Skywatcher Skyliner 200P Dobsonian

[sticks]

Has anyone who owns one of these got any tips re use, extras etc or feedback on their satisfaction with the scope?

[John]

I've owned one and been delighted with it. There must be many 100's of happy owners of these on this forum.

A good all round scope for visual observing. Loads of extras available of course but the key ones for me would be:

- A cheshire collimation tool

- A red torch

- A good guide to the night sky

- A red dot type finder like the Rigel Quikfinder to compliment the optical finder

After you have a little experience with the scope you can then start choosing further accessories.

[sticks]

Thanks jahmanson - encouraging - which guide to the night sky do you use?

[Orion_the_Hunter]

Thanks jahmanson - encouraging - which guide to the night sky do you use?

I own one of these fantastic 'scopes.

This link will answer some questions for you.

http://stargazerslounge.com/member-equipment-reviews/132996-skywatcher-skyliner-200p-8-dob.html

[Hypernova]

Loads of us have one and once you get to using one you'll find out for yourself why.

For the night sky guide many go with the Sky and Telescope Pocket Star Atlas, it is really easy to use and can be had for under a tenner from Amazon. Well worth the money as a field guide. There are a few others out there that go a little deeper but may well be necessary for someone starting out or for observing from a light-polluted site.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sky-Telescopes-Pocket-Atlas/dp/1931559317/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1322006238&sr=8-3

The 'scope itself is a pretty good all-round performer, the middle of the road focal ratio means that it does well on a variety of objects from DSOs to planets and lunar. Collimation shouldn't be much of an issue, they seem to stay aligned for months on end and only occasionally need a tweak of the primary. Mine survived a trip to SGL6 in Hereford and back and was still lined up when it came home. As John says a simple a Cheshire should be adequate for this 'scope, no need to go spending more on lasers.

Eventually you may find the movement can be a little sticky but this can e rectified with a few basic mods that include: fitting a roller bearing to the base, waxing all moving surfaces, adding a ring of Ebony Star laminate, putting telfon tape on the altitude bearings and replacing the teflon pads with fresh ones.

The 'scope is great in that you can make it better one upgrade at a time, no need to do it all in one or straight away

[saturn4me]

I own one and am more than happy with mine.

[JPearson]

i own one of these, absolutely love it. i would agree a good nightsky guide like Night Watch is a good investment, as would be a telrad (or some other red dot finder).

[John]

Thanks jahmanson - encouraging - which guide to the night sky do you use?

I have Nightwatch by Terence Dickinson which is excellent. Another favourite is Observing the Constellations by John Sanford. Those combined with Stellarium and notes from other observers on forums such as this one are the primary influences on what I observe.

[sunshine185]

Another delighted owner of the sw 200p here.

[twotter]

My 200P dob is all the telescope I may ever need

[sticks]

Thanks everyone - the supplier is suggesting a barlow from the off - what do you think? Would the flex-tube tracking scope version be worth saving for, although with a power supply it is about twice as much................? having not used either it would be good to get some advice - thanks.

[Matt2011]

What are the images like of the planets and moon with a Skywatcher 200p Dobsonian and I have a Skywatcher 127 Mak and can you compare the images between the 2 scopes. Is it true that the Dobsonian will need collimating and how often. What eyepieces also would I need for this dobsonsian and what magnifications! cheers

[sunshine185]

i would say similar views on jupiter with the mak and the 200p, was brighter in the dob but the tracking on the mak helped a lot, i find that i now let the planet drift through the fov and then nudge it back and so on. As for the moon, same again,pretty much even IMO, only don`t plan on looking for dso`s after viewing the moon without any filter! i had to choose which to keep and there was only one winner, the 200p. No regrets. As for collimation, yew, it will need doing on the dob but its no big deal, as for ep`s , the 2 that come with the scope are ok, perfectly useable for the time being. All this is just my opinion, and i am just a noobie.

[twotter]

What are the images like of the planets and moon with a Skywatcher 200p Dobsonian and I have a Skywatcher 127 Mak and can you compare the images between the 2 scopes. Is it true that the Dobsonian will need collimating and how often. What eyepieces also would I need for this dobsonsian and what magnifications! cheers

Try this website to compare views of the 200P dob and 127 Mak...

http://www.12dstring.me.uk/fov.htm

The 200P is a reflector telescope so does benefit from being collimated. I had mine for 18 months before a star test showed it needed doing. It took 15 minutes from start to finish and just needed a slight tweak to the primary mirror. It's been fine for about a year now.

Eyepieces are a huge topic but there is a good guide on what you might need here...

http://stargazerslounge.com/beginners-help-advice/80772-eyepieces-very-least-you-need.html

[RikM]

I borrowed a Meade Starfinder 8" f/6 for a little while from my Astro soc (very similar to the Skyliner 200P), and (when collimated and cooled) it blew away my 127 Mak in every respect. Planetary views were brighter, sharper and I could use higher magnification. DSO's were also clearly brighter as you would expect with the much larger aperture. The resolution possible on the Moon was in a different league.

I make no secret that I am not overly fond of my Mak, but it's a clear case of aperture wins.

Collimation is not such a chore. I check it (with my 10") every time I observe, using a Cheshire and most times it needs a very slight tweak of the primary mirror knobs. No big deal.

The supplied eyepieces are okay if you don't wear glasses to observe. I do and found you have to get your eye too close to the lens of the 10mm. I binned the 10mm and bought a 2x barlow and a 15mm Plossl at first to give me a 25, 15, 12.5, 7.5mm set and that was nice for a while.

[RikM]

Try this website to compare views of the 200P dob and 127 Mak...

http://www.12dstring.me.uk/fov.htm

In the interests of expectation management, be aware that this shows you the relative sizes of the objects but these are long exposure photographs. They don't actually look like that through the telescopes. Visually all the deep sky objects are very faint and just shades of grey. Only the planets and stars show much colour.

[twotter]

In the interests of expectation management, be aware that this shows you the relative sizes of the objects but these are long exposure photographs. They don't actually look like that through the telescopes. Visually all the deep sky objects are very faint and just shades of grey. Only the planets and stars show much colour.

Good point, I should have thought to mention that.

[RikM]

Try this for an idea what things really look like. These are a pretty good match to what I see with my 10" when I cart it off to the boonies in Devon with nice dark skies. I don't get views like this from home.

Eyepiece views from a 10" scope