Skywatcher N-150/750 vs N-150/1200

[SuperAli]

Hi,

I'm finally getting closer to purchasing my first telescope, as things stand right now my budget will be around £200. I'm most interested in viewing the planets at this time, but will likely want to progress onto dso's down the road. I really like the look of these two skywatcher scopes on EQ3-2 mounts. I'm in Poland, the links are in Polish but translated by google:

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fteleskopy.pl%2FTeleskop-Sky-Watcher-N-150%2F750-EQ3-2-%28BKP15075EQ3-2%29-teleskopy-1434.html&act=url

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fteleskopy.pl%2FTeleskop-Sky-Watcher-N-150%2F1200-EQ3-2-%28BKP15012EQ3-2%29-teleskopy-1467.html&act=url

They both have 150mm aperture, but different focul legnths. Can someone explain to me what the main advantages/disadvantages are between them? Also, what do you think of either as a first scope for getting into the hobby? Good choice for the money or is there better value out there?

I have heard that setting up and operating an equatorial mount can be daunting for a newcommer with no previous experience. The reason i'd rather have an equatorial mount is that i may want to get into astrophotography at some point. My wife has a Canon 450D with a couple of nice lenses thats there for me if ever i want it, therefore i think it would be unwise for me to buy a dob, even if it would make my entry into stargazing so much easier.

All advice welcome.

Thanks

[SuperAli]

Hi, i'd really appreciate it if some could explain to me the difference between the skywatcher n-150/750 and the skywatcher n-150/1200. Both are about the same price, but performance wise i have no idea. I suspect they offer a similar performance, but they must be different somehow?

Which of these two telescopes would you say is better?

[Prador]

Hi SuperAli,

Firstly I wont pretend to know much about focal length.

What I would say is the 1200mm scope will give you better views of brighter, more compact objects such as planets and globular clusters. The field of view is smaller so probably would not be suitable for fainter, more extended objects such as galaxies.

The 750mm scope is more general purpose but one thing I have learnt is there is no "one scope fits all".

If I was just interested in lunar/planetary viewing I would personally go for the longer scope (1200mm)

There is some very knowledgeable people on this forum that may be able to give you a much better idea of what a change of focal length will do for the same aperture.

Dave

[rwilkey]

Hi SuperAli, welcome to SGL! The difference in focal lenths has a bit of an impact in the sense that the 150/1200 with the longer focal length is better for planets and easier on eyepieces. This is effected by what is called the focal ratio (f/ratio). The focal ratio of the 150/750 is f/5, which makes it what is called 'fast' scope, whereas the 150/1200 is f/8. The f/8 ratio is much better for visual astronomy in my view, but might be described as longer and more cumbersome on the particular mount it comes with. Whereas the 'Fast' scope is described as more of a 'rich-field telescope and could be more easily used for astro-imaging of easy objects such as the Moon and planets, but not DSO's which require longer exposures, for this you would need a more stable heavier driven mount. It depends what your long term goals are both in visual astronomy and in photography. As a visual observer I would choose the 150/1200. No one scope is better than the other, it depends on what you want to view and how you want to view it.

[Stargazer_00]

I think the 750 is one of the best all round scopes you can buy. It's a great aperture, focal length and general size. a pleasure to use and holds collimation very well. love mine.