Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Skywatcher Heritage 130P or somthing just a little bit pricier?


Recommended Posts

Yeah if I did go for astrophotography then without a doubt the mount and camera would have to be second-hand, and even then we would be talking a big jump. Most people seem to say the Skywatcher HEQ5 mount (£750 new) is the minimum to go for, and the for the camera I have no idea, would have to research. Ironically people seem to think that the scope itself could be more at the budget end though, which might help reduce the overall price a bit.

And of course I've since found posts (on this website as it happens) saying the neither the Explorer 130M EQ5 nor the Explorer 200P EQ5 would be very good, again because of the mount (I was wrongly mixing up the EQ5 with the HEQ5).

So it would have to be a second-hand HEQ5 with a second-hand CCD or DSLR, with a new cheap telescope I think. I'm guessing around £800. Which is a big difference from £200-£300 for just going down the visual route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 307
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think my issue is that I'm fairly confident that once I'd got the hang of viewing planets and nebulae etc (no doubt I would get very excited about the whole thing), I would then regret that I wouldn't be able to keep some kind of visual record of what I saw, and build up my own little gallery of images to look at and maybe also try to improve upon.

But then I may be wrong. Maybe I still don't fully appreciate how complicated and pain-staking astrophotography can be, and maybe if I did understand that then I would be happy with just viewing. In which case a nice little basic scope would be the way to go, maybe with a view to upgrade the mount to an HEQ5 and buy a DSLR later on, should I feel the need for images. It sounds to me like the Explorer 130P or the Explorer 130M might do a half-decent job of astrophotography when used with an HEQ5 mount or similar. But hey, I've been wrong about pretty much everything so far, so I may be wrong about that. But I'm sure I've read that smaller scopes with better mounts can be better for one reason or another (no doubt partly because of less overall weight).

Sorry if I'm trying everyone's patience with this thread by the way, I'm just REALLY taking my time thinking this through, because after all it is such a complicated subject. It may seem like I'm going in circles, but I'm sure I'm making some progress, just in a very roundabout way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better to take time then repent in the cold feeling dissatisfied :-)

Are you good at diy?

More posts and you can see the classifieds.

There is a 150 pds OTA for sale here and build your own base for it.

If happy to take time why not keep an eye out for second hand as get more bang for your buck. Say on astro buy and sell site.

A faster scope let's in more light for imaging and perhaps finding those dso too.

My mine experience of trying to capture that image is lots of time spent faffing for not a lot, lol.

Perhaps save some more while reading and maybe a scope fitting your desires would come up for sale second hand.

Can do in stages focus on a scope and mount first get to know it and how to find stuff whilst saving for a camera.

As to which mount, one that does not wobble and rotates with us :-) seriously way beyond my experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I've decided that I want a "closed" scope (which rules out the Heritage, as good as I'm sure it is), and I'd prefer an EQ mount (a basic one for now) to a Dobsonian (which rules out the Skyliner scopes), so the obvious choice would seem to be the Skywatcher Explorer 130M. The only question would be could I start out by using that only for visual while I learn, and then put it on an HEQ5 mount later for photography? Or is the Skywatcher Explorer 130M not good enough even when on a HEQ5 mount? And if it isn't good enough, then what could I buy initially on a basic EQ mount, and upgrade the mount for photography later?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it started out at £200 (which is the price of the Explorer 130M), then I upped it slightly to £300. Then I considered going insane and all out for photography (£800 or something silly), but then I came to my senses and went back down to £200-£300 (I've been saving up for a new PC, which is a much bigger priority than astrophotography!). And anyway, after buying a telescope, the Orion book, and no doubt the odd accessory or two, the 130M or a similar scope would be more like £250-£300 anyway. So I guess my budget would be £300.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah that's sneaky. I wondered why the 130M and the 130P are the same price, when the 130M has a motor (and a 2x Barlow):

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-130m.html

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-130p.html

And it seems that the 130M has a spherical mirror, and the 130P has a parabolic one. So it looks like the 130P would give better views, but obviously with the lack of a motor. And I'd rather have better views for now I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if you do feel imaging will be a proper pull then I think some post searching on the 130m kit and how useable it is and what if any limitations are. For example will a DSLR get enough in focus travel to reach focus, is the focuser man enough to hold the weight of a DSLR.

