200P - EQ5 mount or the standard floor standing?

[keefnet]

In my newbie post earlier today, several replies have steered me to decide upon a 200P. My question therefore is: The EQ5 tripod mount would be better than the standard base option for the 200P, right? Higher viewfinder and finer control (if I understand the main difference). That is about my budget limit for now whereas the NEQ6 would be a considered upgrade in the future. And I like the look of the 200P on the EQ5 i.e. looks the part rather than a floor mounted telescope that is Ok but aesthetically not as conforming to what I would say "looks the part". Yep, I'm starting to sound a little materialistic (sorry, but just more of a gadget man and the tripod option looks better to me) (still trying to get a new line in text entry -- tried Return, Enter and <ctrl-M> but nothing working, so apologies for the chunk of text again). Thanks, ...Keith

[nephilim]

Both the EQ mount & dob base have thier benifits & drawbacks, With the EQ u can track objects easily & with motors fitted & good polar alignment u can track for a long,long time, the drawback is it takes longer to set up & longer to get used to using. With a Dob base its easier to set up & get used to but u have to keep 'nudging' up & across etc manually to track.

I do know what u mean about the EQ mount 'looking the part' & I love them, these are my 130m EQ2 (black) & 200p/EQ5 (black & white) as I said its all a matter of preference but the 200p on whichever mount/base is a great bit of kit (beware tho that on an EQ5 its a BIG heavy beast ) good luck with whichever u buy.

Steve

[keefnet]

Thanks Steve. They look great.

I see on another post, majority recommend the Dob' option rather than the EQ5, but I really want to go for the EQ5 and most likley add the duaal motor option soon afterwards.

It's 7 weeks to my birthday (big 50), and now getting excited about this potential new hobby.

>Keith

[jabberwocky]

One advantage of the dob is you can observe whilst sitting down.

Also dob bases are much easier to use for visual use, just turn it to where you want to look, eq mounts take a bit more effort to point at stuff.

[nephilim]

Thanks Steve. They look great.

I see on another post, majority recommend the Dob' option rather than the EQ5, but I really want to go for the EQ5 and most likley add the duaal motor option soon afterwards.

It's 7 weeks to my birthday (big 50), and now getting excited about this potential new hobby.

>Keith

The EQ mount is definately a harder mount to get used to but I've only been using one since last Oct and now I've got the hang of it its second nature, to the point of once i've set it up (which with the 200p takes me about 10mins) I can be on Jupiter in 10 seconds & tracking it until I'm ready for something else.

Steve

[Richard32]

I'm a newbie to and I got the same set up and all I can say is avoid, to big, to bulky and the instructions were terrible. had it 2 days and still struggling to set it up, so I'm going to pack away and sell it and get a celestron nexstar 6.

[keefnet]

I just saw your other post --- that's a shame. Any thoughts on the Skywatcher Skyliner 200P GOTO Dobsonian Telescope? That would be a little cheaper than the Nexstar 6, with higher mag'. It is something I am considering and just posted a question regarding starting off with that also in the equipment section. Someone did comment that the EQ5 was probably a little small for the 200p. Is it really a horrible combo?

[Sammyb]

The Skywatcher 200P on an EQ5 and the Sklyliner 200P dobsonian are probably the best selling scopes in the UK. They are superb.

The EQ mounts probably take a few more minutes to polar align etc but you can track objects better and you can add motors for a modest cost. The 200P is a big OTA but you get used to it. I've never owned a dob but I believe you basically just plonk them down and off you go.

[Sammyb]

Keefnet - choice of scope is very personal thing. It depends on what you want to look at mostly (planets, deep space), ease of set up, bulkiness, budget, storage, whether you want to travel to a dark site etc etc etc.

Lots of people will give advice on here, advocating one type or the other, but the best option is to go to a good shop that stock a good selection of scopes or to an astro society where you can try a few different types out.

[keefnet]

Thanks Sammy -- I could pop down the road to Mk and see what's occurring with Richards scope. Seriously though, I have to do what you suggested -- have to find some place to check them out.

