Help with telescope choice

[Switch10]

Hi everyone, I'm new here and wanted to get some opinion to help me make a decision on what telescope to upgrade to.

I've recently got back into astronomy after a long period of lapse so for the last few months have been using my (very) old 114mm reflector scope. It has served me well from using it when I was a lot younger but I'm after something more substantial now as I'm really getting back into astronomy as a hobby. 

I'd like a scope that balances good visual observing but also allows me to partake in some casual astrophotography (lunar/planetary/some DSOs). I've landed on two choices, one within my budget and one out of budget but from what I've read may be a better investment. I'm currently leaning towards a Skywatcher 150PDS on EQ5 Pro Syncscan mount but for an extra £300, the Skywatcher 200PDS on HEQ5 is also on my radar.

The reason I'm torn is because the 150PDS will gather 70% more light than my 114mm so will be a big upgrade and also if I get into AP more in the future, the EQ5 mount would be more than enough to mount a smaller refractor/guide scope setup. It's also more portable than the 200PDS which is a requirement for me. However, I've read a lot online about the HEQ5 mount being the best choice and given I can get the 200PDS on that, that would be a huge upgrade visually from my 114mm.

Any help / opinions would be greatly received.

Thanks.

[Peter Drew]

I think that due to you having been away from the hobby for some time and even then with an entry level telescope, the 200pds would give you so much more to look at before getting bogged down in the trials and tribulations of imaging.  When you are ready for that challenge a small high quality refractor would serve you well on the mount.       🙂

[Jiggy 67]

I agree with Peter, concentrate on visual for now and the 2000pds will certainly achieve that for a relatively low price.  If you’re worried about portability, a 200PDS is not really a problem (obviously depending on your own limitations)

[Switch10]

Thanks both for the replies

I'm still saying "wow" a lot in my 114mm as it had been so long since I've looked through a scope so look forward to greater detail with a bigger aperture. I understand where you're coming from re. concentrate  on visual for now, any thoughts on which mount to invest in, the EQ5 or HEQ-5?

To make my choice more difficult, I've just got back from my local astronomy shop who introduced me to the SW EQM-35 Pro mount as well which to be honest I'm leaning towards as it's good some good specs including a 10kg payload plus other improvements that seem to put it in line with the EQ5 Pro.

Choices choices...

 

 

 

[Alan64]

In the long run, you'll be glad you had gone with the HEQ-5.  Incidentally, you can buy that mount separately, as well as a 150P-DS, if you feel that the 200P-DS might be too large.

[Switch10]

Thanks Alan. The issue I have is the HEQ5 is out of my budget because i want both a new mount and scope  

Will an EQ5/EQM35 plus 150/200PDS be an adequate setup to uprgade from my current setup (114 on basic EQ mount)?

If i can save some money but still get a good setup, I'd prefer that.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Switch10

[Raph-in-the-sky]

Or you could go full visual for the time being and buy a big ol' Dob (10'' or even 12'') and then buy a mount and refractor when you have more money on hand?

I understand the idea of not buying twice and having one mount to fit either the reflector or the refractor but to be honest I don't see the point of having a Newt on a EQ mount if it's not for AP.

A rocker box is cheap! Aperature rocks! In the future when doing AP, you be able to use the Dob while your AP rig does its stuff.

I know, it's not what you had in mind but maybe this will help you see that from another angle

[Alan64]

37 minutes ago, Switch10 said:

Thanks Alan. The issue I have is the HEQ5 is out of my budget because i want both a new mount and scope  

Will an EQ5/EQM35 plus 150/200PDS be an adequate setup to uprgade from my current setup (114 on basic EQ mount)?

If i can save some money but still get a good setup, I'd prefer that.

The EQ-5 is a manual equatorial, which can be upgraded with a single motor for the RA(tracking only) and inexpensively, or a go-to kit, in future. 

The EQM-35 is a smaller EQ3-class go-to mount.  A 200mm instrument would be out of the question.  A 150mm would be doable for visual and casual imaging, yet with a 130mm as the ideal.

[Alan64]

31 minutes ago, Raph-in-the-sky said:

...but to be honest I don't see the point of having a Newt on a EQ mount if it's not for AP.

Before John Dobson came along with his rocker-box, Newtonians were routinely mounted upon equatorials, for decades.  Equatorial mounts track objects far better than rocker-boxes, if such is of great importance to the user.  Observing at the higher powers is what a telescope is for in the first place, and where ease in tracking is paramount.

[Switch10]

Thanks all, very useful advice. Got some thinking to do and decisions to make now.

[Jiggy 67]

Future proofing is a factor as well. For example I have an EQ6-R Pro at the moment. I admit it’s probably overkill for visual which is all I do at the moment, but, like the OP I also intend to get into AP with a suitable scope, probably a esprit 100 Ed. I will already have the mount which I can enjoy whilst saving up for scope and associated paraphernalia 

[Raph-in-the-sky]

2 hours ago, Alan64 said:

Before John Dobson came along with his rocker-box, Newtonians were routinely mounted upon equatorials, for decades.  Equatorial mounts track objects far better than rocker-boxes, if such is of great importance to the user.  Observing at the higher powers is what a telescope is for in the first place, and where ease in tracking is paramount.

