Can anyone help identify?

[Jm1973]

Does anyone know what this is please?

 

It looks like an Explorer to me, but the mount and counterweight look different.

[AstroNebulee]

It definitely is an explorer but what model is anyone's guess though and the mount looks unfamiliar aswell, if someone is selling it can they say to you what model and mount. 

Edited August 27, 2020 by LeeHore7

[Alan64]

That's an EQ-4 equatorial, and somewhat uncommon.  The Newtonian appears to be a Sky-Watcher 150P.  An older kit, I'd say.

[Jm1973]

9 hours ago, Alan64 said:

That's an EQ-4 equatorial, and somewhat uncommon.  The Newtonian appears to be a Sky-Watcher 150P.  An older kit, I'd say.

Thanks. The seller says it's a skywatcher 200p but he didn't know exactly what model, but it looks like an Explorer. The mount is apparently an old eq5 which from what I've read is the same as an eq4.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Jm1973

[masjstovel]

Well what does it say on the sticker underneath the focuser?

[John]

The mount is an EQ3-2 / Skyscan 2001 or clone of. Orion Optics used to supply a version of it and called GEM 1.

The scope is a more recent Explorer 200P. The mount is not really up to that scope.

 

 

[John]

The sticker will say:

TELESCOPE

D=200mm F=1000mm

Coated Optics

Made in China

 

 

[gilesco]

A bit off topic but I notice the dust cap has some removable caps around 40mm in size.

Can someone elaborate in what instance you would use these?

Just ask as my achromatic refractor has the same, although a single one in the centre of the dust cap.

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by gilesco
typo

[Alan64]

To the OP, these are the sizes of equatorials, from the smallest to the largest...

An EQ-4 is actually closer in size to an EQ-3. 

That could very well be a 200P within your image.  I tried to enlarge the specs label, but to no avail; too blurry.  The 200P is oft combined with an EQ-5 rather...

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-200p-eq5.html

 

[John]

There is an HEQ5 that lies between the EQ5 and EQ6 in capacity, which is not show in Alan's pictures.

The so called EQ-4 has been seen in lots of brandings over the years. I feel that it has no greater capacity than an EQ3-2 (to give the mount the Skywatcher name) and possibly even a little less.

 

[Alan64]

32 minutes ago, gilesco said:

A bit off topic but I notice the dust cap has some removable caps around 40mm in size.

Can someone elaborate in what instance you would use these?

Just ask as my achromatic refractor has the same, although a single one in the centre of the dust cap.

 

Those are aperture-stops.  If your achromat is a 120mm f/5, the 40mm stop will transform the refractor into a 40mm f/15 achromat, and with virtually no false-colour to be seen.  On the other hand, I would enlarge it to at least 60mm(f/10), if not 80mm(f/7.5).

In the case of a Newtonian, the stops are to simulate the clear aperture of an apochromatic-refractor, and in avoiding the diffractive effects of the telescope's spider-vanes.  With a proper solar-filter film fitted over the stops, sun-worshipping is made possible...

The light-gathering capability of a full, large aperture is not required for the Sun.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Alan64

[gilesco]

Thanks for letting me know that. F15 (as that is what it is 120mm aperture) seems very slow, but might try it out one day.

Sorry for hijacking the thread, move along, nothing to see here.

Edited August 27, 2020 by gilesco
error

[Alan64]

21 minutes ago, John said:

There is an HEQ5 that lies between the EQ5 and EQ6 in capacity, which is not show in Alan's pictures.

The so called EQ-4 has been seen in lots of brandings over the years. I feel that it has no greater capacity than an EQ3-2 (to give the mount the Skywatcher name) and possibly even a little less.

 

I would've preferred an image of the manual version of an EQ-6(even an EQ-8), but alas, they're no longer available, and haven't been for quite some time.

An HEQ-5 is merely the go-to variant of a base EQ-5.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Alan64

[Alan64]

1 hour ago, Jm1973 said:

Thanks. The seller says it's a skywatcher 200p but he didn't know exactly what model, but it looks like an Explorer. The mount is apparently an old eq5 which from what I've read is the same as an eq4.

You can ask the seller if they'll knock the price down in light of the smaller mount.  Or, if you're handy, you can craft a Dobson alt-azimuth base for the telescope.  There are many tutorials online on how to go about that.

If you'd prefer an equatorial for the telescope, you can sell the EQ-4 and put the proceeds towards an EQ-5.  

Then, you can always wing it with the EQ-4.

[steppenwolf]

1 hour ago, Alan64 said:

An HEQ-5 is merely the go-to variant of a base EQ-5.

