Your thoughts...

[Mansnake]

It all depends on what you want from an image I suppose. If you want to showcase them then get a reflector of an APO but if you just want some nice images for your own album then the 102 Skywatcher will do the trick nicely. Like most things you have to balance the amount of money you have to spend with the best scope you can get - unfortunately they rarely meet up.

Yea im not planning on sending images to magazines or anything like that. i just want to be able to try and get some results for myself and show friends and family (if there any good )

I need a grab and go scope at the moment and i just want to start fairly small and simple so i can get used to using my own telescope. In the future when im maybe more financially better off ill have my own obsy......heres hoping !!

[JamesF]

I'd say the CA with the ST102 is going to make imaging pretty tough for pretty much anything you're likely to be able to pick up with a webcam. It might be fun to have a go, but I don't think you'd ever be happy with the results.

I use the 127 Mak on an EQ3-2 a fair bit for planetary and lunar/solar imaging both with webcam and DSLR and I'm very happy with that combination. It's ok for most of the Messier objects, too, but you're never going to get a nice wide field view.

If you can live without the imaging side, I'd say go for a 200P dob pretty much every time. You can do a bit of planetary imaging with it and a webcam if you really must, but it's tricky and requires the patience of a saint.

As a compromise between the two I think I'd also jump on the 130P bandwagon.

James

[Mansnake]

If you can live without the imaging side, I'd say go for a 200P dob pretty much every time. You can do a bit of planetary imaging with it and a webcam if you really must, but it's tricky and requires the patience of a saint.

James

Yea i get why dob's are so popular after witnessing the ring nebula through a 14" one the other night. As i need the scope to be quite portable im afraid a dob isn't a viable option.

Has anyone got a picture taken with the ST102 which shows CA ?

[Capricorn]

As a first scope the 102 is fair, there are better but they cost more money as well.

My concern about the 102 is that it has an erecting prism in it. They are junk and shouldn't be there. If you purchase from somewhere like FLO I would ask if it can be removed easily and what you would need to compensate for it. I have seen one SW 102 and it seemed to have lots of bits so maybe you do not need anything extra.

Yes it will have some CA, sounds as if you are 100% aware of this, but as that is the scope that comes on the mount little you can do.

Webcam imaging will be reasonable, I do not recall you saying DSO imaging so again you know the limitiations.

Magnification of 200x not a chance. 100x maybe with a reasonable 5mm eyepiece, 120x again maybe however more problems and above that I suspect the image will be pretty poor. However 80x will display Jupiter nice ans 120x should show Saturn decently. Wouldn't like to say that you will get 150x, especially if you do not take the prism out of the path. For 150x you would need a 3.4mm eyepiece that works well on a f/5 scope. A TMB might do it (cheapest option @£40-47), a TV Radian is half the cost or more of the scope and a good barlow and good 6mm eyepiece again add up to a significatnt proportion of the scope cost.

[Mansnake]

As a first scope the 102 is fair, there are better but they cost more money as well.

My concern about the 102 is that it has an erecting prism in it. They are junk and shouldn't be there. If you purchase from somewhere like FLO I would ask if it can be removed easily and what you would need to compensate for it. I have seen one SW 102 and it seemed to have lots of bits so maybe you do not need anything extra.

Yes it will have some CA, sounds as if you are 100% aware of this, but as that is the scope that comes on the mount little you can do.

Webcam imaging will be reasonable, I do not recall you saying DSO imaging so again you know the limitiations.

Magnification of 200x not a chance. 100x maybe with a reasonable 5mm eyepiece, 120x again maybe however more problems and above that I suspect the image will be pretty poor. However 80x will display Jupiter nice ans 120x should show Saturn decently. Wouldn't like to say that you will get 150x, especially if you do not take the prism out of the path. For 150x you would need a 3.4mm eyepiece that works well on a f/5 scope. A TMB might do it (cheapest option @£40-47), a TV Radian is half the cost or more of the scope and a good barlow and good 6mm eyepiece again add up to a significatnt proportion of the scope cost.

