Sw 200p and 200pds

[Gumph242]

What's the difference between these 2 models? Is the pds worth the extra dosh?

Thanks

G

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

[Avocette]

It's all explained in one paragraph on the FLO website description of the 200pds - basically same primary mirror, shorter physical tube with compensating larger secondary mirror compared with the 200p so that the prime focus is further outboard to make it easier to attach a camera and extras like switchable filters for astro photography. The DS is for a double speed (10:1 as well as 1:1) focuser which allows more precise adjustment.

[Gumph242]

So it is a more ap focused version of the 200p.

Apparently it becomes even better at ap with a coma corrector, what is that?

It sounds like a good idea for a scope, allegedly good for both visual and imaging. Is this the case or is it a jack of all trades/master of none type deal?

Thanks

G

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

[lukebl]

If you trawl through the threads on SGL, you'll see that there is no such thing as a Jack of all trades telescope!

HOWEVER, if there is such a scope, I'd say that the 200PDS is the closest to it. It has a long enough focal length to be reasonably good for viewing/imaging planets, wide enough aperture for DSO viewing, and a low enough focal ratio for DSO imaging. And it's affordable! Of course, though, a good mount (at least an HEQ5) is absolutely critical. As is a coma corrector if you're interested in DSO imaging.

[Gumph242]

Is the pds version any worse at the visual side of things than the straight p version? Or are they the same as far as visual is concerned?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

[lukebl]

Is the pds version any worse at the visual side of things than the straight p version? Or are they the same as far as visual is concerned?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

As far as I know, they're much the same.

[Avocette]

In formal terms the larger secondary mirror in the 200PDS obscures more of the light than in the 200p from reaching the primary mirror so contrast is reduced a little. The coma corrector is needed for imaging to reduce/remove an aberration (coma) which turns points of light towards the edge of the field of view into little 'comets'. Many visual observers wouldn't be too concerned in practice about either effect.