Certainly here in the UK, the HEQ5 is a VERY different beast to the EQ5 - The HEQ5 is much more capable than the EQ5 and both are available with GoTo

[John]

1 hour ago, Alan64 said:

...An HEQ-5 is merely the go-to variant of a base EQ-5.

As Steve says above - the HEQ5 is a very different mount to the EQ-5 and much more capable.

In the USA it is more often found branded as the Orion Sirius EQ-G.

 

[Xsubmariner]

The telescope is a SW 200p, a pervious original owner acquired it with the Neq5 which he upgraded to an NEQ6. I then acquired the Scope and NEQ6 from him and the like new scope has sat in my store ever since.

 

[Alan64]

8 minutes ago, John said:

As Steve says above - the HEQ5 is a very different mount to the EQ-5 and much more capable.

In the USA it is more often found branded as the Orion Sirius EQ-G.

 

Yes, I'm aware of Orion's offerings, and their analogies.

The internal enhancements do result in somewhat greater carrying-capacities.

For visual-use, an "HEQ-5" may carry 15 kgs; a base EQ-5, 10 kgs.  Then, an "NEQ-6 Pro", the next size up, may carry 25 kgs.

In any event, per the OP's posts, an interest in afocal-shots of the Moon was expressed.  However, if the OP wishes to integrate a DSLR-camera with the telescope in question, then an "NEQ-6 Pro", or perhaps even a "EQ6-R Pro", would be required.

[Jm1973]

Thanks for all replies. Very informative. I have decided to buy it. If the mount doesn't perform I will try upgrading the tripod with this:

https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-stainless-steel-tripod-175-for-eq5heq5.html

[fifeskies]

The EQ5 tripod is great and very solid , however it is rebated to take the EQ5 head.

(The EQ3 head also fits)

 

Make sure the head you have is compatible.

(I suspect you may need to obtain or fabricate an adapter plate to be able to use it with the mount head shown in the photos.)

 

The 200p is a big OTA for the small head its shown on, you might be better to sell on the tripod and find a full 2nd hand EQ5.

 

 

Edited August 28, 2020 by fifeskies

[Alan64]

2 hours ago, Jm1973 said:

Thanks for all replies. Very informative. I have decided to buy it. If the mount doesn't perform I will try upgrading the tripod with this:

https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-stainless-steel-tripod-175-for-eq5heq5.html

It's the moment-arm effect that you may encounter, particularly when the winds blow, as a telescope tube of that size will act as a sail.  It may shake and quiver.  On still nights you may find it to perform satisfactorily.

[Jm1973]

So do you think upgrading the tripod to the 1.75" stainless steel, version, which will take 30kg, will not help that much? Is it the mount itself that is the weak link?

[Louis D]

2 hours ago, Jm1973 said:

So do you think upgrading the tripod to the 1.75" stainless steel, version, which will take 30kg, will not help that much? Is it the mount itself that is the weak link?

Generally, yes.  Mounts that are overloaded tend to flex a lot in the breeze and take forever to settle down whenever they're touched in the slightest.  That tripod won't be too bad if you don't extend the legs, hang a weight under it in the center, and put anti-vibration pads under each foot.  Don't over-tighten the leg locks.  On many of these, the bands are made of plastic and will rupture under the strain.  I've also heard of people disassembling the legs so they can be filled with packed sand to make them more resistant to vibration.

[Marvin Jenkins]

On 27/08/2020 at 19:31, Alan64 said:

To the OP, these are the sizes of equatorials, from the smallest to the largest...

An EQ-4 is actually closer in size to an EQ-3. 

That could very well be a 200P within your image.  I tried to enlarge the specs label, but to no avail; too blurry.  The 200P is oft combined with an EQ-5 rather...

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-200p-eq5.html

 

I always felt sorry for the EQ7. Never allowed out to play with it’s brothers and sisters. Locked away in the broom cupboard of astronomy. Dejected, worthless, an embarrassment to equatorial mounts, it holds its head in shame.

A bit like Windows 9.

M

[Alan64]

3 hours ago, Marvin Jenkins said:

I always felt sorry for the EQ7. Never allowed out to play with it’s brothers and sisters. Locked away in the broom cupboard of astronomy. Dejected, worthless, an embarrassment to equatorial mounts, it holds its head in shame.

A bit like Windows 9.

M

That does beg the question as to why there never was an EQ-7.  However, the numerical designations haven't been in existence for that long.  I think Sky-Watcher started that, and at the turn of this century.