An eq mount with motors means the object can be tracked, but can it be imaged with the telescope kit provided is a different question.

I suspect this is why Skywatcher brought out the 130P-DS to address the imaging needs rather then observational motor driven tracking.

I am only thinking, I have no facts, just read some threads after searching and thinking about your question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Budgets.......I said previous, my kit equates to about £650  but if you take out the 15x70's and 3 BST's that's £200 saved on the initial outlay. There's really no rush to get everything all at once. The difference between my Celestron 127EQ and the Skyliner is just awesome. The Moon looked good, but  everything else seemed poor/small on the Celestron. That's down to the quality of the optics and the aperture. That's why I recommend anything over 6"  (150mm) as a starting point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you see this thread?

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/205175-astronomy-telescopes-for-beginners/

Someone's review of the 130p though many images not taken with that setup.

http://www.skywatcher130p.com/

If I had to choose between these two I would get the 130p for the parabolic mirror and easier to handle shorter tube.

Can always use it as is and with a webcam and image the moon and planets as tracking is not needed for this.

If you want to do motorised images could perhaps look to add motors or see what mount you could get second hand at a later date.

An equotiral mount can be heavier to carry than and AltAz affair.

I gather reading threads to image DSO you need a mount that you can polar align (but I an not an expert just someone who likes searching and reading), the EQ2 does not have this facility so reliable tracking of DSO to image may be very hard to achieve and if not accurate will get star trails etc. Assuming the focuser can carry a DSLR and that focus can be reached.

Interesting read about EQ1 and EQ2 mounts and other related reads.

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/172069-eq-1-and-eq-2-mounts/?fromsearch=1

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/169975-skywatcher-explorer-130p-eq-2/?fromsearch=1

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/148433-skywatcher-explorer-130m/?fromsearch=1

This could be polar aligned (does it need something to do this?) but it right at the top of budget and no idea how much for motors later on or if camera can focus.

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-150p-eq3-2.html

Thank fully there is no rush deciding as the target is not going anywhere :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the links, they make interesting reading. And as it happens I was looking at the Exporer 150P at FLO too.

I wonder if I could buy that, just for viewing, and then once I've got the hang of it, buy an HEQ5 mount, motor, and compact (rather than DLSR) camera, to give both planetary and DSO photography a go. It would just depend on whether the scope was up to the job in the same way that the HEQ5 mount would be.

I did also consider the Skyliner 150P or 200P on its dobsonian mount for viewing (as they say it's the most performance per £), and then putting that on an HEQ5 later for the same purpose. But one of the threads you linked to spoke about the Skyliners as being fundamentally visual scopes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose my question would be, what scope (if any) could I buy for £200-£300 which I could initially use for viewing (on any old mount, doesn't really matter), which I could later use on an HEQ5 mount with motor, camera adaptor, and a compact camera, for planetary and DSO photography? And would any of the Explorer 130P/150P or Skyliner 150P/200P scopes fit into that category?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beyond my knowledge hopefully someone who knows could reply

But can you now add motors to the eq2-3?

Why don't you ring FLO and ask and why not check out their offers on here there is a very recent post and you may like one of the scopes/mount available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I want to go new with the scope (I don't want to take any chances), and the idea is that I do the following:

1 - buy a scope, purely for viewing, but one which can work with a better mount (i.e. HEQ5) later on, for planetary and DSO photography

2 - save up to buy a decent but second-hand DSLR camera and camera adaptor, and a motor if I don't already have one, and take some planetary photos with the current setup (i.e. the stock mount)

3 - save up for the HEQ5 mount (maybe second-hand if I can get a reasonable saving), and then hopefully start taking some DSO photos

I've also found this thread:

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/132888-starter-scope-for-astrophotography/

And that thread contains what I consider to be some great photos, and those were only taken with the 130P EQ-2!

