Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

New to astronomy. Bought an 8" Skywatcher 200p, but having second thoughts...


Recommended Posts

A summary? But controversial. I have my hard hat ready.

If you want to see dim objects, you need aperture. No arguments.

If you want to see (bright) planets then almsot anything will do. You don't need aperture.
Caveat. Limiting magnification is about 2x objective (or mirror) diameter. Don't expect a lot of stripes on Jupiter from a small scope.
A 150 newt limits about 300x. More than UK skies can deliver on a lot of nights.
Further caveat. Mass produced scopes (of any manufacturer name) vary in quality.
Whether you get a good one, average or just scraped through test is luck of the draw - and you won't find out first night out.

There is more about compound scopes, cooling, collimation, exit pupil, FOV. But I did say summary😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Carbon Brush said:

If you want to see dim objects, you need aperture. No arguments.

I am going to argue with that, my apologies, but you can take your hard hat off, it won’t hurt 😉

To see dim objects you need two things. The MOST important thing is access to dark skies and the second is to have an instrument with you capable of seeing them. No point having a 24” scope if you can’t get it anywhere useful (or can’t be bothered), and dim objects are rendered invisible even in large scopes if your LP is bad. All non permanent large newtonians are truss dob designs so they can be taken out to the skies they need to deliver their best.

Of course you won’t see small faint objects with a small aperture, they need a large dob to magnify them while maintaining their brightness to make them visible. However for a new starter there are plenty of Messier and NGC objects to work through which would be rewarding. Large faint objects like the Veil, NAN and M31 in some ways favour smaller, scopes which by definition have shorter focal lengths as you can fit them in the FOV.

There is plenty of planetary detail visible in smaller scopes with careful setup and observation. I see multiple bands and detail on Jupiter way beyond the standard two bands in my 4” scopes. And as you may have seen, Martian detail is very possible with a 6” scope.

I agree with you about the potential of variability, although the 130P and 150P that I’ve had have both been excellent. I suspect SW QC is actually pretty decent.

My views are that it is much better to put people in a position to start observing successfully with something that suits their needs, than push them towards some nirvana that actually they end up not using. Most of us start small and work up from there as experience grows and interest is maintained.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a great believer in 'the best scope is the one you use the most'.

Everything in this hobby is, as you have probably gathered, a compromise.

Your compromise would seem to be aperture v's portability.

I'll not comment on the scope itself, never having used a Newtonian (I prefer refractors. Why? No idea, I just do!) but I suspect both scopes will give very good views.

However I can comment on size :) I have a few scopes and my smallest one actually gets the most use due to it's portability and ease of use.

So if I were you (and I'm not!), based on my limited experience, I would get the smaller scope and really enjoy getting in your MX5 (which looks like a fab car), driving to a dark site with the roof down and enjoying the great views I'm sure the 6" scope will give you :)

If the astronomy bug really bites, your first scope is very unlikely to be your last one!

Malcolm

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone else who is just starting out.  I don't think you'll be disapointed going for the smaller aperture.  I went even smaller with a 130PDS and am very happy with my 5" (unlike my wife).

I went for the 8mm BST and barlow and it provides great views of the planets, although honestly on the faff level I probably would just prefer a different eyepiece I think.  I just find the barlow a bit more awkward than just changing an eyepiece.

Someone else might comment on the quality of the included 25mm eyepiece, but I got a 32mm plossl from SVBONY and love it to bits and spend a lot of time at 32mm.  It gets a lot of work as it basically turns the scope into its own finder and pairs very well with the Rigel Quickfinder I got as the outer reticule is basically the same size as the FOV on the eyepiece.

If you do get the 150p heritage you might need something to put it on to raise the height up.  If you are looking at a mounted option just get alt az.  I tried my 130pds on my equatorial for visual and the eyepiece seems to end up at weird heights and orientations.  130PDS on alt Az mount and the eyepiece is always in a comfortable arc for viewing.

Oh, one thing I think you absolutely must get it a cheap sketch pad and sketching set.  Lidl have one on offer now, like £7.  It's great.  You spend more time at the eyepiece trying to pull detail out, I guess actively observing rather than passively observing.  I accidently spotted M32 and was able to confirm it from a sketch.  Really satisfying for open clusters or super faint fuzzys.  My sketches are awful but I get a lot of pleasure from doing it.

So basically I'd say get whatever flavour of 150 you want and a sketchbook.  If you can stretch to it get the shorter focal length BST if you are into planets more than DSO, 32mm plossl if DSO more than planets.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ratlet said:

As someone else who is just starting out.  I don't think you'll be disapointed going for the smaller aperture.  I went even smaller with a 130PDS and am very happy with my 5" (unlike my wife).

