Thinking of a change. Any advice please folks.

[Welrod50]

Hello all. I've been off for a while working long hours, doing more summery stuff and basking under cloudy skies on the odd occasion I've had the chance to get out. Whilst doing very little stargazing, I've had time to do some serious thinking. The conclusion I've come to is this:

I love using my SW Explorer 130 on its std EQ mount. However, I have come to find that I prefer to observe the moon & planets, find them easier to locate and generally don't get much of a view of DSO's unless they are quite bright, such as M42 or the Beehive Cluster. Anything beyond Mag 6.0 or so I find I struggle with, both to find and then view. Now, I understand the reasons for this and accept that, with seeing limitations, atmospheric limitations, human eye limitations and 'scope/EP limitations it will always be so. I have printed off all manner of star maps, constellation/DSO maps and the like but do become frustrated by my inability to locate DSO's. Although I do think that I am mostly finding things, just they are too faint or too much LP to actually see them.

Now that everyone can see where I'm coming from, may I ask for some input please. I'm after folks' thoughts, experience and advice as I'm thinking of moving away from my Newtonian in favour of either a refractor or Cassegrain to hopefully obtain sharper, clearer views of the Moon, Planets and also retain the capacity to see the brighter DSO's (M42, M31, M44 et al). I initially thought that a GO -TO may be a good idea, but to be fair, for my chosen targets don't think this is really necessary. That said, I'm looking to do some more astrophotog (I've got the kit and had a play up til now, but that's it really) so a Syn Scan may help here.

If anyone can share their experience, that would be lovely. I need something with a good focal length (my SW has 900mm) good optics etc but that wont cost more than about £400 - £500 ideally.

All advice greatly appreciated...

Scott

[JamesF]

I wonder if it might be worth seeing if you can try out a 200P dob before deciding to pass on the more difficult DSOs It may well give you a different perspective and would be well within budget.

James

[JB80]

Even a 250PX is in that budget, both would be a substantial upgrade in aperture.

[Welrod50]

Dyu know, I thought of a Dob before, but I need to go smaller ideally than the SW 130, as it already takes up a lot of space in the house. I would like to go smaller if possible, but if not then at least not any bigger. As for passing up the DSO's, it does leave me feeling some slight regret, but I know that when I do next get out, I will invariably lean towards the planets, and do so each time I go outdoors. I literally gasped the first time I saw M42 up close and with clarity. I laughed out loud the first time I saw Saturn.

I do love to see the brighter DSO's. I think I get a little more from the planets though.

Thanks for the quick reply James.

Scott.

[Welrod50]

Jarrod, was writing my last post whilst you posted yours.

Thanks for the reply however!!

Scott

[DirkSteele]

I second what James has said. You may well find your thoughts on DSOs change dramtically when you have used a larger aperture scope. Though a Dob will not really permit astrophotography. There is also no getting away from the fact that the biggest bang for your buck comes with a Newtonian. I have a 4" Apo refractor which cost more than my 11" SCT.

Also I see you mention space constraints. Dobs often take up less floor space than their equatorial mounted cousins.

As you mention you are having difficulties locating objects, it may also be worth considering digital setting circles that can guide to the object of interest.

[Hex]

If I was buying a refractor set up for the first time I would be looking at these two items for a good quality turn out which is in budget and would last you for years and years.

An AZ4 Mount and the wonderful TAL 100RS....

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/tal/tal-100rs-refractor-optical-tube-assembly.html

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/alt-azimuth/skywatcher-az4-alt-az-mount.html

[TheNorthernMonkey]

If you can fit a dob into your house, then its longer focal length and inceased aperature would make it superior in every way for looking at the moon and planets

[knobby]

If i get the chance, later I'll post a pic of my 250 Dob next to my Celestron 4se, the 4se is bigger in storage terms than the Dob.

But if its planets you love then a Mak will be great !

[JamesF]

The 250 flextube is certainly quite compact from a storage point of view. I have mine (which is a 250 flextube with my own base) in a corner of my office. My wife hasn't even noticed it yet

James

[stevetynant]

I might be committing heresy here but won't limiting yourself to the planets and moon be, well completely limiting

I just wonder if the reduced number of targets you search for might reduce your interest and enthusiasm still further (stunning though most are) .

