Skywatcher 300p flex tube

[Barry-W-Fenner]

Afternoon all,

Hope you are all safe and well.

I would like to ask some advise If I may. As you know I am the proud owner of a 200p Which is a brilliant scope. I was hoping to get this out to some dark sites to really see what it is capable of. Due to having two very young children that both have sleeping difficulty's I wont be getting to a dark site any time soon as this would be unfair on my wife.

So I am stuck with my awesome bortle 7-8 back garden for viewing. I have been seriously considering purchasing a 350p flex tube over the last couple of days to try and get maximum viewing enjoyment from of DSO's as possible from here. The 350 looks about as large as I can realistically go. taking some measurements the base will literally squeeze through my utility room door, In theory 🙂

 

A few questions of large dob users. Will I see an improvement going from 8 to 14" in my light polluted skys?  Will the viewing outweigh the gains in size / weight and the significant cost of a 350p?

I have also noted that it is an F4.6 scope. My BST eye pieces are rated to F5, will this be an issue using them in a slower scope?

 

Hopefully this doesn't sound to extreme. I really want to appreciate all I can from my garden as I wont be viewing from anywhere else any time soon.

 

Any experience with a 350p and advise welcome.

 

Thank you

 

Baz

 

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2020 by Barry-W-Fenner

[Uplooker]

Hi Baz,

you will have 3 times the light gathering capability and will gain on image scale but you may be shocked as to quite how big the scope is. Definitely get up and close to one.

Dark skies are by far the biggest improvement you can make

[John]

Having seen a few of the 350's and 400's I agree entirely with Ian. Try and see one up close and assess how practical it will be for you to store and setup the scope. The 400 is definitely a two person job.

No doubt that you would notice the aperture difference at the eyepiece but if the scope is not practical initial enthusiasm can quickly wear off

Whether the views are worth the cost and hassle is I think only a decision that you can come to. You might find that the BST's need to be upgraded to get the best from the larger, faster, aperture as well.

 

[Barry-W-Fenner]

Thanks gents.

The 350p does sound like a bit of a beast. I dont have far to move it to get it in position but I do have one door frame which would require a bit of jiggle to get the base through. I guess it depends on how rewarding the improved views would be compared to the setting up and size!

I understand that there is no substitute for a dark sky, I just wont get many opportunity's to get to one and will do most if not all my viewing from home. Maybe I will also have a look at the 300p - This might be more forgiving with the BST eye pieces as well.

 

Regards

 

Baz

 

[bomberbaz]

42 minutes ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

Thanks gents.

The 350p does sound like a bit of a beast. I dont have far to move it to get it in position but I do have one door frame which would require a bit of jiggle to get the base through. I guess it depends on how rewarding the improved views would be compared to the setting up and size!

I understand that there is no substitute for a dark sky, I just wont get many opportunity's to get to one and will do most if not all my viewing from home. Maybe I will also have a look at the 300p - This might be more forgiving with the BST eye pieces as well.

 

Regards

 

Baz

 

I used to have a 300p, trust me it won't be very forgiving of your BST's.

Also as mentioned above in your back garden you will draw in more light and gain image detail, mainly on planets, the moon and some clusters/stars.

But I can say that as you are also drawing in more light pollution, as such emission nebula and galaxies will not show much improvement over your 200p.

A UHC or similar filter will help on nebula but as we all know, nothing improves things better than a dark sky.

[Timebandit]

 

 

Having a 14" reflector and 8" reflector then from my personal experience with regards to the faint fuzzies DSO.  Then the 8" at a dark site will easily out gun the 14" at my light pollution site. Aperture is king on faint fuzzies , but only if you have dark skys to take advantage of the aperture. The 14" is a Big scope, I don't really think you will see the benefit of all this extra aperture at your light effected garden on faint DSO, its a lot more work if you keep having to move it around ,and you will probably get fed up with the hassle. If I was you keep the 8" for the time being and maybe hope you can disappear to a dark site for a couple of hours, maybe once a month. It really is worth the effort, A Dark site will Woooow you with your 8" reflector, compared to your light pollution back garden. If faint DSO is what you want then there is no substitute for Dark Sky's.

 

 

[Uplooker]

Hi Baz,

I could see you say what mount you’re 200P is on. Is it an EQ or Dob mount?
 

Sorry, phone so can’t see signatures.

If an EQ, you could make yourself a Dob mount and utilise the rings that you already have, just a thought.

