Skywatcher Startravel 102 AZ 3

[Wpit]

Chris, my scopes are always in the garage so never get too hot, but yes I set them up in advance. The 127 has a nasty small focus control (single) speed so getting crisp focus is limited. Together with the poor stock eyepieces all you see of Jupiter was fairly faint bands. Maybe seeing was always bad or my eyes but I have had that particular scope for more than 7 years. 

[Chris]

3 hours ago, Wpit said:

Chris, my scopes are always in the garage so never get too hot, but yes I set them up in advance. The 127 has a nasty small focus control (single) speed so getting crisp focus is limited. Together with the poor stock eyepieces all you see of Jupiter was fairly faint bands. Maybe seeing was always bad or my eyes but I have had that particular scope for more than 7 years. 

I'd rather Skywatcher include a single Plossl instead of 2 Modified Achromat lenses, the 10mm MA eyepiece is the worst culprit. Celestron from the same Synta factory include a single good quality Plossl. 

Yeah the focus mechanism is the week point for any compound scope, you can add a better focuser to the larger Maks and SCT's, but I think the only thing you can do with the smaller Mak's is to add a motor focuser but I've heard this works well @nightfisher

I've owned 90, 102, 127, and 150mm Mak's and think focusing can be as tricky as with the steep light cone of an f/5 refractor. I've always had a soft spot for long focus refractors because they are so easy to focus, but I'm starting to realise their length isn't practical nowdays despite how aesphetically pleasing I find them  

[Paz]

When I started my first scopes were a st120 and  mc127 maksutov.

If I had to keep only one that would be tough to decide. The st120 sees more action in the winter and the maksutov is more used in the summer. The st120 can cover a wider variety of targets but the maksutov is better on a smaller range of targets.

I can't see me selling the st120 soon, it's a nice simple scope of a sensible size at a good price. I might sell the maksutov but only if I was upgrading to a bigger one!

I should say however I will have a go at any target with any scope and enjoy it. I've had enjoyable times on the moon with the st120 and enjoyable times on star Clusters with the maksutov.

[Dave Lloyd]

I think st80s, 102s and their equivalents are "real" refractors in the sense that they work more like a serious instrument than the "department store" stuff that's around. I can't imagine anyone being put off astronomy after buying one and they also IMHO encourage improvements. They reward better focussers, eyepieces etc within reason. 

[Peter Drew]

I have two 102 F5's as a binoscope (surprise surprise! ), the widefield views are excellent. 

[domstar]

As someone who's only been doing this for a year and a half, I don't have the expertise but I do have a clear memory of starting out, so here's my take.

Firstly, at 500mm focal length you can see a lot of sky at low power, which is fantastic. Star-hopping and finding things in the sky is one of the major pleasures for me, and this scope is brilliant for this thanks to the large field of view.

Secondly, an AZ mount is so easy to set up and use, which is invaluable for me.

Lastly, am I the only one who gets ants in my pants after looking at Jupiter for more than about ten minutes? It's the most amazing thing in the sky but sometimes it's time to move on. I've said it now- so shoot me. There is so much in the sky and I will be sad when/if I've seen all the Messier objects. I know I should improve my observing skills, but beginners like me haven't always got them, so beginners who just go for planets could easily find themselves getting bored after a few months.

To sum up, I've never used the scope, but a wide field, with a decent aperture and an easy set-up looks very good to me. (3.5 mag naked eye at home seems OK)

[happy-kat]

Here's the link I mentioned above, here

[devdusty]

Thanks everybody for your comments and advice.

The problem is I want to look at everything in the night sky, the moon,planets,double stars and deep sky objects. This telescope seems to be a good all rounder and since I am very unlikely to afford another telescope in the near  future,I want to make sure that this is a good investment.

Thanks again for all your replies.

Chris

[Moonshane]

Personally, at what appears to be your sort of budget I'd suggest a 6'' Skywatcher dob. This would give far better views of almost everything in the sky. OK it's a slightly bigger scope albeit more compact base, but it's an excellent compromise between aperture, cost, usability and quality.

The 102mm would be fine but I fear that you'd soon become itchy for more with a 100mm scope as your only scope.

My suggestion is with the caveat that your observing situation might affect the best sort of scope. e.g. if you observe from a balcony in a flat, a dob might not be suitable but then again that scenario makes most scopes unsuitable. 

