Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

Skywatcher Startravel 102 AZ 3


Recommended Posts

I am thinking of buying the Skywatcher Star travel 102 AZ refractor.

It seems nice and compact,it has an altazimuth mount, and has an erect image diagonal so at least the stars etc are the right way up.!

Any comments or advice about this telescope would be welcome.

Also what star magnitude would be visible with it, bearing in mind that I can only see stars down to magnitude 3.5 with the naked eye from my light polluted back garden.

Chris P.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Can

38 minutes ago, devdusty said:

I am thinking of buying the Skywatcher Star travel 102 AZ refractor.

It seems nice and compact,it has an altazimuth mount, and has an erect image diagonal so at least the stars etc are the right way up.!

Any comments or advice about this telescope would be welcome.

Also what star magnitude would be visible with it, bearing in mind that I can only see stars down to magnitude 3.5 with the naked eye from my light polluted back garden.

Chris P.

 

Can`t go wrong with SkyWatcher ... plus it`s a fast scope at f4.9 , so would be a good all-rounder from planets to DSOs .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Red Dwarfer said:

Can

Can`t go wrong with SkyWatcher ... plus it`s a fast scope at f4.9 , so would be a good all-rounder from planets to DSOs .

It's a fast achromat which will show lots of chromatic aberration on bright objects. It won't be good for planets, it's more of a DSO specific scope. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a Star Traveler 102 / 500 AZ GOTO nearly 2 weeks ago and have been able to use it on about 5 occasions. So far I have only been able to look at the Moon and Jupiter because of the weather.

In making my decision to buy this scope I read all I could about it and found that nearly all reviews gave it a very good report. I had read that because it is not a Apo there would be lots of chromatic aberation, however I have not found this to be the case even when looking at the full Moon, yes there is as bit of yellow around it but it certainly isn't a major problem. Also had a lovely view of Jupiter with the moons very nicely displayed and good detail of the bands.

In the short time I have owned it I am really pleased with it and it has the most important asset It's very quick to setup so won't spend in the cupboard. like bigger heavy scopes.

I hope this helps, if you do get one I am sure you won't be disappointed.

Jim

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lockie said:

It's a fast achromat which will show lots of chromatic aberration on bright objects. It won't be good for planets, it's more of a DSO specific scope. 

Oh absolutely ! The best advice to is go down the route of a Vixen AX 103S Flat Field APO Refractor as a beginner scope in the hobby and at only £2,899 it would really appeal to entry level users too . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mods! That Red Dwarfer guy hasn't taken his medication again! He's getting all sarcastic and stuff! ;) 

You said a startravel it would be a good all rounder for planets and DSO's, find me someone experienced who actually thinks that's true? Lot's of better beginner scopes for planets, a small Mak would be better on planets, and a Newt would be better on both planets and DSO's. 

Whats with the sarcasm? Defensive are we? :icon_biggrin: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Mangleworsle said:

I had read that because it is not a Apo there would be lots of chromatic aberation, however I have not found this to be the case even when looking at the full Moon

That is what I have found as well , practically zero chromatic aberration except when photographing the moon it can show a subtle tinge but that is easily remedied with editing software .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@devdusty I've owned that set up a few years ago. It's a great starter scope, once you've sussed out how the Go To works, you'll see lots with it.  If you're going to be using it from home, then I'd suggest getting some way to run it from your mains...the go to is very particular about the power supply; I initially used nicads, the scope moved and sounded okay, but was always off target...Duracell batteries will not last 8 hrs in the cold of the UK....if you're going to take it away from home, then a decent power tank  will be needed too. 

Yes you will see some false colour on the moon, Jupiter, Saturn etc, but it's not *that* bad and you can buy a minus violet filter to mitigate the effects ....if you feel you need it.

As you've already said, it's easy enough to set up and begin using, so you won't ever feel that you cannot be bothered to set it up. You can expect to see all the Messier Objects with it, and a whole lot more. 

Others will disagree ( awaits the Dob Mob to explain why a Dobsonion is better ) but for the money, it's a great choice. 

Go for it and good luck!

