Portable but powerful scopes

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

personally I normally aim for a min of 1 degree field in the scopes I have and this fits in all but the biggest objects. for those (2-3 objects) I just look in the 9x50 finder! you'd get that approx with a 32mm plossl and a 1.25" focuser. other people have different viewpoints but that satisfies me almost all of the time, especially in my light polluted skies. I think if I were living in pristine darkness I might want a wider field but in truth I quickly get 'bored' (not really the right word - maybe dissatisfied) with washed out wide star fields at home, near Manchester

Totally agree: an 8" SCT can get up to about 1.34 deg FOV. For bigger things I can indeed look through the finder scope. One more reason form my mammoth 16x70 finder

[Moonshane]

true Michael! I should make one sometime I reckon.

the other thing to remember is that with a 32mm plossls and at 1.5m focal length the solar (properly filtered of course) and the lunar full discs are really spectacular at 46x and leaving just the right amount of space around them

[swamp thing]

1360843168[/url'>' post='1827928']

I wonder if the view that "SCTs and Mak's have narrow fields of view" isn't just a bit exaggerated. Say the Skymax 127, that's got a 1500mm focal length, well the 12 inch Dob has the same focal length and I've not heard people complaining about tunnel vision on that. Obviously point it at a cluster or the Milky Way and the Dob will show a considerably richer starfield, but for general "fit stuff in the FOV" considerations they'll be the same (well, unless you put 2 inch EPs in the Dob).

I see where you are coming from here. I think, because most see the Mak as a relatively small scope they aren't prepared for the small field it offers, whereas the Dob being larger you expect a narrow field of view, perhaps!

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

true Michael! I should make one sometime I reckon.

the other thing to remember is that with a 32mm plossls and at 1.5m focal length the solar (properly filtered of course) and the lunar full discs are really spectacular at 46x and leaving just the right amount of space around them

I tend to go for full solar and lunar disks with my 17T4 at 2m focal length. 119x and you still have the whole disk in view . In my Lunt LS35 I use the XF8.5 and get 47x, which shows a great deal of detail in that small scope. In the 80mm I tried the 10mm (48x) with Herschel wedge and Baader Continuum filter, and liked that, so clearly 45-50x works nicely on that object.

[E621Keith]

Some say that you pay for the electronics more then the optics when it comes to Celestron C# SE.. but I have considered C6 SE :-)

You are paying for the optics as well as the mechanics as well as portability. The 6SE mount is much more stable than the SLT mount sold with the 127 mak. The C6 OTA is also much smaller and lighter than 6" frac or Newt.

[swedonator]

So Celestron C6 SE would be a great buy? A GOTO would have been awesome. So the omni xlt 127 is a bad choice?

[rowan46]

So Celestron C6 SE would be a great buy? A GOTO would have been awesome. So the omni xlt 127 is a bad choice?

Not a bad choice just not as good as the nexstar 6. Which in turn is not as good as a nexstar 8 and so on. I had a nexstar 5 and now I have an 80mm refractor i miss the apparture but prefer the portability. It's all about the compromises you make. You asked for the most powerful portable scope for 800 and that in my opinion is the nexstar 6se however that doesn't make the 127 slt a bad scope just not as good. It is however substantially cheaper and is still a good scope. It's not as portable as the 6se its not as compact if cost is the issue this one is more portable a little more compact and a little cheaper http://www.firstlightoptics.com/slt-series/celestron-nexstar-127-slt.html

the same size apparture as the 127 in a slightly more portable package

[Moonshane]

the other question is what is portability?

it's different for every person but for me it's basically can I fit it in the car with any other stuff I need. other stuff I need depends who is with me. if it's a family camping holiday then I have less space so would take my 12" suitcase dob (when I get round to making it). if it's a star party and I am solo then I try and get everything in my cat with the 16" solid tube dob (I have a small/medium hatchback). if it's a flying holiday, I need another solution that I don't currently have other than my small binoculars. flying holidays are not an option for me currently.

[swedonator]

You are right, portability are different for different people. For me it's about stroing it in my small room, and easy walk with it about 200 meters :-)

[swedonator]

What about the Skymax-127 EQ3-2 (http://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/skywatcher-skymax-127-eq3-2.html)

[LukeSkywatcher]

If you want a £800 scope that's portable and good at deep sky, a Celestron C6 SE is hard to beat. Optically it is much better than the 127 Mak.

The whole shipping box for mount and scope (ex. tripod) fits inside an IKEA shopping bag, so it's really portable.

My first thought (for the budget you have) was the very same.................Celestron 6se. Believe me when i say the 6se is portable. I am in a wheelchair and i own an 8se and it is very portable even for me................so the 6se would be a walk in the park for an able-bodied person. Optically, the Celestron SE range in my opinion are faultless.

Another scope which i own and is also extremely portable and powerful, is the Skywatcher Heritage 130P mini Dob. I think it retails for about £130. Its fast becoming a very popular first scope for beginners. You take it out of the box, spend about 60 seconds setting it up and you are ready to observe.

I cant give a fairer opinion then i have. Both great scopes, but the 6se has that added bit of aperture and is fully Go-To (if thats what you want).

[LukeSkywatcher]

It is a bit to expensive for me, about 10 000 SEK (1006,59£).

The 6SE is under £1000

http://www.firstligh...exstar-6se.html

But i guess you have to add shipping costs etc.

I wonder if the view that "SCTs and Mak's have narrow fields of view" isn't just a bit exaggerated.

I have to admit that i think this "arguement" is a bit exaggerated also. I own a 70mm refractor, 90mm refractor,130mm reflector and a 200mm SCT. I use the same EP's across all scopes and i dont really notice much of a difference. Yes, the FOV in the SCT is slighly narrower, but to be honest its not even that obvious unless you are a perfectionist and are intentionally looking out for it.

