Jump to content

Portable first scope for DSO viewing?


Recommended Posts

I'm looking for a first scope, which isn't too expensive, is portable, and works for deep sky objects.

Currently I've been looking at some Celestron scopes, and the Nexstar 127 SLT falls in my taste of maximum weight, size, and price. However it doesn't seem like maksutovs are made for dso viewing. I'd also like to eventually be able to take pictures with it in the future, probably with an equatorial mount.

Newtonians, aren't too good for this purpose, because they're big, heavy, and there's distortion when taking pictures.

Celestron 127 slt

Pros:

Has a lot of light gathering compared to price

Pretty compact

Goto

Isn't ugly

Cons:

Unstable mount

Alt azimuth mount

Always requires batteries

Bad eyepieces

A little in the heavy end

Maksutov isn't too good for DSO's

However i've also been looking at the Celestron Nexstar 102 SLT

Pros:

Not too heavy

Very pretty

Goto

Cons:

Not much light gathering

Pricy for it's size

Alt azimuth mount

Batteries

Probably bad eyepieces

Unstable mount

Refractors aren't too good for DSO's

I've tried to get to a conclusion, but it's pretty hard. There's a lot to take into account, and it's a lot of money to spend on beginner scopes. If you've got any recommendations, please do share.

I'd like to stay within a €700/$1000/£600 range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 28
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You're expecting your first scope to do everything (DSO viewing, portable, imaging). Don't do that and you'll find a decision easier to make. No scope does it all. Buy a visual scope now and spend some time thinking about AP and learning about AP. Later you can buy an AP rig. This way you'll spend less on your first scope.

An "alt/az" mount is not a "con." It's not a con because it's easier to set up, lighter, and less bulky than eq mount. It's not suitable for DSO imaging, of course, but it does have its place and it contributes to portability. If you're doing visual you don't need an eq mount.

Ignore the "bad eyepieces" they probably all will come with bad eyepieces. You'll upgrade those as you go.

In your shoes, I'd go for a 5" to 8" visual scope. Something alt/az. A cat or a Dob. You can mount a cat on a non-power alt/az mount. Then in a year or two I'd think about AP. I'd be looking for a small refractor that's cheap to mount. That would be good for learning AP. Buy a good book about AP before you dive in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but what is a cat? I looked it up in the abbreviations thread, but couldn't find anything called cat.

Also you're right, I probably can't find one that does it all, so I'd probably scratch AP from the list of things it should be able to do. Also alt/az is fine for visual as you say. But I still need it to be pretty portable though, and that could still be a problem. I'd have a hard time transporting a dob anywhere without light pollution. Do you have any comments on the nexstar 127 slt?

And thanks for the response!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A second to everything said by Umadog.

Adding...

I assume you mention Celestron scopes only out of convenience for generic types.

There are many other manufacturers who make good products at similar, or sometimes better, prices.

Often this come from the same China factory as Celestron kit.

Have you considered (for example) Skywatcher?

On portability. I used to regularly carry an 8" rfeflector and EQ5 mount in a small car without much bother. A 6" or 8" dob will give very good views and be easier to handle.

Have you been into a retailer and had a look at (and lift of) any scopes? You might be surprised by what is easy to handle and quick to set up.

Don't rush the decision and keep asking. Hope this helps.

David.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've considered some skywatcher scopes, but haven't been able to find any that are exactly what I'm looking for. Also the scope needs to be able to fit in a backpack, or around that size, since I don't have a car. Otherwise a reflector/dob would be perfect.

Edit: also this vixen caught my eye. It's on sale, and vixen is usually pretty good from what I've heard, any opinions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about a short tube refractor. For example the Skywatcher Startravel range to begin. The 80mm or 102mm tubes (ST80, ST102) are backpack size and not heavy. An AltAz mount & tripod is like carrying a heavy photo tripod.

These give really good wide views for DSOs.

If you want to turn up the magnification, for example for the planets, then chromatic aberration (CA) starts to show. Another issue is the stability of the mount.

However, if this type of package looks of interest then you can pay more to reduce or resolve these limitations.

First you can pay more for the scope tube to improve CA. For example a Skywatcher Equinox shows virtually no CA and has excellent mechanical build quality. About the only commonground between the ST80 and Equinox is lens diameter. But at 5x the price you expect the performance to be better.

Similarly a low cost AZ mount will not have the same build quality as one of the better quality mounts. Basically, why are some camera tripods £10 and other £100? I used to have a small Skywatcher Altaz mount that was (in my opinion) not very useful. But with a couple of hours work on reducing backlash and making the az stiffness adjustable, it was much better usuable. There are though limits on how far you can improve low cost mount. Making a rigid mount that doesn't weigh much is extremely difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but what is a cat? I looked it up in the abbreviations thread, but couldn't find anything called cat.

