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

[happy-kat]

Looks like a member to read their old threads

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/210146-qm-departs-from-his-beloved-eq5/#entry2242034

[ianpwilliams]

I've had a look at the two HEQ5 mounts available on FLO (the mount that I would upgrade to later), and there are the options - the HEQ5 SynTrek, and the HEQ5 PRO Synscan (I'm not sure what the difference is between the two, but I can find that out later):

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-heq5-syntrek.html

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-heq5-pro-synscan.html

There is a review for the HEQ5 SynTrek which says that it "Overall a fantastic mount and I would highly recommend them to anyone, they handle my 6 inch scope with ST80 guidescope and camera with ease for imaging and for visual an 8 inch reflector feels like nothing thanks to the smooth RA & Dec axis."
 

There is a review for the HEQ5 PRO Synscan, which says that "It's enough for a big Newtonian for a visual observer or right at it's limit, an 8" Newtonian with a 3" guide scope, plus a camera."

That suggests that both of these mounts would be at their limit with an 8" scope. Which makes me wonder if I would be better off getting the 6" 150P Dob (rather than the 8" 200P Dob), on its own Dob mount for now, and then if and when I do upgrade the mount to one of the HEQ5 mounts above, the HEQ5 mount would be more comfortable carrying the 6" with a camera etc rather than the 8" with a camera etc, and presumably that would make life easier when imaging, allowing for better tracking, longer exposures etc.

The sacrifice would be that I would have a 150P throughout rather than a 200P throughout, but if it resulted in easier imaging and better images later on, then I'm sure that's a sacrifice I would be prepared to make. I still get the feeling that the 150P would give some great views.

But then the 150P is f7.84, which is way more than the 200P's f/5.91, so that might cancel out the advantage gained from the lighter weight.

[ianpwilliams]

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 .

I've had a quick look at the Skywatcher ED80 Apo Refractor that you mentioned. It seems to have a similar focal ratio to the Skyliner 150P, but it's much shorter, narrower, and lighter, and it looks like it's kind of designed for DSO, and possibly DSO photography. Unfortunately it seems to be rather hard to find here in the UK though.

But I do wonder if something smaller, cheaper, and geared towards DSO might be the way to go then? Presumably the viewing wouldn't be as good as the imaging, and the viewing wouldn't be as good as the viewing on the Dob, as the Dob is geared towards viewing. But it does seem that unless you spend literally several thousand pounds, you will either have a scope for viewing or a scope for imaging, or both?

If that were the case, then maybe it really would be worth buying two completely seperate scopes, one for viewing (e.g. the 150P Dob on its Dob mount), and one for imaging (something similar to the ED80, on an EQ mount, and maybe an EQ5 would be enough for what appears to be a fairly light ED80 scope), and then have viewing sessions, and imaging sessions? That could actually work out cheaper than buying a scope which tries to cover everything, but with an HEQ5 mount.

[ianpwilliams]

I'm definitely getting the impression that you either:

1 - buy a scope specifically geared for DSO photography (i.e. something small and fast on an EQ mount), which will only be ok for viewing

2 - buy a scope specifically geared for visual (like a Dob), which would only be ok for some planetary photography, and no good for DSO photography at all

And it looks like the visual option can be £200-£300, and the photography option would be £800+. There is a very good guide to budget DSO photography here, which suggests you can be up and running for around £500, but no doubt sacrificing the viewing side of it a bit:
 

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/11305-dso-imaging-on-a-budget/

So are those my basic options?

[Zuben Elgenubi]

I'm definitely getting the impression that you either:

1 - buy a scope specifically geared for DSO photography (i.e. something small and fast on an EQ mount), which will only be ok for viewing

2 - buy a scope specifically geared for visual (like a Dob), which would only be ok for some planetary photography, and no good for DSO photography at all

And it looks like the visual option can be £200-£300, and the photography option would be £800+. There is a very good guide to budget DSO photography here, which suggests you can be up and running for around £500, but no doubt sacrificing the viewing side of it a bit:

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/11305-dso-imaging-on-a-budget/

So are those my basic options?

That is a pretty good summary I think. You can compromise and use one scope for visual and imaging but it will be just that, a compromise. Something like an Explorer 200P on an HEQ5 is probably about as close to a decent compromise as you will find. Even then, the scope is at the upper weight limit of the mount for imaging once you add a camera and eventually a guide scope.

You mentioned putting the Skyliner OTA on the HEQ5. Yes, you can do this if you buy tube rings and a dovetail. It is fine for visual, other than you will end up with the EP quite high above the ground when viewing targets that are higher in the sky. Due to the extra length (and presumably weight) compared to the Explorer, I think you would struggle with stability if you tried to use this combination for imaging - f/6 is fast enough, but the 1200mm focal length would place increasing demands on your mount in terms of accuracy. That's not to say it is impossible, but imaging is tricky enough without introducing further complications.

