200P or 200PDS for viewing and photos

[John2525]

Hi,

I'm new to Astronomy and telescopes after a lot of reading I'm seriously thinking about buying the Explorer 200P but indication are the 200PDS is better for photography, (but it costs more and needs the heavy duty mount, costs more..)  I'm looking to view both planets and DSO but I will want photos later, I don't want to have issue using the 200P for photos with a Nikon DLSR, there was a comment online about 200P and Nikon focusing... as it has a deeper body!!! 

Can any one help,

Have you used the 200P for photography??

If I get the 200PDS there was mention of a 2mm ring/spacer when using the eye pieces for visually viewing the planets etc ??

Thanks John.

[PorkyB]

The 200P is a capable scope for imaging, but if you are starting with the intention of getting into photography then I would definitely go for the 200PDS.  It has a better focusser, a bigger secondary mirror and, I believe, will have more inward focus travel.  My 200P achieves focus with my Canon camera with only about 7mm of focusser travel.  If the Nikon needs more inward travel then it might start to get a bit tight.

If budget is tight (and let's face it, for most of us it is) then the priority for spending should be the mount.  Different scopes will come and go, but money spent on the mount will be a long term investment.  You could always get a smaller scope, like a 130PDS (other kinds of scope are also available  ) and invest in your mount and maybe guiding.  You can always get a bigger or different scope later.

For both of my scopes, it is useful to have an extender for the eyepiece.  This allows me to lock the focus for the camera and swap the eyepiece back in when I need it. Mine adds 1.5 inch (38mm).

[LouisJB]

In terms of Skywatcher Newtonian's the PDS range is ideally what you want for any imaging, it's designed with the shorter tube to give increased back-focus for prime focus photography etc.

It also depends what mount you have and what you want to image as to which is best, the different models trade of size/weight against focal length (they are all F5).

If your mount can cope with any of the PDS range (well up to 200, beyond that I think they are all a bit big for any portable EQ mount for imaging) then deciding on the focal length is key, what do you want to image?

Wide field (star fields, large galaxies, nebula) or narrow field (most smaller galaxies, detailed bits of nebula, planetary nebula, planets etc) would lead you towards the smaller 130 or 150 range or the bigger 200 OTA respectively.

Also, imaging at longer focal lengths is more demanding in general, or put another way for a given guiding accuracy you'll get away with much longer exposures on a shorter focal length tube.

[John2525]

thanks very much for your advise - it looks like it will have to be the 130pds and an  eq5  pro synscan they seem like my best combination.

[Rihard]

I never had focus issues with my 200P, both a Nikon D3100 and D7000 work. I remember one guy telling me the same thing, that this model of scope is supposed not to focus with dSLR's (in general) but people use the 200P a lot for imaging. No idea about the 130P. I love the 200P with Eq5 and motors, however sometimes I regret I didn't get something slightly smaller.

[LouisJB]

130P is definitely a no for DSLR imaging, out of the box. The issue is the back-focus may be marginal and all DSLRs have different sensor positions... Also depending what type of coma corrector, or say OAG or filters you add to the optical train you may be even less likely to be able to get focus, whereas the PDS range as well as having a better focuser should give increased back-focus to cover these cases, basically it was designed for imaging...