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Mangleworsle said:

I got a Star Traveler 102 / 500 AZ GOTO nearly 2 weeks ago and have been able to use it on about 5 occasions. So far I have only been able to look at the Moon and Jupiter because of the weather.

In making my decision to buy this scope I read all I could about it and found that nearly all reviews gave it a very good report. I had read that because it is not a Apo there would be lots of chromatic aberation, however I have not found this to be the case even when looking at the full Moon, yes there is as bit of yellow around it but it certainly isn't a major problem. Also had a lovely view of Jupiter with the moons very nicely displayed and good detail of the bands.

In the short time I have owned it I am really pleased with it and it has the most important asset It's very quick to setup so won't spend in the cupboard. like bigger heavy scopes.

I hope this helps, if you do get one I am sure you won't be disappointed.

Jim

 

Great advice from a fellow starter, this advice is like golddust. And I have a heavy mount know and I think twice about the time and my back carting it out and going through polar setup and finding home position in the dark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lockie said:

Mods! That Red Dwarfer guy hasn't taken his medication again! He's getting all sarcastic and stuff!

Right , that`s it ... you`re not invited to my birthday party this year for that ... so there ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shouldn't weigh in as this is too much fun to watch! But... :D

CA is in the 'eye of the beholder' really. I got into astronomy before there were APO's or triple-lens refractors. CA (chromatic abberation) went unnoticed as something 'evil.' It was mostly present (still is) on very bright objects - like full Moons and Venus. But no one raised an objection. It just 'was.'

If you can live with it - you'll save a bundle of $$$£££'s. If not......?

Enjoy! The Sky is free!

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, devdusty said:

I am thinking of buying the Skywatcher Star travel 102 AZ refractor.

It seems nice and compact,it has an altazimuth mount, and has an erect image diagonal so at least the stars etc are the right way up.!

Any comments or advice about this telescope would be welcome.

Also what star magnitude would be visible with it, bearing in mind that I can only see stars down to magnitude 3.5 with the naked eye from my light polluted back garden.

Chris P.

 

Hi Chris, what objects are you interested in looking at or imaging? Planets and Moon or DSO, or both? Lot's of people with light polluted skies tend to lean towards Planetary and Lunar observing as there are only a select number of brighter DSO's that can realistically be seen in any detail from LP skies. Imaging is another story :) 

Assuming this case? and as you would like a compact system with correct image orientation, I'm just wondering if you've considered a Maksutov telescope? These are very compact scopes that give razor sharp chromatic aberration free and flat views albeit with a smaller field of view than a shorter focal length scope such as the star travel. The startravel does seem good on planets when you first start using scopes, if you've not had many scopes to compare it to, but trust me, I've to my shame owned over 40 scopes over the last 30 years, and I can honestly say in side by side testing between an ST120 and a MAK127 on Jupiter, the Mak was so much sharper and less washed out with false colour. Don't get me wrong though, they are lovely scopes if you're into looking at open clusters etc.

It just depends on what objects you want to look at? 

The best bang for buck all rounder is a Newtonian, but they need collimating (easy to learn), and they can be a bit bulky. 

I'd suggest a longer achromat to control aberrations like chromatic and spherical aberration better, but it wouldn't be as compact.

The Maksutov is my first instinct by what you've written so far :) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Lockie said:

Mods! That Red Dwarfer guy hasn't taken his medication again! He's getting all sarcastic and stuff! ;) 

You said a startravel it would be a good all rounder for planets and DSO's, find me someone experienced who actually thinks that's true? Lot's of better beginner scopes for planets, a small Mak would be better on planets, and a Newt would be better on both planets and DSO's. 

Whats with the sarcasm? Defensive are we? :icon_biggrin: 

Agree with your opinions on the scopes Chris. Sage advice for all beginners, especially those who have not had the opportunity to use and compare a very wide range of scopes over the years, as you have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just been digging around and this guy looks at some of the differences between the usual entry level scopes on AZ mounts i.e. small Achro refractor, Newt's and Mak's. It might be handy as you can kind of see them in the flesh. Each have there strengths :) 

Just to note, when I bought a Evostar 90mm f/11 equivalent of the ST102 on an AZ3, the 45 degree prism was unfortunately pretty bad. Mine showed lines running through bright stars which is not the best thing for a refractor fan to see. A prism diagonal upgrade might be an idea if going down that route.