[Charic]

I'm definitely getting the impression that you either:

1 - buy a scope specifically geared for DSO photography (i.e. something small and fast on an EQ mount), which will only be ok for viewing

2 - buy a scope specifically geared for visual (like a Dob), which would only be ok for some planetary photography, and no good for DSO photography at all

And it looks like the visual option can be £200-£300, and the photography option would be £800+. There is a very good guide to budget DSO photography here, which suggests you can be up and running for around £500, but no doubt sacrificing the viewing side of it a bit:

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/11305-dso-imaging-on-a-budget/

So are those my basic options?

Your getting there. It seems that there is no telescope that is suited to all extremes of Astronomy.  You have to decide as a surgeon, what tool is best. And try and choose the right one. 

For Deep Space you need greater light capture, so a bigger aperture is always best.  I view M31 as a small grey patch (the core) from my garden site. If I venture out to a dark site, M31 fills my 25mm EP, so I had to buy a bigger 2" EP for my need.  And If your waning  to use this system for Astro Photography, It needs to be equatorially mounted.  More expense for the mount. It has to be perfectly stable at all times.

 I`m more than happy with my set up,  but If I were to buy another telescope at present for photography it would probably be the 80ED as recommended by Steppenwolf here on SGL. He has demonstrated some wonderful images from this telescope. He also has another scope similar to mine, also used for imaging? To compare equipment from the book or the website, check his site here. http://www.skyatnightimages.co.uk/

[ianpwilliams]

I keep coming back to this thread:

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

which has some decent images taken with the Explorer 150P on its EQ3-2 mount:

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/132888-starter-scope-for-astrophotography/?p=1324114

and some great images from the same scope on an HEQ5 mount:

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/132888-starter-scope-for-astrophotography/?p=1328290

That and the fact that it is an EQ mount (which I would prefer, and need to get used to), and because many people seem to think it gives decent views (certainly for a beginner), and because I imagine it wouldn't be THAT inferior to the Skyliner 200P, I wonder if the 150P on its EQ3-2 mount might be the way to go, and then I could buy a dual-axis motor with it as well to make visual easier, and for imaging later:

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

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/dual-axis-dc-motor-drive-for-eq3-2.html

The only issue I could foresee would be that I might regret it later if and when I got into AP, because there will clearly be limits on what I could achieve with this, even if I did put it on an HEQ5 mount later (which I'm sure I would). But then if I had to I could sell the 150P for a more expensive scope for better AP, and put that on the HEQ5 mount instead.

And if I really wanted to, I could also buy a Dob at some point (because they do seem so cheap for what you get, and so easy to set up etc), and use that purely for visual (no upgrades required), and use the EQ scope for photography, and that could be the one that was gradually upgraded.

How does that sound?

[ianpwilliams]

And yes I'm getting there slowly. Thankfully you're all a patient lot (but then you'd have to be when it comes to astronomy), and so am I, which I'm sure will help. And of course, with each post added I'm learning more all the time.

[Zuben Elgenubi]

Not sure why I didn't think of the 150P, as I own one myself 

They are very nice scopes - easier to image with than the Skyliner, but the compromise is that they are not quite as capable visually. The reduced aperture and focal length will be noticeable if you compared them, particularly on DSOs. The HEQ5 will handle the 150P much more easily for imaging than it will the 200P.

If you do decide on the 150P, make sure that you check that you can reach focus as the older models lacked sufficient focuser travel for DSLRs. The 150PDS is optimised for imaging.

[ianpwilliams]

I'm liking this idea now:

1 - buy the Skywatcher 150P complete with its EQ3-2 mount, and buy the dual axis motors to make visual easier, and just do visual to begin with (and most importantly LEARN!)

2 - buy a DSLR and camera adaptor, and take some basic images (most likely just moon and planetary, maybe the odd DSO if I'm lucky)

3 - upgrade the mount to an HEQ5, and hopefully take some better images (hopefully more DSO)

4 - sell and replace the 150P OTA with a better OTA, put the new one on the HEQ5, and hopefully take even better images (maybe buy a Dob just for visual at this point)

5 - upgrade different parts at different times, e.g. upgrading the HEQ5 mount to something even better, and take it from there

Of course, there are no doubt other bits I would need to buy, like the Orion book before anything else, and the Photon book at step 1 or 2, and probably some other stuff like a Barlow lens, but that's what the forums are for!

