Which telescope?

[Spier24]

I live in a light polluted area and am currently deciding between the Skymax 127 Mak and the start discovery 150 newt. I was told by a friend that I may as well go with the Mak as a newt smaller than 8 inches wouldn't be of much use in a light polluted area and that I'd get a better experience with the Mak. Said the same for a 130 newt too. 

 

Just want to know if you all think it would be worth getting the 150 newt or just sticking with the Mak.

[wulfrun]

It'd help if you explain what you're hoping to see. I don't think it's true that you need at least an 8" newtonian just because of light pollution, there's more to it than that. I use a 114 and 150 newtonians from a city light-polluted back-yard and I can see quite lot. The Mak and Newt are different scopes and each is better at different things.

[Spile]

This is one of the webpages I recommend that may help in your quest https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-equipment/how-to-choose-a-telescope/

 

[Spier24]

4 hours ago, wulfrun said:

It'd help if you explain what you're hoping to see. I don't think it's true that you need at least an 8" newtonian just because of light pollution, there's more to it than that. I use a 114 and 150 newtonians from a city light-polluted back-yard and I can see quite lot. The Mak and Newt are different scopes and each is better at different things.

 

DSO's are what really fascinate me but I also like a bit of planetary viewing too. I'm just not sure about a 130 or 150 newt as I've been told by some people that because I'm a light polluted area I may as well go with the 127 Mak. If you have experience with newts of a similar size in a light polluted area then I'd be happy to hear more details about what it's like viewing DSO's with them in a light polluted area.

[Tiny Clanger]

11 minutes ago, Spier24 said:

 

DSO's are what really fascinate me but I also like a bit of planetary viewing too. I'm just not sure about a 130 or 150 newt as I've been told by some people that because I'm a light polluted area I may as well go with the 127 Mak. If you have experience with newts of a similar size in a light polluted area then I'd be happy to hear more details about what it's like viewing DSO's with them in a light polluted area.

As own a 150 heritage dob, a 127 mak and am currently obliged to observe from my light polluted suburban garden I can say with absolute certainty that the dob is better for the majority of DSOs. exactly as pretty much every website and discussion thread will tell you.

[wulfrun]

1 minute ago, Spier24 said:

DSO's are what really fascinate me but I also like a bit of planetary viewing too. I'm just not sure about a 130 or 150 newt as I've been told by some people that because I'm a light polluted area I may as well go with the 127 Mak. If you have experience with newts of a similar size in a light polluted area then I'd be happy to hear more details about what it's like viewing DSO's with them in a light polluted area.

DSOs generally require low-ish magnification and a wide field of view because they are (mostly) large and dim. I think the plain fact that they are dim is inevitably going to mean you just can't see some things in light pollution, pretty much irrespective of scope. My level of experience so far it too limited for me to give you any serious advice so I'm mainly basing what I've said on my research and general knowledge of physics/optics.

For planets, they're small but relatively bright, so you're far less affected by LP but you need a scope that gives high magnification (and need good conditions). As far as I understand, a Mak would be better for planetary but a short-focal Newt is better for DSOs. Conflicting requirements to do both, so a compromise somewhere.

Ask your friend what their logic is, there are plenty of experts on here who can say if it's sensible advice or not.

[Beardy30]

11 hours ago, Spier24 said:

I live in a light polluted area and am currently deciding between the Skymax 127 Mak and the start discovery 150 newt. I was told by a friend that I may as well go with the Mak as a newt smaller than 8 inches wouldn't be of much use in a light polluted area and that I'd get a better experience with the Mak. Said the same for a 130 newt too. 

 

Just want to know if you all think it would be worth getting the 150 newt or just sticking with the Mak.

Also depends if you are wanting to do some Astro photography - the dob will be no good for that as you’ll need an eq mount to track effectively 

Edited January 30, 2021 by Beardy30

[Beardy30]

1 hour ago, Beardy30 said:

Also depends if you are intending  on some photography - the dob will be no good for that as you’ll need an eq mount to track effectively 

 

Edited January 30, 2021 by Beardy30

[Beardy30]

😂😂 I meant intending ! Bloody spellcheck 

[Spier24]

1 hour ago, Beardy30 said:

Also depends if you are wanting to do some Astro photography - the dob will be no good for that as you’ll need an eq mount to track effectively 

Astro photography isn't of much interest to me. I just want to observe.