Another thing to note is that cheaper eyepieces work much better with slower scopes such as the Mak's, the stars will degrade off axis with faster scopes such as the startravel 102 or the Newts. The St102 and the Newts are f/5 and the Maks are around f/13 so quite a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The short F/5 achromats do show plenty of CA but thats not an issue if they are used for what they were designed for - low to medium power wide field viewing. The 45 degree prisms are fine for terrestrial viewing but do show some abberations when used for astronomical viewing due to their construction. The amount of CA increases with aperture - the 80mm is quite moderate, more at 102mm and quite a lot in the 120mm and 150mm scopes.

If your primary interest is wide views, star clusters and other deep sky objects with the occasional lunar and planetary viewing then the F/5 achromat refractors are great. If your primary interests are planetary observing, the moon and double stars then either a "slower" refractor (eg: F/10) or a maksutov-cassegrain or schmidt-cassegrain will give better performance and more satisfaction.

I have owned some of the 80mm, 102mm and a 120mm F/5 achromats so I've 1st hand experience of them.

Here is a chart that shows the relative levels of CA that can be expected from achromats of different configurations. If you don't see the CA then thats good for you but it is still there and it is detracting from the resolution obtained because it is light that has not been bought to focus where it needs to be - in the airy disk  :smiley:

 

CA-ratio-chart-achro.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that there are a number of people pushing their own choice's. Is it the case that the Sky at Night Magazine,  Sky and Telescope plus the others giving it great reviews as a very good all round starter scope with photographic potential. Or could it be that they are they lying about their experiences?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never put too much faith in the reviews in the Astro mags. Never seem to give a truely bad review. Having said that I do own a ST 102 on an AZ3 mount. Although it is mainly used for solar observing I often leave it set up for after the Sun has set. Yes there is CA on bright objects, but I have never found it to be too much of a problem. I have had nice views of the lunar surface and Jupiter. I have seen the GRS at mags of around 100x. Above this the image does get very soft. The double cluster etc are lovely sights through this scope. As John says you have to be realistic in your expectations. For under £200 it is a good choice for a beginner to get started IMHO. I do agree that the supplied prism is next to useless and has to be replaced.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mangleworsle said:

It seems to me that there are a number of people pushing their own choice's. Is it the case that the Sky at Night Magazine,  Sky and Telescope plus the others giving it great reviews as a very good all round starter scope with photographic potential. Or could it be that they are they lying about their experiences?

I used to knock about this forum with a guy called Stan26, he had the remarkable ability to produce amazing DSO images using the humble ST102. Sadly he doesn't hang around the forum any more, but I'll always admire his skill in getting the absolute most out of an ST102 on an EQ3 mount, he had really great PS skills for taming the large amount of CA produced when imaging with an f/5 Achromat. I started out imaging with an f/6 80mm achromat and my stars were like giant blobs! 

Here is a link to some of Stan's work, not many could do this with an ST102 but it does show it's possible in the right experienced hands :) 

P.s. I do like how the mags always give everything 4 out of 5 stars lol, have you noticed this? 

p.s.s I'm not sure I'm pushing my own choices? Maybe? I don't own a Mak for some reason so I haven't made the choice to buy one recently, this is despite having fond memories of using them in the past. I probably should buy another with my rubbish skies thinking about it, DSO observing is very limiting for me and Mak's are cheap for their quality of optics, and very good on bright objects, which is pretty much all you can see with poor skies.  

Lets see what else the OP can say, we're working on limited info, just that they have poor skies and they want a scope that's compact mainly so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lockie said:

Just been digging around and this guy looks at some of the differences between the usual entry level scopes on AZ mounts i.e. small Achro refractor, Newt's and Mak's. It might be handy as you can kind of see them in the flesh. Each have there strengths :) 

Just to note, when I bought a Evostar 90mm f/11 equivalent of the ST102 on an AZ3, the 45 degree prism was unfortunately pretty bad. Mine showed lines running through bright stars which is not the best thing for a refractor fan to see. A prism diagonal upgrade might be an idea if going down that route.