Perseverance, more aperture and a car to get you occasionally away to a darker site would be my suggestion.

[Welrod50]

Thanks for the replies folks. I shall look forward to viewing the pics Knobby, and James - I wish my Mrs wouldn't notice my scope

Hex, I have viewed the Tal before and it does look a good prospect. Compactness has featured with my musings, which is why I mention Cassegrains too.

Has anyone else got much experience of these??

Again, thank you for the posts all.

I'm off to work in a while, so may be after midnight before I get opportunity to reply to new posts.

Scott

[Welrod50]

Hi Steve,

Limiting myself to planets may be less limiting than you might think. I would be able to concentrate more on these without thinking to myself, 'mmm I'll just swing it towards Andromeda for a min and see if I can see the galaxy better this time' (and I do sometimes try to see too many things at the expense of concentration, as it can be weeks between viewings and I get like an excited kid).

This is why though, I do rather selfishly want to keep the option of being able to see the brighter DSO's.

As for transport, I live within a 30 minute drive of the Roaches which is very dark indeed and although I've been with the bino's before, am yet to take the scope there. The size and weight puts me off, along with fears that it may need to be collimated again after a jaunt in the car. Another reason I seek a smaller alternative.

Good input though - appreciated!

Scott

[stevetynant]

Hi Scott - I suppose thats the great thing about astronomy - theres no one size to fit all and at the end of the day its what you enjoy that counts.

If however your within half an hour of a really good dark sky site I would urge you take your scope - no amount of aperture in a light polluted sky will compensate for it. My dark sky site is about an hour away from where I live- the difference is chalk and cheese. An 8 Inch Newtonian at a dark sky site will open up a whole new world for you. A setting circle and Wixey will get you in the right area for most of the Messiers - it would be good if you try someones elses scope out in these conditions to see how improved the views are before you comit to spending again - but good luck with your choice whtever you decide to go with.

Steve

[knobby]

As promised 250px / 4se comparison ...

I have to admit, I've put the 4se in the front to emphasize the size ! (some might call it cheating, I call it artistic license )

[Monty]

Hi Scott, have you flocked the 130? I've also got a 130 and the Newt is still my favourite type of scope. Recently I flocked my SCT and boy what a difference, the newt is next on the list and if it has the same effect I'll feel sorry for the faint little fuzzies that have been hiding for years.

Plenty of LP here in Cheshunt but that just makes me more determined.

[nightfisher]

Im going to agree with the Scott, also im going to suggest a skymax 127, or if the budget will stretch to a 150, very compact, long focal length, excellent on lunar and planets, but not so bad on DSO`s as people might like to think, only limited to a smaller field of view than other scope designs . Just the cooldown to keep in mind, but very good scopes, easy on eyepieces, very compact and dam near Apo views

[Welrod50]

Hi all, back from work, wide awake with an hour to kill and guess what - cloud and rain....brilliant

Knobby - that Dob is a beast. Is it as heavy as it looks??

Monty - I haven't flocked the scope. I don't fancy taking it apart to be honest. I could probably do it, but the 'what if' factor puts me off.

Nightfisher - does the Skymax 127 lend itself to astro photog? Also, how much more restricted is the FOV compared to the SW 130 would you say?

Thanks all, please keep the input coming.

Scott.

[knobby]

The dob is heavy but manageable if split from the base ... good luck choosing!

[Monty]

Flocking a scope is no more difficult than collimating. Actually flocking an SCT is easier than collimating, you can do it indoors while it pours down outside.

There are a few you tube videos about flocking as well as many written articles on the net.

Personally I use Protostar Flockboard from Lyra Optic, for a 130 you can use the 020" thickness. No adhesive involved and it stays where you put it. No the cheapest flocking but easy to do and effective. To do the CPC800 cost me £28 with enough left over for a dew shield for my 130p.

Don't give up on the little newt, with some tweaking it will punch above it's weight.

[Welrod50]

I have to say, I do have a soft spot for the 130 and did a lot of um'ing and ar'ing and a lot of research into different scopes before I plumped for the 130 and have not regretted it in any way since. We are on an estate and we are situated at the top of the estate on a large gradual hill, with only one streetlamp behind us and backed onto by fields and common land, so whilst there is LP to consider, it is not that bad for an urban setting and the Neodymium filter does an admirable job of limiting this too.

