First Scope - Celestron NexStar 4 (XLT) SE v Celestron Nexstar 127 SLT v SkyMax 127

[starfish_001]

I am looking to buy a Telescope for use in central London, with the occasional trip out of town away from the light pollution. I have little or no experience

My Criteria:

1. Must give me nice views of the planets …. would like to be able to view dimmer objects, not sure how much this will be possible without to a better viewing location

2. Must be computer controlled so I can find things easily - I Don't know my way around the sky yet

3. Must be as maintenance free as possible.

4. Simple to setup and assemble

5. Must be portable because I want to use it as much as possible. Would like to be able to use it in London but also take it out of town.

6. Must be within my budget which was approx £300 to £400.

I have done some research and I think the best of the bunch, there may be better options also:

1. Celestron NexStar 4 (XLT) SE - can be used without tripod may be useful for travel

2. Celestron Nexstar 127 SLT

3. SkyMax 127 SynScan AZ GOTO

I would value input from people with more experince than me. What do you think is better and why?

[malc-c]

Excluding the obvious about light pollution etc from your location you are going to be limited on what you see, so IMO having that extra inch of aperture might well be a deciding factor, which would rule out the 4SE.

I have a Celestron 127 I use on an EQ5 goto which makes for a nice platform. Even from a town location (I'm in the centre of Stevenage) it gives nice views of Jupiter and the Moon. I've not yet tried it on deep sky objects, but due to the focal ratio would suspect only the brighter DSO's would be visible from a town location.

You've not stated if photography is part of your criteria. If so then the Alt / Az mount has it's limitations if using dSLRs. But for webcam work on planets and the moon the 127's will be excellent.

Hope that helps

[malc-c]

Oh and welcome to SGL by the way

[starfish_001]

Thanks for the speedy response. I may have a dabble with my SLR at photography but the main use will be simply looking.

I suspect you are right that the light pollution will limit viewing for objects other than planets in London but out of town (Dorset); I would like to explore the brighter DSO.

The size of the 4SE makes it very appealing and the mount is much better from what I have read.

[smudgeball]

Hi

You'll see some members on here with stunning images from their 127 SLTs. (planetary webcam mostly)

You may want to think about "hanging" a DSLR off the back of a 4SE ?

I know on my 6SE it's a lot of weight and the mount can move. (I don't know what sort of SLR you have)

A "Dabble" in astrophotography won't hurt with an ALT/AZ mount, but you should have realistic expectations i.e. see the issues with field rotation if you suddenly decide to do more than "Dabble"

But the tripod on my scope is very solid.

My personal choice would still be the 127 SLT.

Hope that helps a bit ?

Neil

[malc-c]

Can't comment on the mount as I use an EQ5... which is rock solid

The 127 is still small enough to carry around IMO. The tube being about as long as a normal computer keyboard.

[great_bear]

I've had two different 102 Maks, live in London, and have done stargazing in Dorset a few times.

Although in London a 102 can produce excellent, crisp views of the moon, planetary views at this aperture (and even at 127) will always be limited. Moreover, what I found to be a bigger issue however, was my disappointment when visiting Dorset.

Much to my surprise I found the narrow field-of-view to be considerably more limiting than I had possibly expected. When you're under that vast field of stars, you really want to be able to drink all of it in - and you just can't with an F12 102. Instead, you just get dark close-ups of everything.

Against all of my expectations, I discovered in the end that I much prefer the Sky-Watcher 130P SupaTrak (there's also a go-to version - the "AZ Synscan"). True, it feels considerably less "solid", and it's bigger - but it is very lightweight and portable and - when coupled with good-quality eyepieces - provides excellent views that really do justice to a dark-sky site. Not quite "airline portable" though, if that's what you were after.

You sacrifice a little in terms of planetary views - but not much once you're using good eyepieces, although yes, it is true that it needs better eyepieces than a Mak gets away with - but I just think you'll find the Dorset views dark and murky with the Mak - based on personal experience.

[Scosmico]

I don't know about the 127, but I am in love with my 4se.

Excellent grab and go Telescope. It covers all you 6 commandments.

My 4se has visited Brazil and Spain on my hand luggage.

Pros: Optics, grab and go, Equatorial and Alz. mount, quick set up.