[Zermelo]

Do you know how polluted your skies are?  You can put in your location here to get a rough idea.
It's perfectly possible to see some of the brighter DSOs even from poor locations. I don't agree that you would need 8" minimum.
Sometimes the difficulty can be finding them rather than seeing them when you've found them, because you may not be able to see many guide stars for hopping. I see you are considering the Star Discovery, which has GoTo - are you also presuming that the SkyMax would also be on a GoTo mount?

The 150mm will gather over 30% more light than the 127mm, which is significant for DSOs. As others have said, they are better at different targets.

[Spier24]

2 hours ago, wulfrun said:

DSOs generally require low-ish magnification and a wide field of view because they are (mostly) large and dim. I think the plain fact that they are dim is inevitably going to mean you just can't see some things in light pollution, pretty much irrespective of scope. My level of experience so far it too limited for me to give you any serious advice so I'm mainly basing what I've said on my research and general knowledge of physics/optics.

For planets, they're small but relatively bright, so you're far less affected by LP but you need a scope that gives high magnification (and need good conditions). As far as I understand, a Mak would be better for planetary but a short-focal Newt is better for DSOs. Conflicting requirements to do both, so a compromise somewhere.

Ask your friend what their logic is, there are plenty of experts on here who can say if it's sensible advice or not.

I think it's because the biggest scope I'd go for is a 150 newt, anything bigger than that wouldn't be ideal as it has to be something that isn't too cumbersome and tricky to travel with. 

 

They seem to think that due to the light pollution in my area, a 150 or 130 newt wouldn't be ideal as quite a few DSO's wouldn't be viewable with a scope of that size due to the light pollution. I'm looking into all that and asking around to see what others think before making any decisions.

[Spier24]

2 minutes ago, Zermelo said:

Do you know how polluted your skies are?  You can put in your location here to get a rough idea.
It's perfectly possible to see some of the brighter DSOs even from poor locations. I don't agree that you would need 8" minimum.
Sometimes the difficulty can be finding them rather than seeing them when you've found them, because you may not be able to see many guide stars for hopping. I see you are considering the Star Discovery, which has GoTo - are you also presuming that the SkyMax would also be on a GoTo mount?

The 150mm will gather over 30% more light than the 127mm, which is significant for DSOs. As others have said, they are better at different targets.

 

The map shows a pink colour for my area. I know that about the 150 newt, if I do go for a newt I'd probably go for that one over a 130 as the light gathering power on that won't be much better than the Mak.

[Spier24]

2 hours ago, Tiny Clanger said:

As own a 150 heritage dob, a 127 mak and am currently obliged to observe from my light polluted suburban garden I can say with absolute certainty that the dob is better for the majority of DSOs. exactly as pretty much every website and discussion thread will tell you.

 

That's what I needed to hear. Would you be able to go into a little more detail. Give some notable examples from when you've used both on DSO's.

[Zermelo]

3 minutes ago, Spier24 said:

The map shows a pink colour for my area

OK, so not great then (if you click on the map at your location, it will show you an actual number).

Would you normally be observing from home, or would you be looking to travel to a darker location?

@Tiny Clanger will no doubt set you straight on the reflector vs mak comparison as she has both (I don't).

[Spier24]

53 minutes ago, Zermelo said:

OK, so not great then (if you click on the map at your location, it will show you an actual number).

Would you normally be observing from home, or would you be looking to travel to a darker location?

@Tiny Clanger will no doubt set you straight on the reflector vs mak comparison as she has both (I don't).

I take it it's the Bortle number you're talking about? If so then my exact location is class 7.  Yes I'll normally be observing from home but will be taking it town to dark sky areas every now and again.

Edited January 30, 2021 by Spier24

[wulfrun]

1 hour ago, Spier24 said:

I think it's because the biggest scope I'd go for is a 150 newt, anything bigger than that wouldn't be ideal as it has to be something that isn't too cumbersome and tricky to travel with. 

 

They seem to think that due to the light pollution in my area, a 150 or 130 newt wouldn't be ideal as quite a few DSO's wouldn't be viewable with a scope of that size due to the light pollution. I'm looking into all that and asking around to see what others think before making any decisions.

Worth pointing out that even a 150 Newt isn't actually small; depending which you choose it's around three-quarters to a meter-plus long. Mine is the "PL" version, i.e. the longest but it fits easily across the back-seat of a typical family hatchback though. Then there's the mount and tripod, whichever sort you went for.

As for needing bigger, I'd mention that as the aperture increases, ALL light is increased - including what you don't want. Admittedly, you have more "spare" to lose in a LP filter etc but it's still a truism.

