Skywatcher Skymax 102mm

[hansu]

So as a first telescope I've been thinking of getting the Skywatcher Skymax 102 without goto. It's fairly small and portable, which is good because I live in an appartment so I don't have that much space to store it. When it comes to observing I'm pretty much limited to my balcony and a few open fields about 200 meters from me. So that's when the lightweight and portability of the telescope comes in handy.

I've been also looking at the Skywatcher Explorer 130 (mainly because it's much cheaper), but I'm not so sure about this one since it's quite a lot heavier than the 102.

So if I get the 102 what kind of views can I expect to get? I've been reading about it on the internet and it seems like it is a good scope for planetary observations. Correct? And not so good on the deep sky stuff. But would I even get some kind of deep sky views with it?

[emadmoussa]

Since you're in the area of 102mm Mak, I'd suggest with a little more money you can achieve 55% more light gathering with the SW 127mm - it's a very popular telescope and is as portable. And, this is really a good balance between the Mak 102 and Explorer 130.

Remember with 55% more light received by your telescope you're more likely to see fainter DSO objects and better details on the planets - planets in the 127mm are dramatically better than in the 102mm.

Many members here own a Skywatcher Mak 127 and they're better equipped to give an advice than I am.

[rwilkey]

Portability and ease of use are the key factors of this small telescope, ideal for the Moon and the planets. Because of its narrow field of view and limited aperture deep sky objects will be difficult to observe, especially stuff like star clusters and large and diffuse galaxies, but double stars will be good objects to observe in this scope. Doing without the 'goto' is a good idea as this is more trouble than it is worth, especially on a small aperture, plus most of the objects in the database will not be available to you. Yes, given your city location and the limited availablity of sites to transport it to, I think this would be a good and reliable starter scope.

[ronin]

My one concern is actually the lack of goto, or at least tracking. I have much the same in 105mm format and the field of view is narrow, I bought a 40mm eyepiece to have half a chance of getting anything in view.

Anything you locate will unfortunately drift out pretty fast, and you cannot nudge a 102 Mak as you can a dobsonian.

It is a nice small scope to get going with but in manual format I do not think it will work. In the several events I have been at never seen a manual Mak/SCT being used, every one is goto or at least tracking, and to be honest cannot recall a tracking only one actually being used. I know they exist in the form of the Heritage Virtuoso.

[hansu]

Since you're in the area of 102mm Mak, I'd suggest with a little more money you can achieve 55% more light gathering with the SW 127mm - it's a very popular telescope and is as portable. And, this is really a good balance between the Mak 102 and Explorer 130.

Remember with 55% more light received by your telescope you're more likely to see fainter DSO objects and better details on the planets - planets in the 127mm are dramatically better than in the 102mm.

Many members here own a Skywatcher Mak 127 and they're better equipped to give an advice than I am.

This http://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/skywatcher-skymax-127-eq3-2.html includes the tripod, eyepieces and the finder, right?

[hansu]

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/skywatcher-skymax-127-eq3-2.html

[JamesF]

I would not describe the 127 Mak on an EQ3-2 as particularly portable for any distance. If you put the OTA in a rucksack and the mount with tripod over one shoulder then it might work perhaps.

I have used my 127 manually and it is possible -- I found Neptune for the first time that way, but it's quite hard work star-hopping because you get to see so little of the sky through the eyepiece at any one time. It is easier if you find a way to fit a wide-field finder but then you're increasing the weight and reducing the portability again.

If you're interested in the 130P then I might be tempted to suggest that the Heritage 130 is worth considering too. If you take the OTA of the dob base then the OTA could go in a rucksack again and you just have to carry the dob base which is probably far lighter than the EQ3-2 and tripod. You could probably also get by with just an RDF for a finder with the 130, whereas the 127 Mak can be hard work with just an RDF.

It's a difficult problem...

James

[hansu]

I would not describe the 127 Mak on an EQ3-2 as particularly portable for any distance. If you put the OTA in a rucksack and the mount with tripod over one shoulder then it might work perhaps.

