Nexstar 5se Vs 200p

[stuffedhaggis]

As the titles says guys

What are the benefits of each ? and over all what one preforms better for Visual only ?

[E621Keith]

200p should perform better than 5SE in almost all optical performance category. The 5SE will give sharper view with cheaper wide field (AFOV) eyepieces. The 200p, particular the F5 model, needs expensive wide field eyepieces to get a sharp field.

The main advantage of the 5SE is its mount. A GOTO mount that can be used in equatorial mode. This makes it easier to do planetary imaging, but that's about it. This advantage vanishes if the 200p is on a EQ5 Pro GOTO

[crazyjedi]

The 200p has far superior light grasp and will show the fainter objects that would be invisible to the 5se and show detail on the brighter objects that the 5se would struggle to resolve. Unless the goto mount is essential the 200p is a no brainer to me.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

For visual aperture is king, so an 8" of any design (assuming decent build quality) will outperform a 5". The only advantage of the 5SE is its very compact build. Comparing an 8SE and 200P would be fairer. The Dob will be able to show a larger section of the sky, and is way cheaper, but the SCT has it beaten in terms of portability. It is also easier on the eyepieces.

[John]

I've owned both these scope types and I agree with the previous posters re: their characteristics. They occupy completely different niches really although both are good examples of their type and I enjoyed using them. A 5SE will cost more than twice as much as a 200P dobsonian which does rather make it a "no brainer" unless portability combined with the GOTO facility are very strong criteria for you.

[scoobee]

I use a 4se and similar to the 5se it’s on a goto mount. My personal opinion is that if you want a simple plonk on the ground scope then the 5se would be fine. The optics are very good and will meet your needs for visual use and with an easy goto system you will be well away in no time.

[RikM]

Which 200P, the Skyliner 200P f/6 Dobsonian or an Explorer 200P f/5? If the Explorer, on which mount?

[stuffedhaggis]

explorer eq5

[crazyjedi]

The explorer is a faster scope and as such will require better quality lenses to get the most out it. I have an f5 newt and it does embarrass cheap lenses but it gives fine views and you don't need to buy the top end lenses... Just not the cheapest.

[CSM]

The NexStar 5SE mount is NOT an equatorial mount.

[E621Keith]

The NexStar 5SE mount is NOT an equatorial mount.

The 6/8SE is not equatorial, but the 4/5SE's tripod has a built in wedge which will allow that mount to be used in equatorial mode (equatorial fork mount). It's probably not going to be as good as a EQ5 or similar GEM, but it should be sufficient for planetary imaging without the field rotation.

[Cjg]

Not a "fair" comparison.

I own a 5SE having sold a 10" Orion USA Dob.

I changed because the dob and mount took up the entire back seat and most of the boot in my car, so couldn't take it away with us on family breaks.

The 5SE is much more portable, but by the time you add a power tank and dew shield (a must), you'll make as many trips from car to site.

The views from the 10" of deep space objects were magnificent compared to the 5" of the Celestron, BUT I think the views of Jupiter and Saturn are better in the 5SE, there's an added advantage in that once aligned, the 5SE tracks well, useful with higher power eyepieces, I no longer see my target whizz thru the eyepiece in no time.

Now this is subjective, but I think that the general views thru the 5SE are more "contrasty" the objects stand out a little more, the sky seems "blacker" than in the 10" ?

Can you visit your local astro soc to see if there's one you can have a look through before you buy?

I love my 5SE, but the dob was quicker once unpacked to start using, the Intelliscope was quicker to set up than any two star auto align, didn't need mains power or a power pack, and didn't dew up anywhere near as easily - be warned, the 5SE is a DEW MAGNET.

Luke Skwatcher on here (Paul) has an 8" SE, so will be good to see what he thinks too.

Good luck, if you are in Norfolk anytime soon, get yourself to Seething; you can have a look see / play with mine.

Cheers

Chris

[crazyjedi]

Not a "fair" comparison.

I own a 5SE having sold a 10" Orion USA Dob.

I changed because the dob and mount took up the entire back seat and most of the boot in my car, so couldn't take it away with us on family breaks.

The 5SE is much more portable, but by the time you add a power tank and dew shield (a must), you'll make as many trips from car to site.

The views from the 10" of deep space objects were magnificent compared to the 5" of the Celestron, BUT I think the views of Jupiter and Saturn are better in the 5SE, there's an added advantage in that once aligned, the 5SE tracks well, useful with higher power eyepieces, I no longer see my target whizz thru the eyepiece in no time.

Now this is subjective, but I think that the general views thru the 5SE are more "contrasty" the objects stand out a little more, the sky seems "blacker" than in the 10" ?

Can you visit your local astro soc to see if there's one you can have a look through before you buy?

I love my 5SE, but the dob was quicker once unpacked to start using, the Intelliscope was quicker to set up than any two star auto align, didn't need mains power or a power pack, and didn't dew up anywhere near as easily - be warned, the 5SE is a DEW MAGNET.

Luke Skwatcher on here (Paul) has an 8" SE, so will be good to see what he thinks too.

Good luck, if you are in Norfolk anytime soon, get yourself to Seething; you can have a look see / play with mine.