Of course but with the prices today, I don't se the point... It's not that difficult to track objects even at high power and an EQ mount for a big Newt is soooo expensive 

[Switch10]

1 hour ago, Jiggy 67 said:

Future proofing is a factor as well. 

Exactly, I'm trying to make sure any investment now isn't wasted if I want to upgrade my scope or move more into AP in the future. Ideally, I'd go with the HEQ5 but it's out of budget for me hence trying to figure out if EQ-5 Pro or EQM-35 will be a good investment 

[Alan64]

6 hours ago, Raph-in-the-sky said:

Of course but with the prices today, I don't se the point... It's not that difficult to track objects even at high power and an EQ mount for a big Newt is soooo expensive 

I suppose that depends on how large of a telescope.  For about 50 years, behemoths were produced in California, like this 300mm f/5 for example...

...and yes, they were quite costly.  If you look closely, that particular sample came with a right-angle finder-scope; fancy that.  But then, John Dobson came along, saving the day, and by putting that particular manufacturer out of business.  That manufacturer eventually offered "Dobsonians" of their own making, but it was too little too late.

If one desires a Newtonian larger than a 200mm f/5, then it is best to have it mounted upon a Dobson alt-azimuth. 

Incidentally, Dobson did not invent the mount that bears his name.  No, rather it was another who invented the mount, and long before Dobson...

Nonetheless, there is one thing an equatorial can do that a rocker-box cannot, and that is to cause an object to remain perfectly still there in the center of an eyepiece, and as if time itself had stopped.

[Raph-in-the-sky]

12 hours ago, Switch10 said:

Exactly, I'm trying to make sure any investment now isn't wasted if I want to upgrade my scope or move more into AP in the future. Ideally, I'd go with the HEQ5 but it's out of budget for me hence trying to figure out if EQ-5 Pro or EQM-35 will be a good investment 

Don't settle for possibly ok... Just buy the HEQ5 when you have the money

[Cosmic Geoff]

I should just point out that I put together a 200mm Newtonian and manual EQ-5, and took an instant dislike to it. The eyepiece got into awkward positions, and I had to choose between tripod legs retracted (low objects blocked by fence) and tripod legs extended (needed a cherry picker to reach eyepiece 7 ft above ground for some high objects.) Aiming the straight-thru finder was almost impossible on high objects.

I soon bought another 8" scope I could actually use - an 8" Goto SCT. 

Also you should check out the potential of EEVA (electronically assisted visual astronomy).  With this I've 'seen' objects beyond the reach of a visual telescope twice the size.

[Captain Scarlet]

16 hours ago, Alan64 said:

...The EQM-35 is a smaller EQ3-class go-to mount. ...

... with the load capacity of the EQ-5 class, ie around 10kg plus counterweights. I have one, and a 200p newt, and they're fine together.

[John]

16 hours ago, Alan64 said:

Before John Dobson came along with his rocker-box, Newtonians were routinely mounted upon equatorials, for decades.  Equatorial mounts track objects far better than rocker-boxes, if such is of great importance to the user.  Observing at the higher powers is what a telescope is for in the first place, and where ease in tracking is paramount.

Dobsonian mounts are somewhat more stable for observing at high magnifications

With my 12 inch dob I can observe and track happily at 300x or more with virtually no vibrations affecting the view.

Also the eyepiece and finder positions stay in a nicely reachable position with the dob or alt-az mount wheras they can end up in really awkward positions with an equatorial, depending on what direction your target is in.

 

[Alan64]

13 minutes ago, John said:

Dobsonian mounts are somewhat more stable for observing at high magnifications

With my 12 inch dob I can observe and track happily at 300x or more with virtually no vibrations affecting the view.

Also the eyepiece and finder positions stay in a nicely reachable position with the dob or alt-az mount wheras they can end up in really awkward positions with an equatorial, depending on what direction your target is in.

 

I'm taking into consideration that the OP is wanting to dabble in astrophotography, is all.

The tube-rings of a Newtonian mounted upon an equatorial do allow for the rotation of same.  In the case of a 200mm f/5 however, one would want to effect an easy modification so as to prevent the tube from slipping out of its rings whilst so doing...

http://www.andysshotglass.com/wilcox_rotating_rings.html

That would enhance visual use and afocal-photography(through an eyepiece).  

[Switch10]

1 hour ago, Raph-in-the-sky said:

Don't settle for possibly ok... Just buy the HEQ5 when you have the money

Thanks for the advice!

[Switch10]

Quick update - i took everyone's advice and to future proof my investment, I just purchased a HEQ-5 mount and 200PDS scope. 

Here's hoping to clear skies soon 🤞🏼

Edited November 2, 2019 by Switch10