Reflector or Refractor ?

[Nyctimene]

On 10.10.2017 at 15:22, Louis D said:

weight and bulk will play a major role in your choice of telescope.  A goto will require power.  That equals more weight and bulk to haul in.  If you want to pack light, I'd recommend something like the Skywatcher Heritage-130p Flextube.  That would leave you plenty of money for accessories like eyepieces, collimation tools, astro books/charts/planisphere, red flashlight, etc.  If you want to move up to something bigger, you'll always have it for camping trips when space is an issue.

 

On 10.10.2017 at 15:46, Louis D said:

the heritage 130p seems really convenient, but does it have a good quality for star seeing ? it looks really cheap...

I'll second Louis D; + 1 for the Skywatcher Heritage 130 P Flextube. It's lightweight, compact, can later easily be fitted to an AltAz mount (e.g. the new Skywatcher AZ 5). The quality of the mechanics is decent, (the focuser slop can easily fixed with some PTFE plumber's tape, and thereafter works well), and the optical quality is really good. Have a read on some experiences here:

and here:

It would serve you later as an excellent grab-and-go scope or travelscope.

Stephan

[Cosmic Geoff]

1 hour ago, Golfox2 said:

Someone at a astro club I know suggests this one : https://www.astromanie.ch/fr/telescopes/246-sky-watcher-skyhawk-1145p-synscan-az-goto.html
Would it be good ? What would be pros and cons ?

This seems to have nothing at all in common with the 200mm Dob you wrote you were considering. As for the 1145p outfit, the mount is a popular GoTo mount, and GoTo is a very useful thing to have. But the telescope is a bit small for serious use.  If you want a Go o telescope of this sort, I would suggest looking at the versions with the 130mm Newtonian.

[Ben the Ignorant]

130mm resolve quite a lot of planetary and lunar detail but they are a little bit underpowered for the faint things (except globulars). 150mm are solid, 114mm are rather weak on all the targets. As the other advisors said, don't consider a 114mm if you had a 200mm in mind.

[Geoff Lister]

The 1145p should work well on rough ground. I have the 130p and the 90p Virtuoso, and both require a horizontal surface to sit on.

I also have a Skywatcher Skymax 127. This has the same Synscan-controlled mount as the 1145p, but with a 127mm Mak instead of the 114mm Newtonian. This is my preferred grab-and-go, as my Skywatcher Skyliner 250PX (same Synscan) Dobsonian will not fit in my Mazda MX5, and again is best on level ground. The Synscan's "Brightest Star" alignment is easy to perform, and, at about 160mA tracking, and 350mA max-rate slewing, it gives many hours operation on a set of alkaline batteries. For garden use, a 12V, 2A plug-top supply works fine, for under €/£5.00. The Mak works well with my Nikon DSLR, using a T-mount adaptor.

Geoff

[Golfox2]

Mh... thanks again for the answers =)

I can't make up my mind about all those scopes huh... 
So what I am sure of is I need to make only 1 walk from car to point of observation. I may not need a GoTo, if it can save up on weight and budget.
Also, I prefer something on a tripod, because I'll be observing from a camping chair, not crouching on the ground

A shop close to my village has this Skywatcher Skymax 127 that you mentionned, @Geoff Lister, : http://www.optiqueperret.ch/diametre-127-mm/577-sky-watcher-skymax-127-supatrak-auto.html
It also has a camera mount for amateur astrophoto and a altazimuth star following. (But I can't really imagine the size/volume it takes)
It's a bit above the budget I mentionned, but if I wait for christmas, that could be affordable for me.

@Ben, I didn't really have something in mind. I assume a 127/130mm will take up less space than a 150mm ? I'd rather take a bit more compacity than brightness.
 

@Cosmic, right, then I'll narrow down on 127/130mm =D

@Nyctimene, yes thanks for those informations. I understand I can remove the "wood disks" and put the tube on a Skywatcher AZ 5 for example ?

[Louis D]

3 hours ago, Golfox2 said:

@Ben, I didn't really have something in mind. I assume a 127/130mm will take up less space than a 150mm ? I'd rather take a bit more compacity than brightness.
 

@Cosmic, right, then I'll narrow down on 127/130mm =D

I have the Celestron version of the 127mm Mak.  It has superb optics in an all metal structure that holds collimation despite rough treatment.  The tube is surprisingly light despite having a moving mirror focuser.  It has plenty of back focus to accomodate all sorts of cameras.  It is quite compact due to its folded design.  The big downside is that it has a 1500mm focal length and smallish rear baffle tube diameter.  It's widest field isn't all that wide, so you're limited to mid to high powers.  I have no experience with the referenced goto mount.  I also have no personal experience with either the 130mm or 150mm tubes you are referring to.