Cheers

Chris

A good point well made here. The 5SE being a mid size Cat is a slow scope with a long FL and a very good guided mount. It has very good optics and is nicely portable. It's speed, optics and mount a very well suited to planetary viewing and should provide wonderful crisp views of the planets.

The 8" Newt has similarly excellent optics but is much faster and has much more light grasp. It will show planets well (perhaps not as "zoomed in" as the 5SE) and will also show many DSO's and a broad swath of sky. The Explorer has an unguided EQ mount will require polar alignment to use effectively but not as long winded as the set up for the 5SE.

Cats don't usually show more contrast than Newts or Fracs due to their large central obstruction but modern Cats are well corrected and usually very sharp.

In essence the Cats are better for planetary work and the Newts are better for DSO's but are quite capable at planetary work.

What is your main interest? If like me you like to look at everything then the EQ mounted newt will be fabulous. The 5SE is a good scope but it just can't compare for out and out performance to the Explorer. As Chris has said - It's not really a fair comparison. The 5Se is much smaller than the Explorer and so just can't gather nearly enough light to compete.

[LukeSkywatcher]

The 6/8SE is not equatorial, but the 4/5SE's tripod has a built in wedge which will allow that mount to be used in equatorial mode (equatorial fork mount). It's probably not going to be as good as a EQ5 or similar GEM, but it should be sufficient for planetary imaging without the field rotation.

I agree.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

A good point well made here. The 5SE being a mid size Cat is a slow scope with a long FL and a very good guided mount. It has very good optics and is nicely portable. It's speed, optics and mount a very well suited to planetary viewing and should provide wonderful crisp views of the planets.

The 8" Newt has similarly excellent optics but is much faster and has much more light grasp. It will show planets well (perhaps not as "zoomed in" as the 5SE) and will also show many DSO's and a broad swath of sky. The Explorer has an unguided EQ mount will require polar alignment to use effectively but not as long winded as the set up for the 5SE.

Cats don't usually show more contrast than Newts or Fracs due to their large central obstruction but modern Cats are well corrected and usually very sharp.

In essence the Cats are better for planetary work and the Newts are better for DSO's but are quite capable at planetary work.

What is your main interest? If like me you like to look at everything then the EQ mounted newt will be fabulous. The 5SE is a good scope but it just can't compare for out and out performance to the Explorer. As Chris has said - It's not really a fair comparison. The 5Se is much smaller than the Explorer and so just can't gather nearly enough light to compete.

An SCT is fine for DSO viewing, it is not a planetary scope visually. Visually, focal ratio only determines the FOV, and VERY few DSOs do not fit into the FOV of a C5 (or C8 with 2" visual back). The best-known exceptions are: The Veil, M31, the North America Nebula, the California Nebula, the LMC (does not fit into the 4.4 deg FOV of my 15x70 bins), the SMC, the Hyades, the alpha Persei Cluster, the Hyades, and Melotte 111 (the Coma Star Cluster). The Pleiades are a tight fit, as is the double cluster.

People are often confused about the importance of focal ratio for visual. The simple fact is that an 8" F/10 scope with a 22mm Nagler shows exactly the same field of view, at exactly the same magnification as an 8" F/5 with an 11mm Nagler. As both scopes gather the same amount of light, the images will be equally bright. If both are Newtonians, the F/10 will generally have the edge in DSO views, because the central obstruction is smaller. In the first scope you have a dimmer, larger prime-focus image which you magnify a little, in the second you have a smaller, brighter prime-focus image which you magnify twice as much, negating the the effect of the brighter prime-focus image.

For imaging DSOs focal ratio is king.

[crazyjedi]

Robin I didn't mean to imply that Focal ratio was the defining difference between a scope being better for planetary work than DSO's. I meant that the whole package of a mid sized (5-6 inch Cat) with a guided mount would be a little better for planetary work than an unguided 8 inch newt and the 8 inch newt should be better for DSO's due to the superior light gathering and as the DSO's don't move across the sky at the same rate of knots as the planets the unguided mount would not be a huge disadvantage compared to a guided mount.

Perhaps I should have been clearer and said that 'small to mid size Cats are better for planetary work' and 'large Newts excel at DSO work' (although I was very sleepy when posting)

Small to mid-sized Cats are advertised as godd planetary scopes;

"This compact telescope with its high-contrast high-resolution multi-coated Maksutov optical system excels at medium-to-high-magnifications. Perfect for detailed high-contrast views of the Moon, planets, double-stars and globular clusters. " Quoted from FLO's advert for a SW Mak on the SynScan mount.

I wasn't implying that either type of scope would be no good for either planetary or DSO work but the 8 inch Newt would trump a 5 inch SCT for DSO's and a guided 5 inch SCT would trump an 8 inch unguided Newt for ease of use when tracking planets. Although to be fair if you are experienced with an unguided EQ mount but have not much experience of setting up a guided scope the EQ may seem simpler. Not sure i'd know where to start with a guided mount.

Although my shorter ratio Newt does seem to show far more sky than my brother in laws slower Celestron 130 but this was possibly due to our different EP's

That will teach me to post in the middle of the night

[crazyjedi]

Sorry meant to address that to H.F.