Also you're right, I probably can't find one that does it all, so I'd probably scratch AP from the list of things it should be able to do. Also alt/az is fine for visual as you say. But I still need it to be pretty portable though, and that could still be a problem. I'd have a hard time transporting a dob anywhere without light pollution. Do you have any comments on the nexstar 127 slt?

And thanks for the response!

Cat is not to be confused with the four legged furry thing :grin: but in Astronomy it is often used to refer to the Catadioptric type of scopes which are a combination of mirrors and lenses to fold/reflect the light path to form an image, the two most popular being the Shmidt-cassegrain and the Maksutov-cassegrain :)

John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want a good range of objects in a starter scope, a combination that's not too heavy and not too bulky, then consider a manual equatorial mounted 6" newtonian. It's not really backpackable though due to the mount and weights. I'm thinking of something like an EQ3-2 with a 150P ota. You'll still need a car but it will fit in the boot of most all small familly saloons/hatchbacks. You can eventually add an RA motor to this for elementary imaging.

Your only real alternative for rucksack use is a short tube refractor - but it will cost a lot more than a mirror based newtonian, and with it's smaller aperture will restrict the number of objects available to you. You'd also need a failry sturdy mount for it to be of any real use. Alt/az mounts won't be appropriate for imaging much more than planets - and an appropriate imaging mount again will overload your rucksack. In fact - you'll also need a portable powerpack and all sorts of accessories, cameras and probably guiding equipment as well. :)

This is the kind of scope I'd suggest: http://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-150p-eq3-2.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want a good range of objects in a starter scope, a combination that's not too heavy and not too bulky, then consider a manual equatorial mounted 6" newtonian. It's not really backpackable though due to the mount and weights. I'm thinking of something like an EQ3-2 with a 150P ota. You'll still need a car but it will fit in the boot of most all small familly saloons/hatchbacks. You can eventually add an RA motor to this for elementary imaging.

Your only real alternative for rucksack use is a short tube refractor - but it will cost a lot more than a mirror based newtonian, and with it's smaller aperture will restrict the number of objects available to you. You'd also need a failry sturdy mount for it to be of any real use. Alt/az mounts won't be appropriate for imaging much more than planets - and an appropriate imaging mount again will overload your rucksack. In fact - you'll also need a portable powerpack and all sorts of accessories, cameras and probably guiding equipment as well. :)

This is the kind of scope I'd suggest: http://www.firstligh...150p-eq3-2.html

But as I said, I don't have a car at all, so it would be impossible for me to drag a newtonian around. What's wrong with maksutovs though? They're smaller, but still have a nice focal length, and aren't too expensive. Maybe a refractor wouldn't be too bad either, but as you said, they'll be pretty pricy if they've got to be APO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Good for deep sky objects', and 'portable' are pretty much mutually exclusive I am afraid, especially if you are on foot. If you need to travel to dark spots because of light pollution then there is little point going for a small scope with a wide field because the larger fainter DSO's will be lost in the skyglow. A 5" Mak-Cas on a lightweight alt-az would probably be a good choice for your situation.

The Maks certainly don't have a lot of light gathering for the money when compared to Dobsonians, but a 127 is a useful size scope and will show you all the brighter DSO's as well as solar system objects. Although small, they are still quite heavy, so you won't want to carry it too far and the views don't even come close to something like a 6" or 8" Newtonian. But if portability is more important to you than the views you will get...

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/az-goto/skywatcher-skymax-127-synscan-az-goto.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Good for deep sky objects', and 'portable' are pretty much mutually exclusive I am afraid, especially if you are on foot. If you need to travel to dark spots because of light pollution then there is little point going for a small scope with a wide field because the larger fainter DSO's will be lost in the skyglow. A 5" Mak-Cas on a lightweight alt-az would probably be a good choice for your situation.

The Maks certainly don't have a lot of light gathering for the money when compared to Dobsonians, but a 127 is a useful size scope and will show you all the brighter DSO's as well as solar system objects. Although small, they are still quite heavy, so you won't want to carry it too far and the views don't even come close to something like a 6" or 8" Newtonian. But if portability is more important to you than the views you will get...

http://www.firstligh...an-az-goto.html

I see. What about this one though? Just found it, and even though it's meant to be a spotting scope, I don't see why it shouldn't be usable as a primary one when put on a proper mount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not see that one before. On the face of it, it looks okay but a bit pricey. Odd that FLO have it in 'Spotting scopes' rather than 'astro' scopes. That might be significant. If you are interested in it for astronomy you'd best send them an email via the help desk to check if there are any issues with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not see that one before. On the face of it, it looks okay but a bit pricey. Odd that FLO have it in 'Spotting scopes' rather than 'astro' scopes. That might be significant. If you are interested in it for astronomy you'd best send them an email via the help desk to check if there are any issues with it.