They seem to recommend the £289 150P-EQ3-2 (not the £539 EQ3-2 GOTO Pro version), or the £415 200P EQ-5, both of which do look quite tasty. So I'm very tempted to buy one of those. But if I did, then I would need to know that either one could give me decent photos with a HEQ5 mount and a decent DSLR camera later (and surely they would after seeing what the 130P EQ-2 can do).

I've never actually looked at the contents of this forum before, I really need to start looking at some pictures taken with various scopes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think forget the heq5 for now or could spend less now and get a dob knowing you are changing mount anyway.

Or could look at a scope that will give good views and has a mount that could be motorised and polar aligned. Those pictures you linked to they had fitted motors to their eq2-3.

FLO in their special thread you could consider a eq2-3 with a 130p-ds comes out at £300 (or 369 for 150p-ds) plus shipping.

Save for camera and motors later. Your approach looks reasoned and I guess sticking the heq5 on the end means you have not spent money on it unless you really identify you want to go further with imaging and your current rig you have exhausted.

These things are big too! Lol.

For Dso images I think you want a fast scope not a long thin tube.

Can you not go anywhere to look through some scopes?

Disclaimer - I am a noobie so just my thoughts on questions posed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just compared the specs of the Explorer 200P EQ-5 with the Skyliner 200P, and they seem to be the same specs-wise, except that the Explorer 200P EQ-5 has a shorter focal length of f5 rather than f5.91 (I believe shorter is better?):

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-200p-eq5.html

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

But the difference in price is massive, at £415 for the Skyliner 200P and £279 for the Explorer 200P EQ-5. So much so, that the more similar-priced equivalent Skyliner is the next one up, the 250PX at £435:

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-skyliner-250px-dobsonian.html

So why is there such a big difference when the scope specs are so similar? I can only assume that you are paying more to have the EQ mount instead of the Dob mount? Because if that's all it is, then presumably I could buy a higher-power and lower-priced Dobsonion telescope for viewing, and then put it on a HEQ5 mount later for photography?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think forget the heq5 for now or could spend less now and get a dob knowing you are changing mount anyway.

Or could look at a scope that will give good views and has a mount that could be motorised and polar aligned. Those pictures you linked to they had fitted motors to their eq2-3.

FLO in their special thread you could consider a eq2-3 with a 130p-ds comes out at £300 (or 369 for 150p-ds) plus shipping.

Save for camera and motors later. Your approach looks reasoned and I guess sticking the heq5 on the end means you have not spent money on it unless you really identify you want to go further with imaging and your current rig you have exhausted.

These things are big too! Lol.

For Dso images I think you want a fast scope not a long thin tube.

Can you not go anywhere to look through some scopes?

Disclaimer - I am a noobie so just my thoughts on questions posed

When you say "for DSO images I think you want a fast scope and not a long thin tube". I'm sure you're right but what does that mean exactly?

And the only place in town where I live is a camera-repair shop which also sells telescopes, but they only had the Skywatcher 130P on display. I did get some advice (and a catalogue), but of course, each time you find one thing out, it brings up new questions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this thread about 200P Dob v 200P Explorer, most people opt for the dob:

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/110368-skywatcher-skyliner-200p-dobsonian-versus-skywatcher-explorer-200p-eq5-help/

and one person even says:

"A better idea for a 200P would be the HEQ5 as a minimum if you want to do DSO imaging."

And that's exactly what I was thinking - a 200P on its own Dob mount for visual, then put it on an HEQ5 mount with a motor later, and a DSLR camera, for planetary and DSO photography.

