Jump to content

Hi from newbie from the Isle of Wight.

Pete c

By Pete c
in Welcome

Recommended Posts

Pete c

Pete c

Posted
Posted

Hi everyone.

This is my first posting, and I'm about to buy my first telescope since I gave up active astronomy 8 years ago. Too many things happening in my life and not enough time was the problem.

I had a 12.5" newtonian, housed in a roll-off shed, but never used it very much because it was high on maintenence and set-up time and I never seemed to be able to find anything, except for the moon and planets. The truth is I'm just a casual observer - I fit it in when I have the time.

So now I've drawn up a list of requirements for my new scope, which are:

Must be close to my budget of £250.

Must be portable, which means be able to carry on a plane. (As hand luggage if possible.)

Low maintenence and quick set-up time.

Easy to find objects.

Be able to use my newly acquired philips SPC88 webcam.

I love gadgets, and like the idea of taking video of the moon and planets and turning them into great (or perhaps just good) still images.

With my budget I could get a refractor, reflector or Mak, but I think the reflector must be ruled out because it wouldn't be that portable and it's not low maintenence.

I love the idea of a goto. I think it's something I could play with for hours, and it would mean I could find things easily.

I've also read that Mak's are great with webcams, so that fits in as well.

After all this thought, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the best scope for me would be either the Nexstar 127 slt or the Skywatcher 127 synscan, If I could get one second hand, that is. New they are way above my budget. Problem is all the ones on Ebay are around £370, no cheaper than buying from a dealer.

That leaves my second choice of the Skywatcher 102 synscan.

Most of the reviews seem very good, and it has a shorter focal length than the 127. I've seen video on youtube, and they seem to show a reasonable amount of detail of Jupiter. I know this isn't the greatest scope in the world, but it does seem to fit all my criteria. I read somewhere that it may be possible to fit a 2" adapter for a slightly wider field of view. Has anyone done this? Could the 102 be more of an all-rounder, or am I being way too optimistic for a 4" Mak? I don't mind seeing smudges that I can imagine as being galaxies and nebula, as long as I can see something.

One final point I'd like to make is that I'm trying to get away from the idea that I should always be trying for that slightly bigger scope, with slightly better views, for slightly more money. I just want a scope that's good, lots of fun and lets me see something of whats up there.

All constructive opinions will be welcome, particularly from 102 owners.

Promise my next posting will be much shorter.

Pete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Telrad

Telrad

Posted
Posted

Hi Pete, welcome to the forum. I used to own the SW 102 synscan. IMO This telescope excels at wide fields of views. Although you can use it to view planets and Messier objects, these views tended to be disappointing due to a lack of detail. It is still nonetheless a good beginners scope or a quick look scope and would be excellent in a Messier marathon as it is essentially a great finder scope. I replaced the diagonal with a 2" Antares diagonal when i owned mine, and noticed little improvement. I replaced the barlow with a Antares 2x barlow and noticed a very big improvement in image quality. I also added a 7mm Nagler eyepiece for a big improvement in image quality. With the barlow this provided about 142x and the scope handles this magnification well and could possibly handle more. There was no resemblance between the inside and outside focus images on a star test due to surface roughness. I split stars down to 3.2 arc seconds and viewed the Cassini division on Saturn (once and only under the best available sky conditions). I routinely saw two equatorial bands on Jupiter and the four moons but nothing more. Views of the moon are very satisfying. This scope, at f/5, is not intended as a planetary or star splitter scope so will not satisfy the user at these tasks and therefore is inadequate as a primary telescope to anyone but a beginner. Used for its intended purpose however is an excellent value and would make a fabulous finder scope for a large telescope. It is also excellent as a terrestrial telescope and is very portable and quick to set up. Mine came with an excellent alt/az mount. Supplied eyepieces are adequate but not high quality.

Overall, this a good value for a beginners/ quick look / terrestrial scope. It's light weight and convenience means that it will get used a lot for those short weeknight evening sessions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pete c

Pete c

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi Telrad

Not sure whether you mean the Skywatcher 102 refractor or the 102 Maksutov-Cassegrain. I'm not keen on the refractor because I've read that they can't be used with webcams at high mags. The Maksutov-Cassegrain seems better with the moon and planets, and can be used with a webcam, although it's poor for widefield objects. I'm only going by what I have read on forums and reviews, as I have no experience with either scopes. I'm more interested in planetary viewing at the moment, but would still like to be able to see the brighter DSO's if possible.

I'd be happy to hear from anyone with experience with the Skywatcher Maksutov-Cassegrain's and in particular, whether I would be better off saving a little more money for the Skymax 127 or Nexstar 127.

Pete c

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rich MedRev

Rich MedRev

Posted
Posted

welcome aboard Pete,

like myself you have come back from the dark side!

I would try and save a little more and get a 127 Mak, particularly for webcam use.

Still portable in this size although any suitable mount for good webcam work might not be!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pete c

Pete c

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks for all the advice guys. I haven't bought the 102 yet, still thinking it over. I'd love to get the 127, but the wife might kill me. The Skymax 102 if for sale at FLO for £280, pretty near my budget. The next one up is the Nexstar 127 at £349. Any views on how the Nexstar 127 compares with the Skymax 127? I've read the optics are the same, but the mounts are different. I think the Skymax is about £15 dearer. Is it worth the extra money? Lots of people seem to have the Skymax 127, but don't hear much about the Nexstar. When I contacted FLO, they said the Nexstar was easier to align for beginners. I can find a few stars around the sky, including the pole star, so I think I could align the Skymax OK. Any thoughts on this. I really need to decide soon, as I want to get it before Christmas. Any help will be appreciated.

Pete c

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.