Upgrade on a shoestring!

[CumbrianGadgey]

As with a lot of people, I have already felt the urge to upgrade.

I feel as if I made a very basic error on buying my first scope...a Skywatcher Explorer 130 F7.

I'm not bad-mouthing the scope. For the price and size, it's a lovely unit. Anyway, I can't insult it because it is in the corner of the room watching me as I type and I would not wish to hurt its feelings.

Naturally, after a few observations, I started to notice things that I did not like. Most of these were due to its very reasonable price. The focuser is a rack and pinion that is not too easy to fine tune. This is made worse by the scope being a Newt and the thing being mounted as far as possible from the mount so that by adjusting focus, bending moments sufficient to wobble the scope are introduced making focusing hard. In fact, the mount is so wobbly that even nudging the eyecups causes considerable judder.

As with all EQ2 mounts, there is a limit on the declination adjustment which can be irritating.

Last but not least, I wanted to get clearer planetary observations with the chance of increasing magnification on clear dark nights, such as we primitive people in the North experience due to the lack of street lighting.

My budget is limited and the scopes I am looking at are Skywatcher 200p and 250p. Both have mounts that have been praised for their steadiness. Both have a much more solid and smooth focuser. Both have good reviews for their price.

I can't decide. Whilst the extra light-gathering can never be a bad thing, the 250 may be very cumbersome to use for a 5'5" midget such as myself.

What do you think?

Would the 200p be the significant improvement I am hoping for or should I hold out and try to get a 250p second hand...new is beyond me, especially since I will need to get another EP for either scope.

[rory]

The 200 would be a significant upgrade . 8 " will give you enough objects to last many years. Ok the 10" May offer even more , but generally bang for buck , the 8" is supposed to be rated as the sweet spot .

Of course the 200mm will be easier on collimation and eyepieces as it's slower than the. 250 .

You might find you'll be needing a replacement finder eventually as the straight through finder that comes with the skywatchers are tough on the back. People go for right angle finders and / or telrad type finders.

Either scope will be excellent though .

[Lee M]

I guess, as ever, try to see one of each in the flesh so you can judge how big a lump it'll be for you.

Having said that I initially found a 200P scarily big but quickly became more confident and comfortable handling it / moving it around.

You could pick up a nice 200P secondhand for ~£200. Look after it and if you feel the need for 'more' in a year or two you'll probably get a similar amount back. 

And let's face it, as you're lucky enough to be in Cumbria you probably want to get hold of the biggest light bucket you can lay your hands on

[Astro_noob]

I'm 5ft 4" and find it a little heavy but once setup very capable. You will need as a minimum for the 200p a eq5 and this needs to be well balanced to ensure smooth operation. Collimation of a newtonian is essential especially an 8" so factor in the cost of a tool and good fonder to work with the 8x50.

[NGC 1502]

If you are concerned about size & weight, the suggestion in post # 3 is a good one, to see the scopes in the flesh.

Very well worth the time and effort to get to a dealer that has stock to look at.  No amount of online pics or advice can make up for that.

Could save an expensive and disappointing purchase.

Regards, Ed.

[CumbrianGadgey]

Loving all the answers, folks.

Lee M, I know what you mean about wanting the biggest 'light bucket available'. I have already found that my 130 is capable of more here than it would be in more populated areas. The converse of what you said is also true, though. The 200 will gather enough useful photons here to make it seem like a 250 elsewhere.

Astro_noob, the fact you are somewhat shorter than me but are not put off by it is nice to know. Then again, those of us who are a little on the small side tend to pack a punch. I have carried 1000cc bike engines weighing twice my own slender mass. touting the thing is not a problem! As an aside, the point made about collimation is interesting. I have dreaded sorting mine out and keep checking it with a cap I made from an old  photographic film container. It has never moved since I bought the thing. That it is still true is proven night after night when viewing wide field objects and Jupiter. All are crystal clear except at the edge of the field of view, which i (rightly or wrongly) put down to the fact that the primary mirror in the F7 is spherical not parabollic.