[ianpwilliams]

Interesting. Bit of a jump from £289 to £406, but could be worth considering.

[happy-kat]

£369 for 150p-ds on eq3-2 on FLO (if mount still available)

[ianpwilliams]

I've got a minimum of £406 for the PDS:

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/search/for/Explorer+150p/

[happy-kat]

Might be worth seeing what else comes available on the clearance offers

[ianpwilliams]

Not sure why I didn't think of the 150P, as I own one myself 

They are very nice scopes - easier to image with than the Skyliner, but the compromise is that they are not quite as capable visually. The reduced aperture and focal length will be noticeable if you compared them, particularly on DSOs. The HEQ5 will handle the 150P much more easily for imaging than it will the 200P.

If you do decide on the 150P, make sure that you check that you can reach focus as the older models lacked sufficient focuser travel for DSLRs. The 150PDS is optimised for imaging.

So would the extra £100 or so for the PDS version of the 150P make photography quite a bit better? And would it in turn make visual worse?

[Zuben Elgenubi]

The PDS has the dual speed focuser - very useful when imaging, larger secondary mirror and the primary is slightly further up the tube to ensure DSLR focus. Apparently, a very experienced observer might notice a slight reduction in contrast from the larger secondary obstruction, but for the vast majority of us there would be no difference at all.

From reading the reviews on the FLO website it would seem that on the newer 150P there is no longer an issue with focusing a DSLR. The main benefit of the PDS is the improved focuser.

[ianpwilliams]

So does that mean it wouldn't be worth me spending the extra on the PDS version, if the newer 150P models no longer have the DSLR focusing issue? Because I'm looking at £380 for the EQ3-2 + dual axis motor, or £497 for the PDS version + dual axis motor, and whereas £380 seems a reasonable amount to spend when starting out, £497 seems like an awful lot more. Not to mention the fact that the non-PDS EQ3-2 comes with four eyepieces instead of one, a 2x Barlow lens, and a few other bits and pieces.

[Steve777]

I have the 150p & defo recommend.

[ianpwilliams]

A bit more research on 150P EQ3-2 v 150P-DS EQ3-2, and I found two threads:

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/164133-skywatcher-explorer-200p-eq5-or-150p-ds-eq3-2/

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/117272-1st-scope-skywatcher-150p-vs-150pds-eq3-2/

In the first thread, they mainly say go for the 200P instead, no doubt because of the better EQ5 mount (in the second thread people seem to be fairly positive about the non-PDS version). It also seems that if I did go for the non-PDS version, then I could always buy an auto-focuser later, which works out a lot cheaper (£289 for the 150P EQ3-2 + £45 for the auto-focuser, as opposed to £406 for the PDS):

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

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/astronomy-cables-leads-accessories/skywatcher-auto-focuser.html

So I'm really thinking I don't want to go for the PDS. And if I was to push the boat out and spend more in the region of £400 (which is where the 150P PDS is), I think I'd rather get the £415 200P with its EQ5 mount, and then there would still be the option of the auto-focuser etc later:

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

[ianpwilliams]

Could anyone give a brief comparison of the 150P v the 200P? I assume that the 200P would be better for both visual and imaging, for obvious reasons. But then the 200P is heavier, so it's no doubt going to be a case of people recommending using a better mount than what either scopes comes with especially for photography), unless you spend a lot more by buying the OTA and mount separately.

[ianpwilliams]

Also, does anyone have a link/PD/other of the tech specs for the 150P and 200P, like the lengths, widths, and especially weights (they aren't on the FLO website)? I know that the 150P will be a reasonable size, and I expect the 200P to be pretty massive, so I need to know what the specs are, mainly so I know I will be able to carry the thing up and down stairs (I'm on the second floor).

[Hootsitabernacle]

The 200p is a big beast

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[happy-kat]

The full specs are probably on skywatcher web site. Gosh two flights of stairs each time to observe. The eq mount is also pretty heavy.

[ianpwilliams]

Yes I know, and it's actually four flights, although two of them are short.

Sky at Night Magazine website seem to say that the 150P inc mount is 16kg, and the 200P is 24kg. But I would prefer to get the 200P if at possible, and it would be a shame to reduce aperture just because of the weight of it.

I did consider the possibility that I could leave the mount downstairs behind the stairs (maybe locked to my bike), and then I could carry the OTA up and down the stairs. But then it would be more convenient if the scope could remain on its stand. But 24kg would be a challenge.

Do most people keep their OTA on the mount at all times and carry the thing out as one? Or do they put the mount outside first and then put the OTA on top?

[happy-kat]

I don't know if people carry then together connected.

If you separate the ota from the mount does the 200p 24kg become manageable.