested). They can all be broken down quickly and easily into 2-3 parts which makes it easier to carry them.

I am slightly biased as I am totally visual and love dobsonians.

Hope this helps a bit.

[Cornelius Varley]

As a rough guide to to the physical dimensions of the two reflectors add 25mm to the mirror size to get the diameter of the tube, the length of the ota will be about the same as the focal length. The 200p ota weight 7.5kg approx (16.5lbs) and the 150pl a little less. The 127 is anout 360mm long (14.5in) and weighs just under 4kg 00(8.5lbs).

In terms of portability the 127 Mak wins due to the compact size. The ota can be carried in a small bag, leaving the hands free to carry the AZ-goto mount. The EQ5 mount plus two counterweights (36lbs) is heavier than the AZ-goto mount or the EQ3-2 (27lbs). It would advisable not to carry the 200p or 150pl fully assembled.

The manuals for the EQ3-2 and EQ5 mounts are fairly generic, there is not a lot of difference in the assembly of either mount anyway.

Peter

[inksmithy]

Hi Moonshine, thanks for the quick reply.

Initially, I will just be working visually, but I do plan to add a webcam and a network to the kit, with the firm intention of basic astro photography.

My main goals are as follows:

See and photograph the entire Messier catalogue. Not all on the same night, or even necessarily the same year.

See and photograph the Caldwell Catalogue, which will be fun, since some of it is only visible from the southern hemisphere.

White light solar astronomy, using iv/ir cut and baader solar filters.

The first two are long term goals, the 3rd is easy enough.

What I don't have though, is a car. Any transport of the telescope will be done either on my back or on a trolley I'm going to make for it.

Alan

[inksmithy]

Moonshane, just to add, I don't have any fear of searching the skies for my viewing, computer would be nice, but unnecessary luxury.

Peter, that's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for, how clumsy are they to move around though?

Thanks guys,

Alan

[Moonshane]

I think this narrows it down a lot. If you are looking to travel and need to carry all the equipment with you then I would fear that AP will be very difficult anywhere other than at home. This restricts what you will see of course.

The Mak is the most portable but you might struggle with it for some of the fainter objects given the 5" aperture unless you go to a dark site.

Prove me wrong though and have a go! I take any notice of what people say but try to find a way when it seems difficult so hopefully you will do so too.

One option not mentioned but much more portable is a pair of large binoculars (e.g.25x100mm) and a decent tripod. This might be a better all round package but would of course rule out AP.

Best of luck.

[inksmithy]

I'm fortunate enough to live in semi-rural Northumberland, a family short walk outside the village and I find myself in a wondrous dark place, with very little LP.

As I say, I'm not shy of carrying something or making a trolley arrangement, I'm just curious to establish whether I should start assembling something.

Thanks again!

Alan

[Moonshane]

You are very lucky! If you can make something which has some air in the tyres and could be pushed to the site then I really cannot see why you could not take any of the options suggested. I'd wait until you have the gear you decide upon eventually and then make something to fit.

Ideally if you could see a few of the options in the flesh this would be better as it gives a good idea of the whole size and weight issues.

Good luck and do report back once you have decided - especially with pics of the trolley idea - sounds interesting.

[rowan46]

I do portable astronomy, and for portable with a backpack and goto the 127 mak is the biggest you can safely take. remember for the mak and webcam you have a laptop and power pack to carry as well the mak weighs about 30lbs about another 6 for the powerpack laptop eyepieces etc about 5-6 the recommended max safe load on a backpack is considered about 50lbs. if you are considering a trolley, you need one with pneumatic wheels other trolleys make a lot of noise at night. I use one of these if I am going any distance

Child 3 In 1 Folded Bike Trailer Stroller Jogger Seat Buggy Lightweight Red Black 1-2 Child 5 Point Harness With Canopy Visible Flag: Amazon.co.uk: Sports & Leisure

[ollypenrice]

The Messier objects are deep sky and need an equatorial mount. For fast setup this really must be a German Equatorial. Wedge adapted fork mounts are slow to align. You also need a fast f ratio so the Newtonians are by far the best here. The Maksutov would be too slow. However, it would be the most portable and good on the planets with a webcam.