[Moonshane]

ps I cannot decide if the comments above are banter between mates or actual mild conflict but please keep it civil.

[Chris]

12 hours ago, Moonshane said:

ps I cannot decide if the comments above are banter between mates or actual mild conflict but please keep it civil.

Just for info, it wasn't banter between mates, Shane, they look new to the forum from what I can tell?

I did honestly think the ST102 was more of a specialist wide field scope than a planetary scope, but suggesting such has caused quite an angry sarcastic response. As I have some self respect I replied in kind, but did try and inject a bit of banter to lighten the mood, thankfully this was taken the right way and we both seem cool now....I think?   

It's clear owners of the ST102 f/5 are willing to defend their planetary performance, so maybe I've under estimated the ST102? I must admit I've only tested the ST120 out of that particular line of scopes. I've not bothered with them much based on how disappointed I've been by the longer 102 f/10 versions which in theory should be better corrected for both CA and SA.

Maybe Synta put more effort into the figure of the f/5 Startravel version? 

Both my current scopes added together only come to £300 new, so I certainly wasn't being a scope snob by suggesting the ST102 wasn't a good planetary scope, and that a Mak would be better on planets, and a Newtonian would be better for planetary and deep sky in the same price bracket.

I did want to suggest the 150p Dob too, but thought people would point to the scope in my sig and label me as biased. The truth in my eye's at least is that you can't buy a better scope for £200! I've kept mine for 8 whole months so far, that's a long time for me  

   

 

 

[Red Dwarfer]

42 minutes ago, Lockie said:

Just for info, it wasn't banter

I apologize for the sarcasm and tried to neutralize it with a joke . I have never sensed a single hint of snobbery on SGL and most members will bend over backwards to offer advice and guidance , and probably reason the forum works so well and encourages new members to join .

In relation to SkyWatcher Dobs , don`t be afraid to promote them as they are the best Dobs in the universe . 

Oh dear , I`ve probably started a whole new argument with owners of Orion Dobs now ...

[Moonshane]

Glad to see the dust is settling and we can all talk astronomy

Personal opinions are perfectly valid no matter what. People can either accept them and take them on board or disagree. Generally evidence will be asked for if making claims though in some cases of course. As you hint at though, the SGL way is friendly debate and banter once you know people better but always in a well intended way. Thankfully we seem to have all remembered that in good time  Everyone get's a bee in their bonnet about something at some point so I'd not overly worry.

For what it's worth, I was never truly happy with any frac (even a slow one) until I got an ED and since then have been extremely happy with them. From this I conclude that I am sensitive to CA and this is almost positively the case as it bothers me in some eyepieces too - even a 13mm Ethos and a 17.3mm Delos on the moon, both of which I sold as the CA on the moon with those eyepieces even in CA free Newtonians really bothered me. In summary, although I think the 102 and 120mm f5 achromats are very good value and good at what they do, I'd not consider them for high magnification / high contrast objects like the moon and brighter planets.

[Dave In Vermont]

I wouldn't be worried about Orion vs. Skywatcher rivalry. Here's a little secret: A great many of telescope brands are actually made in the same places. And both Orion and Skywatcher mirrors and other optical components are among them - both coming from Synta in China. They are different in the mechanical details and such mostly.

This phenomena is often called 'branding' by folks. Sounding like they're from a bunch of cowboys! There are a few other simularities.....

Yeehaw!

Dave

[Moonshane]

I think that the reference was towards the Orion Optics in UK which is a small UK company making high quality, sometimes bespoke telescopes.

[Mr niall]

Thanks a lot guys! Just shelled out 3k on that vixen scope, wife left me mortgage company are furious. Thought you said it was a good beginners scope? 

[Dave In Vermont]

4 hours ago, Moonshane said:

I think that the reference was towards the Orion Optics in UK which is a small UK company making high quality, sometimes bespoke telescopes.

Then no simularities - I don't think Orion-UK uses anything but highest-end hand-finished optics. At least last I ran down their qualities.

Other than that - the usual big-names are often found to be the same. Example: A Maksutov telescope bought in the US and branded Celestron, Orion, and Skywatcher will have Synta mirror's and corrector-plates. So it can be a choice in colour of the OTA's - Orange, Red, or Black & sparkles!

