Is The skywatcher 130p ds the new kid in town?

[rowan46]

For some time now the skywatcher evostar ed 80 has been the cheapest decent ota for imaging. I don't really do imaging certainly not on dso's. However whilst browsing it struck me that the 130p may be the new entry level imaging scope. it's small, fast has a coma corrector and a dual speed focusser and should fit a heq5 and is much cheaper anybody using it for imaging? How are you finding it.

[nightfisher]

I toyed with getting one of these, but getting the new WO 71ED instead........be interested to hear what people think of the 130p ds though

[ibraidwo]

I too would like to know what people think about the new 130P DS. I have the 130p model with single focuser on a Synscan mount and I find that the focuser is what lets this otherwise great scope down.

Would buying the 130P DS OTA be a good interim investment (I would sell my old OTA), for:

- an improvement on my current focuser

- a future scope for imaging (when I get around to buying an EQ-5 or a CG-5)

Replacing my focuser would be as expensive I think, and am not sure if the autofocuser would be an ideal solution...

Thanks

[CowsonConcrete]

Just bought an 130p ds after selling my 120mm refractor. Last night was the first time I'd used it; the 2" 23mm Ep supplied is brilliant, thinking of changing all my current eps, Barlow and camera adapter to 2" now. The focusser is great but last night was very damp and the seeing poor. The finderscope is a bit of a dog as well! I'll put a proper review together after a better night and I'll try and fire off a couple of shots as well.

[laser_jock99]

Just bought an 130p ds after selling my 120mm refractor. Last night was the first time I'd used it; the 2" 23mm Ep supplied is brilliant, thinking of changing all my current eps, Barlow and camera adapter to 2" now. The focusser is great but last night was very damp and the seeing poor. The finderscope is a bit of a dog as well! I'll put a proper review together after a better night and I'll try and fire off a couple of shots as well.

Did it come with a coma corrector is that an extra?

I'm also reviewing this F4 Newtonian as a pure imaging rig:

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/196073-tsgso-150mm-f4-imaging-newtonian/

At F4 it might be more attractive to imagers?

[RikM]

I've been hoping the 130PDS will shine as an intro scope for AP. Used with the SW 0.9x coma corrector for a 585mm @ f/4.5 gives a good field of view and is fairly forgiving of tracking errors, apochromatic by nature, designed to reach focus with a DSLR. It seems a good compromise between speed and collimation. Mechanically, these entry level telescopes are built perfectly well enough to get and maintain collimation at f/5 but begin to struggle much below f/4.5. I love imaging with Newts but I don't think I'm up for the hassle of f/4 unless the hardware is up to it and I have an obsy to leave it all set up.

[nightfisher]

I've been hoping the 130PDS will shine as an intro scope for AP. Used with the SW 0.9x coma corrector for a 585mm @ f/4.5 gives a good field of view and is fairly forgiving of tracking errors, apochromatic by nature, designed to reach focus with a DSLR. It seems a good compromise between speed and collimation. Mechanically, these entry level telescopes are built perfectly well enough to get and maintain collimation at f/5 but begin to struggle much below f/4.5. I love imaging with Newts but I don't think I'm up for the hassle of f/4 unless the hardware is up to it and I have an obsy to leave it all set up.

I had planned to get the 130pds, but ended up with the 150pds, still not done any imaging with it, i have the wrong dslr, but it may happen, they are very well made and hold collimation well

[PorkyB]

I bought a 130PDS a few weeks ago ... so I think I have used it twice now.  I like it a lot.

The plan was to have it on an AZ4 as a visual scope whilst I'm imaging with my 200P/EQ5, but I have had a couple of goes at imaging with it, on the EQ5, and have been very happy with the results.  The wider field of view makes it very versatile and it is so much easier to handle and a lot more stable on the mount than the 200.  I am using with with the SW coma corrector which, as it attaches to the camera rather than the scope, is easy to swap between scopes.

Here is my favourite image, so far, with the 130PDS...

Double Cluster by porkyb, on Flickr

[RikM]

Lovely image that. Nice tight stars and plenty of colour. I would be inclined to swap your scopes about though. Stick with the 130PDS for imaging on the EQ5, it should be just fine, with the larger aperture 200P for brighter visual views. Might just be okay on the AZ4?

[autonm]

...sorry for hijacking (if their are no replies I will start a new thread).

I currently own a 200p DOB which is great but I want to push the boundaries further with a GOTO / Tracking mount.

I was looking at a 80ED & the recommended HEQ5 mount but thats around £1000 ... money which I just dont have.

I will be using my Canon 1100d for imagine.

Thankfully based on this thread I am now considering the 130 PDS.

Few questions:

1. Can any one describe the difference between the 80ED and 130P-DS ... how will my images differ? narrow/wide field of view etc?

2.  Can any one describe the difference of images between the 130P-DS and my 200P dob? (tracking a side)  - narrow/wide field of view etc?

3. Which mount should I be looking at for the 130 PDS? Some mention EQ5 whilst First Light Optics sell it with the EQ3?

4. The ED80 is also a light mount, so why do people recommend the even heavier HEQ5?

Thanks for any answers.

[Daniel-K]

the 130PDS is a serious piece of kit for any one thinking about getting started in AP its quite Fast and ultra light so even the eq5 can handle it with ease, also with it being fitted with the duel speed focuser hanging a dslr of it should not be an issue. if i didnt have the ED80 OR 150PDS I would most defiantly have one of these. with good PA and a calm night i reckon 150 secs subs unguided is most doable. and you cant go wrong with skywatcher   

[autonm]

Using a HEQ5 - why is a ED80 / 130PDS better for imaging that say a 200p on a HEQ5?