Thanks for your input Capricorn.

I think i'm going to have a nervous break down before i eventually make up my mind..

Would the 130P be the better option then ?. I'm thinking i would like to achieve more that 100x mag comfortably.

Ok so what would be the setup time difference between an Alt/Az synscan mount and an EQ3 PRO ? If i has an EQ3 PRO and put a webcam on it would the weight of the webcam be enough to make any difference to the balance ?

Sorry for all the questions

[Carbon Brush]

I used to own an ST102 and took a few photos, as well as a bit of visual use. A nice enough scope if you accept the limitations described earlier. Skywatcher have tried to make a scope to suit terrestrial and astro viewing. As a result it does both, but not as well as a scope intended for one purpose or the other.

You can't do anything about the CA. But you can improve the contrast. When I did a side by side against a better quality 80mm short frac, I tried swapping eyepieces and diagonal between them. The poorer contrast of the ST102 resulted from a combination of the eyepiece, diagonal and tube. I didn't go further to see if the tube effects were down to the lens, or reflective paint in the tube as I decided to sell on the scope.

You can omit the erecting prism if you insert a 2" extension tube. This will help with contrast.

The focus assembly is OK with a webcam, but starts to strain with a DSLR. Or at least that was the case with mine. i think the focusser design has changed since.

If you look out for used parts, it is easier to mix mount & scope to get a good package. Rather than having to accept the packages offered by the manufacturers.

Should you find the ST102 limitations a problem, then selling on a used scope, you will lose little money. Selling on from new yields at best 2/3 of the new price loses.

If you go for an EQ5/CG5 size mount, this will visually take up to an 8" newt or 10" with care. For imaging up to a 6" newt and 8" with care and accepting limitations. It will also take an ST102 without noticing the load. A good mount gives you choices on later scopes.

Hope something in here is useful.

[Mansnake]

I used to own an ST102 and took a few photos, as well as a bit of visual use. A nice enough scope if you accept the limitations described earlier. Skywatcher have tried to make a scope to suit terrestrial and astro viewing. As a result it does both, but not as well as a scope intended for one purpose or the other.

You can't do anything about the CA. But you can improve the contrast. When I did a side by side against a better quality 80mm short frac, I tried swapping eyepieces and diagonal between them. The poorer contrast of the ST102 resulted from a combination of the eyepiece, diagonal and tube. I didn't go further to see if the tube effects were down to the lens, or reflective paint in the tube as I decided to sell on the scope.

You can omit the erecting prism if you insert a 2" extension tube. This will help with contrast.

The focus assembly is OK with a webcam, but starts to strain with a DSLR. Or at least that was the case with mine. i think the focusser design has changed since.

If you look out for used parts, it is easier to mix mount & scope to get a good package. Rather than having to accept the packages offered by the manufacturers.

Should you find the ST102 limitations a problem, then selling on a used scope, you will lose little money. Selling on from new yields at best 2/3 of the new price loses.

If you go for an EQ5/CG5 size mount, this will visually take up to an 8" newt or 10" with care. For imaging up to a 6" newt and 8" with care and accepting limitations. It will also take an ST102 without noticing the load. A good mount gives you choices on later scopes.

Hope something in here is useful.

Yea i think no matter what you look at, it always comes down to the mount.

The problem is thought with an EQ mount the setup time is always longer and its not as portable for this reason...well it is portable but then you have to attach the OTA and balance it etc...

Also i don't really want to go over my £500 budget.

ill just go for the 130P instead........i think !

[Carbon Brush]

An EQ mount is no problem for setting up.

Throw it on the floor levelish and northish and that is good enough for visual.

A few minutes level/north effort is all that is needed for better setup for imaging.

Balancing takes only a minute or two. If you put a small scope on a big mount, balance is much less important.

After a practice session or two in daylight you quickly learn to how to set up in minimum time in the dark.

