Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_annual.thumb.jpg.3fc34f695a81b16210333189a3162ac7.jpg

Skyliner 150 or 200p?


Recommended Posts

Hello there, 

Yes - probably seems like a question with an obvious answer but the more I think about it the more I’m not sure.

I’m mostly interested in planets as you know, and I know the reputation that the 150pl has as a “planet killer” and this is effectively the same scope I think.

Additionally those of you that know me probably remember I had an absolute nightmare with collimation on my 130p flextube lately and I’m led to believe that longer focal length newts are easier to collimate?

And I guess the price is another factor, I realise the price between the two is less than a field flattener, or a good polar scope etc but in absolute terms it is another £65.

Anyway, not sure... any suggestions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mr Niall, the difference between the two is quite extensive.  Just to give an illustration, the 150 lets you see the largest moon of Saturn - Titan.  However, the 200P will not only show you Titan, but six other moons besides, including Rhea, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Hyperion and Iapetus.  For me that is a most exciting prospect as I love Saturn and its moons.  The 200P is a faster, richer field scope and as long as you use decent ep's it will serve you well for all types of astronomy targets.  Good luck with your choice!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I directly compared 6” f/8 and 8” f/6 SW Dobs on the planets.

Both showed good visible details once cooled and collimated.

The 8” showed more detail on the planets and was a little better on deep sky objects.

The 8” is the same length as the 6” but more capable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the difference in weight doesn't matter to you, I'd recommend the 200p. It's faster than the 150p, but holds its collimation very well. The planetary views are more detailed and there are lots of other objects visible that cannot be seen with a 150 mm Skyliner.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this aperture range, for planets, the limiting factor will be the atmosphere rather than the aperture. 

Larger apertures intrinsically allow for higher magnification, but they also pick up more atmospheric seeing, which degrades the image.

I would choose a 6" f/8, which is also less sensitive to eyepiece quality and collimation errors.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a 10" is big and cumbersome, the 8" is big too but not has annoying has the 10" (Especially my 8" which is only 1000mm long against a thick and long 10" dobson based). I tried the 10" against my 8" and the 10" is beating it on nebulae and other DSOs.

But, because of the weight and size, the 8" still wins for me.

So, between a 6" or a 8" for me the choice is purely a matter of size and weight, comfort.

If this can help.

Edited by N3ptune
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is presumably for visual @Mr niall?

Focal ratio is far less important for visual, particularly f6 vs f8. The only difference it makes is the relative size of the secondary and thus a theoretical increase in contrast. If you were comparing f5 with f15 then different story but this is not the case.

The focal length of the two scopes is the same, so eyepieces will give the same mag in both scopes, the difference will be a little increase in resolution and perhaps colour perception in the 200P due to the larger aperture and brighter image. The 200P is no more a rich field scope than the 150P; both will give the same field of view with a given eyepiece. 

The 150p is the same length but lighter and a little more manageable, it is a surprisingly capable scope, I've looked through a couple and always been impressed. It will be a balance of the 150 possibly cutting through the seeing a little better vs the additional resolution and light grasp of the 200. Do you have any particular targets in mind? If budget is tight and getting the 150P allows some better eyepieces then that may make some sense otherwise 200P probably best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Viewing position may also be an issue (depending on how they are mounted) and what your back is like - I tend to immediately think of both these on Dob mounts, but of course they can both go onto tripods with rings (at least I think they can).   My 200P and yes it is a Goto (I don't actually know if you can get it non-goto, but a truss tube version might not lend itself to a tripod mounting fixture) is on a Dob base - it's a little on the low side (I am not short), but it is excellent seated on a couple of bar stools set at 2 different heights depending on sky angle.  A 150P is even smaller on a Dob base - I think some folks even put these on tables.  So although this thread is about what the sky is going to look like through them don't lose sight of how you intend to mount them and whether this will either encourage you to spend lots of time with them or not in terms of the height they might be viewed from.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Stu said:

This is presumably for visual @Mr niall?

Focal ratio is far less important for visual, particularly f6 vs f8. The only difference it makes is the relative size of the secondary and thus a theoretical increase in contrast. If you were comparing f5 with f15 then different story but this is not the case.

The focal length of the two scopes is the same, so eyepieces will give the same mag in both scopes, the difference will be a little increase in resolution and perhaps colour perception in the 200P due to the larger aperture and brighter image. The 200P is no more a rich field scope than the 150P; both will give the same field of view with a given eyepiece. 

The 150p is the same length but lighter and a little more manageable, it is a surprisingly capable scope, I've looked through a couple and always been impressed. It will be a balance of the 150 possibly cutting through the seeing a little better vs the additional resolution and light grasp of the 200. Do you have any particular targets in mind? If budget is tight and getting the 150P allows some better eyepieces then that may make some sense otherwise 200P probably best.

Hi Stu - Thanks, yes just for visual use. Yes mostly planetary really, and then just general surfing over the winter, mostly messier hunting, lunar and showcase doubles. I’ve only got one good eyepiece - a vixen NPL 30mm, so maybe could justify another...

I was, ironically, going to get an eq35m for Christmas but in all honesty when I started doing the sums (power pack, laptop, scope, possibly guiding, possibly filters possibly a field flattener, possibly a new camera) it really hits home just how cripplingly expensive this hobby can be. ?? feel like I’m losing my way a bit and feeling a little depressed and overwhelmed.

I really just need something I can chuck out in the garden and enjoy the star stuff with - as simply as possible! And these two seem right up my street.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr niall said:

I really just need something I can chuck out in the garden and enjoy the star stuff with - as simply as possible! And these two seem right up my street.

Absolutely, this has 'dobson' written all over it. Both Skyliners are great scopes at a decent price, including fairly good two eyepieces. I'd still go for a 200p because of the larger light-gathering power and better resolution, but it's indeed a bit more expensive than the 150.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • 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.