is it even possible to decide between an equinox 120 and a 190mn?

[willcastle]

I love both... But I don't know which to get. I'm mostly into imaging deepsky... iv seen incredible results from the 190 but love the quality and look of the equinox... But then every image I have found so far from the 120 has not been a razor sharp as ones I have seen from the 190.

[dweller25]

For imaging - 190 without a doubt.

[Andrew*]

Which mount do you have? If it's an EQ6-grade, then get the MN190. If it's an HEQ5, either get the ED120 or upgrade to an EQ6 and get the MN190!

[willcastle]

Okay so that's two votes for the 190... But id like to know why you two prefer the 190? What is it so much better at over the other one?

Will

[willcastle]

And it will go on an eq6

[John]

Okay so that's two votes for the 190... But id like to know why you two prefer the 190? What is it so much better at over the other one?

Will

I'm not sure why you are dithering Will ?

You have said yourself that all the images you have seen from the 190 Mak-Newt have been better than the ED120 produces and your primary interest is deep sky imaging plus you have the necessary platform for the 190 MN. The MN is a few quid less expensive than the ED120 as well.

I'm just a visual guy but the only downside that I've experienced with maks is their cool down time.

Unless cool down is an issue for you then it seems a "no brainer" to me. But then I might be missing something .....

[willcastle]

Haha I guess I just like the equinox and they both have glowing reviews... And the equinox looks like it has exceedingly high build quality...

It feels like trying to mathematically justify if a cat is better than a dog...

But okay I'll stick with my initial choice of the 190!

I just want to make sure I really end up with the one I want with no regrets. I'm still very welcome to hear more opinions on why I'm making the right decision with the 190 though!

Cheers everyone

[Andrew*]

This is actually a bit silly coming from me, but I'll explain why I suggest the MN190 over the ED120.

The fact is my ED120 is the best telescope I've owned, and I haven't even looked through a Mak-Newt, but I'm kind of going on logic and the opinions of people I trust.

Firstly, the mak-newt has a focal ratio of 5.3, making it exactly twice as fast as the ED120 for imaging. Even with the necessary field flattener/reducer, the ED120 would need 28% longer exposures.

Secondly, the Mak-Newt offers (slightly) better images than the ED120 due to its lack of chromatic aberration and its naturally flat and large field.

Thirdly it will double as a better visual instrument, with its 70mm larger aperture. Mak-Newts are said to offer just as high contrast views as apos, so in that regard there isn't much to be said for choosing an ED120.

Of course there are reasons against the MN190: they're much bulkier and heavier, require a larger mount, they require collimating, and a longer cool down. If you have a permanent set-up, all these points are unimportant. My main reason is my ED120 doubles up as a great white light and Ha solar scope.

HTH

Andrew

[willcastle]

Wow thank you very much Andrew. That was a good breakdown. Although a quattro 10 inch is even faster at f4 and is another 60mm larger than the 190MN and yet it was almost unanimous that people preferred the 190MN for its quality of optics. just to throw a spanner in the works but yer I'll go for the mak... I just hope that considering its price... it's a worthy step above my 200p

[Andrew*]

Haha - a step-up worth 4-5 times as much? Only a question you can answer. Newtonians suffer from coma, so a corrector will be required whether using your 200P or the Quattro, and of course both will require more frequent and more accurate collimation.

Andrew

[willcastle]

Haha yes, considering the 5x increase, I was hoping the improvement would be a little more conclusive! :s but then I guess iv never seen a stunning 200p image....

[John]

.....The fact is my ED120 is the best telescope I've owned, and I haven't even looked through a Mak-Newt, but I'm kind of going on logic and the opinions of people I trust.....

I'd better come clean and say that my best scope is an ED120 too. I did own a 6" F/5.9 mak-newtonian before it and, with the exception of light grasp on deep sky objects, the ED120 slightly shows crisper and more contrasty views than the mak-newt. Not much in it though.

Thats for visual use though and the the Skywatcher mak-newt provides 40mm more aperture than my old mak-newt so I'm more than happy to go with the advice from the imagers.

[willcastle]

So perhaps my dithering was well founded haha

The reviewer for astronomy now did make some incredibly bold statements about the mak that were almost certain to cause controversy! Such as claiming the 190 is the equivalent of a 190 triplet apo! But then who am I to argue with a professional reviewer who states the optics are 'truly first class'.

Unfortunately I do not know the outcome of the SaN review... But apprntly it was good.

I guess the scope almost sounds too good but I'll do a really in depth review when I have a first light so I can help others trying to decide.

[laser_jock99]

I have the ED120 + field flattener reducer, whilst it's a mighty fine scope in it's own right I wouldn't mind betting the Mak is better for imaging in some respects being both faster and wider. Tough choice!

[Naemeth]

While I know little about imaging, and little about these scopes (apart from a little background before posting), the 190MN will have a slightly wider FOV (shorter FL), and is much faster. This should reduce minimum exposure times, yes you will probably need a coma corrector and to collimate it rather frequently. But if you go for the Equinox 120, I can almost guarantee you will miss having 70mm more aperture, even if it is for imaging.

[willcastle]

Wow it seems like an awful lot of people have a 120ed...

But yer tough call indeed

(naemeth - the mak doesn't need a coma corrector thanks to the corrector lens it already has)

[Andrew*]

And it has a 1000mm focal length to the ED120's 900mm

[dmahon]

I've got an Equinox 120 too (with reducer/flattener).

I just like refractors. No colimation issues and no need to worry about cool down times. It's also smaller and lighter, so easier to guide without lost subs in the wind and easier to dual mount with another small refractor.

Saying that, the MN190 has produced some cracking images.

[Gina]

Very interesting Sometime in the next 2 or 3 years I may go for a bigger scope and the MN190 was what I was thinking of. I have an ED80 ATM which will do me for quite some time and an NEQ6 Pro mount which I believe will take the MN190 plus Evostar 80 ED and ST80 guide scope. I am into imaging DSOs and don't do visual. I would like to keep the ED80 for the wider DSOs for which it seems excellent.

[Steve Ward]

Steve Loughran uses the MK190 to produce some stunning images if you need convincing..........

http://www.steves-astro.com/

[willcastle]

That's just it... the 190 results speak for themselves... They are stunning. And yer Steve is a huge inspiration, having produced some of my all time favourite images.

I guess I was worried that the 190 would be too similar to what I already have... But no I think it's an altogether different kind of beast.

And Gina... Iv done some maths and the neq6 would just... Just.... Get away with that! Anything more really would push it too far. I feel the 190 plus my st80 with a dslr is as much as id want to put on the neq6

[Martin Braddock]

Hi all,

I am in the identical position as a number of others and not sure which way to go!!

Equinox 120 versus MN190 on an NEQ6 mount both with Skywatcher's guide scope and Synguider - the Equinox package comes in at around £3K (including power tank and focal reducer) versus  £2.6K for the 190 MN.

I am wanting my cake and eating it as I'm looking for an all rounder for planetary and DSO imaging and I will be new to astrophotography so the portability of a set up to take to star parties which doesn't need collimation is making me favour the 120 but then again........

Any more thoughts on this please.....?
Martin

[Andrew*]

Basically, for a gentler learning curve and convenience, choose the ED120, although, there is not much difference in that respect. For image quality, the 190 is the obvious choice. Which is more important to you?

[dmahon]

I had an equinox 120, but I found I preferred my 80, or wanted more focal length. It was too "in the middle".

[swag72]

I agree about the 120 being a little betwixt and between. I had an ED120 and found that it was too long for many of the nebula's that I loved and far too short for anything other than the larger galaxies.