SkyMax 127 vs Dobsonian 200/250

[EntropyStar]

Hi all,

Okay I think i'm just about there now, had some great advice from FLO and they recommend the 127 MAK for planetary viewing due to it's higher magnification but the Dobsonian 200 or 250 for an 'overall' scope.

I'd like your thoughts please as I'm worried that virtually everyone else on here always picks the Skywatcher Dobsonian (either the 200 or 250) over the 127. If the magnification is that much better on the 127 and it'll get me in closer on planets why do most people favour the Dobs?

Do I go for the better planetary viewing of the 127 or the overall ability of the Dobs?

I'm told the planets/moons etc will be 20% bigger in the 127 Mak due to it's magnification, forgive me for being thick but why doesn't that translate to DSO's if it's higher then the Dobs? Has anyone looked through both scopes? at planets and DSO's? I need your thoughts!!

These are my questions regarding the two scopes (the Skyliner 250p & Skymax 127 SLT)

Skyliner 200p or 250p:

Will I be able to see cloud bands on Jupiter??

Jovian Satellites?

Will I be able to see Saturn's moons?

Uranus and it's larger moons (I see someone's reported they saw Uranus and 1 of it's moons with the heritage Dob)?

How easy to find and track with the Alt-Azimuth standard mount it comes with?

How much better is the 10inch 250p over the 200p?

SkyMax 127:

What DSO's realistically can I see? ie...M31

Double stars etc possible?

Why pick this scope over a 250p?

I'm really confused at the moment! Please help! I think what ever hair I got left will be gone soon enough!

[swamp thing]

TBH There is no comparison between a 127 Mak and a 10" Dob. The Dob simply blows it away in every department visually.

Even the 8" Dob will give superior views in all departments.

The little 127mm Maks make great beginner scopes but they cannot compete with a medium sized (8"-10") Dob

How big an object appears in the eyepiece is set by magnification not the type of scope.

All resolution is down to aperture, the larger the aperture the more detail you will see. As is Light grasp, so the larger aperture will show fainter objects too.

In astronomy bigger is better. The only downside is bigger= heavier, and more awkward to move/store.

The only reasons to go for the 127 are:

1/ You are unable to store the Dobs

2/ You cannot physically lift the Dobs outside

3/ You live with hideous LP and cannot get to a dark sky so you want GOTO.

The 8" is a slightly more beginner friendly scope than the 10" as it will retain collimation better with its lighter primary, and it's f/ratio will be longer so collimating is slightly easier when it needs to be done.

The 8" skyliner Dob isn't the nations favourite scope for no reason.

Tracking with a manual Dob is another debate. Some find it hard while others myself included cannot see how anyone can find it difficult.

Best to try it first. Visit your local society and attend a few viewing nights before deciding.

Regards Steve

[RikM]

Being as I have had all the scopes mentioned I should offer some reply.

I have had far better views of both DSO's and planets in an 8" Dob than a 127Mak. The difference in focal length (which determins the magnification) is not so much 1200mm for the Dob vs. 1500mm for the Mak. The increased appeture of the Dob gives you a higher resolution, which translates to a sharper image at higher magnification (if the seeing allows it! A higher magnification / larger scope will make poor seeing appear worse!)

There is not so much differnce between an 8" and a 10" Dob. The 10" gives a slightly brighter view and can be used at higher magnification with a sharper image (see note on seeing above!) but needs more care and attention to collimation and better eyepieces than the 8".

Both Dobs are much heavier than the 127Mak but can still be moved about and trasported in a car quite easily. They will need collimating, the 10" being more fussy than the 8" but it is not that big a deal. The 127Mak does not (in theory) have that issue.

The 127 Mak is actually not that bad for DSO observing. The FOV is narrower and the view dimmer than the Dob but it is still quite useable.

Any of the scopes you mention will show you the bands on Jupiter, the rings of Saturn, 4 - 5 moons, Uranus just look like a little grey/green dot through anything. M31 looks like a dim grey smudge in anything. Many other DSO's will be visible any of the scopes but the fainter more interesting ones are where the Dobs will be the clear winners.

It is easy to find and track objects with a Dob but adding a Telrad finder makes this much easier.

I would take an 8" f/6 Dob over a 127 Mak (and almost any other scope) any day.

[EntropyStar]

Thank you both every so much for the honest feedback. I honestly feel stuck in such a blur at the mo! I was all set on the 10inch Dob until FLO (Steve) threw me by saying the 127 is much better for planetary....talk about turning my world upside down!