[rowan46]

Using a HEQ5 - why is a ED80 / 130PDS better for imaging that say a 200p on a HEQ5?

mainly load, the less you load the mount the better it tracks and therefore the less subs you throw away. If you want to do serious imaging with a big scope you need a big mount. The advice is to image with aprox 1/2  of the stated load capability of the mount

[PorkyB]

I wouldn't say the 130PDS s better than the 200P.  There are times when you want the extra focal length of the 200, but there are times when you want the wider view of the 130.  I'm glad that I have both.  The 130 is certainly easier to use - smaller and lighter - so easier on the mount and less likely to be blown around.

Comparing the 130PDS with the ED80 is, I think, really a matter of personal preference.  The 130PDS is significantly cheaper, even with the coma corrector, and it's faster.  I just like reflectors but the ED80 is a popular scope for good reason, it is an excellent scope for imaging and some people just like refractors.

[PorkyB]

1. Can any one describe the difference between the 80ED and 130P-DS ... how will my images differ? narrow/wide field of view etc?

2.  Can any one describe the difference of images between the 130P-DS and my 200P dob? (tracking a side)  - narrow/wide field of view etc?

3. Which mount should I be looking at for the 130 PDS? Some mention EQ5 whilst First Light Optics sell it with the EQ3?

4. The ED80 is also a light mount, so why do people recommend the even heavier HEQ5?

A couple of my regular observing buddies have ED80s so I can compare them with the 130PDS

1. Not much difference in terms of field of view.  Focal length is 650mm vs 600mm.  If you get the FRFF for the ED80 then it becomes 510mm.  The 130PDS is f5 compared to f7.5 for the ED80 (f6.4 with the FRFF) so the ED80 requires longer exposures when imaging.  The 130PDS of course has diffraction spikes on bright stars, love them or hate them.  Some people think the ED80 gives better contrast for visual use.

2. The only difference between the 130PDS and the 200P is field of view is larger with the 130.  I believe the Dob version of the 200P is a 1200mm f6 (the EQ mounted one is a 1000mm f5) so the views in the 130PDS will be significantly wider.

3/4. The biggest mount you can afford and can manage to lug around.  You will always wish you had a bigger mount, unless you have just carried it up a big hill.  I use an EQ5 for my 200P which some people consider inadequate.  I get on with it just fine as long as I am careful when setting it up and balance it properly, and accept that 60-120 seconds will be the longest exposures I can do with the 200P (should be longer with the 130PDS due to the shorter focal length, lighter weight and smaller size, but I haven't tried yet).

[Skyline]

The 130PDS is a really nice scope, portable, fast, no Flexure & holds collimation very well, we have been shifting some boxes around the house, the other night I had checked the scope prior to using it & to me amazement the primary only need a very small tweak through the chesire.

I am even considering getting rid of the 80ED I have, only that I have got used to using the 130P DS most of the time. The only downside, FLO do not do a customised Moonlite base for this diameter of scope.

Al.

[RikM]

...sorry for hijacking (if their are no replies I will start a new thread).

I currently own a 200p DOB which is great but I want to push the boundaries further with a GOTO / Tracking mount.

I was looking at a 80ED & the recommended HEQ5 mount but thats around £1000 ... money which I just dont have.

I will be using my Canon 1100d for imagine.

Thankfully based on this thread I am now considering the 130 PDS.

Few questions:

1. Can any one describe the difference between the 80ED and 130P-DS ... how will my images differ? narrow/wide field of view etc?

2.  Can any one describe the difference of images between the 130P-DS and my 200P dob? (tracking a side)  - narrow/wide field of view etc?

3. Which mount should I be looking at for the 130 PDS? Some mention EQ5 whilst First Light Optics sell it with the EQ3?

4. The ED80 is also a light mount, so why do people recommend the even heavier HEQ5?

Thanks for any answers.

A few quick answers:

1. As above, the field of view will be very similar but you will have diffraction spikes round bright stars with a 130PDS.

2. Plug you scopes / cameras into this very useful simulator and see for yourself http://www.12dstring.me.uk/fov.htm, basically the 130PDS will give you a much wider field than the f/6 Skyliner 200P and at f/5 (or f/4.5 with the reducer/coma corrector) the 130PDS  will give you brighter images for the same exposure time.

3. The mount to chose depends on what you want to do with it. For visual use, the EQ3 is fine with the 130PDS, for basic unguided imaging or as a starter with guiding, the EQ5 will probably be okay. For good images, the HEQ5 will be the mount of choice.

4. People recommend the HEQ5 / NEQ6 mounts because the motors have twice the precision of the motors used in the EQ3 and EQ5. This gives potentially smoother movement and more accurate guiding. This becomes more and more important as the focal length increases. It is not all about weight, but weight distribution. A long tube will be worse than a short tube.

There are all kinds of compromises to made in AP. A small Newtonian can be difficult to colimate but is cheap and gives a wide field of view. A large Newtonian with a fast focal ratio gives bright images at a good focal length but is difficult to mount and catches the wind like a sail. An SCT is easy to mount and has a good focal length for small objects, but tend to be optically quite slow due the long focal ratio. Refractors are easy to mount and give very nice images but cost an arm and a leg compared to a Newtonian.

[DarkKnight]

I've had a good look through the 'Imaging with the 130pds' thread and have been very impressed with the images.

I have a NEQ6 mount and a DSLR camera. What else do I need to start imaging nebulas etc?

PS: I should have mentioned at a reasonable cost.

[Stub Mandrel]

I suggest Stellarium - and use it to choose targets that fit the focal length of any lenses you have - anything from 135mm up will get nebulas.