[Geoff Lister]

As @Louis D mentions above, the 127mm Mak is a very robust design. I have 2, one here in the UK, and one at my holiday home near Montpellier, in France. The French one travelled by car, aeroplane, bus, train, tram, another bus, and finally a 1km walk; and still held collimation. The main tube was in a budget airline carry-on standard rucksack and the rest in a wheeled suitcase. The assembled OTA (with diagonal, finder and 32mm eyepiece) weighs about 3.8kg; the mount weighs about the same, and the tripod is slightly lighter. If you have a camping-type rucksack/backpack, everything should fit inside (including a few eyepieces), with the exception of the tripod (hand carry or strap on side of rucksack). The Mak has a long dovetail plate so that you can move it forwards to balance the weight of a DSLR attached in place of the diagonal and eyepiece.

The 32mm eyepiece is good for initial alignment and for the wider views, and shorter ones work well on planets and most DSOs.

Although the setup comes with a battery pack for 8 AA-size alkaline cells, I have made up an equivalent that uses a pair of 6V 2600mAh NiMH packs, "borrowed" from my radio-controlled model sailing boats.

Geoff

[Cosmic Geoff]

11 hours ago, Golfox2 said:

A shop close to my village has this Skywatcher Skymax 127 that you mentionned, @Geoff Lister, : http://www.optiqueperret.ch/diametre-127-mm/577-sky-watcher-skymax-127-supatrak-auto.html

Why would you want this? It's essentially a GoTo mount with the GoTo function disabled. This variant appears not to be popular (no surprise). For another 50 euros (see further down page) you could apparently get the full GoTo.

There are hundreds of different scope kits. You need to lay down some firm choices. Maksutov? Newtonian? Refractor?, and the mount: Alt-azimuth? Equatorial? Alt-az GoTo? Equatorial GoTo? -and then buy something. If the astronomy bug really bites you will end up buying something else (bigger, different, more specialized?) sooner or later anyway.

[Geoff Lister]

I agree with my "Cosmic" namesake; the GOTO function is very useful.

I tried the Skymax setup in my standard Ryanair/Easyjet (other budget airlines are available) carry-on backpack.

The tripod will not fit the airline overhead locker size, but will strap to the side for walking. A "bum bag" or similar would hold eyepieces and batteries.

And for relaxed observing:-

Geoff

[Ben the Ignorant]

18 hours ago, Golfox2 said:

@Ben, I didn't really have something in mind. I assume a 127/130mm will take up less space than a 150mm ? I'd rather take a bit more compacity than brightness.

The best scope for you is the one that does not discourage you from using it.

[Louis D]

I just came back inside from using my AT72ED setup side by side with my 127 Mak on a DSV-2B mount.  I found myself using the frac far more than the Mak.  I just enjoy using low to mid powers through an unobstructed system very much.  That, and I can use 2" eyepieces to their fullest.  I didn't really miss the aperture looking at the moon or some star fields.  Perhaps on a different night with different targets, the choice would be flipped.  Just one data point in the continuum of astro choices.

[orion25]

On 10/28/2017 at 07:39, Geoff Lister said:

I agree with my "Cosmic" namesake; the GOTO function is very useful.

I tried the Skymax setup in my standard Ryanair/Easyjet (other budget airlines are available) carry-on backpack.

The tripod will not fit the airline overhead locker size, but will strap to the side for walking. A "bum bag" or similar would hold eyepieces and batteries.

And for relaxed observing:-

Geoff

@Geoff ListerNow, THAT'S how you relax! Nice photo. @Golfox2 I absolutely love the analogous Orion StarMax 127 Mak (non go-to version). For optical quality, sturdiness, compactness, and portability it's hard to beat. You will need a dew cap and some cool-down time on the cold nights, but it's not a hassle. I took my lil' Mak with me on a 320 km trip to the path of totality here in the States and captured some great shots of the eclipse, even with the limited FOV. It does best with planets, the moon and brighter DSOs like M31, M13, M45, M57 and the like. Here is a pic I took of the eclipse with my Mak:

Regards,

Reggie

 

[N3ptune]

We should build a tree diagram with (yes/no) question for this specific question, to make the process of choosing easier when people want to do photo and visual with the same telescope.

Me, I would get 2 telescopes, one with a small aperture specific for photography and one with larger aperture telescope for visual, to look at galaxies and nebula etc, no compromises.

 

 

 

[Golfox2]

Hi all, thanks a lot again for all those infos !
Yes we should do that @N3ptune, that'll be a great idea

I don't have the money to buy two telescopes sadly, but if I could, I would definitely do that, yes

The Orion StarMax 127mm Mak-Cass looks great and seems to fit my needs (transportable, small astrophoto, price range). I'll try to find an astroclub to see if they have this one to test

[Geoff Lister]

Yesterday I weighed the backpack assembly (middle of my photos, above), with tripod, + 2 sets of batteries, +32mm & 24-8mm zoom eyepieces, and it came to 10.5kg. Add a folding camping chair (should be under 2kg) and you can view almost anywhere.

With the 127 Mak OTA's high magnification, I would suggest that you consider a mount with, at least, tracking, and if funds permit, full GOTO.

