Skymax 127: Good allrounder?

[JohnC2]

Good morning all

I've been impressed (over the last few weeks of being a guest) by what appears to be a knowledgeable & friendly group of people here on SGL, so hope you can help me.

I've done a fair bit of research into buying my first scope (in between seeing the grandchildren, I have the time and inclination ) and have joined my local AS, downloaded Stellarium, purchased a copy of Pocket Star Atlas, sat outside learning the constellations (!), etc, and now have a question:

I'm homing in on the Skywatcher Skymax 127 EQ5 PRO SynScan as a cat seemed to be a decent all-rounder and I'm told that the mount is as important as the scope itself. But my reading then told me that a high focal ratio (11.8 for the Skymax 127) is good for planets, etc (but not for DSOs?). Although I don't want to prise open every faint star cluster and nebula, would I be able to see a fair sprinkling of them? In other words, would this scope system be what I'd like it to be: an all-rounder.

Thanks for listening.

John

[JamesF]

I'd say the 127 Mak is not ideal if you really want to concentrate on DSOs, but you should be able to see pretty much all the Messier objects with it so it's hardly unsuitable and it will give good views of the planets. In that respect it is a good all-rounder. That said, an 8" dobsonian probably out-perfoms it for both just because of the increase in aperture.

What's your motivation for going for the EQ mount? Do you have ambitions for imaging, or have you just decided that it might be easier to get on with than a dob?

James

[CGolder]

For the price a 127 is a great all rounder, if you want portable, fair size scope. a larger reflector would give you better views of DSO's.

[JohnC2]

James, Thanks for that. I don't particularly want to concentrate on DSOs, just see some!

I thought the EQ mount would be better for tracking and I'd like to have a go at imaging, although I have no great ambitions (or skills) in that line.

I take your point re the Dobsonian but thought it looked a bit cumbersome/harder to store. However, I will certainly look at it again and I'm not yet rock-solid with what I'll go for so have an open-ish mind.

John

[John]

If you want decent views of deep sky objects you need as much aperture as you can get for your £'s and the dobsonian is the way to to achieve that. While a 5" scope can spot lots of DSO's an 8" or, even better, 10" can start to show detail in many of them rather than just the brightest handful. The difference in views of, say, a bright globular cluster between a 5" scope and a 10" is really significant.

If your interest is DSO's and you don't go for aperture now, you will surely be upgrading your scope pretty quickly.

[JohnC2]

If your interest is DSO's and you don't go for aperture now, you will surely be upgrading your scope pretty quickly.

Mmmm .... Food for thought

[dr_robot]

I recently purchased a new skywatcher 127 and I am very impressed with the whole thing including the eq5 mount. For planets it has been very good, we are about to try out some dso objects and will let you know how it goes.. There is a very useful site that will show you what you can expect from any scope for any object, check that out?

[dr_robot]

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

[swamp thing]

If your interest is DSO's and you don't go for aperture now, you will surely be upgrading your scope pretty quickly.

These are very wise words indeed.

Although there are many different types of DSO, most are seen best with a large Dob.

[ollypenrice]

I can't see that the 127 Mak should be called an all rounder. I'm not knocking it, not at all, it but I'd see it as fairly specialized with the planets and portability being its big positives. It is a small, highly effective planetary scope and it can, as stated above, 'spot' some DSOs.

My own feeling is that one thing small telescopes can do really well is give widefield views of extended clusters and nebulae. This assumes that they have a short focal length, which the Mak doesn't. A true all rounder, for me, is a scope that can do very widefield observing through to planetary and this suggests a Newtonian. It may not be quite as good on the planets but with a far shorter FL it can see nice and wide, something I relish.

To my mind an 8 inch Dob needs less storage space and effort than a Mak, or anything else, on a tripod. If it's a German Equatorial on a tripod then storage becomes still more irksome because of counterweights. A Dob just stands upright on the floor in a corner.

While webcamming the planets with the driven Mak will work well, deep sky will not. The F ratio is far too slow. Since deep sky imaging is so complex I would take it out of the equation at this stage.

Olly

http://ollypenrice.smugmug.com/Other/Best-of-Les-Granges/22435624_WLMPTM#!i=1793644788&k=r8HTK72

[JohnC2]

Olly, Thank you for what sound like wise words, it's making me think now. Are the Dobsonians heavy to move around?

