What mount for 1st telescope?

[TaS]

I've been thinking about getting a telescope for last 2 years and think I'm about ready to take the leap from 15x75 binoculars and invest in my 1st telescope. I live in a city and have a lot of light pollution mostly from the sport centre nearby that has floodlights on almost every night. For this reason I'm only going to see bright objects from my house, to see anything more I'll head out to darker skies or go to my friends house who lives in a better location. With my £200-300 budget the telescope I'm after is the Skywatcher Startravel refractor 102 F5, I've chosen this because I'll be mostly using it away from home and transportability is key. I do wonder how bad the chromatic aberration will be and keep thinking should I go to the Skywatcher Evostar 102 F10 which has less CA but the transportation space becomes an issue then. My initial interests is looking at the planets and the moon and I like the sound that refractors give better contrast and will stand up better to transportation. If I do get an interest in DSO then I'll either look through my friends Skywatcher 150 reflector or I'll get another telescope (a big Dobsonian )

The problem I need help with is what mount I should get? The Startravel seems to be sold with either EQ1 or AZ3 mounts. I read that the EQ1 is not adequate for anything more than a camera and would prove a frustration so should I get a better mount such as the EQ3-2? That might just tip the budget a little but if it's the best option then I don't mind a bit extra. One issue that worries me with an Equatorial mount is setting up, specifically polar aligning. My back garden faces south west and Polaris might not be visible from where I'd observe. Could I possibly setup an equatoral mount without sight of Polaris? Another question with eqatorial mounts is could I track the ISS across the sky using this type of mount?

What about the AZ3 mount, should I go down that line instead, is it stable? It's certainly cheaper, but then I worry about how quickly objects will drift out of sight and how much adjustments I need to keep objects such as Saturn or Jupiter in sight.

Please help, as you all know choosing your first scope take a lot of time and research, I've done all that now, it's the mount that's confusing me.

Cheers

Tom

[rwilkey]

Hi Tom, I chose the Vixen Porta II for my similar scope as it has slo-mo controls as opposed to the AZ3, which I prefer. However, if you are looking at the SW, I would choose the AZ4 as it is more robust, and this aspect is invaluable. Also, discuss with FLO as they were a great help when I enquired about the Vixen. Can never get them by phone - email them, Martin is a most helpful bloke, as are James and Steve.

[ollypenrice]

I'd go for an Alt Az in your circumstances, and not an EQ. I don't know the AZ mounts so can't comment further, but why faff around with an EQ if you don't need to? I'm an imager so I do need to ...

Olly

[TaS]

I'd go for an Alt Az in your circumstances, and not an EQ. I don't know the AZ mounts so can't comment further, but why faff around with an EQ if you don't need to? I'm an imager so I do need to ...

Olly

That sounds like good advice to me. I like simple. It keeps me in budget too, so I can put towards some better eye pieces with the saving.

[Alfian]

Hi Tom,

If the moon and planets are your main interest - i'd go with something that has a bit of focal length, rather than an F5. This as you have worked out means, in the case of a refractor, a longish OTA. The possible answer to this and transportability is a small 90 or 102 Mak.

Also you will find that tracking themoon/planets at anything over 100x that the object moves out of view surprisingly quickly - so here an EQ mount (properly alligned) with slomo controls only needs a gentle tweak to keep things in view. A Skymax on an EQ2 is £255 here:

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/skywatcher-skymax-102-eq2.html

There is also this little relatively new device (the mount that is) - which I confess I know nothing about but looks interesting! I'm sure a call to Steve at FLO would help.

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/heritage/skywatcher-heritage-90-virtuoso.html

Be interesting to know how you go on.

Ian

[Gonzo]

There's also the Skytee

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-skytee-2-alt-azimuth-mount.html

[TaS]

There's also the Skytee

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-skytee-2-alt-azimuth-mount.html

Interesting, but hoping to keep within £300 budget for telescope, mount and tripod.

Is it better to have a solid mount and lesser telescope or more aperture and an average mount?