It is important to understand that deep sky imaging is complex, expensive and begins with a good mount. It would be easier to remove it from the list but I can understand the appeal since it is what I spend much of my life doing!!

Olly

[rowan46]

sorry missed the bit about photographing messiers and caldwells. the mak is out then. the nearest thing to a portable imaging system is an astrotrac which is a lot more money than you're thinking of spending.

[Moonshane]

The Messier objects are deep sky and need an equatorial mount.

The Maksutov would be too slow. However, it would be the most portable and good on the planets with a webcam.

Olly

I know you meant this Olly but the above applies to imaging of course and not necessarily visual.

[ollypenrice]

I know you meant this Olly but the above applies to imaging of course and not necessarily visual.

Indeed, I was only talking about imaging here. Thanks for the clarification.

Olly

[Moonshane]

I added that more for the OP of course (but you know that )

[RikM]

I think 'backpack portable' and 'deep sky AP' are mutually exclusive.

I only have the 150P and EQ3-2 (plus laptop, table, power pack, EP case, hand controller, DSLR, folding chair, binoculars, flask of tea) for the most basic of basic deep sky AP and I wouldn't want to carry that lot any further than I do now, which is front room - through kitchen - into garden. About 15 yards all in.

[inksmithy]

Firstly, thank you all for responding.

I think 'backpack portable' and 'deep sky AP' are mutually exclusive.

I only have the 150P and EQ3-2 (plus laptop, table, power pack, EP case, hand controller, DSLR, folding chair, binoculars, flask of tea) for the most basic of basic deep sky AP and I wouldn't want to carry that lot any further than I do now, which is front room - through kitchen - into garden. About 15 yards all in.

Haha, no, I quite understand what you mean, there is an awful lot of associated gear to be dragging around if dedicated astrophotography.

To be candid, I'm not too much of a photographer at the best of times and one thing I know is that in order for me to take some of the gorgeous pictures I see around on the web, I'm likely to need a sustained boost of around 11k per second as well as a lot of oxygen and a place to sit.

That said though, I would expect to be able to take a couple of minutes worth of webcam exposures through a 6 or 8 inch telescope and be able to come up with some satisfactory images to document my Messier/Caldwell quest with.

I'm not necessarily looking for 23 hour multiple evening mosaics here.

At the moment, the gear I'm expecting to have to carry around is:

1. Telescope, mount and tripod;
   
2. Battery pack/jump starter;
   
3. 10.1 inch netbook
   
4. adapted webcam or helmet cam;
   
5. thermos;
   
6. folding adjustable height seating (will have to be inventive I think)
   

I'm sure there is more, but those are the high points. And at the moment, for me to leave the backyard, the computer and webcam wont be on the list of things to move, since I'm not planning on starting any photography at all till the nights are a lot cooler.

Its starting to look more and more like I'm going to need some form of wheeled transport for this if I want to take it any distance at all on foot.

I could bow to portability and go for the 5.1 inch Mak, and to be honest, I dont think that would be an awful thing - from what I've seen looking at videos on youtube and so on, it doesnt look like a bad telescope at all, especially in comparison to my old crudscope.

That said though, there is a case to be made for putting together some sort of purpose built trolley to carry some of this stuff. Even with the SkyMax, I wouldn't fancy carrying all that stuff a couple of miles on foot.

These are the two specific Newtonians I'm thinking about:

200P

150PL

I think mentally, it would be safe to say I've put the idea of the SkyMax 127 out of my head for the moment, which has cut my shortlist down from an initial 17 telescopes (!) down to two, with another week to think about it.

I plan on having at the bare minimum with whichever of those two scopes, a moon filter/polarising filter, a Baader solar filter, a polar scope and dual axis motors.

Forgive me for two things here, firstly for using the forum as a place to organise my thinking, secondly for bringing filthy lucre into the equation.