I went for the 8mm BST and barlow and it provides great views of the planets, although honestly on the faff level I probably would just prefer a different eyepiece I think.  I just find the barlow a bit more awkward than just changing an eyepiece.

Someone else might comment on the quality of the included 25mm eyepiece, but I got a 32mm plossl from SVBONY and love it to bits and spend a lot of time at 32mm.  It gets a lot of work as it basically turns the scope into its own finder and pairs very well with the Rigel Quickfinder I got as the outer reticule is basically the same size as the FOV on the eyepiece.

If you do get the 150p heritage you might need something to put it on to raise the height up.  If you are looking at a mounted option just get alt az.  I tried my 130pds on my equatorial for visual and the eyepiece seems to end up at weird heights and orientations.  130PDS on alt Az mount and the eyepiece is always in a comfortable arc for viewing.

Oh, one thing I think you absolutely must get it a cheap sketch pad and sketching set.  Lidl have one on offer now, like £7.  It's great.  You spend more time at the eyepiece trying to pull detail out, I guess actively observing rather than passively observing.  I accidently spotted M32 and was able to confirm it from a sketch.  Really satisfying for open clusters or super faint fuzzys.  My sketches are awful but I get a lot of pleasure from doing it.

So basically I'd say get whatever flavour of 150 you want and a sketchbook.  If you can stretch to it get the shorter focal length BST if you are into planets more than DSO, 32mm plossl if DSO more than planets.

Hi @Ratlet Off topic (apologies to the OP) but how do you sketch at the eyepiece?

I've tried and find it very difficult to get enough light to see what I'm sketching without killing my night vision!

Any tips greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

Malcolm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Gonzo0 said:

Sound advice. Thank you very much. I have an 8mm BST that I will be using with the heritage. I know the shorter focal length will affect how much magnification that will give me compared to the larger 8". Would you recommend a barlow with this scope to use with the already heavy BST? Or just invest in another eyepiece like a 5mm if I wanted more zoom?

As usual, it depends how much you can spend. The cheapest option is definitely a 2x barlow, which with the BST would give you about 188x magnification - good for planets and double stars if the seeing is good enough. On the 25mil, you'll get 30x, good for wide field and finding stuff, and Barlowed, 60x. I'll pass over the 10mil freebie in silence!😄

Personally, I rarely use my barlow as I prefer fixed-length EPs, but that can also come later.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MalcolmM said:

Hi @Ratlet Off topic (apologies to the OP) but how do you sketch at the eyepiece?

I've tried and find it very difficult to get enough light to see what I'm sketching without killing my night vision!

Any tips greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

Malcolm

I bought a cheap head torch from asda that goes from white to red.  I had some old gels from this:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/294226084160?var=0&mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5338268676&toolid=10044&customid=CjwKCAjwvNaYBhA3EiwACgndgtUNpnE2vhg9Ur83IjI28zuKEEMxc9qwrWzXhwYe2Lt4D4DPAHwwAxoCBOsQAvD_BwE

So I rifled through for some dark green and amber filters ( I used the dark green as I didn't have any neutral density).  I cut out layered the amber and dark  green on white led to get it super dim.  I then layered green over the red leds.  The once white light is now amber/green either dim or very dim the reds are almost imperceptible.  So long as I don't use the brightest white light setting the head torch doesn't illuminate much more than about 6" away.  It is so dim now that on anything other than the bright setting (I shut my eyes for it when clicking through) I can't even tell it's on unless I hold something right in front of my face.

I'm also going to say I didn't mean it to be that dim.  I wanted it for going from the house to the garden.  Very happy with how it turned out though.

So basically I made a head torch borderline useless by layering small bits of gel filter over it till I got the right brightness (or lack of).

Edited by Ratlet
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Ags said:

If we are talking of telescopes suitable for sports cars, I think someone has to say the magic word Takahashi. 😀

Not when he has said he is a student and can only afford a couple hundred pounds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I picked up the 150p Heritage Virtuoso GTi last week.  My use case is 'casual hobbyist', and one of my main criteria was ease of storage, set-up and usage.  Whilst I can't talk to how a 200mm visually compares to a 150mm is real-world use, I can tell you that you that I've seen some incredible detail in my 150p.  I'll also reiterate what many have said, that you can't put a price of portability!  If it's 'less' practical to use / move, you'll use it 'less'...   an extra 2" in no good if it's sat in the cupboard under the stairs.

I can get the 150p Heritage out and set up in about 2 minutes and move it (front garden has better northerly views) in another 2 minutes.  It folds down nicely, it's light enough to carry with one arm (not that I'd recommend it! - haha)  and so sits nicely on the front seat of my car with room to spare.  It's already visited a few family members (many oooohs and ahhhhs ensued!)

Many DSO are faint smudges of light and from what I've seen in many hours of YouTube videos comparing 150mm and 200mm (video compression caveats aside), the faint smudges just become slightly less faint smudges.  If you can drop a few bortle's because of ease of transportation, that'll easily trump the aperture drop.