However, I have now progressed to wanting to do more AP and I can do this with the 130 well enough, using the video on my Pentax Kx and then stacking frames in Registax to get a clear, noise free final image. But, I am also now acutely aware that if I had a scope I could throw over my shoulder and stroll up the Roaches with, as opposed to a large, heavy scope which I will either drop and damage, or injure myself in the process - I can potentially capture much better footage from a proper dark site.

If I'm being honest, I think I have made the decision to move away from the 130 (although I'm not sure if I will sell it just in case) in favour of a more portable scope which can accomodate my leanings towards planetary, but still give me the brighter Messiers too. It's just a question of which one to go for??

Syn Scan would be nice, but not essential. As ever I appreciate the input and welcome more!!

Thanks,

Scott.

[Cjg]

Hi Scott,

I have moved from a Newtonian to a Nextstar 5SE - albeit a 10 inch Orion Dobsonian.

I switched because the 10" was just too big for me (I purchased the dob off the bay).

The views from the 5SE of the planets and brighter DSO's are stunning - there is a "crispness" to the views through the 5SE, the contrast is so much better than with the dob.

I store the OTA in a LowePro backpack and the mount has much less presence on the floor of my study than the dob did.....but it's not much more portable in that the goto needs power and AA's whether Duracell or rechargeable won't last long, you'll need a power pack of some kind to carry too. Definitely not a "a scope I could throw over my shoulder".

I have the Short tube 102 Refractor on the goto mount, that is lighter, faster in terms of aperture, more portable, but not so good for the planets.

Perhaps you could visit your local astro society and have a look through some of the scopes used by their members one evening?

Good luck,

Chris

[brantuk]

I only read the original post here and barely flicked through the rest so it may have been said before. The problem here is obvious - you have reached the limititations imposed by aperture size. The 130P is a great starter scope to test the water with at a reasonable cost. But the fainter more distant dso's are not available with this newtonian.

This has probably coloured your perception and disheartened your attempts so you decided to settle for planets/moon only as a result. Imho you don't need to compromise. After all you can't race a formula one grand prix in a vauxhaul familly saloon lol. My advice is go for a larger aperture. You only need to step up an inch or two. Maybe a 6" or 8" would fit the bill here.

I'd suggest looking at 6"-8" Sct's and larger Newts plus a sturdier mount to accommodate new weight requirements. With an Sct you'd have the benefit of sharper solar system views with the longer focal length - pop in a reducer and you'll have a circa f-6 or f-7 instrument to speed up light gather from dso's. Alternatively a 200P Newt will yeild great views of both - either way the extra aperture will keep your interest engaged and bring many more objects into your sessions. Sell the 130P and put the money towards your budget - most expense here will be the mount - maybe an EQ5 or CG5 (goto, tracking only, or manual, to suit budget). HTH

[Welrod50]

Hi Brant,

thanks for the response. There has been discussion about the size and weight of a bigger Newt limiting my intentions of taking it out to dark sky sites....

However, as you propose, I'm leaning towards a Cassegrain for the smaller size and extra reach combined. I note you've mentioned a reducer. I have heard comment on focal reducers here before but not really taken much notice (until now). Please forgive my ignorance but, can you explain please how this works. I assume it drops the aperture from lets say, f12 on a SCT to f7 perhaps? How does this work and does it affect optical clarity? Is there an obvious trade off??

Sounds like this is the way to go. Thank you for your help!!

Scott

[brantuk]

You can think of a reducer as the opposite of a barlow. It does nothing to the aperture but it effectively changes the focal ratio. A 2x barlow doubles the focal length - and a 0.63 reducer will lessen it almost by 4/10 ths. Divide focal focal length by the aperture and you'll find the focal ratio reduces too - just as it effectively raises focal ratio with a barlow.

I say effectively cos it doesn't actually change the focal ratio of the scope - just the ratio of the pieces employed at the time. Sct's typically have .63 reducers but there are other sizes too - for some reason the .63 is most popular - maybe someone will explain why. I do know this size is used a lot with Sct imagers to reduce the time needed for long exposures. For observing though - it turns an Sct into a dual purpose scope for dso's and/or solar sytem use.

There's a small proce to pay incidentally and that is the extra glass in the light train - as allways coatings and optical quality will play a part - so get as good a one as poss