 

[Barry-W-Fenner]

15 hours ago, bomberbaz said:

I used to have a 300p, trust me it won't be very forgiving of your BST's.

Hi Steve,

Thank you for you reply, I appreciate your (any everyone else's input) It looks like you have all saved me a few quid!

Regarding the BST eye pieces, The 300p is an f4.9 - The BST's are rated at f5. Would they really not perform to well in the 300p?

 

14 hours ago, Uplooker said:

I could see you say what mount you’re 200P is on. Is it an EQ or Dob mount?

Morning Ian,

Sorry I didn't mention that my 200p is a Dob 🙂

"Right turn Clyde!" Love them films...

 

So to summarize, A larger aperture will give very small gains on detail on DSO from my light polluted location.

 

Thanks

Barry

[John]

24 minutes ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

So to summarize, A larger aperture will give very small gains on detail on DSO from my light polluted location.

 

 

I don't want to complicate things Barry but it does depend on the type of DSO.

Some, such as globular clusters, are not adversely affected by light pollution as much and the additional aperture will make a real and noticeable difference there.

Extended objects such as the large nebulae and face on galaxies are hit harder by light pollution so the difference there might be that you can actually see something rather than nothing with the larger aperture.

I don't want to oversell benefits from aperture from a light polluted sight but I'm trying to get the balance right.

 

 

[bomberbaz]

54 minutes ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

Hi Steve,

Thank you for you reply, I appreciate your (any everyone else's input) It looks like you have all saved me a few quid!

Regarding the BST eye pieces, The 300p is an f4.9 - The BST's are rated at f5. Would they really not perform to well in the 300p?

Thanks

Barry

I have tried BST's in my F4.7 dob, they were really soft around the edges with less than 50% of the fov being sharp, so it wasn't a fun experience not when I know what the difference is when using well corrected eyepieces that give you a well corrected view across all of the field of view. The difference between F4.7 & f4.9 is unlikely to be significant.

You don't have to spend mega bucks on the top of the range ep's such as televue, there are many mid range eyepieces that will compliment a 300p and you would have a far more pleasing outcome.

If you want to spend decent cash upping your aperture, to me it would be sensible to upgrade your glass to compliment it. 

If I may I could suggest for now maybe upgrading one eyepiece you would use most and then adding as time went by. In a 300p at 1500 focal length a 14 or 17mm eyepiece would find a lot of use if I were using it although this is obviously personal to me. 

The morpheus are reasonably priced, have good reviews and have a much larger and better corrected fov than the BST's. https://www.firstlightoptics.com/baader-planetarium/baader-morpheus-76-degree-wide-field-eyepieces.html  However I would research further before making a decision. 

Steve

Edited June 4, 2020 by bomberbaz

[TareqPhoto]

I am gonna buy a larger scope which is a dob 99% i can tell, and i am between 12" up to 16", but i feel that 14" is a good one, 12" is a better sweet spot as i am planning to make 20" Dob later so 12" can fit, but 14" is still a bit larger just in case, it can be a lifetime scope more than 12", and i still feel i can get one of those 12" Newt to use on my EQ6 and ignore the idea of a dob, but i want to get 14" for visual and planetary imaging, i am under Bortle 7-9 too but that will never stop me from getting larger, who knows, one day i may drive to dark sites then i will always regret why didn't i go with 14" over 12", and my Mak 7" is doing fine for visual now so i don't need any 8"-10" one.

[Barry-W-Fenner]

1 hour ago, John said:

I don't want to complicate things Barry but it does depend on the type of DSO.

Some, such as globular clusters, are not adversely affected by light pollution as much and the additional aperture will make a real and noticeable difference there.

Extended objects such as the large nebulae and face on galaxies are hit harder by light pollution so the difference there might be that you can actually see something rather than nothing with the larger aperture.

I don't want to oversell benefits from aperture from a light polluted sight but I'm trying to get the balance right.

Thanks John,

The above is encouraging to read. I currently enjoy viewing globs with the 200p from my location I predominantly get a white smudge and with some AV manage to have pulses of tiny points of light come and go. If  aperture resolves these better than what I currently see I am all for it.  The same with galaxies, I have spent quite a bit of time hunting for them to come away empty handed, If I can see something that will be a big plus for me.

Would aperture give more detail in planetary nebula as well? I have managed some very good views with the 200p of the Snowball,Cat Eye etc and would really like to tease out more from them.

