What's better a Skymax 127 or a Skywatcher 200p with EQ5 mount

[cspindley]

What's better a Skymax 127 or a Skywatcher 200p with EQ5 mount

[Space Cowboy]

Bigger scope = better views and images. The skymax is a great little scope very easy to handle and setup but it can't compete with the extra aperture.

[DirkSteele]

No one scope should be categorised as better than another. Really depends what you want to do with it. The Skymax 127 will be far more portable so better if you are using as a travelscope, the Skywatcher 200p has a larger aperture so will always outperform on deep sky objects where every photon counts. If this is your primary scope mainly for use in your back garden I would be inclined to say the 200p as you will appreciate the extra light gathering ability and won't have to carry it too far. But remember, at the end of the day the best scope is the one you use most often. For me that is the 4.5" Apo refractor, despite having an aperture almost 2.5x smaller than my 11" SCT (it is just to big and heavy for quick observing sessions).

[JamesF]

I love my 127 Mak and use it loads. It's a great little scope. If you have the space and can handle the 200P on an EQ5 though, that kind of aperture difference is going to win every time. If you're limited for space or can't lift the 200P onto the mount or struggle with it to the point that you'd not bother to get it out when you could, then the Mak is clearly the one to go for.

James

[nightfisher]

Also depends on what you plan to view the most, the 127 mak is really good on lunar and planets, the 200 is a great al rounder but better on dso`s

[cspindley]

I do look a lot at lunar and planets but wanted a better view thought if I get a 200p I could do that and then when I get my new camera can consantrate on dso s

[rory]

"at the end of the day the best scope is the one you use most often" exellent advice indeed.

perhaps living in the u.k a better statement of advise would be " the best scope is the one that sees through clouds"

[swamp thing]

But remember, at the end of the day the best scope is the one you use most often.

Not so sure about the most often bit. I would say the one you spend the most time using, as in, at the eyepiece.

I use my smaller scope more often yet I spend much more time using my large scope. I've observed more objects with a larger scope, seen more detail and most importantly, enjoy using a large aperture scope more. At the end of the day you'll only put time in with the kit you enjoy the most.

That is the real scope you'll use most, the one you enjoy using.

Remember we're all out there to have fun, not because we have to be.

[coopman827]

A newt on an equatorial mount will be an ergonomic pain in the rear if the tube doesn't have rotating rings.

[alan potts]

I would go for the 200mm, there is no subsitute for the extra 3 inches in diameter. But as coopman pointed out you need to be able to rotate the tube. The other dowm side is with it being faster it will really need better quality eyepieces to get good edge sharpness.

Alan

[DirkSteele]

But remember, at the end of the day the best scope is the one you use most often.

Not so sure about the most often bit. I would say the one you spend the most time using, as in, at the eyepiece.

I think that is semantics. For me the one I use most often is the one I spend most time at the eyepiece with.

[cspindley]

Thanks for the help guys I've made my mind up and I've ordered the sky watcher explorer 200PDS EQ5 PRO

[icrusoe]

But as coopman pointed out you need to be able to rotate the tube.

Why do you need to be able to rotate the tube? To see through the eyepiece?

[malc-c]

You can't compare the two... its like the proverbial apples and oranges... The Mak has around 3" less aperture and around twice the focal length of the 200P. So as mentioned the Mak will give excellent results on luna and planetary targets where magnification of bright objects is the key. The 200P having a large aperture and faster focal ratio still gives excellent results for luna and planetary, but will need barlow etc to get the magnification. Where the 200P will exceed in performance is with DSO's.

There are other factors to take into consideration... portability, comfort when using (as mentioned Newtonians get into some strange positions at times), and storage. I purchased my Mak 127 to make a portable setup to take to SGL7 as I had set the 200P up in the observatory and didn't want to dismantle the set up. I did manage to get some images of Mars, but found the 127 lacked the punch when visually observing other targets when compared to the 200P even though we were under darker skies.

[pel]

Why do you need to be able to rotate the tube? To see through the eyepiece?

Yes, depending on where you are pointing the scope the eyepiece could be high up on the OTA or underneath.

[bus_ter]

I've used the Mak127 and the 150p. The Mak gives better planetary images when you stick a webcam on the back. I don't know the exact reasons why, it just does. However the advantage of the Mak design is never going to compete with 200mm aperture, but then look at the price difference. You're talking more than double the price for the 200p newt.

[Aenima]

Here are soome size comparison pics showing the 130p explorer next to the 200p explorer. I tried to include mounts/tripods but compromised due to space issues.

Hope this helps.

As for comparing views, Its a little different but will sort it out next. HTH

Regards

[stuffedhaggis]

200p

[TheThing]

Both!

TheThing

[MikeWilson]

Which to choose: Whichever you'll use the most. A Mak 127 in your garden is better than a 200P in the shed.

Now that's over - Mak 127 for solar system objects and small and bright DSO or a severely light polluted garden in which you might want to try out the GOTO to find the brighter DSO like M31, Andromeda Galaxy. 200P for everything else, it's probably the best all rounder. Mak will need more cooldown time but is far more easily transportable.

I may have just given away the conclusion to a segment on episode 5 of our podcast with that - oops:)

[gcraib]

I've got a skymax127 and its great. As those before have said its best on planets and brighter objects, this is because the focal length is longer so it shows more detail. For the fainter objects it struggles because you can't push the magnification far enough as there is not enough aperture to gather more light.

I'd like to view fainter objects so i'm considering getting another scope. What I would do then is keep the skymax for planets and use the new one for DSO's. I'll maybe sell the EQ3-2 and buy a HEQ5 for both scopes.

[jezhughes]

I have both! Or at least the 250p... All i'll say is that when i first got my 250 i didn't realise how big it was... you don't until you actually see it. I'm a 6 foot healthy slim guy, but setting up my NEQ6 (again, i was in shock when i realised this was like the weight of a person), i get exhausted every time i set up in my garden. i haven't even tried taking it in a car (van...), but i imagine its a mission in its self.

My 127 is still an awesome scope. i use the 250p for imaging only. if i just want to look around i use the 127 as its much, much, much more portable and lighter. You can still get awesome views through it, but on a higher mag object it will struggle.

Then again, if you want the 200, thats going to be a tad smaller and perhaps more portable.

i'd also add - bigger scope = bigger mount required. The scope isn't the pain, the mount is. they're super heavy and clunky to handle.

[gcraib]

Are the EQ5 series of mounts much easier to handle than the EQ6?

What is the comparison between handling EQ5 and EQ3 mounts?

[John]

Are the EQ5 series of mounts much easier to handle than the EQ6?

What is the comparison between handling EQ5 and EQ3 mounts?

This might be best started as a new thread - it's a big topic in itself

[gcraib]

I found this, interesting reading.

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/135464-heq5-and-eq6-comparison-reveals-heq5-is-a-better-choice-according-to-sky-at-night/page__st__20