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk 2

[Alfian]

Hi again,

A decent mount suitable for the scope is a must. There's nothing so frustrating as getting everything focused up nicely only to then not be able be able to see anything because every touch of the scope or breath of wind makes it all shake. A lot of standard issue scope packages are undermounted as I have discovered personally. Its not so much mount or scope as just getting the right match of both. Thinking about the Mak 102 - these can be mounted safely on a decent pan/tilt (Alt/az) photographic tripod but you lose the EQ tracking - but might be worth looking at and asking others for suggestions.

ian

[Catweazel]

As you say that you will initially be concentrating on Moon & Planets, and want to then branch out to DSO's on darker sky sites, I think a good starter scope would be this http://tinyurl.com/ad3bsq8 , which would give you some space to buy 1 or 2 other bits within your budget.

[Alfian]

Hi Tom,

something I'd not considered is that when you say "transportability is key" - what does the transport comprise? In the Mak I was thinking of something ultra transportable - but if you have a car, for instance, quite a lot becomes transportable - including the Evostar 90 which Catweazel mentions - which by all accounts is a scope that punches above its weight.

[TaS]

Hi Tom, something I'd not considered is that when you say "transportability is key" - what does the transport comprise? In the Mak I was thinking of something ultra transportable - but if you have a car, for instance, quite a lot becomes transportable - including the Evostar 90 which Catweazel mentions - which by all accounts is a scope that punches above its weight.

I have a VW Golf mk4 and a dog. Ideally I want something I can take away on trips so need boot space for other things like camping and dog stuff. I measured my boot last night and it's 1030mm wide at the opening (the narrowest bit) so F10 refractors will fit and I like the SW Evostar 90 Catweazel suggested plus with it being on the solid EQ3-2 mount which you say I'll need to keep track of objects it looks altogether a good choice. I need to think whether I should go £20 over budget and get the SW Evostar 102 for that extra aperture or go for the 90 and keep some readies for extras.

[ian_d]

I've got the Startravel 102 and got it with the AZ-3 mount. Great little telescope, but I quickly found the mount to be not up to scratch - had a hard time balancing the scope - it had a tendency to head for the zenith when pointed above 45 degrees! - and it wasn't very stable. I got an EQ3-2 to replace it, and never looked back. Ace setup. But probably not sub-£300 (but not by much), unless you got lucky with a bargain on eBay or something. The Evostar 90 + EQ3-2 looks like a good shout...

[TaS]

I've got the Startravel 102 and got it with the AZ-3 mount. Great little telescope, but I quickly found the mount to be not up to scratch - had a hard time balancing the scope - it had a tendency to head for the zenith when pointed above 45 degrees! - and it wasn't very stable. I got an EQ3-2 to replace it, and never looked back. Ace setup. But probably not sub-£300 (but not by much), unless you got lucky with a bargain on eBay or something. The Evostar 90 + EQ3-2 looks like a good shout...

I found this earlier when looking for info on the AZ3, http://www.spacegazer.com/index.asp?pageid=97491 it gives info on how to turn the AZ3 into a great mount. It's probably not that useful now you have the EQ3-2 but someone may find it helpful.

Please tell me how you find the Skytravel 102, is there much chromatic aberration? What do you use it to view?

I agree the Evostar 90 and EQ3-2 looks good.

[ian_d]

Yes, there is definitely chromatic aberration (as you'd expect), but I don't find it an issue. I mainly use it for widefield viewing - large star clusters, galaxies, nebulae etc - in which case, you don't really notice the purple fringing too much (and not at all for faint and fuzzy stuff). It really becomes more of an issue when you're looking for fine detail - so, planets, the Moon, and so on. I have a Baader fringe-killer filter which cuts out a lot of the purple light and improves detail, contrast - but not entirely, and of course you get a darker / false colour image as a result. But, for example, I was looking at Jupiter last night through it at a fairly high magnification (x142) and could clearly make out fine detail on the disk.