[ollypenrice]

Powerful has two entirely different meanings in descibing astonomical visual telescopes.* It can mean powerful as in making small things look big or powerful as in making faint things look bright. The first 'powerful' can be met by small, sharp, contrasty optics. The second can be met only by aperture.

Per unit aperture the smallest, least clumsy, most storable telescope available is the Dob. It has virtually no mount, though the mount it has is good at what it does. It has a bigger tube than a catadioptric but it needs neither tripod nor counterweights. However, a computerized alt az catadioptric is small and compact. They all handle 'making small things big' very well. Now, focal length? If I use a small telescope I want it to have a short focal length so it can show me what no large scope can ever show me. I don't want a degree from a small portable scope, I want four degrees! (The entire Veil Nebula, the entire Rosette. The Pleiades with darks sky around them so that, via contrast, I can see the nebulosity.) I live at a dark site so these large faint targets are accessible in small apertures of short focal length. If you don't have a dark site then the appeal of the very wide field of view diminishes, though Stock II framed with the Double Cluster is a sight indeed.

I can see the appeal of the SCT. We have a 10 inch here and it has many virtues but I really do feel boxed in by that long focal length. On the other hand an SCT and a good pair of bins might touch the right nerve endings.

Olly

*It has a third, focal ratio, if you get into imaging but let's not!!

[LukeSkywatcher]

Powerful has two entirely different meanings in descibing astonomical visual telescopes.* It can mean powerful as in making small things look big or powerful as in making faint things look bright. The first 'powerful' can be met by small, sharp, contrasty optics. The second can be met only by aperture.

Very good point Olly.

For me personally, when i think "powerful", i think of aperture (making objects look bigger). I think when you have enough aperture (can we ever have enough?) to make objects look bigger, then you can concentrate on quality optics such as EP's to make objects look sharp,contrasty.

In all honesty..........given my physical condition, powerl is not my main concern. I want portability over power. Thankfully in the Celestron 8se i have found a happy balance. I now have power in an 8" SCT along with portability.

[swedonator]

If I buy something like this, mentioned earlier in this thread, what mount should I use then? evostar 80ed ds-pro (ota).

[E621Keith]

If I buy something like this, mentioned earlier in this thread, what mount should I use then? evostar 80ed ds-pro (ota).

You should consider a AZ4 or Skytee mount if portability is essential. EQ5 will be a good choice if you want tracking. Finally, if you want to image with your ED80 then you should consider a HEQ5.

EQ5, AZ4, and Skytee is man portable, but HEQ5 needs to be transported by a vehicle.

[swedonator]

The Celestron 5 and 6 se are a bit to expensive. This sure is hard to choose a scope..

[swedonator]

What do you mean by powerful? Is there anything in particular you want to be able to see? Do you want to image with it or strictly for observing?

If you want to image and you want it portable, for £800 you can get some beautiful 80mm triplet refractors and have change (the Altair Astro 80mm Triplet is fantastic). I take delivery of the 115mm version tomorrow.

How come that such a small scope are able to create such great images?

[E621Keith]

How come that such a small scope are able to create such great images?

Long exposure astrophotography. Don't expect to see anything remotely similar with your eyes.

Those images are made by exposing the CCD to collect photons for a long period of time, so the total number of photons collected is equivalent to a much larger telescope exposed for a shorter period.

For visual observation, you eyes exposure time is limited to fraction of a second, so you need aperture to dump as much photons into your eye in that short period of time. As such a C6 or a 8" Newtonian will easily outclass a 80mm apo on DSO for visual observation.

[swedonator]

Does it require a expensive CCD-camera?

If I do not want to take photos, will the altair scope still be a good choice for just observing?

[nicks90]

For visual - aperture is king.

For photos - fancy glass, fast focal ratio and loads of cash is king.

[Moonshane]

Does it require a expensive CCD-camera?

If I do not want to take photos, will the altair scope still be a good choice for just observing?

Hi Kristoffer

you need to read the thread again as all the answers are there. for a wide field view from darker sites, lacking in detail but with good contrast (occasionally OK for planets and moon) and great for imaging a small APO refractor would be good.

for visual observing of all targets, aperture increases will provide incrementally better views and greater detail and resolution. you need to decide what you want to carry and then buy the scope that fits what you want to do and can carry.

[bingevader]

Hi Kristoffer

you need to read the thread again as all the answers are there. for a wide field view from darker sites, lacking in detail but with good contrast (occasionally OK for planets and moon) and great for imaging a small APO refractor would be good.

for visual observing of all targets, aperture increases will provide incrementally better views and greater detail and resolution. you need to decide what you want to carry and then buy the scope that fits what you want to do and can carry.

It's not just me who thought we were going round in circles with this one!

Why not try to get to your local club for an observing session and see what people are using and can recommend.

It'll give you some idea of portability as they'll all have to have brought them to the site and also it'll give you an idea of what you can see through the different 'scopes.

Cheers

[swedonator]

Yeah, I think too that I am going in circles. I'll have to decide what I want to do and what my focus is.

[swedonator]

I will go for the Celestron Omni XLT 150 (link) or the SkyWatcher Explorer-150PL (link). They both have a good price and will do good for some astro-images I think. The Omni is much smaller when I thought and will probably not be to hard to transport. The SkyWatcher is a tall thing, but I think it will be good.

I do have some questions about these. The Omni will have a maximum magnification about 360x, and the SkyWatcher about 300x. Should it not be the opposit? I thought that a tall tube would increase the possible maximum magnification? Am I an idiot? :-O