Geoff

[DavidJM]

I have binoculars, a 100mm dob, a 200mm dob. I can safely say that the order of use follows that pattern. Binoculars almost every night, gap in cloud, quick look at moon etc. 100mm easy to transport, quick set up, use for a quick session as clouds have moved, lightweight etc. Then my 200mm, planned sessions, more than often in the back garden, coll down period and expecting to be out min a few hours.

So simply to me it is as much about situation, time, effort, conditions and location of viewing as aperture or telescope type, those who have said try before you buy are spot on and only you can decide how you want to view the heavens

[John]

My 12" dob is still my most used instrument despite having a array of good refractors to choose from

I use them all of course but the 12" is just so simple to get out and view through.

 

[25585]

On 11 October 2017 at 14:52, JOC said:

I've seen that mentioned on SGL several times.  For the record I never had the slightest problems with my set-up 200P flextube from FLO.  T-ring on, took out the 1.25" adapter and just whacked straight into the 2" EP holder on the 200P and never had any issues getting spot on focus with my camera which is an un-modded Canon T3 Rebel (1100D clone) in fact my Avatar is a photo taken with just that set-up.

One handicap of scaffold tubes is that your telescope will need collimation checking every re-assembly at least. Which is hassle & outlay for Cheshire or more high tech collimators. 

Solid tube scopes, including Newtonians, as a whole unit will not need that. 

[25585]

On 12 October 2017 at 17:31, Golfox2 said:

Wow, thanks a lot everybody ! 

So I better go for a
- manual (not GoTo)
- alt/azimuth
- tripod (easier to set up on my mountain's uneven ground)
- parabolic reflector
- mini 100mm diameter
- reflector (mirrors)
am I right ?

- and that I can carry entirely alone, with my 2 arms et 2 hands hahaha

I'll look for astronomy clubs near my city and see if I can try some scopes

If I understand good, I should go for a Skywatcher Skyliner 200P but with a tripod instead of the dobsonian mount, right ?

thanks folks

PS edit :
like this one : https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-200p-ds-ota.html
with a manual alt-az mount tripod ? (if I wait 'til christmas for money huehue)

Visit a telescope retail vendor shop that has a decent range on the floor. They will give you an idea of size, kit and handling. Hopefully also an "expert" to discuss equipment with. Eye pieces on display to choose from. Open mind but not open wallet is my approach. 

[JOC]

7 hours ago, 25585 said:

One handicap of scaffold tubes is that your telescope will need collimation checking every re-assembly at least. Which is hassle & outlay for Cheshire or more high tech collimators. 

Solid tube scopes, including Newtonians, as a whole unit will not need that. 

Not in my experience.  My airey discs seem fine on each use.  The scaffold assembly seems very solid and immovable.

[Golfox2]

Hi guys, thanks again !

I've discussed with the president of my city's astronomy club and I told him the same informations and needs as I mentionned here.

He proposed me those 2 scopes :

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p5546_TS-Optics-Einsteigerteleskop-Newton-150-750-auf-EQ3-1-Montierung.html
and
https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php?products_id=5536#cs

I can't really see differences between them, except the 200€ price difference.
Those seem to be relatively easily transportable, can mount my DSLR, can adapt a goto or follow motor in the future, and in my price range.
What do you guys think about them please ?

Thanks

[swamp thing]

On 11/5/2017 at 11:45, 25585 said:

One handicap of scaffold tubes is that your telescope will need collimation checking every re-assembly at least. Which is hassle & outlay for Cheshire or more high tech collimators. 

Solid tube scopes, including Newtonians, as a whole unit will not need that. 

It's not quite so open and closed as that I'm afraid 

The smaller flex tube scopes hold collimation very nicely.  

The reason large truss scopes need collimation after every re-assembly is because 99% of the time the reason you are re-assembling the scope is because you have moved its location.

Large mirrors are heavy. It is impossible to hold them delicately enough and yet prevent any movement when transporting the scope. Small mirror are a lot easier. Hence why small mirrors seldom need adjustment, large ones seldom don't  

If I assemble my truss scope, collimate and then take it to pieces. If I were to then reassemble it, the primary mirror will not have moved in its cell so there will be no need to re-collimate (as long as I wasn't heavy handed when moving the upper tube assembly). 

 

[Geoff Lister]

12 hours ago, Golfox2 said:

Hi guys, thanks again !

I've discussed with the president of my city's astronomy club and I told him the same informations and needs as I mentionned here.

He proposed me those 2 scopes :

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p5546_TS-Optics-Einsteigerteleskop-Newton-150-750-auf-EQ3-1-Montierung.html
and
https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php?products_id=5536#cs

I can't really see differences between them, except the 200€ price difference.
Those seem to be relatively easily transportable, can mount my DSLR, can adapt a goto or follow motor in the future, and in my price range.
What do you guys think about them please ?

Thanks

Both of the above are equatorial mounts, the more expensive one being more robust. I have found that for a grab-and-go mount, an AzAlt mount has 2 advantages (1) it does not have to be polar aligned, and (2) it does not need the big balancing weights, so less overall weight to carry.

Geoff