 

59 minutes ago, bomberbaz said:

have tried BST's in my F4.7 dob, they were really soft around the edges with less than 50% of the fov being sharp, so it wasn't a fun experience not when I know what the difference is when using well corrected eyepieces that give you a well corrected view across all of the field of view. The difference between F4.7 & f4.9 is unlikely to be significant.

You don't have to spend mega bucks on the top of the range ep's such as televue, there are many mid range eyepieces that will compliment a 300p and you would have a far more pleasing outcome.

If you want to spend decent cash upping your aperture, to me it would be sensible to upgrade your glass to compliment it. 

Thanks again! Its great to hear from someone who has experiance with the BST range in a 300p. perhaps It is a good idea for me to start looking at more medium ranged eye pieces like the baaders above to accommodate this scope.

Its a shame really as the BST's do perform very well, less that 50% of the FOV being sharp is not ideal though!

 

Thanks

 

Baz

[bomberbaz]

23 minutes ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

Thank again! Its great to hear from someone who has experiance with the BST range in a 300p. perhaps It is a good idea for me to start looking at more medium ranged eye pieces like the baaders above to accommodate this scope.

Its a shame really as the BST's do perform very well, less that 50% of the FOV being sharp is not ideal though!

 

You could keep your higher powered bst for planetary, plan nebula's, globulars etc, they should be ok for this as you are generally mainly using the centre of the eyepiece anyway and I find the higher the power, the less degradation in the view. Again, that's just me. 

 

[russ]

I found the 300P was still practical enough to move it around in the car. And our car was only a small supermini sized Nissan Note. Under darker skies the 300P was a big improvement on the 200P. Night and Day difference. For example. Under New Forest skies the 200P would struggle to show the Witches Broom at all. Just get hints of it with an OIII filter. But the 300P, with the OIII, was a delight. Same for the galaxies. M51 went from two smudges in the 200P to an actual spiral galaxy in the 300P. 

The quality of the eyepiece really helped. I was using a mixture of BST's and TMB Planetarys. But another member dropped in his 31mm Nagler and bosch.....epic view. You don't need a 31mm Nagler mind. After that i found a reasonably priced Meade 5000 30mm UWA and had the same impact. Full on space walk effect. 

In short i would definitely recommend the 300P as an upgrade but you will want to get it away from the LP to get the most out of it. Dark skies are everything. 

Just as quick side note. I took the 200P to Astrofest, and under truly dark skies, it through up a view of M51 that the 300P couldn't hope to match under poorer skies. So if you bought the 350P to only use from the garden you really would be losing out. Better to drop a size and get out and about with the 300P.

[Barry-W-Fenner]

25 minutes ago, russ said:

I found the 300P was still practical enough to move it around in the car. And our car was only a small supermini sized Nissan Note. Under darker skies the 300P was a big improvement on the 200P. Night and Day difference. For example. Under New Forest skies the 200P would struggle to show the Witches Broom at all. Just get hints of it with an OIII filter. But the 300P, with the OIII, was a delight. Same for the galaxies. M51 went from two smudges in the 200P to an actual spiral galaxy in the 300P. 

The quality of the eyepiece really helped. I was using a mixture of BST's and TMB Planetarys. But another member dropped in his 31mm Nagler and bosch.....epic view. You don't need a 31mm Nagler mind. After that i found a reasonably priced Meade 5000 30mm UWA and had the same impact. Full on space walk effect. 

In short i would definitely recommend the 300P as an upgrade but you will want to get it away from the LP to get the most out of it. Dark skies are everything. 

Just as quick side note. I took the 200P to Astrofest, and under truly dark skies, it through up a view of M51 that the 300P couldn't hope to match under poorer skies. So if you bought the 350P to only use from the garden you really would be losing out. Better to drop a size and get out and about with the 300P.

Hi Russ.

More encouraging advice from some one experienced with both the 200 & 300p It sounds like you achieved some real gains in detail even with the BST eye pieces. I have a 30mm Aero ED on route to me at the moment. I would hope this would give similar views to your Meade 5000 30mm in the 300p

I might be fortunate that I will only need to purchase a few lower power eye pieces initially and use my high power BST's  in both the 200 & 300p

In short, The 300p looks the better option now as I will still have the portability aspect and excellent views for if I ever did manage to get to a dark site. That said if I did manage to do this I would want to take the 200p along also to see what it is truely capable of! 

 

Regards

Baz

[russ]

11 minutes ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

Hi Russ.