I have used my 127 manually and it is possible -- I found Neptune for the first time that way, but it's quite hard work star-hopping because you get to see so little of the sky through the eyepiece at any one time. It is easier if you find a way to fit a wide-field finder but then you're increasing the weight and reducing the portability again.

If you're interested in the 130P then I might be tempted to suggest that the Heritage 130 is worth considering too. If you take the OTA of the dob base then the OTA could go in a rucksack again and you just have to carry the dob base which is probably far lighter than the EQ3-2 and tripod. You could probably also get by with just an RDF for a finder with the 130, whereas the 127 Mak can be hard work with just an RDF.

It's a difficult problem...

James

How much does the EQ3-2 tripod and 127 tube weight? And do you think I would get much better views with the 127mm than 102mm?

[JamesF]

The 127 OTA is about 5kg. The EQ3-2 plus the tripod and counterweights could easily be another 10kg on top of that, perhaps more. An EQ mount can be awkward to carry too, because of the design. And don't forget that you also need to carry eyepieces, maps, a torch and so on.

The field of view with the 127 would be smaller, but the larger aperture would give slightly better resolution.

There's a lot to be said for something like an ST102 on an AZ3 for a portable scope if you don't want to go the dob route -- same aperture as the 102 Mak, but a wider field of view. What you really need then is another larger scope (or two to keep at home for use on the balcony

James

[John]

The 127mm will gather much more light than the 102mm and therefore the views of all object types will be that much more improved as light gathering is such an important factor in an astro scope (with the possible exception of specialist solar scopes). The scope tube of the 127mm is compact and light although you will need to use a dew shield with it, as you will for the 102mm in fact. The maksutov-cassegrains attract dew rather quickly you will find.

It's the mount that will be the least portable part and an equatorial such as the EQ3-2, along with it's counter weight, are rather heavier and more awkward to carry around than alt-azimuth mounts such as the Synscan GOTO mount.

[hansu]

Thanks for the advice everyone. I think I'm leaning towards the 127. Even though the mount is heavier, I'm willing to sacrifice that for the sake of better views.

[John]

Thanks for the advice everyone. I think I'm leaning towards the 127. Even though the mount is heavier, I'm willing to sacrifice that for the sake of better views.

Have a think about what mount you put it on. That will make a really big difference to how portable the overall scope is. Viewing from your balcony will limit reaching the full potential of the scope so you will want to move it the 200 metres to the open fields as often as you can. If the scope is too heavy and awkward it could be an exercise in frustration rather than enjoyment.

[Chris]

If using a manual mount I would go for something with a wider field fo view like the ST102 on an AZ3. If going for goto I would go for the 127mm Mak as the goto will mostly find the objects for you. Don't forget that if you go for a Goto system you will need to transport a power tank which can be quite heavy, just using batteries with goto's is next to useless as they don't last long and they don't work as well.

The ST102mm on AZ3 is a great price! So is the Heritage 130p dobsonian!

Chris

[JamesF]

Have a think about what mount you put it on. That will make a really big difference to how portable the overall scope is. Viewing from your balcony will limit reaching the full potential of the scope so you will want to move it the 200 metres to the open fields as often as you can. If the scope is too heavy and awkward it could be an exercise in frustration rather than enjoyment.

I very much agree with this. For visual use, especially for portable rigs, I really can't see there's a compelling reason to use an EQ mount. If you don't get it nicely polar aligned then you'll end up having to adjust both the RA and DEC axes to track a target and if you're going to do that you might as well use an alt-az mount and have the associated ease of use.

James

[hansu]

aargh.. I'm so confused right now. I can not for the life of me decide which one to get. I'll get the 102.. no 127. Nope 102..

[JamesF]

Is there anywhere local that you can go and look at them?

James

[hansu]

Well actually I've seen the 102 at my local astronomical association's shop. The price was a little bit more expensive than at First Light Optics, about 300€ at FLO and at the shop 367€, though it includes a few asto books for beginners. And I'm not even sure if FLO delivers 'scopes overseas.