130PM and 130 Supatrak - difference?

[tarqs101]

Hi,

Just wondering if anyone can shed any light on 'what is the difference between these two scopes/mounts?'

I understand that the supatrak is a completly different design but is it's function any different to that of a eq mount with drives?

Is it worth the extra £40 odd pound over a 130PM?

Gavin

[scotastro]

I noticed you are looking at the 6" Skywatcher too. but to answer your question.

The Supatrack has Alt and Az drives so you move the scope to the object using the drives and then it follows the object. The 130PM has RA drive only so you move the scope first then engage the drive.

The Supatrak is designed for several scopes including the brilliant 127 Mak planetary scope - so you could upgrade without changing the mount.

Mike

[axolotl]

I've used the 130PM on an EQ mount and a skymax 127 on a supatrak. The supatrak is much easier to use, the EQ is not intuitive. However, if you want to do astrophotogrpahy of DSOs then you'd be better with the EQ mount. The supatrak is okay however for lunar or planetary photogrpahy.

[tarqs101]

Cheers for your replies, was just interested in what the difference was, if any major one!!

I'm torn at mo between the 150 and having no pennies left or the 130 and having some to buy a new EP, filter etc...

[tarqs101]

I've used the 130PM on an EQ mount and a skymax 127 on a supatrak. The supatrak is much easier to use, the EQ is not intuitive. However, if you want to do astrophotogrpahy of DSOs then you'd be better with the EQ mount. The supatrak is okay however for lunar or planetary photogrpahy.

So does the Supatrak not track DSO's well enough for astrophotography? Do they not stay in the FOV for long enough?

Gavin

[TheThing]

Cheers for your replies, was just interested in what the difference was, if any major one!!

I'm torn at mo between the 150 and having no pennies left or the 130 and having some to buy a new EP, filter etc...

Go for the 130 and the extra goodies.

[tarqs101]

Cheers The Thing

[scotastro]

What type of filter were you thinking of - Light Pollution or Moon filters are the only types worth considering. With small aperture scopes coloured and UHC filters don't work well.

Mike

[tarqs101]

What type of filter were you thinking of - Light Pollution or Moon filters are the only types worth considering. With small aperture scopes coloured and UHC filters don't work well.

Mike

I was thinking of LP and moon TBH.

Gavin

[trevboyd]

So does the Supatrak not track DSO's well enough for astrophotography? Do they not stay in the FOV for long enough?

Gavin

As I understand it, because the Supatrak is an "Alt-Az" mount, objects will appear to rotate in the eyepiece over time. The mount can track them to keep them in the field of view, but as they move across the sky they'll rotate. With the EQ mount, the scope rotates with the target so things stay the "same way up" the whole time.

I imagine that the tracking on the Supatrak may alsonot be quite up to the job, but I'm only guessing there.

HTH

Trev

[dph1nm]

You can do DSOs on an alt-az mount, but rotation limits you to exposures under a minute or so (depends where you are in the sky - don't try the zenith!), so you have to stack. This image is about 30 minutes on an alt-az mount (Nexstar SLT 102). composed of 16sec sub exposures. The distortion in the top right is due to the camera, not image rotation, and the fact that it is noisy is down to a combination of the thermal noise on my P&S digital camera and horrendous light pollution.

NigelM

[tarqs101]

Right!

Thanks for clearing that up for me guys!!

Gavin