Just my opinion, based on what I've seen and read... I'm pretty new to all this myself :)

Good luck whatever you choose.

Edited by Scoobyroo
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Gonzo0 said:

I know I will have to fashion shroud like you said. I wonder if you could point me in the right direction, if you don't mind of course. 

Sorry, forgot you asked for this as well:

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Scoobyroo said:

it's sat in the cupboard under the stairs.

There’s a marketing line in there somewhere.

’Under the stars, not under the stairs’ 😉

OK, I’ll stick to my day job 😂😂

  • Like 3
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stu said:

There’s a marketing line in there somewhere.

’Under the stars, not under the stairs’ 😉

OK, I’ll stick to my day job 😂😂

Funny for me, as my 8" lives under the stairs! It's often under the stars too, mind....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider carefully how you will raise the heritage to a comfortable height to observe through. Of the two I think the goto version is a better bet in this regard as it has a 3/8" thread underneath for attaching to a tripod whereas I believe the older manual design still does not have any such mounting. If you go for the manual you will have to make something. 

Alternatively, if it will fit in your car, FLO sell a 150p and AZ4 mount bundle for £410, which is £30 more than the price for the 200p dob (assuming you get the full price back). I think that the solid tube version would be a better telescope overall as it has a better focuser that will also allow the use of 2" eyepieces for wider field and will also be a bit easier to fit additional/different finders to up at the eyepiece end of the scope. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ricochet said:

Consider carefully how you will raise the heritage to a comfortable height to observe through. Of the two I think the goto version is a better bet in this regard as it has a 3/8" thread underneath for attaching to a tripod whereas I believe the older manual design still does not have any such mounting. If you go for the manual you will have to make something. 

Alternatively, if it will fit in your car, FLO sell a 150p and AZ4 mount bundle for £410, which is £30 more than the price for the 200p dob (assuming you get the full price back). I think that the solid tube version would be a better telescope overall as it has a better focuser that will also allow the use of 2" eyepieces for wider field and will also be a bit easier to fit additional/different finders to up at the eyepiece end of the scope. 

The manual can be put on a mount/tripod: it has a Vixen dovetail.

You're right about the focuser on the solid-tube 150, but with the AZ4, it's £410 v. the £249 for the manual Flextube. Much cheaper and more useful to go for the Virtuoso go-to version.

You don't need to make anything to put the Heritage on: as I said before, mine's quite happy on a solid stool.

Edited by cajen2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen many of the smaller table top dobs sitting on stools with no issues.  You just need to make sure the stool is nice and tall and has a nice wide stance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cajen2 said:

You don't need to make anything to put the Heritage on: as I said before, mine's quite happy on a solid stool

How big of a stool and what is the resulting observing position? Are you sitting or kneeling on the ground? Sat on a second seat? Will the stool fit in an MX5 boot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stool needs to be just big enough to hold the scope.  Maybe a couple inches bigger.  Heigth is up to whatever is comfortable for you. So something about the size of a bar stool would be close and i would think that should fit in the trunk of a MX5.  I mean boot of a MX5 

Edited by Mike Q
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all so much for your replies. There has been a lot for me to pick through and the help you have all given me has left me with a much better idea of what to get. 

I was set on the heritage 150p, and still am actually, however... an Orion Starblast 6/6i has came up for sale in my area. It seems to have everything the heritage does. Tabletop Dob design, small enough to fit in the passenger seat with base attached, doesn't way a ton, quite portable and no need to lower the roof! From what I've seen online too it seems pretty capable. Not sure on the intelliscope feature though. I know it's a "push-to" feature and I'm sure it'd be useful, but that's not why I'm interested in it. It seems to be a great price too at only £200, and no need to fashion a shroud. 

If someone has a good reason for me not to buy this scope I'm all ears. The heritage is still looking like a great deal and I'm sure it's just as capable. 

I should d mention also, the dark site that I use has multiple picnic benches that I plan to place the tabletop scope on. I hope that'd be good enough. For home use I am thinking just a sturdy barstool as others have suggested! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Orion looks like a good piece of kit. Advantage over the Heritage: normal rack and pinion focuser. Disadvantages: more expensive even than a full-sized 6 or 8", and bulkier to store or carry.

If the second-hand one is in excellent nick, go for it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Stu said:

The MOST important thing is access to dark skies and the second is to have an instrument with you capable of seeing them.

It was a total highlight for me being able to observe the Veil nebula with a Heritage 150p under very dark skies off the coast of Scotland last month - and I posted at the time the M13 was simply stunning - the first real world example for me of how sky quality positively impacts the view for a given aperture. 👍

Edited by Astro_Dad
  • Like 3
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.