SkyWatcher Skymax-127 AZ SynScan GO-TO

[ultramol]

hi,can anyone tell me if this scope, sky watcher skymax 127 az synscan

is any good. I am thinking of photographing the moon and maybe planets. I have seen some on e bay that are in my price range and just wondered how good they are. Many thanks in advance.....Geoff

[Schorhr]

Hello Geoff,

I don't have the Sky-Watcher Az Synscan mount but the Nexstar SLT mount that is quite similar, and I have a smaller 102/1300mm Sky-Watcher Maksutov telescope.

Both the mount and the SW Maks are nice products. I currently have a 130/650mm Newton on the SLT and it's amazing what it can carry for such a relatively cheap mount.

If you plan on observing visually too, you'll get quite a large dobsonian for the same price of the 127 on GoTo-Mount though, and visually aperture is key.

Else it's a nice portable set-up with some flaws (cool down, high focal length can be tricky).

What camera do you plan on using? Is photography your main use?

Do you plan on capturing some deep-sky objects as well?

If so go grab a copy of the book "making every photon count" and do consider getting a EQ Mount instead.

If you intend on observing visualy mainly, do consider getting a dobsonian telescope and don't focus on imaging too much. Getting a smaller telescope on a cheap mount for both is allways a half-hearted compromise that will limit the possibilities.

[ultramol]

Thanks for that, what I would really like is the skywatcher 200p on an eq5 mount. But every time I bid on one I get outbidded. They seem to me to be a very popular scope and very versatile. I have a canon 350 d camera. I am  not tryng to run before I can walk so I would love to try my hand at lunar and planetary imaging as well as just observing.....Geoff

[PorkyB]

The 127 Mak is not the obvious choice for imaging, but just to show what can be done ... http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/185409-imaging-with-the-skymax-127/page-4

I have the 200P/EQ5 and it's a great setup for starting imaging, but if you want to go down that route I would seriously consider the 130PDS.  It is much smaller and lighter than the 200P, so easier for the mount to cope with.

[Schorhr]

Hello Geoff,

the 200p would already be a bit much on a eq5, resulting in a lot of bad images.

Also the 350d has no video mode (IIRC that came with the 500d) making planetary imaging a bit difficult. Usualy dedicated cameras of modified webcams are used for this, as the planets will be a small dot on the large DSLR chip and with video footage you can record hundreds and hundreds of frames and extract the best ones - and then stack them on the computer.

Perhaps someone owning either of the exact set-ups can give you better advice, but usually it's better to start visually and then approach imaging.

The telscope sets with EQ-Mount allways seem to be to weak, the stores try to create a inexpensive bundle and this will result in frustration regarding stability, especially if attaching DSLR.

I've seen nice pictures done with such setups, but ideally even the short 8" newton would belong on a *EQ-6 or something :-)

The smaller set with the 127mm Mak will be rather stable I reckon, at least visually, but you just spend so much for the mount that visual observations are somewhat limited.

If you ever plan on observing deep sky objects, do consider getting a 8" (IF you can transport it to a truly dark location). Even if you plan on doing some lunar imaging (will work with any telescope anyway as the moon is so bright and large) or planets, you can try by manually tracking or simply getting or building a EQ platform later on.

Visually, a 5-6" Telescope will show little deepsky details. Sure, Orion nebula, ring nebula and some galaxies are still stunning - in fact, I use my 5" the most as it's so portable.

But under 8" you rarely see things like galaxie's spirals or dust lanes.

http://clarkvision.com/visastro/m51-apert/

Also check out http://deepskypedia.com/wiki/DeepSkyPedia for comparison drawings, reports and such with different apertures.

[jambouk]

Search the forums for "127" there are hundreds of threads about these scopes, and several recent ones which you should read.

Planetary imaging - you need a webcam to get good images, dslr video mode is ok, but the sensor is so massive so you are recording >90% of the sensor as background sky and the target appears very small.

Lunar - you could use a dslr with the mak, and either try and get the whole moon on a single image, or do a mosaic.

Deep sky - it's possible to get some of the larger deep sky targets like the m42 in the link above, but for the average amateur astrophotographer this isn't the scope-mount combination for that, so my feeling is still this set up doesn't tick the DSO imaging box. If you want to look at deep sky stuff, again i would go for much more aperture.

I love my 127 mak, but i know what it can do, and what it can't do: planets, solar white light imaging (need special filter and i've never looked at the sun only imaged it), planets, double stars, and some clusters, but globulars have never resolved well, and open clusters are generally too big for the field of view. I find anything else very disappointing to be honest.

You should try and look trough one before you buy.

If dslr deep sky imaging takes your fancy, this isn't the scope or mount for you.

James

[ultramol]

Thank you for this information. I can now see there is quite a bit more to it than meets the eye. I will do my homework on this very informative site then take the plunge (as far as my pension will allow anyway). Thank you once again.

[shirva]

Agree with the comments from marcus and other replies,,,think the az goto or tracking version with a 114 or 130 scope better option you can fit a web cam or go down the astro video route thats picking up just now using cheap modified cctv csmeras and usb video grabbers a step up from webcams but lots cheaper than astrophotography with dedicated astro cams...davy

[ultramol]

Thanks once again....Geoff