Shelster1973 Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 Following on from my deliberations on which scope to get next, have narrowed it down to 2 (at this point). This is either the Sky-Watcher Esprit 100 ED PRO or the Sky-Watcher Esprit 120 ED Pro both with associated filed flattener. My main quetion at the moment is if the nearly £600 price difference is worth it and justifiable? Other equipmment wise will be mounted on an EQ6R-Pro that will be on a permanent pier and data collection wil be done using either my D7100 (6000x4000 or 4800x3200 3.9um pixel size) or SXVR-H694 Mono (2750x2200 4.7um pixel size) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whirlwind Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 It depends on your imaging priorities. If, imaging in narrowband, large nebulae are your focus then the 100 Esprit with a shorter focal length would probably be better. This smaller faster telescope and the high sensitivity of the SX694 will mean you can gather more flux per pixel than the SX694 on the Esprit 120 will do in the same amount of time. On the other hand if small galaxies/planetary nebula or general broadband RGB imaging is your preference and the wide angle is less of a concern then the 120 might be better as it will give you a finer pixel scale potentially assuming the seeing isn't terrible. The longer focal length and greater weight of the 120 will place more load on your mount. I have no experience with the EQ6pro; the 120 will place more strain on it's ability to track (and guide) accurately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightBucket Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 I will follow this thread with interests as I am pondering exactly the same thing between these two scopes, I currently have an 80mm f6 triplet and the 100mm Espirit, although larger is only an f5.5 so the 80mm I Have would be redundant really, hence wondering about the 120 espirit at f7....decisions decisions.... good luck..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelster1973 Posted October 14, 2018 Author Share Posted October 14, 2018 Cheers for the info an reply. am leaning more towards the 100 as it is quicker and cheaper. I image at f3.9 at the moment, so technically is slower than I am used to, but should be more forgiving and is not ‘hugely’ slower. Target wise I do not have a preference really. I will just pick whatever I feel like doing on the night I am out there and grab data on that. Have a few weeks on deciding on it yet as am away from home with work and not due back until 26th, so can weigh up all my options. Also gives @FLO a chance to get the field flattener in stock as would be wanting to collect it on my way past there back to sunny Guzz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.