John

[SionR25]

They can be quite heavy to move as one unit but you can easily unscrew the scope from the base and move each separately. I recently bought the 200p dob and its fine to move short distances with scope and base together or take them apart to move further.

Sion

[JamesF]

According to the Skywatcher website, the 200P OTA is about 11kg, and I think the dob base is the same again, perhaps a little more. The 127 Mak is 3.4kg and the EQ5 about 5kg plus the counterweight.

James

[swamp thing]

it's making me think now. Are the Dobsonians heavy to move around?

John

Depends on what size you are thinking of, an 8".........No, easy peasy very light and portable.

Above 12" they start becoming more of a commitment to move about. But good ones then have handles etc that make them no harder to move about than an 8" SCT.

[boabsta]

Or you could get the 127 with the eq5 and when funds are replenished get a 200p to sit on the same mount then decide on the night what you want to see and then take appropriate ota.

Why settle when you can have it all?

[ollypenrice]

Like Steve, I'd call an 8 inch Dob easy to move and 'setting it up' means putting it on the floor, job done. If you google Federation of Astronomical Societies you'll find a list of clubs and one is sure to be handy for you. That way you should be able to see and try quite a few members' scopes and decide on personal preference.

Olly

[scoobymike]

I own a 127 SW mak, which is normally on an undriven eq3-2, and also an 8" pds on an eq6, and enjoy both! In my own experience I find a place for both. The mak is definitely better for planets and double stars, both of which are good fun to hunt, but it will also show you some of the smaller dsos. Examples of good targets are the ring nebula, hercules' cluster, Andromeda galaxy etc (in other words the brighter ones!). The 8" pds allows you to see quite a few more of the brighter objects, and spot many more objects in the 'faint fuzzy ' range, but visually that's all they mostly are - faint and fuzzy. What you will see is more detail in the brighter objects visible through both scopes. I find the biggest factor in all of this is a darker sky - driving to a good site lets me see almost as much in the mak as I see in the pds from the back garden! I would also say that the mount behaves better with the Mak, especially in windy conditions.

Good luck whichever you choose!

[chiltonstar]

I own a 127 SW mak, which is normally on an undriven eq3-2, and also an 8" pds on an eq6, and enjoy both! In my own experience I find a place for both. The mak is definitely better for planets and double stars, both of which are good fun to hunt, but it will also show you some of the smaller dsos. Examples of good targets are the ring nebula, hercules' cluster, Andromeda galaxy etc (in other words the brighter ones!). The 8" pds allows you to see quite a few more of the brighter objects, and spot many more objects in the 'faint fuzzy ' range, but visually that's all they mostly are - faint and fuzzy. What you will see is more detail in the brighter objects visible through both scopes. I find the biggest factor in all of this is a darker sky - driving to a good site lets me see almost as much in the mak as I see in the pds from the back garden! I would also say that the mount behaves better with the Mak, especially in windy conditions.

Good luck whichever you choose!

Some very good points here. Maybe the observing site is one of the critical features when making the scope choice. As many of us live in fairly light polluted locations, in what has to be regarded as a very light polluted country (with some rare exceptions), we are likely to be looking at the Moon/planets/doubles for more of the time from our home sites, and clearly as stated above, Maks are pretty good for this. An EQ mount is very desirable for planetary viewing, as you will want to hold the image in the centre of the FoV for as long as possible to make out the subtle detail, and an undriven dob is not good for this.

For someone lucky enough to have a dark-sky site, then aperture will clearly be the deciding parameter, and a big dob makes sense. If you want to spend a lot of time looking at/for DSOs and you don't have a dark sky site, then a course of body-building and a 4x4 may be required....

Chris

[brantuk]

For a good all rounder slightly advanced starter set up I'd recommend a 6" Newtonian with a fast F-ratio on a computerised mount. This would give you the ability to see many DSO's and have a dabble at imaging at the same time. I don't recall mention of budget but I've used both of the following and they're hard to beat for the price:

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-150p-ds-ota.html

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-mounts/celestron-cg-5-gt-goto.html

Brand new the set up will cost around £770 but if you build it second hand it should come in under £500 (depending on age, condition, and any extras thrown in). Plus negotiating skills of course. The CG5 mount is mostly superior to the SW EQ5.

Hope that helps - feel free to pm me if you have any additional questions