Jump to content

NLCbanner2024.jpg.2478be509670e60c2d6efd04834b8b47.jpg

130 to 200 - a worthy upgrade?

timbob67

Recommended Posts

timbob67

timbob67

Posted
Posted

Having spent some enjoyable times with my "starter" Skywatcher heritage 130P this year, including my first views of Jupiter and her moons, Saturn's rings (and I think, a faint dot that was Titan...?) some breathtaking views of the moon and a faint smattering of DSOs - and I must admit to being ever so slightly disappointed with my views of these, I'm feeling the upgrade bug.

I've already got a couple of slightly nicer eyepieces, so I'm looking at a bigger telescope. Ideally, I'd like to be able to resolve Jupiter at higher magnification, see Saturn as a larger object, and make out so e Martian surface features. I've been finding planetary observing very rewarding...! It would be nice to have some better views of the fainter M objects as well :)

Anyway, I've spotted that the Skywatcher 200p (8") Dob is available for well under £300, and some quick maths shows an 8" mirror has over 2 and a half times the light catching "surface area" of my current 5" telescope.

My question is, is the 8" telescope a worthwhile upgrade for me, or do I need to be spending £500+ on a10-12" Dob to see a distinct improvement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naemeth

Naemeth

Posted
Posted

A 5" scope to a 8" scope is quite a big jump, but a 5" scope to a 10" is spectacular. Both will improve your views noticeably, you just need to decide which you will prefer (the 10" is quite a bit bigger than the 8", both in physical bulk and weight). The 10" will need a 14" or 16" to have the same level of "wow" in an upgrade, where you could go for the 12" from the 8" and get the same effect. 14" and 16" scopes are very large, something to bear in mind certainly :).

HTH 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Liquid360

Liquid360

Posted
Posted

Aperture fever drove me into a 10" SCT, but the truth is I should've gone with an 8" as I can't discern any real difference. On the surface you might think I'm suggesting the 8". My 2cents is go big or go home. As was said earlier from a 10" you're looking at an awfully large scope from there. I'm assuming portability is a nonissue so I'd say to with a 12-14 if it's within your means. You'll be thrilled with an 8, but the bug WILL hit you again. You'll be happy you went big.

- Nate

Birmingham, AL

Link to comment
Share on other sites
russ.will

russ.will

Posted
Posted

Aperture fever is exactly that - An irrational urge to go bigger and bigger. Now, I'm not denying that bigger will give better views of almost anything, in theory. But it should be considered that bigger also brings it's own set of compromises.

It should be noted that these better views take longer to access - increased cool down time is an issue. High planetary magnifications, can be awesome through a big Newt, but the resolution advantage is accessed on far fewer nights than you may imagine due to atmospheric instability. On most nights,  a smaller scope will give more stable views of planets.

On the other hand a bigger scope at low mag will actually allow you to see some colour (I'm not talking HD here, but it is a hint of colour) in some of the brightest DSOs, which can turn an ordinary object into an exceptional one.

Ultimately, it's about the balance of your lifestyle with your viewing preferences. I simply don't have the time for a two hour cool down, so I sold my 12" Dob and 'regressed' to an 8" Newt as it's ready for an hour or two of viewing in about 30 minutes. The 12" Dob was an aperture fever purchase and it did, on one night give me views of Jupiter that will remain burned into my memory forever. One night in the year that I owned it. Why? Because I was mostly using the 5" Frac because it worked straight away, for the short sessions I had.

There is a reason that an 8" Newt is a very popular aperture to go for. That is because it is a very, very good compromise in terms of ability with usability. ;)

Russell

Russell

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

I went from 8 to 10 inch SCTs and did find a worthwhile difference. I also went from 120 to 200mm before that and, again, it was worth it. However, 8 inches is the end of casual portability! Bigger than that needs more thinking about. It hasn't reached the 'difficult' stage but it's well on the way.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davie

Davie

Posted
Posted

I went from a 130p to a 200pds and it did bring a big smile to my face. Even little things like the bigger finder scope was a wow!! moment, I couldnt believe how much better it was than the 6x30.

As mentioned above though if you have got a local astro shop go take a look at them as no matter how much you think you know about the size of a scope you'll still be surprised when you first clap eyes on it :shocked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoSiriusly

NoSiriusly

Posted
Posted

I went from 8 to 10 inch SCTs and did find a worthwhile difference. I also went from 120 to 200mm before that and, again, it was worth it. However, 8 inches is the end of casual portability! Bigger than that needs more thinking about. It hasn't reached the 'difficult' stage but it's well on the way.

Olly

I agree with Olly's point about the size of the thing. I love my 200p but it is a big old beast and needs a fair amount of effort to haul it into the garden. Might not be so bad with a dobsonian setup though. Jupiter and Saturn are both amazing sights.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
timbob67

timbob67

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well, that's a fairly whole hearted recommendation for the Skywatcher 200 then...!

Thanks all for the responses, and particularly to russ.will for the thought provoking points about the usability of large scopes. Most of my observing sessions are necessarily quite short, so waiting an hour for a much larger scope to cool down would have a significant impact - without even thinking about the portability side of things!

I think I shall have a look at ordering one once I figure out where to put it - I'm fully aware of how big even an 8" dob will be! I am looking forward to my first views of the planets in more detail though. The highest magnification I have gone to with my heritage 130p is about 80x with an 8mm eyepiece. I've only just realised that the longer focal length of the 200p will nearly double the magnification I get with each eyepiece :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RikM

RikM

Posted
Posted

Funny how there are different observing habits. I find a 300P uncomfortable for my back because I like to sit while observing. The 300P for me is too tall to comfortably sit, yet too short to stand next to.

This is the problem when trying to advise someone based on what we like. The best bet before making a significant purchase is to try and find someone local, or a local society viewing evening and go  along and have a go with a range of kit if you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RikM

RikM

Posted
Posted

I agree,the 300p is still uncomfortable but it's much better than the 200p back wise apart from lifting ofcourse.

Sitting or standing? My 250PX is the same length as the 200P and, for me, it is the most comfortable telescope I have used. I sit on an ironing stool that I picked up at a car boot sale and with it set about 3" higher than a regular garden chair, I can view any object from horizon to zenith with ease and no back strain at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
swamp thing

swamp thing

Posted
Posted

I really wouldn't worry one iota about cool down, this is about the most irrelevant factor about large scope ownership.

Just put the scope down and use it straight away. As long as you are observing low definition objects at low power thermal equilibrium is unnecessary.

I set my big scope up, have a brew, then, start observing immediately. You only need worry about thermal equilibrium when observing at high power objects of high definition

For most faint fuzzies (pretty much what you buy a big scope for) can be observed straight away. There really is no point in waiting about for a scope to cool down, when you could be observing.

Cool down time is observing time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naemeth

Naemeth

Posted
Posted

I really wouldn't worry one iota about cool down, this is about the most irrelevant factor about large scope ownership.

Just put the scope down and use it straight away. As long as you are observing low definition objects at low power thermal equilibrium is unnecessary.

I set my big scope up, have a brew, then, start observing immediately. You only need worry about thermal equilibrium when observing at high power objects of high definition

For most faint fuzzies (pretty much what you buy a big scope for) can be observed straight away. There really is no point in waiting about for a scope to cool down, when you could be observing.

Cool down time is observing time.

Agree 100%. When I set-up my 10" dob I don't think:

"Oh, got to get it down 3 flights of stairs, then set-up in the back garden for 30 minutes then I can start observing". I just take it down straight away and start, if I find the image wobbling too much I back the power off for a bit :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.