To be fair - there are a few differences to be found in fittings and mechanical aspects.

Dave - who liked the black & sparkles!

[happy-kat]

Even if in the future you decide to get something else having a telescope that is portable that can go in the car on weekends away i don't think ever loses it's use.  

I chose Orion even though in the UK for my ST80 because I wanted the white tube.

[Dave In Vermont]

I like both the UK-based Skywatcher ST80 blue-tube, and the Orion-USA ST80 white-tube. I have both!

 

 

 

Thought I was kidding?

To be honest, I'm fixing-up the Skywatcher as it needed some parts and tripod. Then I'll give it to a kid who shows an interest in astronomy at an outreach down at a local park.

Have fun! ST80's rule!

Dave

[Red Dwarfer]

4 minutes ago, Dave In Vermont said:

I like both the UK-based Skywatcher ST80 blue-tube, and the Orion-USA ST80 white-tube. I have both!

 

 

 

Thought I was kidding?

To be honest, I'm fixing-up the Skywatcher as it needed some parts and tripod. Then I'll give it to a kid who shows an interest in astronomy at an outreach down at a local park.

Have fun! ST80's rule!

Dave

Nice kit !

[devdusty]

Thanks Moonshane for your suggestion of a 6 inch Skywatcher dobsonian.

I have looked at this telescope but feel that it is too long and bulky for me to manage ( I am 68 years old.!). Also with reflectors I am always afraid that the mirror will go out of alignment ,and having no practical skills would not be able to collimate it.

I know people say it is quite straightforward ,but I very much doubt it.

Thanks for all your replies.

Chris

[John]

It is very straightforward Chris and the F/8 6 inch dobs are pretty forgiving of collimation mis-alignment (more so than if they were F/5 for exmaple).

But, you should go with what you feel would be most comfortable owning and using. That way the scope is much more likely to get used often

[davyludo]

Just thought I would throw in my views as well....

I purchased an ST102 at the start of the year and decided to mount it on an AZ4 (steel leg version that I purchased second hand). I have tried the ST102 on an AZ3 mount - it is usable, but the AZ4 is certainly easier and provides a more enjoyable experience (especially for longer sessions)...for me at least. I did replace the diagonal with a right angle one, as I found the 45 was awkward for night time viewing. I also added a 6x30 RACI finder which I've found to be useful.

My first scope (a little 76mm Newtonian) would probably be classed as a "department store" scope by the more experienced members, but it was enough to make me realise that I found great peace and enjoyment when just scanning about the sky and that I wanted to be able to have a peek at everything. I was going to go for Mak but in the end decided to opt for a refractor as I thought the wider field of view would be easier for me to learn the sky and find things using an Alt-Az mount (amongst other reasons).

From my fairly light polluted viewing location on the outskirts of Edinburgh, I have been able to see more than I could have thought possible. I've spent a few nights with no real plan, just scanning about the sky with a low powered eyepiece...AMAZING! I've also spent some time working on more planned sessions where I've manged to track down galaxies to about 9 mag (personally I struggle on things fainter. 2 out of the 3 leo triplet galaxies only just show themselves) as well as open clusters (beehive, double cluster, pleiades).

Personally I've used the ST102 for everything, including looking at Jupiter and the moon at 200x. I know this is pushing what this scope should really be used for and is probably too much mag, but I enjoyed experimenting with different magnifications and trying to track with the AZ4! I've tried splitting some doubles at higher mags and I've found that proper focus starts to get difficult (this is where the AZ4 is a better mount as things move about less when adjusting the focus by small amounts).

Having not tried a Mak yet, I can't comment....however, I can see what people mean by a washed out image and CA. It is certainly there when viewing brighter objects, but I feel that I can live with it for what I use it for. You do get the impression that all those lovely photons aren't quite getting focused in the right place (for example, from looking at pictures people have taken with Maks, I imagine they would provide sharper bands and more defined colours when viewing Jupiter).

I certainly don't regret my decision - when the weather permits, I have had a great time using this scope and feel it was a fantastic choice. However...once money, weather and time all align...I will probably end up getting a Mak as well for use one planets and the moon. I will then use them both for different things - ST102 for low power views, and then the Mak for high power planet and lunar viewing.