If you can leave your kit in the garden, why not set up in daylight then go in for a cuppa?

After a while, you get used to where to put the OTA and weights to balance a particular setup.

I have been known to put masking tape on the OTA and counterweight shaft.

You can see I'm quite a fan of EQ mounts!

I'm also a skinflint and buy most of my kit used.

On AB&S there is a CG5GT goto)for £350. That may be an optimistic price.

You should be able to pick up an ST102 tube for £100ish.

Think in terms of £150 for a decent 6" or 8" newt OTA, depending on condition, extras, etc.

So your £500 budget can go quite far on used kit.

[Mansnake]

An EQ mount is no problem for setting up.

Throw it on the floor levelish and northish and that is good enough for visual.

A few minutes level/north effort is all that is needed for better setup for imaging.

Balancing takes only a minute or two. If you put a small scope on a big mount, balance is much less important.

After a practice session or two in daylight you quickly learn to how to set up in minimum time in the dark.

If you can leave your kit in the garden, why not set up in daylight then go in for a cuppa?

After a while, you get used to where to put the OTA and weights to balance a particular setup.

I have been known to put masking tape on the OTA and counterweight shaft.

You can see I'm quite a fan of EQ mounts!

I'm also a skinflint and buy most of my kit used.

On AB&S there is a CG5GT goto)for £350. That may be an optimistic price.

You should be able to pick up an ST102 tube for £100ish.

Think in terms of £150 for a decent 6" or 8" newt OTA, depending on condition, extras, etc.

So your £500 budget can go quite far on used kit.

Ok thanks for your input.

I think ill have to try weigh up the pro's and con's etc and see where i am when i have raised the cash.

[Russe]

Some more things to think about:

Newts need collimating

Maks don't (for the most part)

Maks have rubbish focusers (takes a while for a skimpy mount to stop vibrating after adjustments)

And, windy mounts give rubbish pics as your planets dance all over the screen with slightest winds.

EQs need polar aligning (no worry if you can't see north - different methods out there) and balancing

AZ's don't

AZ's need proper levelling

EQ's don't

Mhm, I guess im trying to say: spend your money on a mount. Upgrading scopes is easier (and more fun).

I was very unhappy with my Alt/AZ mount once I wanted to click webcam images. Now it's collecting dust in a corner. For visual it was nice though, because the setup was so swift and easy.

[Russe]

Oh, and Mak's need ages to cool down to reduce currents in the tube.

[Mansnake]

Thanks Russe.

Some good things i need to consider.

[Mansnake]

Would i be better saving an extra £60 and going for this instead then do you think? http://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-150p-eq3-2.html

Iv'e still then got to buy a power source to run it off in the field etc..

[Shibby]

Hi Lewis,

Having used both an ST102 and a 130P, I would definitely recommend the 130P if I were to choose between the two.

Also, you won't afford a future-proof mount within budget so I'd suggest getting it on the AZ goto or SupaTrak mount. It's very lightweight and will deal with tracking for you - good enough for lunar and planetary imaging. Don't waste money on an intermediate mount would be my advice. This leaves you with plenty of budget left over for eyepieces, webcams etc.

[Shibby]

Would i be better saving an extra £60 and going for this instead then do you think? http://www.firstligh...150p-eq3-2.html

Also a good choice. The 150P does offer better views but is less portable, particularly on an EQ mount. Good setup, though, if you're not planning on much DSO imaging with it.

[Mansnake]

Hi Lewis,

Having used both an ST102 and a 130P, I would definitely recommend the 130P if I were to choose between the two.

Also, you won't afford a future-proof mount within budget so I'd suggest getting it on the AZ goto or SupaTrak mount. It's very lightweight and will deal with tracking for you - good enough for lunar and planetary imaging. Don't waste money on an intermediate mount would be my advice. This leaves you with plenty of budget left over for eyepieces, webcams etc.

Thanks Lewis.

I think i will go for the 130P.

Thanks to everyone for their input ! it has been very much appreciated.