Okay so lets take eypeices and telrad's (whatever they are!). I do have the money for the 10inch or I could go for a tracking 200p....what you think? If I can can afford the 10inch is it just worth the initial hardship of a slightly harder scope to maintain (collimating etc) instead of wishing to upgrade a few months down the line?

What eyepeices would you recommend I should look into?...pls bear in mind budget! Ie what Plossi's would be good? And please explain the Telrad....oh and recommend me a laser dot finder pls! I'll hopefully catching you in the near future at star parties with my new baby plus a girlfriend that just loves an occasion to make cake for all and sundry.....you'll never go hungry with me around

BTW....where does the Exploor 200p on the EO5 come into all this? is the extra £150 on top of the standard price solely on the mount or is there something really obvious i'm missing?

[twotter]

When it comes to eyepieces the 127 Mak (F11.8) and the 200P dob (F6) are both more tolerant on cheaper EPs. As I understand things anything faster than F6 and you tend to need better quality, as in more expensive, glass

The 200P on an EQ5 mount and the 250PX dob are both F5.

In the 200P dob, GSO Revelation plossls work well.

Telrads are a box like finder with a three circles to help you find your target. You can get star charts with Telrad circles superimposed over Messier objects and other targets. A lot of SGLers use them. I prefer a simpler red dot finder

[EntropyStar]

Thanks Twotter,

I am I looking at a world of pain taking on the 10inch as a first scope? would the GSO Revelation plossls work well in the 250 for instance?

[swamp thing]

I was all set on the 10inch Dob until FLO (Steve) threw me by saying the 127 is much better for planetary.

Unusual for someone from a company like FLO to get this so very wrong. Anyway.

I Think your first move should be to go and see the 8" and the 10" Dobs in the flesh. They will both be around the same length (4') but the 10" is slightly more bulky and heavy.

As I said in my other post tracking with a manual Dob is something you either get on with or you don't. Really is best to try first. IMO a monkey could do it.

Collimating is another simple task that some like to make out is brain surgery. I do it every time I use either of my Dobs and it's another "a monkey could do it" thing.

Is the 10" worth the extra attention? well this depends on what you intend on spending the most time observing.

Planets, there is very little in it so I would go for the 8", deep sky the 10"is noticeably better, so is the obvious choice.

A Dob is very much complimented by wide field eyepieces as much higher power can be used without any tracking probs.

Regards Steve

[RikM]

I have a couple of revelation plossls in 20mm and 15mm. They were fine in the 8" but not so good in the 10". The 20mm is okay, but they are getting upgraded at Christmas for some Pentax XW's.

How dark are your skies? If you have dark skies with little light pollution, the difference between 8" and 10" will be more noticeable. The difference between f/6 and f/4.7 is always noticeable. The 8" is much easier on eyepieces, and the back... and the wallet. I would go with the 8" as a first scope but definitely try before you buy if you can. I have the 10" because I'm a deep sky nut, not so interested in planets.

[MorningMajor]

Interesting thread, I have the 127 and I love it, easy to use, maintenance free, portable, goto, and gives an all round enjoyable experience.

But

I am about to buy a 250 dob - not to replace the MAK but to compliment it - I want to try more DSO viewing and actually want to try manual star hopping - from all I've read here the 2 scopes both have their advantages and disadvantages, and, when I've got both I'll hopefully be qualified as to which is "better" - but I don't actually expect one to be better than the other - it depends on what you want to do with them.

As I said, I'm not qualified - yet - to advise, but I'm pretty sure you won't be disappointed by either - Good luck

[sevs23]

FWIW I have a Skymax 150 on an EQ5 and my next upgrade will be a 250 or 300 Flextube dob

[Gradie]

I have the 127 and its great as a first scope. Yes, more aperture is going to give better images, but the mak is just so.much more portable and easy, for me, to store.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk

[dweller25]

I have had the Skymax 127 and have a 200P Dob.

As a dedicated planetary observer I can confirm what everyone else has said ....

The Skyliner 200P is an excellent planetary scope and will easily show more planetary detail then the Skymax 127.

Here are a some recent drawings (this Month) of Jupiter and Mars done with a 200P Dob. For more details see the sketching section.........

[John]

Unusual for someone from a company like FLO to get this so very wrong. Anyway.

.......

I guess it depends on the question that was posed and any other supporting information offered at the time, eg: easy maintenance, compactness, portability etc, etc.

Personally I'd prefer the 8" F/6 dobsonian to the 10" F/4.7 for the purposes that the OP has in mind, having owned both.

