Skywatcher 130p v 130m

[Peco4321]

Thought I'd start a new thread after loads of fantastic comments and advice on another thread. My new scope decision is between 130m and 130p:

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

And

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

I know one main difference is the motor drive, excluding that, what would you say are the benefits that makes one stand out from the other?

[Mak the Night]

This is an ongoing debate on this forum. I personally prefer the spherical mirror f/6.9 version (130M). The 130P has a parabolic mirror which gives it a f/l of 650mm as opposed to the 900mm of the 130M. Parabolic mirrors are more expensive to manufacture and are correspondingly more expensive to buy. IMO a spherical mirror of 5" will not give inferior images to a parabolic one. I'm probably in the minority of people who prefer the f6.9 OTA though.

The 130P has a shorter OTA and may be more stable on an EQ 2 mount. It would possibly be better for astrophotography and DSO observing. OTOH higher magnification is easier with the 130M.

I can easily get 270x with mine with a 10mm EP and a 3x Barlow.

[brantuk]

The best situation would be to have a parabolic mirror (P) and tracking motor (M) all in the same scope. The motorised one doesn't state if it's parabolic or not, whereas the review of the other scope is very clearly parabolic (which focuses light better than a conical mirror). So I would get clarification on that point from the retailer, and if the "M" model is parabolic - that would be my choice.

Otherwise I'd get the parabolic one and add a motor to it. Hth

[laudropb]

I think I would go for the parabolic mirror. I think it gives sharper images. In many ways it really depends on what you are most interesting in viewing. The extra focal length of the M will make higher magnifications easier to obtain which helps with lunar and planetary observation but the extra tube length will possibly make the telescope a bit more difficult to use on this mount.

[Mak the Night]

56 minutes ago, laudropb said:

I think I would go for the parabolic mirror. I think it gives sharper images. In many ways it really depends on what you are most interesting in viewing. The extra focal length of the M will make higher magnifications easier to obtain which helps with lunar and planetary observation but the extra tube length will possibly make the telescope a bit more difficult to use on this mount.

I think the extra OTA length alters the dynamics of the scope on the mount and is not so easy to manipulate as the smaller OTA (for me anyway). Having viewed with both 130 Explorers and the AstroMaster 130 (which also features a parabolic mirror) I can't see 'sharper' images with the 5.1" parabolic mirror. Although this is dependent on the eyepiece probably. I have used my own Celestron 12.5mm Omni Plossl and 15mm Celestron Kellner in all three scopes (the two other scopes did not belong to me) and apart from the magnification difference I could discern no difference in sharpness. Maybe with a much bigger primary, maybe above 150mm it would be noticeable. 

[Peco4321]

After loads of advice on various threads and lots of deliberating and begging, I think I am going to go for a Skywatcher 150p eq3-2. Just need to make that final jump and click order!  

[happy-kat]

I take it you have a preference for an eq mount?

[Peco4321]

May get motors for it in the future so under the impression eq is best for that. 

[brantuk]

The 150P on Eq3-2 was my first scope and it served me very nicely for 2yrs before I wanted to upgrade. If I'd known then what I know now I would've preferred a dual speed focuser and a more solid Eq mount like the Eq5.

But the Eq3-2 is very usable - it just takes a few seconds to settle down vibrations after touching it (including the slo mo cables) - which can be a mild nuisance at higher magnification. You can make it a bit more stable by hanging a weight under the leg spreader / eyepiece tray, and ensuring all bolt connections are firmly done up. Some folks fill the hollow legs with sand for stability (but I didn't do that one).

The OTA offers a great compromise between entry level smaller tubes and an 8" scope, which I personally regard as the first of the "serious" Newtonians. But you'll see most all of the popular, brighter, objects with the 150p - and a fair few of the fainter ones to some degree. It does benefit from better eyepieces than the supplied ones - but you don't need to go bonkers price wise - budget on £40-£50 per piece. Not a bad choice at all for a first scope.

(Yep - motors are a great idea - especially RA)

[LukeSkywatcher]

Good choice all round. The parabolic mirror is better at collecting/concentrating light onto the secondary because if the curved shape. Satellite dishes are also parabolic for the same reason.....better gathering of signals. You can add the motors later. I dont think they are too expensive and the EQ mount will allow you to do imaging also....along with the motors. I just noticed that you bought the 150.......thats even better still. 130mm (5") is good but 6" will let you see more.

[happy-kat]

If you are not interested in imaging very long exposures then for less money is the skywatcher star discovery which is also a 150p but on a AltAz goto mount.