Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_beauty_night_skies.thumb.jpg.2711ade15e31d01524e7dc52d15c4217.jpg

soundwave

Thinking about replacing my Skywatcher 10" Dob with a Skywatcher 200P EQ5 GoTo... Maybe..

Recommended Posts

Hello,

I feel like I want to go deeper into astrophotography (and hopefully a little spectroscopy)... but I also really enjoy looking through a telescope with my own eyes.

There is this second-hand Skywatcher 200P EQ5 GoTo (not PDS) that I can buy at about the same price (even a bit lower, perhaps) that I can sell my Skywatcher 200px .

Assuming that its condition is good, and that I can't buy it in addition to the one I have, then would it be a good choice?

I've read a few older topics about the 200P and astrophotography. I think the agreement was that it's "okay" for not-very-long exposures...

I'm assuming that the motors aren't very accurate?

I've also read (a while back) that below 10", observational experience takes a big hit, but I don't know how accurate that statement is.

I'm trying to figure out the loss in the observational experience, compared to the gain in astrophotography abilities and quality (of the tracking, mostly).

If anyone has any insights about the matter, it would be much appreciated  :smiley:

Thanks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no imager but I know a 200p on EQ5 isn't the best for visual so I imagine it's a waste of time for imaging of any exposure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi mate ive got the 200p on a eq5 not goto but with tracking motors.great scope easy to use, well made,great for vis and taking pics .you will lose a bit of light gathering compared to the 10inch dob but its swings and roundabouts mate.clear skys..charl..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PDS version has baffling and increased backfocus. The model you reference needs to be investigated to be certain that the backfocus is sufficient for not just a DSLR, but a possible OAG. If you plan on a CCD, the backfocus requirement isn't as large, but still, check it out carefully. If you are a DIY type you can deal with backfocus after the purchase of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was buying a eq5 for ap I wouldn't go any bigger than a 130pds or a small 70-80 mm frac. I say this from experience having once owned a 200p/eq5 combo. it's doable, but it's hard work and losing 50%+ subs from a nights work is not uncommon. Nobody likes waiting, but for me, I'd be thinking heq5/80ed as and when monies allow. 

As always, just my opinion so make of it what you will :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, the 200 will be too much for the poor little EQ5,  too heavy and it will catch the wind like a sail. As mentioned above, a small 80mm frac or a 130pds will make life much easier.

Keep the dob and use it while the other setup is imaging. There is quite a high chance you will never look through your imaging scope with an eyepiece (I never have...lol), since you usually leave the camera in place all the time (apart from when it needs cleaning).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a 200p on a modded eq5 mount admittedly on a pier in an Obsy but you can image and it's a great scope and mount IMHO

Can be tricky but hey if everything was easy it would be no fun, plus it won't break the bank.

Gareth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As auspom said above,your better starting with a nice refractor for Ap.I have used a 250pds for Ap on a Neq6 and I feel it's too much,balancing also becomes more tricky with cameras hanging off the top end of the ota.

Good luck what ever you decide.

Kenny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the info, everybody.

I'm kinda leaning towards not getting the 200P, and delay my AstroPhotography phase-transition for when I can get either a smaller (additional) telescope which is good for AP, or get a more advanced (vx?) mount + scope that can cope nicely with both AP and observations. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find it depressing that the same ill-informed rubbish appears so regularly on this forum.  The 200P/EQ5 is excellent for imaging.  Of course, there are many other options and their relative merits have been discussed many times.

However, if anyone thinks a 200P/EQ5 is no good for imaging then they're just not trying hard enough.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

I feel like I want to go deeper into astrophotography (and hopefully a little spectroscopy)... but I also really enjoy looking through a telescope with my own eyes.

There is this second-hand Skywatcher 200P EQ5 GoTo (not PDS) that I can buy at about the same price (even a bit lower, perhaps) that I can sell my Skywatcher 200px .

Assuming that its condition is good, and that I can't buy it in addition to the one I have, then would it be a good choice?

I've read a few older topics about the 200P and astrophotography. I think the agreement was that it's "okay" for not-very-long exposures...

I'm assuming that the motors aren't very accurate?

I've also read (a while back) that below 10", observational experience takes a big hit, but I don't know how accurate that statement is.

I'm trying to figure out the loss in the observational experience, compared to the gain in astrophotography abilities and quality (of the tracking, mostly).

If anyone has any insights about the matter, it would be much appreciated  :smiley:

Thanks.

My  200P Skyliner  Dobsonian would fit that remark, and possibly your 200PX,  but a 200P  on a suitable EQ with tracking should not be a problem on a calm night?

There is a great book you should investigate, Making Every Photon Count. It references the scopes  named above?

Edited by Charic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a big difference between the HEQ5 and the EQ5. To do proper AP you do need to autoguide and to do that you want the more accurate stepper motors of the H version.

Olly

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find it depressing that the same ill-informed rubbish appears so regularly on this forum.  The 200P/EQ5 is excellent for imaging.  Of course, there are many other options and their relative merits have been discussed many times.

However, if anyone thinks a 200P/EQ5 is no good for imaging then they're just not trying hard enough.

Im going to have to disagree with you on that. As an imager, its not ill-informed - it is information based on observations and personal experience.

