Celestron 102 SLT GOTO vs Skywatcher Startravel 102

[Sharpe]

Hey guys,

Other than minor cost variation and slightly different GOTO's is there any discernable difference between the performace of these two OTA's?

Celestron Nexstar 102 SLT GOTO http://www.firstlightoptics.com/slt-series/celestron-nexstar-102-slt.html

Skywatcher Startravel 102 GOTO http://www.firstlightoptics.com/az-goto/skywatcher-startravel-102-synscan-az-goto.html

I will be using this as a grab and go first telescope. I will upgrade to an NEQ6 PRO for AP in the future if I catch the bug. I appreciate the aperture is not perfect but there are no other alt/az GOTO's that fit a larger aperture with a fast focal length (the celestron is F6 and the skywatcher is F5).

NB: I dont want/cant have a Dob/reflector for varying reasons.

Any thoughts on which of these two is best?

Many thanks

-Sharpe

[Cjg]

I have the Skywatcher 102 GoTo, and a Celestron 5SE so can speak about both the Skywatcher and Celestron sky software.

Both come from the same conglomerate in China, Synta. The main differences are:

Skywatcher comes with a 6 x30 finderscope and the Celestron a Red Dot sight.

Skywatcher GoTo software requires a little more knowledge to correctly align, you need to know the names / locations of some alignment stars, whereas the Celestron has a "point at three bright objects - alignment" where you do not need to know the names of the objects.

The Celestron handset / software has a tour feature that allows you to specify a Constellation to tour; handy for learning as much as you can about a particular area of the sky and not slewing around all over different areas...I cannot find the same feature on the Skywatcher.

Optically the same scope, you will get some Chromatic Aberration around bright objects.

The Celestron mount houses 8 batteries, the Skywatcher does not; you have to use a little battery box that sits on the spreader of the mount (if you use batteries, chances are you will not as they will not last long in cold weather).

The Skywatcher comes with a 1 year guarantee, the Celestron a 2 year guarantee.

Personally, I would save the extra cash and go with the Skywatcher....

If you buy from a reputable retailer you'll be fine...

*Disclaimer* having received superb, above and beyond service from them, I am a little biased towards First Light Optics. But think that you will normally find them very competitve price wise.

Here's my Skywatcher at -7.5 degrees this February at Seething the home of Norwich Astronomy Society

Chris

Edited October 22, 2012 by Cjg

[Sharpe]

Wow that's great info and your advice mirrors the personal one to one service I have received from FLO over the last month as they have helped me with my decision. They are also offer their kit at prices that are significantly lower than everywhere else I've looked. Will defiantly be going with FLO now and in the future

[Capricorn]

Optically the same scope, you will get some Chromatic Aberration around bright objects.

They are both 102mm dia, one is f/6.47 = focal length 660mm, the other is f/5 = focal length 500mm

So optically they cannot be the same scope.

[jabberwocky]

I have a manual ST102 and the CA is quite bad on it, that said the views through it are a lot better than I expected, great little grab and go scope.

[John]

They are both 102mm dia, one is f/6.47 = focal length 660mm, the other is f/5 = focal length 500mm

So optically they cannot be the same scope.

Thats a good point. The Celestron will show better views of the moon and planets because it's slower focal ratio will generate less false colour.

The Skywatcher is a good scope for low power / wide angle viewing but the quality of viewing of bright objects at higher magnifications will be adversly affected by false colour / chromatic aberration (CA).

[Carbon Brush]

I used to own an ST102. Yes it did suffer a bit of CA. But to be honest for the money it was a great scope. I sold only because I upgraded to a better (optically & mechanically) scope, with a much bigger price tag.

For wide field and 'grab n go' it was great. Obviously at high magnification the CA started to show. As it will with any 4" refractor that doesn't have a £500 (OTA only) price tag, or a very long focal length.

If CA becomes an issue, then a bit of money on a violet/fringe killer filter will help.

The exact filter naming varies with manufacturer, but they work by cutting off some of the blue end of the spectrum that you don't miss much.

I haven't seen any side by side comparison of the Celestron & Skywatcher. While the longer FL of the Celestron should give you a bit better CA, it could also allow Celestron a bit more freedom on the glass choice and tolerance to keep a reasonable CA and overall performance. Maybe I'm distrusting?

[jabberwocky]

I found the ca can be reduced by adjusting my eye position when looking through the eyepiece, not perfect but does help a bit.

[SCANS]

Hey Sharpe! I just ordered an ST102. Should be here Friday thus guaranteeing a week of cloud. Similar to Cjg, it will be paired with a 6SE. Will be mounting the two on one of those funky new SW AZ-GTiX mounts that I purchased from FLO . . . huge props to them from me too - awesome customer support even for the other side of the Atlantic! Will let you know how it goes.

P.S. Kudos to the SGL community for the helpful constructive discussion about these scopes. Such supportive and knowledgeable advice keeps me motivated. Greatly appreciated 😊