Cons: Focusing is quite hard sometimes specially at hight magnification due to big F/.

[M4lcs67]

I have the 127 SLT also and some of the deciding factors along with the quality of the optics was it's portability, compactness and ease of set up. I have only owned it a short while, but what I have seen has been great. I have an east facing back garden and recently all I have had to do is step out the door, look up and there is Jupiter and it's moons. Fantastic. Also still being relatively new to astronomy I like the fact that it is goto, although as I am becoming more experienced I am finding my way around the night sky more easily. However I would suggest getting a powertank to drive it otherwise it will eat batteries at a huge rate.

[MorningMajor]

The Slymax and the Celestron 127's are basically the same thing - I would opt for either over the smaller 4SE - apperture is king as they say!

[starfish_001]

Thanks for the great advice . Based on my research and what I have read here I think that 1. Celestron NexStar 4 (XLT) SE or 2. Celestron Nexstar 127 SLT are the better fits....

I understand that the controls on the celestron's are easy for a beginner to use. Whilst taking photos is not a key goal at the moment I can see that it might become one when I look at the images people have been able to capture.

My SLR is a Canon, the 4SE looks like the mount can take more weight. The overall smaller size definitely appeals. But the larger aperture of the 127 sounds better.

I guess my problems is that I cannot really understand the difference in what I will be able to see

[Matt2011]

I would personally go for a Skymax 127 Synscan AZ GOTO as I have one myself and the images and detail on the planets and moon especially is stunning!

[great_bear]

I guess my problems is that I cannot really understand the difference in what I will be able to see

The easiest way to think of it, is that a 127 will show images at 127x magnification with the same brightness that the 4SE does at 102x magnification.

[Crunchard]

I had a 4SE, I found the wobble too much for me - that's what made me go for a dob! Also I found focusing a pain.

I'd go with a 127 of some description, EQ vs Alt/Az mount is entirely down to you really. The EQ mounts take slighlty logner to setup, but only slightly so not an issue once you know what you are doing.

If it hasn't already been said then see if you can visit a local society session and use one of them.

[great_bear]

The EQ mounts take slighlty longer to setup

Once go-to comes into the equation there's no difference really. With EQ, you don't need to level it whereas you do with an Alt-Az go-to - so it's swings and roundabouts really...

[starfish_001]

The easiest way to think of it, is that a 127 will show images at 127x magnification with the same brightness that the 4SE does at 102x magnification.

Thanks that helps

[JamesM]

I agree with Crunchard about going along to a local astro club or observing group to have a look through some kit first before buying anything. Only you can determine what your own benchmark will be that will help satisfy your expectations. Because of the narrow field of view and the long focal lengths, your suggested scopes are great performers on the moon, planets, double stars and the brightest of DSO's such as Orion (M42) but on other deep sky objects the amount of light grab will not be sufficient to show you a lot on the GOTO's menu - mind you that applies to a lot of scopes. Astrophotography will be limited to a webcam but with 'Registax' (free image composite software) half decent images can be had. It's a shame you list the automation as one of your essentials as I personally feel that a dobsonian would show you more and sustain your interest in the longer term.

Please take your time over this as, "...the stars aren't going anywhere" and hopefully after looking through some scopes you will find yourself more confident in your final choice.

James

[starfish_001]

Been reading up ...

Looking at the controllers the SE/ SLT have more functions and more alignment options but the SkyWatcher has more objects in its database. Based on the controllers I think Celestron looks better for me.

I have read that the 4SE has many more features than the 127SLT. The 127 SLT is a telescope designed for beginners. The 4SE is designed for both beginners and advanced astronomers. I am a beginner but that will hopefully change with time.

Both the 127 SLT and the 4SE have the following common alignment options:

1. Sky Align

2. Auto Two-Star Align

3. Two Star-Align

4. One Star-Align

5. Solar Align

The 4SE also has the following EQ North/EQ South alignment options:

1. EQ Auto Align

2. EQ Two-Star Align

3. EQ One-Star Align

4. EQ Solar-System Align

Not sure how useful all of the extra features are and I guess LP will limit my ability to see from London but outside ... maybe?

The larger aperture of the 127SLT is by better than the 4SE for visual viewing but .......