----------------------------- 200P -------- 150PL

Telescope: ---------------- £400.48 ---- £279.99

Dual Axis Motor: ---------- £ 90.89 ---- £ 90.89

Polar Scope: --------------- £ 35.74 --- £ 35.74

Baader Safety Film x 2 ----£ 32.68 ---- £ 32.68

Polarising Filter: ----------- £ 33.70 --- £ 33.70

=================================

Total ----------------------- £593.49 --- £473.00

Looks to me like the question I have to ask myself is whether two inches of aperture and an EQ5 mount is worth an extra £120. If it is, I dont have a problem paying for it, but if it isnt, I could spend that on something else.

Interesting. Please, feel free to comment.

Alan

[Astro Imp]

Hi Alan,

Why the 150PL over the 150P. If you are going down the AP route the the faster 150P is surely better, but not on the EQ3-2.

From my limited knowledge I would restrict myself to webcam imageing of the Moon and planets, DSO imaging is a whole new, and expensive, ball game.

Let us all know what you decide and how you get on with your choice.

Good luck.

[inksmithy]

Hi Alan,

I think I'm going for the longer focal length route because my main goal will be visual, with photography being a second priority. Think of it as more along the lines of taking my own pictures to prove to myself that I've been there, if that makes any sense at all. While pictures may end up on my website, I wont necessarily be taking the pictures for any other reason but for myself and my kids, if that makes sense.

If I can get my kids excited about the idea of looking through a telescope, taking a picture, printing it off on the home printer and taking it into school with them, I'll consider that a win.

The pictures will be more to remind myself of how awestruck I was that night when I saw it.

So, I'm not necessarily going down the astrophotography route, but astrophotographs will be taken.

Seeing you have an SW 150P and EQ3-2, what are your impressions of it? How stable is the mount? What sort of views are you getting?

Also, as far as transporting this stuff goes, I think I have found the first part of a solution here.

A little modification there so the OTA is in a sling above the container, I think that would solve the problem nicely.

It might seem that I'm ignoring the idea of a Dobsonian as well. I'm not, at all. The reason I'm going for the EQ mounts and so on, is purely and simply because of my sometimes-to-be-cursed thirst for knowledge.

It drives my wife mad sometimes, she asks why it is that I cant just turn off sometimes. I don't know why, but I cant. There is an unknown quantity of time in front of everyone and I'm becoming more and more concious of every passing moment. If I'm not learning, or doing something with my mind - even having a lively conversation - then something is being lost and you can never get it back.

I want to learn how to move around the sky, using the correct technical terms and measures. Once I've done that and its become second nature to me, then I'll think about heading over to one of those lovely big light buckets.

Alan

[rowan46]

first I would like to suggest some further reading before you buy anything it's this

Books - Making Every Photon Count - Steve Richards

second you're idea of getting an eq3 mount and sticking a couple of dual axis motors on for photographing messiers and caldwells will not do it. If it was that simple and cheap, we'd all be doing it. to get the messiers and caldwells you are going to need an heq5 minimum. some can be got on a less serious mount but not many, I'm so sorry but you really are going to have to revise your ambitions or your budget. I have been trying for a year and unfortunately I have to keep coming back to what the wise old heads here keep telling me and others. The cheapest mount for serious astrophotography is the heq5. It's not hugely portable and it's not hugely cheap but to get all the messiers and caldwells despite your protestations is serious astrophotography. Visual is a different kettle of fish you should be able to see all the messiers and many of the caldwells on a dob but photographing everything can't be done with a few hundred pounds. I forgot to add webcams won't work very well on many of the messiers and caldwells unless you get a very high end one they work great on moon and planets but not many deep space objects.

[Astro Imp]

Hi,

Hi Alan,

Seeing you have an SW 150P and EQ3-2, what are your impressions of it? How stable is the mount? What sort of views are you getting?

Alan

I have had my scope a couple of months and so far am loving it. I felt the supllied 25mm EP was OK but the 10mm was poor, with lots of colour fringing on bright objects. The second evening I used my scope I spent the whole time with my neighbour looking at the moon and Jupiter, and the fringing was very apparent. I have since bought a 32mm EP and replaced the 10mm with the SW 9mm wide angle EP. For a very modest £30 this is a huge improvement.

I find the mount OK but you do need to let it settle for a couple seconds after focusing and tracking (I do not have motor drives).

Bear in mind that the 150PL is a longer OTA and you would probably notice this more.