If I'm honest I very much prefer the idea of an EQ mount to Dop mount, if only because EQ mounts look (and no doubt are) so much more advanced, whereas the Dob mount looks gimmicky. But at the same time, I can easily see how a Dob mount could be ideal for beginners. I would be interested to know if anyone has any experience with a 200P on an HEQ5 mount, particularly for imaging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just compared the specs of the Explorer 200P EQ-5 with the Skyliner 200P, and they seem to be the same specs-wise, except that the Explorer 200P EQ-5 has a shorter focal length of f5 rather than f5.91 (I believe shorter is better?):

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-200p-eq5.html

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

But the difference in price is massive, at £415 for the Skyliner 200P and £279 for the Explorer 200P EQ-5. So much so, that the more similar-priced equivalent Skyliner is the next one up, the 250PX at £435:

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-skyliner-250px-dobsonian.html

So why is there such a big difference when the scope specs are so similar? I can only assume that you are paying more to have the EQ mount instead of the Dob mount? Because if that's all it is, then presumably I could buy a higher-power and lower-priced Dobsonion telescope for viewing, and then put it on a HEQ5 mount later for photography?

Skyliner is the Dobsonian, it would be cheaper than the Explorer. Look back at your links? The price difference is in the mount.  £279 for a Skyliner. or less if you know where to look?

In the little time I've had due to the weather I've viewed Jupiter, The Moon, Mars and seen a couple of DSO's. Nothing spectacular,  colourless misty patches,   Just the fact I've seen them, from my garden, or darker site for M31 in all its glory! 

I think your good with the Skyliner 200P which is a Newtonian Reflector on a Dobsonian Mount for most objects including DSO(Deep Space Objects) but solely for visual observations.  

For Astro photography, I have seen some good images taken with the Skywatcher  ED80 Apo Refractor.  Check out "Making Every Photon Count" available from the sites sponsor.

A 200P Explorer on an EQ is sure going to  look big, and needs disassembly every time and critical alignments during set up or the EQ/tracking system will just not work? Trust those who own  Dob's  * ease of use * take it for granted.

I don't  like EQ systems FACT!  but  once you've mastered their intricacies  they are  the only viable system for tracking and imaging. I just would never have another one solely for visual work. Not worth the hassle .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skyliner is the Dobsonian, it would be cheaper than the Explorer. Look back at your links? The price difference is in the mount.  £279 for a Skyliner. or less if you know where to look?

In the little time I've had due to the weather I've viewed Jupiter, The Moon, Mars and seen a couple of DSO's. Nothing spectacular,  colourless misty patches,   Just the fact I've seen them, from my garden, or darker site for M31 in all its glory! 

I think your good with the Skyliner 200P which is a Newtonian Reflector on a Dobsonian Mount for most objects including DSO(Deep Space Objects) but solely for visual observations.  

For Astro photography, I have seen some good images taken with the Skywatcher  ED80 Apo Refractor.  Check out "Making Every Photon Count" available from the sites sponsor.

A 200P Explorer on an EQ is sure going to  look big, and needs disassembly every time and critical alignments during set up or the EQ/tracking system will just not work? Trust those who own  Dob's  * ease of use * take it for granted.

I don't  like EQ systems FACT!  but  once you've mastered their intricacies  they are  the only viable system for tracking and imaging. I just would never have another one solely for visual work. Not worth the hassle .

The issue is that I don't want to buy the Skyliner 200P and do visual, and then have to buy another scope to do photography. That's why I was hoping that I could buy a reasonable scope like the Skyliner 200P for visual now, which I know is fine for visual but no good for photography, and then put the replace the Skyliner 200P's Dob mount with the HEQ5 mount later. But that would depend if the 200P would give decent enough photography options if it had the HEQ5 mount underneath it.

If not, then I would have to consider buying a more expensive scope now but with a basic mount so I could use it purely for visual, and then upgrade the mount to the HEQ5 later.

I just want to be able to plan ahead a bit, and avoid buying one scope for visual, and another for photography!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • 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.