I think the more robust mount of the 4se and the fact It also allows you to remove the tripod and store the mount with telescope attached is a bit advantage for me.

[John]

You are really analysing this in great detail and I quite understand why but, at the end of the day, a 4" maksutov-cassegrain may not sustain your interest for too long as James suggests. The optical system is more important than the detailed spec of the mount, in my opinion - after all, it's the optics that deliver the light to the eye and you want as much light as possible with astronomy.

[starfish_001]

I agree with Crunchard about going along to a local astro club or observing group to have a look through some kit first before buying anything. Only you can determine what your own benchmark will be that will help satisfy your expectations. Because of the narrow field of view and the long focal lengths, your suggested scopes are great performers on the moon, planets, double stars and the brightest of DSO's such as Orion (M42) but on other deep sky objects the amount of light grab will not be sufficient to show you a lot on the GOTO's menu - mind you that applies to a lot of scopes. Astrophotography will be limited to a webcam but with 'Registax' (free image composite software) half decent images can be had. It's a shame you list the automation as one of your essentials as I personally feel that a dobsonian would show you more and sustain your interest in the longer term.

Please take your time over this as, "...the stars aren't going anywhere" and hopefully after looking through some scopes you will find yourself more confident in your final choice.

James

Looking into local clubs as we speak

[starfish_001]

You are really analysing this in great detail and I quite understand why but, at the end of the day, a 4" maksutov-cassegrain may not sustain your interest for too long as James suggests. The optical system is more important than the detailed spec of the mount, in my opinion - after all, it's the optics that deliver the light to the eye and you want as much light as possible with astronomy.

Yep I get the logic bigger aperture more light but ...... accessibility / usability are important given that I am only an interested beginner if I develop .... I guess I can go out an get an 8 inch but I have to balance that I live in London. I may of course remain very happy without looking into DSO in detail ......

The intangible stuff makes a difference to me rather than just the strictly logical... deciding is more complex than I imagined

[John]

You may have already seen this but there is a fairly comprehensive review of the Celestron Nexstar 4SE here plus the owners further thoughts after a year of ownership:

Celestron Nexstar 4SE Review

[M4lcs67]

In a lot of respects there does seem to be a hairs width between these two. I have only had my 127 SLT since May (not the best time to buy as scope "May"), but now with the longer, darker nights it should start to come into it's own. I think that FLO are offering a free Plossi eyepiece with the Nexstar 4" at the moment. Coupled with the better quality eyepieces and the fact that the onboard database is much better than the 127 SLT you would naturally go for the 4", but that extra 1" of apeture could be useful at some point.

That is the problem when there is so much choice and such varied opinions. What to go for???? Unless you can go and see them in a shop side-by-side, sometimes it is a case of suck it and see. Either way I don't think you will be disappointed.

[starfish_001]

In a lot of respects there does seem to be a hairs width between these two. I have only had my 127 SLT since May (not the best time to buy as scope "May"), but now with the longer, darker nights it should start to come into it's own. I think that FLO are offering a free Plossi eyepiece with the Nexstar 4" at the moment. Coupled with the better quality eyepieces and the fact that the onboard database is much better than the 127 SLT you would naturally go for the 4", but that extra 1" of apeture could be useful at some point.

That is the problem when there is so much choice and such varied opinions. What to go for???? Unless you can go and see them in a shop side-by-side, sometimes it is a case of suck it and see. Either way I don't think you will be disappointed.

Thanks I think the 4SE is the way to go. I will probably see if I can join the local club to get a better feel for things

[Scosmico]

When I was looking for mine, the extra 1" issue didn't last for long, as I was told that the coating in the 4se is superior and match the extra 1" of the 127.

In a lot of respects there does seem to be a hairs width between these two. I have only had my 127 SLT since May (not the best time to buy as scope "May"), but now with the longer, darker nights it should start to come into it's own. I think that FLO are offering a free Plossi eyepiece with the Nexstar 4" at the moment. Coupled with the better quality eyepieces and the fact that the onboard database is much better than the 127 SLT you would naturally go for the 4", but that extra 1" of apeture could be useful at some point.

That is the problem when there is so much choice and such varied opinions. What to go for???? Unless you can go and see them in a shop side-by-side, sometimes it is a case of suck it and see. Either way I don't think you will be disappointed.