[keefnet]

I do have, what I would consider, quite a dark spot on my patio -- I'm a few miles outside of Northampton and my bungalow shields the light pretty well and it gets nice and dark there with (I think) am impressive view of the sky. I've no doubt that I'll find out that light pollution isn't as obvious as I am thinking though. Cheers again.

[ollypenrice]

The Dobsonian mount shouldn't be descirbed as the 'standard floor standing.' It might not look it but it is a work of genius. The telescope is symmetrically placed on the mount in a self balancing position. It needs no counterweights (being symmetrical) and no polar alignment. You just put it down and use it. In use the eyepice remains in the same orientation.

By contrast the German Equatorial is an assymetrical mount requiring counterweights, balalncing in two axes and careful polar alignment. (Note; you need to see Polaris or get involved in a lot of faffing if you can't.) It's raison d'etre is astrophotography. The telescope (and eyepiece) rotate slowly as the object tracks and rotates across they sky. This is needed in photography but, with a Newtonian, is a darned nuisance if you are using an eyepiece. The GEM also has to do a flip as (or soon after) it crosses the meridian. The scope/counterweights must change sides and the scope swaps orientation in Dec. Like as not you will also have to rotate the tube in its rings. (With a non-Newt you just rotate the star diagonal which is a lot easier.) All this palaver is there to provide a facility you do not even want in visual use. Why inflict it on yourself? I put up with GEMs as an astrophotographer but in visual use I'd always use an alt-az like a Dobsonian or a computer driven fork. Pre-computer the GEM allowed tracking by motorizing just one axis. These days computers are so cheap that you might just as well buy a computerised Alt Az mount with the IT controlling the drives in both axes.

The EQ5 is just adequate as a visual mount for the 200P but is not adequate for photography either in strength or tracking accuracy. Even the HEQ5 is 'only just.' Adding an RA motor makes tracking automatic which is good for high powers on the planets and saves messing about with the rather irritating slow motion cables. However, unless you add Go To or an autoguider than the Dec motor would serve no purpose.

John Dobson's mount is elegant and effective. It's also cheap - but not nasty. Also storage means sanding it upright in a corner. In that mode it is very compact. I'm sure Richard would have vastly preferred it.

Olly

http://ollypenrice.smugmug.com/Other/Best-of-Les-Granges/22435624_WLMPTM#!i=2277139556&k=FGgG233

[nephilim]

I most defiantley would not say 'avoid' the 200p/EQ5, yes u need patience to start with but if your going to do anything 'hands on' with astronomy your going to need to do a lot of research and have alot patience. No offence but if your defeated by the instruction manual ( The Skywatcher manual isnt really that good but there are plently of very easy to follow guides on youtube to help) then I'd worry, your going to come across things more complicated than that. I agree with Sammy's advice & go see one 'in the flesh', have a play about with it with someone who has some experience & see how you feel. Many people on here own the 200p/EQ5 and are very happy with it, I certainly am.

Steve

[keefnet]

Hi Olly -- I didn't mean any disregard saying standard, just the apparent default option with the 200p. I'm at the point where I will go with the Dobsonian mount, but questioning the GOTO versus the non-GOTO?

[JD75]

A newbie here with the 200P/EQ-5 and yes, it does take a bit of wrapping your head around, but it's not hard to figure out. It has a pretty hefty footprint once assembled and I have to cart it outside in three bits (OTA, mount, counter weights), then get it aligned, but again, even for a newb like me, that takes 5 minutes tops. You do have to do some rotating of the OTA though as the eyepiece can end up in some weird positions, but it's not difficult.

I think it's basically down to your own preferences really. I did consider the dob but was concerned that when observing planets, they'd scoot out of view so quick I'd be forever nudging the thing. With the EQ5, even with very crude polar alignment, I've been able to follow Jupiter about for as long as I like with just the turn of a knob on the mount. Sure, it's not as elegantly simple as the dob, but as said, I've had no problems with it and have found it very rewarding to use.

[ollypenrice]

I have never seen or used a GoTo Dob but it does sound like a nice compromise. The thing about the Dob mount is, I know, that it looks as if cheapness is its only aim. This really isn't so. We have a 20 inch, a gigantic thing, but it is as sweet as a nut to operate, smooth and co-operative. It is also totally vibration free. If you bang your head on it you vibrate!