Another thing to note is that cheaper eyepieces work much better with slower scopes such as the Mak's, the stars will degrade off axis with faster scopes such as the startravel 102 or the Newts. The St102 and the Newts are f/5 and the Maks are around f/13 so quite a difference.

Thanks for adding this Chris great summary...they do all look great and I still remember when I jumped for what they called the big daddy, the 127 MAK. I thought it would be superb, but at the end of the day they are just our toys and even the top of the az collection still gave nice little fuzzy and difficult to focus views of jupiter and saturn. But they are great toys for our hobby and they still bring our solar system into our back garden. Some day, I'll see a super crisp view of Jupiter, which is one thing we would like to see but it probably won't be from my garden. Part of any 'mostly men's' hoopy is the engineering gadgets and that is were we ultimatly get our kicks and we'll spend 1000's on some nice cnc machined upgrade. I think my point here is that when we start with the low priced toys we are all a bit disapointed we did not see the same pictures that are shown on the box. I recently paid around £1000 for a mount and i have that mixed feeling of being embarassed as it is my toy, and it will still end up leaving me wanting more. So a funny hobby (like many) and we wont be invited to many fun parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devdusty - it depends on what your expectations are and how you think you will use the scope. I have the Startravel 102mm OTA, and I've just commented on it in the beginners' equipment thread. It's a nice compact scope, but mainly suitable for widefield views of deep sky objects. It's not ideal for looking at planets and double stars, for which a scope with a longer focal ratio would be preferable.

What are your skies like? Not good, if you can only see to mag 3.5. (A 102mm theoretically will show to mag 12.7 - in your conditions more like mag 10.0)  If you have light-polluted town skies, you might be better advised to get a long focal ratio scope of some sort that would punch through the murk for views of double stars, planets and the like. DSO's will disappoint in these conditions.

The AZ-3 mount is a bit cheap, ill-balanced and wobbly. If you are set on a similar point-and-look mount for the Startravel, get the more expensive but superior AZ-4.  Poor quality skies make GoTo all the more useful to let you find stuff.

You'll get lots of advice recommending various scopes, but I'd suggest you get a small Maksutov on a GoTo mount and add the AZ-4 for the occasions when you don't want the faff of setting up a more complex mounting. Then you'll have no excuse for not going outside and seeing stuff. :icon_biggrin:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

devdusty, I think you have seen a good selection of options, all I would say now is that for £309 you get a good scope with a A/Z Goto mount and as a current user who has just returned to astronomy after a long absence  I'm  really enjoying it. 

Good luck and clear sky's

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like my az3 tripod on mine is mainly the ST80. For when I attach a camera I made a counter weight bar for it, I'll add a link to a super blog post where I got the idea from later. If the balance is good you don't need to keep the bolts done up tight and can move the tube around easy.

Software like StarTools which is very reasonably priced has excellent tools for managing any CA or star bloat on an image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started out with the ST102 around five or six years ago now. Personally the CA never really bothered me. It was a perfectly good scope for an introduction into astronomy imho. I no longer have the 102, but I do have the ST120 and ST80 and for what they cost me I have no complaints at all. In fact only recently I took an image of Jupiter with the ST80 just for the fun of it, whilst obviously not as good as something like a Mak for planetary observation or indeed imaging I was still able to see the main belts on Jupiter and indeed capture them in an image. To me, there does seem to be a certain amount of scope "snobbery" for want of a better word. As others have mentioned. For years people just accepted CA and dealt with it one way or another. If the OP gets bitten by this amazing hobby, he will ultimately end up with ore than one scope. I for one see no problem with something like the ST102 as a good entry into this amazing hobby we all love. 

Just my 2p worth. 

 

Clear skies to all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wpit said:

the 127 MAK. I thought it would be superb, but at the end of the day they are just our toys and even the top of the az collection still gave nice little fuzzy and difficult to focus views of jupiter and saturn

Hi, I've got to ask about the fuzzyness, did you let the scope cool down before viewing? or was the seeing bad? 

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.