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

[dmahon]

(and the same goes for the 190 as well I think - so I'd get neither)

[ollypenrice]

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

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

Steve Loughran could take stunning images with a Box Brownie taped to a milk bottle bottom.    Beware of seeing a really classy imager's kit and assuming you'll do as well.

A fully fettled MN190 will out resolve my TEC140, never mind a 120 doublet. (Though the SW120 is an excellent telescope.) I made a careful comparison of Steve's M13 and mine in the TEC and the 190 wins. Or Steve wins! Or both.

However, an out of sorts MN 190 will not out perform a normal 120. Some fettling seems to be needed to get the 190 into shape. Neither the mirror cell not the focuser are of the best out of the box, say many owners. It is also a scope for which the EQ6 is a minimum. This scope won't be over mounted by any means and will suffer on a windy night.

Be aware of the issues and decide. If all goes well the 190 will win. If it doesn't you might do better with the easier refractor.

Tough call.

On the FL thing, I found the 980mm of the TEC 'betwixt and between' as Sara said, but now that we have a full frame camera the scope is great on the targets previously imaged with smaller scopes and a smaller chip. The 190 has a nice big circle for larger chips at some point.

Olly

[F15Rules]

I'm not sure I should even get involved in this thread as I'm a visual only man and have never owned a Mak-Newt. However, I have owned an Equinox 120 ED and (am now putting on armour plating ) I was, er, underwhelmed by it. There is no doubt it is well put together, but no more so than a Lyra Optic 4" F11 at a third of the price (though I realise the latter isn't an imaging scope), but I found the images to be definitely less pin sharp than a longer focus achromat, although of course with less CA. Maybe my example wasn't the best, but it was pristine, well looked after etc, but just didn't give me the "snap" of my longer refractors, and was a pain to focus at high power, hence the need for the dual speed crayford it came with..

If you really wanted a good apo refractor for an Equinox type price, why not look at the Explore Scientific 127mm ED, with a little extra aperture and a triplet to boot, so even better on CA and it seems well regarded for astro photography..you can get the bare bones OTA for Equinox money, see here:http://www.telescopehouse.com/acatalog/Explore-Scientific-ED-APO-127mm-f-7.5--Essential.html

The MN190 gets great reviews for AP and will clearly pull in much more light than the refractor..but, as Olly says, it is much more high maintenance, heftier and more subject to the weather and atmospheric conditions..I had two excellent Maksutov 6" scopes and on the best nights they were better than any similar size scope I've looked through...but those nights were few and far between, maybe 4 or 5 a year in the UK. Of course, if you live in the south of France...  . Also, the Mak Newt cooldown, like a Mak, can drive you nuts...they don't like the Jetstream!

Good luck with your decision whichever way you jump, and Happy New Year

Dave

Dave

[ronin]

Coin:

Heads the 120, Tails the 190.

If you don't want sudden death then best of 5.

[Sp@ce_d]

Hmm I'm also thinking of longer FL for Galaxy season & had initially wondered about an Esprit 120 but the old MN190 keeps coming up time & again... then there's the RC's,  John seems to be getting some cracking results with his Altair 6". The trouble is refractors are just so easy to get on with compared to faffing about collimating & fixing flex. Just that they are so expensive & slow in comparison... arghhh

[Martin Braddock]

Thank you Andrew for your advice and others on this thread! Much appreciated - I've bought the SW Equinox 120 and it arrives next friday - will keep you posted as I move up the learning curve!

Martin

[John]

I'm not sure I should even get involved in this thread as I'm a visual only man and have never owned a Mak-Newt. However, I have owned an Equinox 120 ED and (am now putting on armour plating ) I was, er, underwhelmed by it. There is no doubt it is well put together, but no more so than a Lyra Optic 4" F11 at a third of the price (though I realise the latter isn't an imaging scope), but I found the images to be definitely less pin sharp than a longer focus achromat, although of course with less CA. Maybe my example wasn't the best, but it was pristine, well looked after etc, but just didn't give me the "snap" of my longer refractors, and was a pain to focus at high power, hence the need for the dual speed crayford it came with..

If you really wanted a good apo refractor for an Equinox type price, why not look at the Explore Scientific 127mm ED, with a little extra aperture and a triplet to boot, so even better on CA and it seems well regarded for astro photography..you can get the bare bones OTA for Equinox money, see here:http://www.telescopehouse.com/acatalog/Explore-Scientific-ED-APO-127mm-f-7.5--Essential.html

The MN190 gets great reviews for AP and will clearly pull in much more light than the refractor..but, as Olly says, it is much more high maintenance, heftier and more subject to the weather and atmospheric conditions..I had two excellent Maksutov 6" scopes and on the best nights they were better than any similar size scope I've looked through...but those nights were few and far between, maybe 4 or 5 a year in the UK. Of course, if you live in the south of France...  . Also, the Mak Newt cooldown, like a Mak, can drive you nuts...they don't like the Jetstream!

Good luck with your decision whichever way you jump, and Happy New Year

Dave

Dave

Happy New Year to you as well Dave 

I have to say my experience of the ED120 (also as a purely visual astronomer) is entirely the opposite to yours. For it's aperture, mine is simply the best performing scope of the 30+ I've owned over the years I've been in the hobby. I had an Intes 6" F/5.9 maksutov newtonian at the same time I had the ED120 and compared the two frequently side by side. The ED120 matched the mak-newt on planetary / lunar / binary stars in every respect and came very close on deep sky objects despite the aperture difference. When it came to deciding which to keep the ED120 with it's faster cool down time and less demanding mounting requirements won the day for me.

It's possible that there is some quality variation within scope mass production of course and I entirely respect that you were not impressed with your ED120 example though, so no armour plating needed 

Personally I think Synta produced real winners with their FPL-53 ED doublets in all their apertures, having owned a number of 80mm's and excellent examples of the 100 and 120mm's. If I'd had a bad one I'd not have that opinion of course