New scope advice…

[JonHigh]

Hi there. I hope someone can help me out. I have been dipping in and out in astronomy for some 25 years now, pottering about with my Meade ETX 90EC. It’s been all over the British Isles and abroad. Also done photography with it via my DSLR (lunar, solar and Jupiter). I have recently caught the bug again and wanted to go more towards DSO astrophotography so bought a Sky-Watcher HEQ5 Pro mount, an Evolux 82ed, ZWO camera, guide, etc. Been a bit of a learning curve but a highly enjoyable one! So my question is, I would like to upgrade from my ETX for some a little bit more serious. I was considering the SkyMax 127 but is that enough of an upgrade for lunar and planetary photography or would SkyMax 150/180 or similar be a better bet? I would probably keep my ETX as a grab and go, maybe!
Advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

[Peter Drew]

Planetary imaging is enhanced by aperture so the larger Skymax instrument would be better.  Either would do well on a HEQ5.     🙂

[JonHigh]

Thank you for your swift reply. That was another reason why I wanted the mount. The ETX base isn’t the best by a long shot especially now I have the Heq5! Sure I understand about apertures coming from a photography background. Should have mentioned that. Lol. 
Going from the old ETX 90 to say the 127, would that be enough of an upgrade or would I be disappointed in the results? Also thinking about costs as I have just spent a small fortune! 🙈I also want to spend wisely! Thanks. Jon

Edited September 25, 2022 by JonHigh

[Cosmic Geoff]

What's your budget for the planetary imaging scope? There are lots of options. You need aperture, though in this country there could be diminishing returns in sizes beyond a C9.25, it seems, because of poor seeing.

A 127mm would be underwhelming, but you could get the larger Mac, a Classic Cassegrain or a SCT (new or used).  For planetary imaging, you could choose anything that the HEQ5 would physically support for visual use.

A Newtonian would be cheap but could prove awkward to use, partly because of the restricted focal range.

[RT65CB-SWL]

On 25/09/2022 at 13:26, JonHigh said:

Thank you for your swift reply. That was another reason why I wanted the mount. The ETX base isn’t the best by a long shot especially now I have the Heq5! Sure I understand about apertures coming from a photography background. Should have mentioned that. Lol. 
Going from the old ETX 90 to say the 127, would that be enough of an upgrade or would I be disappointed in the results? Also thinking about costs as I have just spent a small fortune! 🙈I also want to spend wisely! Thanks. Jon

Hi @JonHigh and welcome to SGL.

Personally I don't there is a lot of differences between the spec's of the ETX90 & Skymax 127 and any differences would be small.

The ETX Mak's can be removed from that 'awful' fork mount, but it does take some effort and patience. Then you can attach a dovetail bar to the underside of the ABS flip-mirror/accessory port. If you decide to do that, be careful you do not over tighten the fixing 1/4"-20 bolts, otherwise the brass mounting points will become loose. It happened to me with my ETX105, before it had an accident and damaged two of the three mounting points of the aforementioned part and replaced it with an aluminium backplate. [images below].

 

As I do not [at the present time] fancy drilling four holes into the OTA to attach the dovetail bar directly to it, I have used two Jubilee/hose rings, padded with some self-adhesive neoprene draught-excluder to secure it in place. The only downside is that some Vixen-type dovetail mounting saddle plates are narrower than others, so this method may not be ideal for all mounts. Another option that I am considering is attaching two Munsen rings to the dovetail bar.

Back to answering your original question and the Skymax series, I would go for the '150... or the Celestron C8/SCT as the minimum requirement for lunar and planets observing and either 'scope and will be compatible your HEQ5 Pro.

[JonHigh]

On 26/09/2022 at 11:47, Cosmic Geoff said:

What's your budget for the planetary imaging scope? There are lots of options. You need aperture, though in this country there could be diminishing returns in sizes beyond a C9.25, it seems, because of poor seeing.

A 127mm would be underwhelming, but you could get the larger Mac, a Classic Cassegrain or a SCT (new or used).  For planetary imaging, you could choose anything that the HEQ5 would physically support for visual use.

A Newtonian would be cheap but could prove awkward to use, partly because of the restricted focal range.

I was looking at £1000 mark as I have already spent a small fortune on the kit I have. Thank you for confirming my thoughts re 5". Yes, seeing conditions aren't the best to say the least but at least I'm not in the middle of the city!  Thanks for giving me an idea of size limitations, although I not sure my budget could get me there  and there's a certain someone that might put the breaks on that! LOL 

[lvan]

Considering you have an HEQ5 ,the danger with the 127 is it may not be "serious" enough for you and would only serve as a fund draining stop gap. People have used 3x barlows with their ed80's to great effect on planets. You could experiment with this in the meantime whilst you save for the right scope for you.

 

[JonHigh]

20 hours ago, Philip R said:

Hi @JonHigh and welcome to SGL.

Personally I don't there is a lot of differences between the spec's of the ETX90 & Skymax 127 and any differences would be small.

The ETX Mak's can be removed from that 'awful' fork mount, but it does take some effort and patience. Then you can attach a dovetail bar to the underside of the ABS flip-mirror/accessory port. If you decide to do that, be careful you do not over tighten the fixing 1/4"-20 bolts, otherwise the brass mounting points will become loose. It happened to me with my ETX105, before it had an accident and damaged two of the three mounting points of the aforementioned part and replaced it with an aluminium backplate. [images below].

 

As I do not [at the present time] fancy drilling four holes into the OTA to attach the dovetail bar directly to it, I have used two Jubilee/hose rings, padded with some self-adhesive neoprene draught-excluder to secure it in place. The only downside is that some Vixen-type dovetail mounting saddle plates are narrower than others, so this method may not be ideal for all mounts. Another option that I am considering is attaching two Munsen rings to the dovetail bar.

Back to answering your original question and the Skymax series, I would go for the '150... or the Celestron C8/SCT as the minimum requirement for lunar and planets observing and either 'scope and will be compatible your HEQ5 Pro.

Hi  and thanks for your reply. I get the feeling the 5" will be a bit of a waste of time. Thanks to one and all! 

Funnily enough, I bought a plate to fix my old ETX to mount it on the HEQ5 as the original fork mount was terrible but I lived with it for many years. So happy I got the new mount! It really has given the ETX a new lease of life. I think the SkyMax 150/180 or C8 is on the Christmas list if she will let me! lol

I was told not to tighten anything too much when it comes to astronomy equipment. So thanks for confirming these things. Jon 

 

[Cosmic Geoff]

A new 8" Classic Cassegrain or a used C8 OTA (plenty of them around) would be within your budget.

[nfotis]

As I own a HEQ5 mount, I can attest to its capability to handle even a C9.25 for visual/planetary.

Touching the tube for refocusing is a hassle, though (too much shaking) - investing into an electronic focuser will make your life much easier.

Also, I own a Skymax 180, which is easier to handle than the Celestron, and quite cheaper.

Another option would be a Classical Cassegrain CC8, if you aren't bothered by spider vanes (it's an open tube system).

All these range between 2350 to 2700mm focal length. The C9.25 can use also a 2x Barlow easily, if you want to image planets (the Skymax 180 is already f/15, so a Barlow might not work well with it)

N.F.

 

[JonHigh]

I’m set on getting either a SCT or a Mak. Just trying to work out 6, 7 or 8” 

I think I’m starting to get aperture fever!!