More encouraging advice from some one experienced with both the 200 & 300p It sounds like you achieved some real gains in detail even with the BST eye pieces. I have a 30mm Aero ED on route to me at the moment. I would hope this would give similar views to your Meade 5000 30mm in the 300p

I might be fortunate that I will only need to purchase a few lower power eye pieces initially and use my high power BST's  in both the 200 & 300p

In short, The 300p looks the better option now as I will still have the portability aspect and excellent views for if I ever did manage to get to a dark site. That said if I did manage to do this I would want to take the 200p along also to see what it is truely capable of! 

 

Regards

Baz

Btw I didn't want to put you off the 350P if you have set your heart on it. If you think you can handle the weight and bulk, pretty sure the aperture will be worth it. I've never looked through a 350P but i did peak into a Meade Lightbridge 16" at the Salisbury star party and the view was awesome!!!!  But as John said, it was monster setup.

I stuck with my BST's (8mm, 12mm and 18mm) and the TMB's (6mm and 9mm). I found them acceptable for me in the 300P. Under more critical eyes i'm sure they would not be acceptable. Aero ED 30mm will do the job. Had one of those and enjoyed it. 

[John]

2 hours ago, russ said:

.... Aero ED 30mm will do the job. Had one of those and enjoyed it. 

Russ,

Do you remember back in 2009, you had an Aero ED30 on loan from FLO then passed it on to me along with your thoughts and I added some of my own to produce this review

Was that really 11 years ago !!

 

[Barry-W-Fenner]

10 minutes ago, John said:

Russ,

Do you remember back in 2009, you had an Aero ED30 on loan from FLO then passed it on to me along with your thoughts and I added some of my own to produce this review

Was that really 11 years ago !!

 

Nice one chaps! I will give that a read.

I am still in two minds if I should pull the trigger on a 300p!  Any more thoughts to sway me? Either way!

 

Baz

[Second Time Around]

Barry, there's currently a 12" Skywatcher Go-To in the For Sale section that seems to be well-priced.  See https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/355835-skywatcher-12inch-goto-dobsonian/  It's collection only from Colchester, Essex so not too far for you to travel.

 

 

[Barry-W-Fenner]

3 hours ago, Second Time Around said:

Barry, there's currently a 12" Skywatcher Go-To in the For Sale section that seems to be well-priced.  See https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/355835-skywatcher-12inch-goto-dobsonian/  It's collection only from Colchester, Essex so not too far for you to travel.

 

 

Thanks STA.

lovely looking scope that one but I don't really fancy the goto aspect. I would much prefer the standard setup. Appreciate the heads up

Regards

Baz

 

 

[russ]

5 hours ago, John said:

Russ,

Do you remember back in 2009, you had an Aero ED30 on loan from FLO then passed it on to me along with your thoughts and I added some of my own to produce this review

Was that really 11 years ago !!

 

Omg the time is just flying by so quickly. John, Did I bring the eyepiece down to you and we met just outside Bristol on the M5? 

[John]

34 minutes ago, russ said:

Omg the time is just flying by so quickly. John, Did I bring the eyepiece down to you and we met just outside Bristol on the M5? 

I think we did meet up in a car park somewhere around there Russ

I have done quite a few car park astro equipment exchanges over the years

 

[Geoff Barnes]

10 hours ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

Thanks STA.

lovely looking scope that one but I don't really fancy the goto aspect. I would much prefer the standard setup. Appreciate the heads up

Regards

Baz

 

 

Bear in mind Barry that you don't have to use the goto function, you can release the clutches and use it as a normal manual scope if you want to. Only drawback is the goto scope is heavier.

Edited June 5, 2020 by Geoff Barnes

[Barry-W-Fenner]

Hi all.

Just thought I would give you a heads up.  After much thought today I have purchased a 300p from FLO.  I am really excited and looking forward to adding this to my collection of scopes.

Thank you all for your help and advice, it has been greatly appreciated. I look forward to updating you how I get on with the 300p when it arrives! 👍

Baz

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

Hi all.

Just thought I would give you a heads up.  After much thought today I have purchased a 300p from FLO.  I am really excited and looking forward to adding this to my collection of scopes.

Thank you all for your help and advice, it has been greatly appreciated. I look forward to updating you how I get on with the 300p when it arrives! 👍

Baz

It'll be interesting to see how your existing BST StarGuider eyepieces perform with your new scope...