Olly

[keefnet]

Hi Olly -- yep, not really looking to make it easier or implying that I thought the Dobsonian looked hard to move/aim - just with the GOTO, the overall look fits my ideal, gives me some tech, makes it easy to lift out the patio door onto clear space, does provide some level of portability being collapsible. I was thinking if that aspect was a negative i.e. opening it up to use, may add 5 or 10 mins to setup I expect but should be as good as a regular 200p? As long as there isn't any negative in comparison to a full tube 200p, I might as well go for the GOTO, then I can hold off thinking about a tripod mount with motors until I wanna go bigger scope... that make sense? Also would really like to use the DSLR some times so that also adds weight to starting with the GOTO option as I think I am correct in saying for long exposures you need tracking capability. I wanna add I am blown away by all the help/comments/advice. I do want to try find a store somewhere to go have a look but on the flip side, fear I'd walk away thinking "for just a little more cash, ...." or actually walking out pushing a trolley loaded up.

[ollypenrice]

Careful when talking about imaging. Tracking isn't enough. You need the right kind of tracking. It has to be equatorial tracking or the object in the camera will rotate in the field of view during the long exposure. If you are already confused then imaging may kill you!!! Standard, and good, advice is to read Making Every Photon Count by Steve RIchards and available from the forum sponsor, FLO. In the end it can't be that difficult because I can do it...

Olly

[keefnet]

Hi Olly -- not confused, but learning. Makes sense now, we're flying through space, and rotating at the same time, off-axis...... so are other objects, reasonable to assume we're not passing each other by like a car on the motorway. That was a mistake on my part. So I think I could be good to go with the proposed 200P GOTO -- for observation and single shot, short exposure work --- then, when I am all singing and dancing with the stars, keep my eyes open for a bargain full tube scope and then a equatorial mount that will rotate and track simultaneously. I will get that book... as well as Turn Left at Orion. Thanks again Olly. I will persevere.

[Extreme Fencer]

I started with 200p on eq5 Check out Astronomias buy back deal to upgrade within a year. You just pay the difference for the upgrade.

Now got heq5 pro mount pretty solid.

The eq5 is a great first mount to start with rough alignment is good enough with this setup for casual viewing. As other posts have said the eq5 is on the limit with 200p but its more than useable.

[the bishop]

Hi,

I have just started using an EQ mount and yes it is a handful

In fact I spent most of the first time I was out with it playing Twister

It just didn’t seem to go where I wanted and then when it did get where I wanted

the eye piece was nowhere in sight!!! Hence why I was playing Twister,

so I decided the best thing was to set it up in the house and just spent a couple of hours

(when the wife was out) just playing about with and this was a great help also getting the alignment right helps

along with rotating the tube when needed and it is far easier in the light and warm to get to grips and work things through

than when your freezing cold and in the dark in more ways than one... the result is I love it now...

but it really does take patience and practice.

gra

[keefnet]

I think, after all the great advice here, is that I'll start with a Dobsonian 250P. Then I can learn the art of finding what I am looking for, maximise my scope size but keep managable when I remount to an EQ-6 Pro GOTO sometime later in the year or next year.

I thnk I know understand that I'll need something like the EQ-6 Pro to take the size of the 250P as well as provide DSLR capablity for long exposure shots (I hope I got that right now).

Thanks again to everyone for your comments.

[keefnet]

I was informed today that a 250p on a NEQ6 Pro would be too much weight if considering using for DSLR due to additional weight of camera and guide scope - does that make sense as I see some places doing the 250pds+EQ6 Pro and stating it's great for photography. Anyone have this setup and can comment - would be appreciated - thanks. I'm considering the NEQ6-Pro and 250 PDS OTA, to give me the best size I can afford -- if that means I'm limited to viewing with that OTA I suppose when I can afford the setup, I could always just have a 200PDS OTA rigged and exchange as and when i.e. view with the 250 and photo's with the 200. Cheers again -- this is an awesome site for feedback, and many friends.