For what it's worth, 90% of the time my best planetary views now come from my 6" mak-newtonian rather than my 10" newtonian but the mak-newt is a rather special little scope

[twotter]

...I have the 127...

But

I am about to buy a 250 dob - not to replace the MAK but to compliment it...

Funny old world. I've got a 200P dob and I'm thinking about complimenting it by getting a 127 Mak.

Great minds think alike

[deepspacehunter]

I have had many telescopes, and after 40 years of observing I am very happy with my BIG DOB, I like the brighter images, and I can see things very well with "THE BIG BEAST !!! and you can make an APERTURE MASK that will produce great images so.... I observe the DSO's and when I want to observe PLANETARY or LUNAR, I just put the APERTURE MASK on (velcro) ...the Ap Msk..is a peice of cardboard with a 4" hole..gives me f/15....

[John]

... when I want to observe PLANETARY or LUNAR, I just put the APERTURE MASK on (velcro) ...the Ap Msk..is a peice of cardboard with a 4" hole..gives me f/15....

Thats a useful tip but it does mean that you get the resolution and contrast of a 4" aperture scope surely - the OP already has a 5" F/11.8

[Gradie]

Thats a useful tip but it does mean that you get the resolution and contrast of a 4" aperture scope surely - the OP already has a 5" F/11.8

John, the OP is deciding between the two - he hasn't got either yet!

I didn't know the aperture mask thing, sounds like an interesting way of getting more out of the scope, if a little odd to want to cut out half the light gathering capability of the scope!

[todd8137]

i there i have been in your dilema,mak or dob if you can ,or if there is any sgl close to youthat have the said scopes maybe you could get a look i did and the 300p i looked through did it for me maks are nice scopes and so are dobs ,the mak will be easy to transport about ,say in that sw300p is take the spider vanes out and the miror and away ya go for me the 250p would be the better of the two imho,but i would say that cos i have one

eps cheap and good ones work well in my dobbut the cheaper uwa do suffer

cheers let us no what you decide

[dweller25]

the mak will be easy to transport about ,say in that sw300p is take the spider vanes out and the miror and away ya go

I know this is off thread but I have never heard of anyone doing this before - you will have to re-collimate everytime you re-assemble the scope and you risk dropping the mirror.

Would you be better rigging up a trolley to wheel the whole lot about ????

[todd8137]

I know this is off thread but I have never heard of anyone doing this before - you will have to re-collimate everytime you re-assemble the scope and you risk dropping the mirror.

Would you be better rigging up a trolley to wheel the whole lot about ????

it depends i should have said this was easy if you are going in the car some were ,as for dropping the mirror it came in a massive box that i kept and transports ok re collimate the scope is easy not a prob at all it may take what 15 mins at a push if am hust on the garden then i do not have to strip it down but if traveling far and wide i have not had a problem yet whilst stripping the scope down fully

[MorningMajor]

Originally Posted by MorningMajor

...I have the 127...

But

I am about to buy a 250 dob - not to replace the MAK but to compliment it...

Funny old world. I've got a 200P dob and I'm thinking about complimenting it by getting a 127 Mak.

Great minds think alike

Shame we're so far apart - we could have swapped for a while!

[John]

John, the OP is deciding between the two - he hasn't got either yet!

I didn't know the aperture mask thing, sounds like an interesting way of getting more out of the scope, if a little odd to want to cut out half the light gathering capability of the scope!

Good point - ooops !

I agree with you on the aperture masking though

[banner001]

another bonus with the 8" is that if you want to stick it on an EQ mount its a lot easier and cheaper to pick up an EQ5 (for ~£500), that it is for the 10", where an NEQ6 (£1k) is your only realistic option...

[hemihaggis]

mmm i have a 127 mak and a meade sn10 ... the best scope is the one you use the most ? no ...? ...

[EntropyStar]

Hi, thanks for the replies over the weekend. I've been notcing the Skywatcher Explorer 200p (on the EQ-5 mount) keeps creeping up a lot across the site. What's difference viewing wise between that and the standard 200p Dobsonian? I understand the Dob will give a slightly higher magnification but smaller FOV. Is there much in it? I wonder if it's worth the going for the Explorer as it has the EQ-5 mount, much easier for tracking and following objects?

So now i'm down to two choices:

Skywatcher Explorer 200p -EQ5

or

Skywatcher 250p Dobsonian

I know the Explorer 200p is closer to the 200px (albeit slightly smaller focal length) but figured if I can stretch to the Explorer 200p EQ 5 then if I pick a classic dob I can afford the 250p

Extra magnification vs good mount.

Thoughts?