From what I've learnt from the wealth of knowledge on SGL...there is no telescope that will do everything, each type has it's own strengths and weaknesses. I admit that my little ST102 is not the best scope for planet or lunar viewing, but I have used it....just like it's not really meant to be used for higher mag....but I've played with that as well. 

I love my ST102 and it has been a fantastic purchase. I look forward to many more hours using it, both on it's own and in the future when I use it side by side with a Mak.

Hope this helps :-)

Cheers, 

Davy

[Mangleworsle]

Really enjoyed your comments, they mirror  (pun intended) my own feelings exactly. I'm also thinking about getting a Mak to mount on my A/Z mount, until I can save up enough for a good EQ mount.

Thanks Davy for your sensible thoughts.

Best regards

Jim

On 25/07/2017 at 13:56, davyludo said:

Just thought I would throw in my views as well....

I purchased an ST102 at the start of the year and decided to mount it on an AZ4 (steel leg version that I purchased second hand). I have tried the ST102 on an AZ3 mount - it is usable, but the AZ4 is certainly easier and provides a more enjoyable experience (especially for longer sessions)...for me at least. I did replace the diagonal with a right angle one, as I found the 45 was awkward for night time viewing. I also added a 6x30 RACI finder which I've found to be useful.

My first scope (a little 76mm Newtonian) would probably be classed as a "department store" scope by the more experienced members, but it was enough to make me realise that I found great peace and enjoyment when just scanning about the sky and that I wanted to be able to have a peek at everything. I was going to go for Mak but in the end decided to opt for a refractor as I thought the wider field of view would be easier for me to learn the sky and find things using an Alt-Az mount (amongst other reasons).

From my fairly light polluted viewing location on the outskirts of Edinburgh, I have been able to see more than I could have thought possible. I've spent a few nights with no real plan, just scanning about the sky with a low powered eyepiece...AMAZING! I've also spent some time working on more planned sessions where I've manged to track down galaxies to about 9 mag (personally I struggle on things fainter. 2 out of the 3 leo triplet galaxies only just show themselves) as well as open clusters (beehive, double cluster, pleiades).

Personally I've used the ST102 for everything, including looking at Jupiter and the moon at 200x. I know this is pushing what this scope should really be used for and is probably too much mag, but I enjoyed experimenting with different magnifications and trying to track with the AZ4! I've tried splitting some doubles at higher mags and I've found that proper focus starts to get difficult (this is where the AZ4 is a better mount as things move about less when adjusting the focus by small amounts).

Having not tried a Mak yet, I can't comment....however, I can see what people mean by a washed out image and CA. It is certainly there when viewing brighter objects, but I feel that I can live with it for what I use it for. You do get the impression that all those lovely photons aren't quite getting focused in the right place (for example, from looking at pictures people have taken with Maks, I imagine they would provide sharper bands and more defined colours when viewing Jupiter).

I certainly don't regret my decision - when the weather permits, I have had a great time using this scope and feel it was a fantastic choice. However...once money, weather and time all align...I will probably end up getting a Mak as well for use one planets and the moon. I will then use them both for different things - ST102 for low power views, and then the Mak for high power planet and lunar viewing.

From what I've learnt from the wealth of knowledge on SGL...there is no telescope that will do everything, each type has it's own strengths and weaknesses. I admit that my little ST102 is not the best scope for planet or lunar viewing, but I have used it....just like it's not really meant to be used for higher mag....but I've played with that as well. 

I love my ST102 and it has been a fantastic purchase. I look forward to many more hours using it, both on it's own and in the future when I use it side by side with a Mak.

Hope this helps :-)

Cheers, 

Davy

 

[completenovice]

Another ST102 owner here!

good entry level 'scope that will serve you fine. Quick to setup and dismantle and while it's not the best on planets - it will give you decent views. I just moved from London with its incessant light pollution and I managed ok. CA, while noticeable,  is not terrible and shouldn't spoil an evenings viewing and you can get filters that help, well, filter it out.

can't comment on the mount as mine is on a Vixen Porta which is simplicity itself and nice and sturdy (although I'm now on the hunt for a half decent goto mount).

Skywatcher stuff is good and you won't go wrong with any of them with the exception of the eq1 mount which the spawn of the devil  itself. (well mine was - it didn't move with me and now resides in the council tip!)