One more question please - then I'll go away - promise :-)

[endure]

How much more effective is a 130mm parabolic scope than a 114mm? Is there any real visible difference to a newbie most of whose use would be in town suburbs with all the LP that that entails?

[brantuk]

The bigger the aperture the deeper into space you can observe as a general rule. 130mm will give you a slightly better start than a 114mm - but you'd need to look through both side by side to appreciate the difference. If you can stretch to a 150P you'd see a significantly bigger difference.

(Imho the light pollution and seeing is going to govern more of what you can see - much better to observe from a dark site)

[LukeSkywatcher]

130P over 114mm will be better. Maybe not very noticable to the untrained eye, but an improvement none the less. More apeture=more light gathered=better views.

If you are considering both scopes 114 and a 130p..............even in a light polluted area..............the 130P wins hands down. You can always buy a light pollution filter for 30-40 quid.

Paul.

[endure]

Sorry I should mention that both the 130 and the 114 have parabolic mirrors.

[LukeSkywatcher]

Sorry I should mention that both the 130 and the 114 have parabolic mirrors.

But the 130 has slightly more apeture.

[ronin]

Are you sure that the 114 has a parabolic mirror ?

They usually seem to be sphericals, and some are Bird-Jones designs at the focuser end,

[endure]

The 114 is this one. Twice group winner at the Sky at Night mag http://www.firstligh...hawk-1145p.html

The 130 is this: http://www.firstligh...lorer-130p.html

The 114 has a Barlow included in the price and can be bought with an RA motor for £145. The 130 with an RA motor is 200 quid.

I have a small garden. I don't have a lot of money. I'm not capable of carrying big stuff. I don't want a Dobson

I really appreciate all your help.

[LukeSkywatcher]

I dont think the 114 has a parabolic mirror.

Ok, both have a parabolic mirror. I still suggest the 130P.

[valefor]

as a general rule of thumb. every inch will give you 50x mag. if the light polution is bad in your area you mite be restricted to planets/moon and cluster obs.

the bigger apeture will give you more light to see the fine details in clusters, and will alow you to zoom in more to the planets.

imho even if it is £55 more id still go for the 130. or look out for a second hand something. a 8" (200p) just sold on ebay for £200.

also i year ago i brought a 114 off ebay for £50. worth a think about.

[Stargazer_00]

I just saw a 200p on a driven EQ5 on gumtree for £190

[endure]

Someone on our local Gumtree is advertising a Meade 114/900 with RA drive cheap. Problem is there isn't much info about it on the 'net.

[valefor]

one of these? http://www.pulsar-optical.co.uk/prod/telescopes/meade/114900eq1breflectingtelescope.html

[Ohmless]

I would go up a couple inches at least if you want a significantly better resolution and light increase

[mdstuart]

but even a 114 will show amazing views of the moon, Saturn, jupiters moon, bright clusters and double stars...Mark

[mdstuart]

Sorry Jupiters Moons!

[endure]

one of these? http://www.pulsar-op...gtelescope.html

Yes that's the one. Is it any good do you know?

[endure]

I would go up a couple inches at least if you want a significantly better resolution and light increase

Sorry I should have made it clear that I have neither the money, the space nor the physique needed to handle 8" scopes. I very much suspect that if I were to buy a 200p dob which seems to be one of the standard recommendations it would sit in the corner of a room looking plaintively at me and sulking all the time

I've spent the past couple of months reading and researching and I'm just getting a little impatient to actually do something.

[valefor]

meade scopes are usually pretty good. but i would agree with ohmless. i would go for something bigger. if this meade is about £50 and you want to practice then id say go for it.

however if you already used a scope i would say keep looking for bigger. 130 and up.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SkyWatcher-Explorer-130-900-EQ2-Telescope-Brand-New-/190827270349?pt=UK_Photography_Telescopes&hash=item2c6e3110cd

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Celestron-Astromaster-130-EQ-Astro-Telescope-Genuine-UK-Stock-31045-/121086246251?pt=UK_Photography_Telescopes&hash=item1c314d7d6b

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SKY-WATCHER-EXPLORER-130-Newtonian-Reflector-Telescope-/321108456709?pt=UK_Photography_Telescopes&hash=item4ac38e3505

and i dont know much about sabens but here is a 150p

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Seben-Big-Boss-1400-150-Reflector-Telescope-New-/380214282693?pt=UK_Photography_Telescopes&hash=item58868989c5

[Scott]

Sorry Jupiters Moons!

you mean it's got two moons .

[mdstuart]

No 4 that you can see with a 114mm scope..you can watch them going around the planet from night to night..

Mark

Sent from my BlackBerry 9320 using Tapatalk

[Scott]

it's a shame you don't like dobs. the 130p heritage would be easier to handle, take up less space ind a lot sterdier than the eq1 mount. on the down side, there's no chance of motors

http://www.firstligh...p-flextube.html

[Scott]

meade scopes are usually pretty good. but i would agree with ohmless. i would go for something bigger. if this meade is about £50 and you want to practice then id say go for it.

however if you already used a scope i would say keep looking for bigger. 130 and up.

http://www.ebay.co.u...=item2c6e3110cd

http://www.ebay.co.u...=item1c314d7d6b

http://www.ebay.co.u...=item4ac38e3505

and i dont know much about sabens but here is a 150p

http://www.ebay.co.u...=item58868989c5

The general concensus on these forums is.....DON'T BUY A SEBEN. unless you're after an umbrella stand.

[valefor]

fair enough. as i said. i know nothing about them.

[Aronnax]

...

I have a small garden. I don't have a lot of money. I'm not capable of carrying big stuff. I don't want a Dobson

I really appreciate all your help.

Hi there, out of interest, what is it about a Dob mount that you don't want?

In general, they will be cheaper, lighter, and take up less space overall than an EQ mount, which fits with your cost, size, and weight criteria better than say an EQ mount.

Having owned a 4.5" reflector on an EQ mount, and an 8" reflector on a Dob mount, the dob actually takes up less space when stored away, and is certainly lighter to move than an appropriately sized EQ mount for the scope. I am certainly not saying you are wrong, as it is a personal decision, I'm just curious - and apologies if you've stated your reasons already but I've missed it

Clear skies!

[endure]

Hi there, out of interest, what is it about a Dob mount that you don't want?

In general, they will be cheaper, lighter, and take up less space overall than an EQ mount, which fits with your cost, size, and weight criteria better than say an EQ mount.

Having owned a 4.5" reflector on an EQ mount, and an 8" reflector on a Dob mount, the dob actually takes up less space when stored away, and is certainly lighter to move than an appropriately sized EQ mount for the scope. I am certainly not saying you are wrong, as it is a personal decision, I'm just curious - and apologies if you've stated your reasons already but I've missed it

Clear skies!

With a Dob photography is awkward. I might turn out to be the worst astrophotographer in the world but I'd like to have a go.

If I buy a 130p flextube as suggested I will also need to buy a sturdy table as I have nothing suitable to put it on. If I then decide that I want to go and find a dark place out in the countryside to do some observing I'd have to carry the table out as well and I have a small car that's not table friendly.