Edited January 30, 2021 by wulfrun

[Spier24]

2 minutes ago, wulfrun said:

Worth pointing out that even a 150 Newt isn't actually small; depending which you choose it's around three-quarters to a meter-plus long. Mine is the "PL" version, i.e. the longest but it fits easily across the back-seat of a typical family hatchback though. Then there's the mount and tripod, whichever sort you went for.

As for needing bigger, I'd mention that as the aperture increases, ALL light is increased - including what you don't want. Admittedly, you have more "spare" to lose in a LP filter etc but it's still a truism.

Oh I know it's not small, but it's definitely not too big for me to travel with. I wouldn't go any higher than that though.

[wulfrun]

6 minutes ago, Spier24 said:

Oh I know it's not small, but it's definitely not too big for me to travel with. I wouldn't go any higher than that though.

Actually, I totally forgot the "Heritage" dobs, which collapse down to about half-size. Great for storage or travel. If you only want visual, you could do far worse. Some are tabletop models though, a table or similar platform is required unless you're willing to contort on the floor or change the mount.

[Spier24]

24 minutes ago, wulfrun said:

Actually, I totally forgot the "Heritage" dobs, which collapse down to about half-size. Great for storage or travel. If you only want visual, you could do far worse. Some are tabletop models though, a table or similar platform is required unless you're willing to contort on the floor or change the mount.

I'm quite set on a GoTo model so I'll give those a miss. Although the heritage 150 does look like a great scope for someone who's okay with having a tabletop scope.

[Spier24]

Thanks to the guy who told me about bortle numbers. So this is apparently what bortle number 7 entails.

• The entire sky background has a vague, grayish white hue.
• The Milky Way is totally invisible or nearly so.
• M44 or M31 may be glimpsed with the unaided eye but are very indistinct.
• Clouds are brilliantly lit.
• Even in moderate-sized telescopes, the brightest Messier objects are pale ghosts of their true selves.

[BaldyMan]

Not the Celestron Starsense Explorer LT 80

I've just received one and intend to keep it but I've noted some glaring issues with it on the first night out.

1. The erect image diagonal has been made out of 2 pieces of plastic, when looking through it with the 10 mm eyepiece focused in you can see the join as a tiny black line through the centre. Looks like a faulty LCD display.

2. Biggest, daftest issue of them all. The phone bracket is attached to the top of the OTA, when you align your phone to the mirror it completely covers the red dot finder making it useless. If you remove the phone attachment you will need to recalibrate it again.

3. The tripod is made out of wafer thin metal. The slightest breeze will move it.

I'm going to perseve with the scope upgrading all the optics as I go as they'll be useful on any future scope and I'll keep this one for the kids to toy around with.

[Pixies]

14 hours ago, BaldyMan said:

Not the Celestron Starsense Explorer LT 80

I've just received one and intend to keep it but I've noted some glaring issues with it on the first night out.

1. The erect image diagonal has been made out of 2 pieces of plastic, when looking through it with the 10 mm eyepiece focused in you can see the join as a tiny black line through the centre. Looks like a faulty LCD display.

2. Biggest, daftest issue of them all. The phone bracket is attached to the top of the OTA, when you align your phone to the mirror it completely covers the red dot finder making it useless. If you remove the phone attachment you will need to recalibrate it again.

3. The tripod is made out of wafer thin metal. The slightest breeze will move it.

I'm going to perseve with the scope upgrading all the optics as I go as they'll be useful on any future scope and I'll keep this one for the kids to toy around with.

Hi,

There is a thread where members have been purchasing these scopes in order just to get hold of the Starsense adapters and (more importantly) the software key. The scope and mount may be a bit ropey, but the software is proper plate-solving tech and very much of value.

 

[BaldyMan]

7 hours ago, Pixies said:

Hi,

There is a thread where members have been purchasing these scopes in order just to get hold of the Starsense adapters and (more importantly) the software key. The scope and mount may be a bit ropey, but the software is proper plate-solving tech and very much of value.

 

That's interesting to know. I have plans to get an 8" dobsonian eventually but that's dependant on whether we are moving house or not. If I do get a better scope I can cannibalise the old one and rig the mount up to a new one. The Celestron isn't terrible, its just not anywhere near as good as I'd anticipated but at least I know any purchases I make for eyepieces etc won't be wasted as they can be used on any scope.

[SaberJeff]

Celestron  8se