A bit pricey yes, but it is a schmidt-cassegrain, not just maksutov.

Also in the description it says

The near-focus of approximately 20 feet allows you to observe plant life, wildlife, birds or insects. The C5 is also a very capable telescope for astronomy and operates as a powerful 1250 mm f/10 telephoto lens for photography (optional T-adapter and T-ring required). The tripod adapter block on the C5's tube makes easy work of mounting the instrument onto a photo-tripod.

So it should be usable for astronomy, but I don't know if there's any reasonable difference to a maksutov.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I don't know if there's any reasonable difference to a maksutov.

Wider field of view and lower magnification with any given eyepiece compared to a Mak, but you'll have to collimate it, especially if bounced about in a ruck sack. Swings and roundabouts, probably not much in it and both designs have their supporters. I own a 127 Mak (or rather my son now does because I gave it to him) and have spent a good while looking through a C5se at a star party (don't know if the C5 spotter you are looking at is the same optics as this one but would assume so). The C5 is better optically to my eye (others may have a different opinion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wider field of view and lower magnification with any given eyepiece compared to a Mak, but you'll have to collimate it, especially if bounced about in a ruck sack. Swings and roundabouts, probably not much in it and both designs have their supporters. I own a 127 Mak (or rather my son now does because I gave it to him) and have spent a good while looking through a C5se at a star party (don't know if the C5 spotter you are looking at is the same optics as this one but would assume so). The C5 is better optically to my eye (others may have a different opinion).

But do you think it's good enough to justify the price difference, between the 127 mak?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 8" Alkaid (if he makes it) may be within your budget. Depends on the focal ratio it would need to be. The 10" is a little over budget but not by all that much: http://www.sumerianoptics.com/en/ Weight is probably about the same as a 5" Mak plus its tripod but you don't need the tripod with the Dob. The Dob would be more compact during transportation due to lack of tripod. Unfortunately you need to build the scope when you get to the observing site. That's not so bad: about 15 minutes including collimation once you know what you're doing. Does take longer, though, and at first it will take you a lot longer as you need to learn to collimate. They need re-collimating often. So maybe it's a bit much for a first scope but it's definitely worth considering if you want to do visual DSO stuff with no car. I can't imagine you will be able to do dark-sky DSO imaging without a car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 8" Alkaid (if he makes it) may be within your budget. Depends on the focal ratio it would need to be. The 10" is a little over budget but not by all that much: http://www.sumerianoptics.com/en/ Weight is probably about the same as a 5" Mak plus its tripod but you don't need the tripod with the Dob. The Dob would be more compact during transportation due to lack of tripod. Unfortunately you need to build the scope when you get to the observing site. That's not so bad: about 15 minutes including collimation once you know what you're doing. Does take longer, though, and at first it will take you a lot longer as you need to learn to collimate. They need re-collimating often. So maybe it's a bit much for a first scope but it's definitely worth considering if you want to do visual DSO stuff with no car. I can't imagine you will be able to do dark-sky DSO imaging without a car.

It's incredible for the price, but I think I would go with something a little easier for my first scope. Also a little too expensive, but of course not compared to it's performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But do you think it's good enough to justify the price difference, between the 127 mak?

The C5 (or 5se) is better but certainly not twice as good as the Skymax 127. Only you can say if it is worth the extra money I am afraid. Both scopes will show more or less the same stuff at more or less the same quality of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The C5 (or 5se) is better but certainly not twice as good as the Skymax 127. Only you can say if it is worth the extra money I am afraid. Both scopes will show more or less the same stuff at more or less the same quality of view.

All right, wouldn't this 5" be sufficient then? It's actually less expensive than its skywatcher counterpart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, it's probably not a good first scope. But keep it in mind. You can have a good sized aperture that's portable (just!). If you don't want the Goto, though, then I'd suggest you buy the OTA and the mount separately. Just get an alt/az mount with no drives. If you want to go as portable as possible then that's the obvious solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect that one is just the same as the Skymax but with a slightly different paint job. They are both made by Synta corp.

Alright, I think I'll go with the celestron scope then!

Also one more quick question, would this eyepice be good for high magnification view? Would I also need a new diagonal for "proper optics"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 6mm is probably too high power to get much use in that scope. I seldom use anything shorter than about 9mm (8.8mm wide angle) a 14mm WA gets the most use.

Edit: The supplied diagonal is perfectly fine to start off with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.