As a highly portable, affordable scope I think it's excellent value and a great performer. And for some kinds of object - large clusters, galaxies, nebulae, etc - it's my instrument of choice, even though I've got a 10" Dob sat next to it! Can't say fairer than that If low magnification, wide field is what you need to view an object, then it's fab.

Hope that helps!

[jonathan]

It's not really necessary to polar align if you are just looking (not photographing) - level the tripod by extending the legs as appropriate (us a spirit level if there isn't one built in to the mount) and point the North end of the mount (usually there is a tripod leg marked N) to magnetic North using a compass. The stars will drift a bit in the eyepiece but you should be able to keep things in view mostly by adjusting only one control.

I've owned EQ mounts for the best part of a year and haven't managed to polar align properly yet, it hasn't spoiled my enjoyment one bit (apart from the frustration when I did try to polar align, observing time wasted!)

[TaS]

Thanks Jonathan. I think your reply has given me the confidence that a EQ mount is the way to go.

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk 2

[Patrice Lanteigne]

A manual EQ mount will still need to be nudged in right ascension to keep the object in view, however it usually is a simple matter to later add a tracking motor in right ascension. You can also add a motor for declination as well.

An alt-azm mount is often times more intuitive for novices. You track with up/down and left/right motions. The downside is that it is usually not a simple matter to add reliable tracking motors at a later date.

In the EQ3 and AZ3 class of mounts the largest fault is the tripod. Manufactures seem to scimp a bit here so as to keep the price affordable. A strong/light/stable and inexpensive is a rare bird. Strengthening the tripod can be done with a bit of ingenuity and minimal DIY skills and tools.

Since absolute levelness is not very important for a manual alt-azm mount it is fairly simple to upgrade the mount's legs with unadjustable ones. Below is how I use an ED100 (100 mm f/9) on an AZ3 for quick grab and go. I keep this setup handy to a door for when I fancy a quick look at Albiro or some passing planet.

[TaS]

A manual EQ mount will still need to be nudged in right ascension to keep the object in view, however it usually is a simple matter to later add a tracking motor in right ascension. You can also add a motor for declination as well.

Now I'm confused. I thought that with an EQ mount once you have the target there's just one dial to counteract the earth's rotation ?right ascension? This can either be by slow motion dial or by a motor as you say. What's declination? What does this do, and why does it need a motor? Is it something to do with the planet's being in their own orbit and right ascension controls only counter earth's rotation and not the planets movement?

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk 2

[Planetesimal]

Declination is for moving the field of view up / down. Celestial objects all move on RA, but you need dec to get to the right place in the sky and then RA to follow the object. Dec motors aren't needed for visual because once you've found your target it will only drift in RA. I don't bother with motors on my EQ3 because I use it for purely observing.

[Alfian]

Hi Tom,

think you've got is sussed - good luck

Ian

[TaS]

I think so, Ian. EQ3-2 and the SW Evostar 90

[Alfian]

Hi again,

enjoy your scope Tom (skies permitting) - you have probably already seen this review - but if not here's the link

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/141556-skywatcher-evostar-90mm-refractor-review/

Ian

[Moonshane]

my only concern with the 90mm aperture is that it's not a great leap from your existing bins and you might feel disappointed. the views of planets and moon will be better as you can achieve greater magnification but most other things will show similar detail I'd expect. that said, if you are quite restricted for space it might be the best option for you.

[TaS]

I never really thought of it like that, 70mm bins to 90mm scope. So I guess the pleiades would look similar. That said I'll have greater than 15x magnification so hopefully Jupiter will be better than a bright dot I get in the bins and the moon should have more detail visible.

I've just read that a 90mm scope has 65% more light gathering than a 70mm scope. Will it gather more light than my bins which are 70mm but there's 2 lenses? Are the bins twice as bright as a 70mm scope because there's 2 lenses? In that case will the 90mm scope gather less light than my bins?

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk 2

[Moonshane]

the bins gather the same as the 70mm scope pretty much. don't get me wrong, more aperture is a good thing but I just thought I'd point out that things might not be as different as you may hope, certainly better (and yes Jupiter and moon will be a lot better) but not massive differences.