So, youre saying its going to be easy with the 200/EQ5 combo for a complete novice? Perhaps with a lighter scope yes, but with the 200 you are making a rod for your own back on that mount if you are going to attempt any serious imaging. 

Go buy/try an HEQ5/6 and see how much better it is for yourself.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was buying a eq5 for ap I wouldn't go any bigger than a 130pds or a small 70-80 mm frac. I say this from experience having once owned a 200p/eq5 combo. it's doable, but it's hard work and losing 50%+ subs from a nights work is not uncommon. Nobody likes waiting, but for me, I'd be thinking heq5/80ed as and when monies allow. 

As always, just my opinion so make of it what you will :)

I do find it depressing that the same ill-informed rubbish appears so regularly on this forum.  The 200P/EQ5 is excellent for imaging.  Of course, there are many other options and their relative merits have been discussed many times.

However, if anyone thinks a 200P/EQ5 is no good for imaging then they're just not trying hard enough.

I find your post somewhat offencive. As I've stated in my post, I speak not from ill-informed ignorance  but experience. I did state that it's hard work but doable and if I had to give up my neq6 and go back to the eq5, in all honesty, I'd probably go back to visual. 

If you think the eq5 is a great scope for imaging, thats great and feel free to say so, but please don't tell members (many of whom are world class imagers) that they are talking rubbish by expressing their opinions. I suppose at the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding :)

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Porky, your "Ill Informed Rubbish" statement is a bit of an insult, and I suggest you withdraw it with an apology.

Help and Information others give out on SGL is always well intentioned, and for the most part well received by  members.

There's no need for insulting comment, it doesn't help anyone. 

You are entitled to your opinions, but not in an abusive way.

Ron.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. If the comments had been from people who have not used the kit, then perhaps you would have a point.

However, these were first hand opinions of the equipment in question and as such will be valuable to the OP. To dismiss them as rubbish is just rude.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have participated in (and started) a couple of threads on this subject (beginner).

The overwhelming response was 80 ED/HEQ5 combination for imaging.

I have recently assembled a 300p/dob and more recently bought 12" dob (for viewing).  Will buy a 80 ED (from advice from the good people on SGL) when it gets dark to fit on my EQ5 for imaging.

Cheers,

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find it depressing that the same ill-informed rubbish appears so regularly on this forum.  The 200P/EQ5 is excellent for imaging.  Of course, there are many other options and their relative merits have been discussed many times.

However, if anyone thinks a 200P/EQ5 is no good for imaging then they're just not trying hard enough.

If I were going to post an observation of this kind I would simply post a picture I'd taken with the kit in question and let it speak for itself. I wouldn't feel any need to be depressed by the 'ill informed rubbish' posted by others, nor would I feel any need to dismiss the opinions of others as 'ill informed rubbish.' I'd just post a picture. For example, many people new to astrophotography assume (not unreasonably) that you need large aperture to get a good result. In these cases I say that, personally, I don't think you do need large aperture and I simply say, This is 85mm aperture...

M42%20WIDE%202FLsV3-L.jpg

They like it, they don't like it, whatever. But I haven't insulted anybody in presenting my point of view. And that is SGL.

So hit us with some pictures taken with the kit in question. It really is as simple as that - isn't it?

Olly

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that aside, why recommend a 130 instead of a 150? A little more aperture is good? Mine seems not heavy or a sail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that aside, why recommend a 130 instead of a 150? A little more aperture is good? Mine seems not heavy or a sail.

Ive tried a 150 on an EQ5 variant (CG5, 2" tripod legs, uprated bearings), and its still a bit too much once youve mounted your guidescope and imaging train (was about 8kg total). Yes it will take images, but the hit rate was still quite low. It improved once I used the 80ED setup, which weighed in at 5kg.... and I did manage to bag a few perfect sessions (100% hit rate), but that was the exception rather than the rule.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that aside, why recommend a 130 instead of a 150? A little more aperture is good? Mine seems not heavy or a sail.

Probably no optical reason. It would just be a matter of keeping the mount within its comfort zone on capacity. There's a difference in FL, too, which might impact slightly upon the tracking and framing. I think it's interesting that the small Newts have sudenly found favour again for DS imaging, based on some excellent results seen on here.

Olly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://stargazerslounge.com/index.php?/topic/210593-Imaging-with-the-130pds

They do seem quite popular.....even PorkyB uses (or used) one :)

I do still have a 130PDS, I like it a lot.  I also have an Altair Astro 70mm ED refractor, which is brilliant.  However, the OP was asking about the 200P/EQ5 combo, so all this talk of 130PDS and refractors is a bit off-topic.

So back to the original question: can you do imaging with a 200P/EQ5?  Yes you can.  Other scopes and mounts are available, some are better at some things than others, but if you want to use one scope for imaging and for visual observing then the 200P is hard to beat and worth the inconvenience that comes with its size and weight.

If you are lucky enough to be able to have multiple scopes and keep one for visual and another for imaging then that's a whole different matter.

So this is the sort of thing you can do with a 200P/EQ5 (non-goto)...

14414052387_1c1bea39ac_n.jpg

14807412348_89b73e09d0_n.jpg

16617577884_0a87c4950b_n.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.....that answers one question in a way that allows people to judge for themselves........whilst neatly ducking any apology for offence caused.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.