The other thing that I very quickly bought was a Telrad finder as I found locating anything with the supplied optical finder very difficult/ impossible.

To be honest I am still learning to use the scope and have only set it up in my moderately light polluted garden and not taken it to a dark site. With this in mind I have not looked for any DSO except M45, M42 and M43 but have had good views of the moon, Jupiter and Saturn. In fact I was amazed the first time I saw Saturn that I was able to see three moons, obviously the four main moons of Jupiter were easily seen. In addition to these I have enjoyed splitting various double stars.

HTH.

Good luck.

[JamesM]

Alan, I would second the recommendation of Steve Richards' book which is a true comprehensive guide to what you need and why you need it to achieve the results you're after.

When you say, "I'm not necessarily looking for 23 hour multiple evening mosiacs here" my reply would always be, "but you soon will be!":D:D. I'm not an imager but know plenty who are and it is very addictive, especially when you start getting half decent results. That's why it is important to get it right from the start, hence the recommendation of the book. Gear for imaging doesn't always translate well for the needs of visual and explains why many people here have a collection of scopes. The main point is to take your time and get what suits your needs be they desires or logistical.

Clear skies

James

[Viv]

Hi Alan - it's a fairly hefty thread, so sorry if I repeat something that had already been said.

I have the 200p & EQ5

Firstly the EQ5 would I think be a very minimum mount. Although yes the instructions are within the same manual - the other mounts are no way as sturdy.

For moving, carrying any sort of distance is not advisable. I can move it 3 parts (OTA / Weights / Mount), other half can move from the lounge back to the patio - but not much more.

Even for transporting on a motored / wheeled truck - what would other think on the collmination - would it easily put the mirrors out ?

[inksmithy]

I can only say thankyou with the utmost sincerity to everyone who has answered here, I do appreciate it.

From what I've read here, it seems to me that the overwhelming advice is to go for the 200P, but not to expect to move it around too much, which is fair enough.

Having spent several hours learning how to collimate this "ScienceTech" 76mm and managing it, I can understand why reducing the need to do it would be a good thing. I'm not frightened to do it, but it isn't something I would necessarily look forward to.

So, looking at the general trend, it seems as if next Friday I'll be ordering the Explorer 200P (EQ5), with the associated bits and pieces.

I will admit to having a background suspicion that I would be going down that route as soon as I saw the telescope advertised - I was half settled on getting the Meade ETX125PE, but saw the 150PL and the 200P advertised and it set me back on my heels a little, all that aperture for less than the price of the Meade, made a lot of sense.

Thank you very much, Scarlet, Astro Imp, JBM1165, rowan46, RikMcRae, Moonshane, ollypenrice and Cornelius Varley. I appreciate the time and thought you have put into your replies.

I'm now going to spend the next week doing a combination of study and anticipating a delivery!

Alan

[RikM]

The 150P is a lovely little scope and the EQ3-2 copes perfectly well for visual use. The extra length of the 150PL is a bit much for the EQ3-2 and would be better on an EQ5. The refractor I have is about the same length and weight as a 150PL and the EQ3-2 is a bit of a struggle. I have an EQ5 for it but without the motor drives. I find the motors a big plus for high mag lunar and planetary observation so I keep it on the EQ3-2. I have tried out a driven EQ5 for imaging and I found my EQ3-2 to be much smoother in operation; I felt that I wouldn't really gain anything so I didn't buy that particular mount. Instead, I will be getting an NEQ6 and guide system next year as the bug really has bitten.

I started out with a similar objective to you. Making a pictorial record of what I have seen. See here for examples. As I said before, these are really basic (not very good), but I have learned that I really like the process of imaging, seeing the detail gradually develop during stacking and processing, and I want to progress, which means more / different kit.

I have a 10" dob on the way for visual use.

Edit: must type faster. The 200P is a great visual scope. Go for it. .

[inksmithy]

Rik, those are beautiful images, and far beyond what I would expect to get myself. Fabulous.

I think you guys are correct, I will most likely end up heading towards focusing on photography, so it does make sense to get the sturdiest mount to start with and build from there.

I'm seriously looking forward to this. Cannot wait till this time next week.

Alan