Where to put my money.... 200p or 250px?

[Tube Screamer]

Hi guys,

Simple question for you.. this will be my first scope and I am trying to decide whether the Skywatcher 250px classic dob is worth the premium over the smaller 200p?

I notice that Sky at Night Magazine awarded the 200p a Highly Recommended 93%, but only gave the 250px 89%.  Yes, it was 250px FlexTube version which they tested, and not the classic as I would be looking at, so whether that had any bearing on the result.  But considering that the classic versions of both the 200p and 250px are essentially the same scope, one just being larger than the other, logically I would have expected them to receive a very similar rating, if not the 250px slightly out in front? 

Can anyone shed any light on that please?  Is it likely to have been a slight downfall in the FlexTube design which caused the 250px do drop a few percent against the 200p?

Anyway, so the basic question still stands;  where would you guys put your money.. 200p or 250px, and lets consider that storage and transportation are not an issue here?

Thanks for any advice guys

Russ

[cotterless45]

250. Aperture is king . No use getting small, then deciding you need bigger ,

Nick.

[davefrance]

250. Aperture is king . No use getting small, then deciding you need bigger ,

Nick.

Depends who is carrying it, I guess. Is portability a consideration?

[ronl]

In this hobby bigger is better, it's all about light gathering.

[Dreadz]

I've been stuck in exactly the same dilema myself. After getting loads of helpful advice from folks on here am waiting for all my bills to go out of my account before i order the 250px.

If transport and storage aren't an issue, and providing you're capable of moving it around comfortably, go big. The faster f/4.7 250px will be less forgiving on eyepieces, so bear that in mind, but suitable EP's wont break the bank if and when you decide to upgrade.

Do it. Go big. (just not before wednesday because i'll be insanely jealous )

[ronin]

Assume 3 or 4 eyepieces and a collimator that could easily cover £200, likely £250.

Does that alter the scope choice?

[swamp thing]

Hi Russ

I'm a lover of large aperture observing, but as an all rounder the 8" is possibly a better choice.

The advantage in resolution the 10" gives you over the 8" on planets is seldom going to be seen. Atmospheric seeing puts pay to that nine times out of ten.

The 8" is less bulky than the 10" and due to its slower speed is kinder on cheaper wide field eyepieces. It's lighter mirror means it'll hold collimation slightly better too.

On deep sky they both work real good, but here the 10" will go deeper and show more than its smaller cousin.

All in all the 8" is slightly easier to live with, but if deep sky is your area of interest the slight inconvenience of the bulkier 10" is worth the extra effort.

I use a 10" myself as a second scope and find it just the right (goldilocks size) balance between aperture and portability, but I would add, I don't really observe planets. My chief interest is deep sky performance, and here the 10" edges it.

You won't go wrong with either though, both are cracking scopes

Good luck with your choice