Skywatcher pds range, any good for visual?

[Butchless1]

I intend to purchase a skywatcher 150 pds for starting imaging using my eq5 with dual axis motors, however I would expect to start with this would be no more than 30% of my time, the rest would be for visual

Will I compromise visual performance and would I be better with a 150p?

Any help appreciated I'm going round in mental circles

Nick

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Laurie61]

Hi Nick, I think your only option is the pds, it has the shorter tube to allow you to bring a camera to focus. The p is a visual only scope unless you modify. They are both f5 scopes.    

[Zuben Elgenubi]

Visual performance will be just fine. As Laurie61 says, if you are going to be imaging then the PDS is the one to go for. It allows you to bring a camera to focus and also has a larger secondary and a dual speed focuser.

[LouisJB]

minimal difference between the PDS and P visually from what I understand, you'd probably not even be able to tell the difference visually. If you we comparing different tubes, the 150 and 200 for example the visually there would be a difference...

[nightfisher]

I have the 150pds, very nice scope for visual and imaging work

[RikM]

There is absolutely no difference in optical terms between the 150P and 150PDS; both are great. The only difference is the focuser. There is also no problem in achieving focus with the single speed 150P, at least with Canon DSLR's or a Starlight Xpress CCD camera with a slimline filterwheel.

It is only the Sky-Watcher Newtonians fitted with 1.25" R&P focusers that don't come to focus with cameras.

[LouisJB]

There's a slight difference (so I thought); The PDS has a specifically shortened tube length to give more back-focus for prime focus photography. But visually I'd not expect it to be possible to notice which was which in any case. Some cameras require more back-focus than others, it's not that it won't work with a P, just it won't work in all cases, which the PDS aims to address. Also should allow enough headroom for other things in the optical path, guiders and the like.

[nightfisher]

There's a slight difference (so I thought); The PDS has a specifically shortened tube length to give more back-focus for prime focus photography. But visually I'd not expect it to be possible to notice which was which in any case. Some cameras require more back-focus than others, it's not that it won't work with a P, just it won't work in all cases, which the PDS aims to address. Also should allow enough headroom for other things in the optical path, guiders and the like.

good post............i did have a little trouble getting enough back or "in focus" with my pds and micro four thirds dslr, had to use a low profile T thread but i now do A-focal any way so not a problem

[Butchless1]

Thanks all for the comments......

After a long deliberation plumped for the 150 PDS  (apologies for the next weeks clouds) as although I think visual will win for the next year or so...I can see im already wavering to consider imaging needs so its a road I will end up walking down...- I can see it coming

Need to get some images now with the DSLR and current EQ5 setup,  so its not a shock to the boss when a new HEQ5 or more plus multiple CCD cameras start to arrive in the post!!!

I think I may have opened pandoras wallet further...

Cheers again for your help...