Rory, what you say about the finders is sound advice too. i hadn't considered that bit about 90 degree finders. I guess I'll moan and bitch about it for a while until I finally decide to do something about it but if the scope gives me good views I won't really be too bothered for a long time.

At the moment, i'm coming down on the side of 200mm...the light bucket is tempting, though. Then again, if I had my way (and my budget put the Nat West to shame) I'd build an observatory in the back garden, shoot out everybodies security lights and install a 1 metre F8.

P.S. I intend to keep the 130 and get a 40mm EP for it. My current longest focal length is 25mm. With the 40mm I could see all of the seven sisters of the Pleiades at once, as opposed to having to rove around. The F5 will not let me do this. i can mount the smaller scope on the EQ5 and get better stability at the same time. There is a case for smaller scopes after all.

[Naemeth]

The 10" is quite heavy, sometimes too heavy after a hard day at work for me (OTA is 13kg, base is 15kg - getting any scope outside for me requires 3 flights of stairs both ways, so it can be quite tiring!) but would be fine if it was on the ground floor or was stored close to where you are observing from. The 8" is of course lighter, but as I said before, weight is only an issue if you'll need to carry it up and down stairs.

One thing to note too, the OTA of the 8" and 10" dobs are exactly the same length, the 10" is just fatter .

[CumbrianGadgey]

If you are concerned about size & weight, the suggestion in post # 3 is a good one, to see the scopes in the flesh.

Very well worth the time and effort to get to a dealer that has stock to look at.  No amount of online pics or advice can make up for that.

Could save an expensive and disappointing purchase.

Regards, Ed.

I know and the advice is sound.

The only problem with living in Cumbria is that it is at least a millenium behind everywhere else. This applies to social attitudes, fashion, music and the rest. It certainly applies to telescopes. Jessops closed due to lack of interest, for example. I'd have to travel 60 miles to get to a dealer. In Cumbria, most people brandish their clubs if you use a cigarette lighter, because they have not seen fire before.

Only kidding of course but I really don't have a dealer within sixty miles. It makes looking at a variety of choices very difficult.

[CumbrianGadgey]

The 10" is quite heavy, sometimes too heavy after a hard day at work for me (OTA is 13kg, base is 15kg - getting any scope outside for me requires 3 flights of stairs both ways, so it can be quite tiring!) but would be fine if it was on the ground floor or was stored close to where you are observing from. The 8" is of course lighter, but as I said before, weight is only an issue if you'll need to carry it up and down stairs.

One thing to note too, the OTA of the 8" and 10" dobs are exactly the same length, the 10" is just fatter .

You raise a fair point, here.

I'm 47 and did my back in some years ago, whilst foolishly thinking that a tree root would give way before my vertebrae did. I have learned how to handle the 130 without ending up bent double. It would be a bit pointless getting something i couldn't carry. The problem with scopes is not so much the weight, as the fact that you are trying to be so careful with them and forget about your own disability so as not to knock focusers etc.

Now I'm so decided to get the 200, the brand new boxed one on sale at £300 will be sure to have gone! I'd better dash off and check!

[Naemeth]

You raise a fair point, here.

I'm 47 and did my back in some years ago, whilst foolishly thinking that a tree root would give way before my vertebrae did. I have learned how to handle the 130 without ending up bent double. It would be a bit pointless getting something i couldn't carry. The problem with scopes is not so much the weight, as the fact that you are trying to be so careful with them and forget about your own disability so as not to knock focusers etc.

Now I'm so decided to get the 200, the brand new boxed one on sale at £300 will be sure to have gone! I'd better dash off and check!

£300?

Brand new for less (£279) here:

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-skyliner-200p-dobsonian.html

[rory]

Very easy to move the. 200 around if you take base and it's out seperatly , if your back is cause for concern . I honestly think you'll be blown away with what you can see with 8" s , particularly if you have a darkish location up there in cumbria.

Look foward to seeing the unboxing piccys and a first light report.

[CumbrianGadgey]

£300?

Brand new for less (£279) here:

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-skyliner-200p-dobsonian.html

yeah,

sorry for the confusion I've caused. I'm not after a dob. I wanted an EQ mount. There are reasons for this.