SW Heritage 130P vs 150P

[C_H]

Is the 150p worth the extra £50 or will any difference be under appreciated by a beginners eye? 

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/skywatcher-heritage-130p-flextube.html

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/sky-watcher-heritage-150p-flextube-dobsonian-telescope.html#about_this_product

Is it possible to find images of what I might see from each of the scopes? Have tried to look online but can’t find anything useful. 

thank you! 

[Alan64]

11 hours ago, C_H said:

Is the 150p worth the extra £50 or will any difference be under appreciated by a beginners eye? 

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/skywatcher-heritage-130p-flextube.html

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/sky-watcher-heritage-150p-flextube-dobsonian-telescope.html#about_this_product

Is it possible to find images of what I might see from each of the scopes? Have tried to look online but can’t find anything useful. 

thank you! 

Yes, I'd say it's worth it.  I have a 150mm f/5, albeit with a solid optical-tube...

However, do you feel up to handling the largest "tabletop" on the planet?  If so, have a look at this...

An increase in diameter of only 20mm may not seem like much, until you consider, rather, the increase in area.

Either collapsible would make for a fine choice.

As for images of what might be seen, I have taken several afocal shots through my 150mm f/5, of the brighter fare only...

That's exactly how those objects appeared to my eye, live, through an eyepiece.

Then, wouldn't you rather see for yourself?

[cajen2]

The 150p will gather 33% more light than the 130, allowing you to catch fainter objects. It also has a slightly longer focal length (650 v 750mm), which means slightly higher magnifications are possible, though much over 200x are not optimal in most seeing conditions.

Edited November 21, 2022 by cajen2

[Ricochet]

I would go for the 150p if I was choosing an only scope for myself. For DSOs the image will either be 33% brighter at the same magnification or 15% larger at the same brightness both of which make objects easier to see. For planetary the larger scope has a 15% better resolution and optimal magnification will probably be in the 150-180 range whereas it would be more like 130-155 for the 130p. Both telescopes have the same focal ratio so you will be looking at the same quality (=cost) of eyepieces for either scope. The advantage of the smaller 130p would be if you plan on it becoming a travel scope in future in which case the slightly smaller size would be slightly easier to transport. Similarly, the smaller scope would work better on a smaller mount/tripod should you decide to go that way in future rather than use the mini dob base.

[Guest]

It will give brighter images since it draws more light.  Cajen2 has extensive experience with the 150 so he is definitely in the know when it comes to these scopes.  When it comes time for a small grab and go or travel scope i will have a 150 in a second. 

[allworlds]

A fairly small difference in all regards. But a subjective factor in favour of the 6 inch (the 150P): traditionally a 6 inch reflector was the smallest of the "big scopes", whereas a 5 inch is the largest of the "small scopes". You'll see that reflected in Sky at Night magazine's observing guide and in various guidebooks. Of course your observing site and own experience are huge factors but the 150P might give you that bit more confidence going for suggested things to look at. The 150P's also the biggest of its type and to get more aperture currently means a significant increase in size and/or cost; the 130P almost seems like second best now.

I can't find a side-by-side comparison of the two, either observing reports or even physical dimensions, unfortunately.

On the other hand, I started in astronomy with binoculars. For a new starter with a budget of £240 and no more, I think the 130P and a 50 quid pair of binoculars is a better overall prospect than just the 150P, if you don't already have some binos. If you have constraints on overall size, maybe you need to fit it in a particular suitcase or something, then the 130P may win too. On the other end of the scale, if you can nudge the budget up and size isn't a major factor, you could go for a floor standing 6 inch Dob like the Ursa Major (£260) or Skywatcher Classic (£300).

[C_H]

On 21/11/2022 at 14:03, allworlds said:On the other end of the scale, if you can nudge the budget up and size isn't a major factor, you could go for a floor standing 6 inch Dob like the Ursa Major (£260) or Skywatcher Classic (£300).

Thank you so much for taking the time to write such a helpful response.
 

In all honesty, I’m not sure how much of an issue size is going to be. I had initially assumed that he’d prefer something smaller as he could then store it in his office but now I’m not so sure. You’re not the first person to recommend a floor standing dob and now I’m really swayed as you seem to (?) get better quality for a similar price. Where could I store something so big? Is a garage suitable? Probably a stupid question but how do you use a floor mounted scope? Do you need to lie or the floor? *covers face in embarrassment* 

[C_H]

On 21/11/2022 at 08:25, Alan64 said:

 

That's exactly how those objects appeared to my eye, live, through an eyepiece. 

Thank for your reply. Wow! That image is incredible. I didn’t for a moment think you’d be able to see objects that clearly from a telescope. What scope do you have please?

[Alan64]

4 minutes ago, C_H said:

Thank for your reply. Wow! That image is incredible. I didn’t for a moment think you’d be able to see objects that clearly from a telescope. What scope do you have please?

Thanks.  Yes, that's a collage of several I had taken afocally.

It is Synta's(Sky-Watcher, Celestron, Orion) basic 6" f/5 Newtonian on a Dobson base, the Orion "StarBlast 6".  Despite its plastic 1.25" focusser, the secondary-mirror is smaller, less obtrusive there in the centre.  In hindsight, I would not have purchased it; instead, just an OTA with a 2" focusser of metal, albeit with a larger secondary-mirror, then to place it on this mount...

Once I had abandoned the base for the tripod, the telescope then came into its own, far more ergonomic, interactive, I should say.  Here's a view of the Moon's surface at a rather high power...

 

[cajen2]

1 hour ago, C_H said:

Thank you so much for taking the time to write such a helpful response.
 

In all honesty, I’m not sure how much of an issue size is going to be. I had initially assumed that he’d prefer something smaller as he could then store it in his office but now I’m not so sure. You’re not the first person to recommend a floor standing dob and now I’m really swayed as you seem to (?) get better quality for a similar price. Where could I store something so big? Is a garage suitable? Probably a stupid question but how do you use a floor mounted scope? Do you need to lie or the floor? *covers face in embarrassment* 

A 150p is called a 'table-top' dob because you put it on a table...😉, though actually you're much better off finding a stout three-legged stool to put it on ( that's what I use). Please don't be swayed by ideas that the collapsible tube is somehow inferior to a 'solid' tube: it's extremely well designed and has superb optics for its price.

A floor-mounted scope has to have a base large enough that you can look through the eyepiece while standing or sitting. Thus, automatically, it's significantly heavier and less manageable. I have a floor-mounted 8" too.

Edited November 22, 2022 by cajen2

[Alan64]

There is something about a collapsible that places it into a category all by itself.  It takes the Newtonian design, and for a twist.  The telescope becomes more engaging, intuitive, as a result.  It encourages not only a night's exploration, but also that of the telescope's interior, specifically its highly-visible secondary-assembly; the smaller mirror at the front...

 

As night falls, in extending the tube for use, there is a measure of satisfaction to be had in its readying for a night of awe, and wonder.  If collimated well, along with a good eyepiece and barlow, strive for the higher powers, then to see for yourself what few people have ever seen.

A 130mm collapsible is not to be discounted, as it's the one that had started it all, its debut among the smaller apertures.  A 130mm aperture is bright, in its own right, and portable.  It's not too large, nor too small, just right rather.

But then, if you get the 130mm, you'll always wonder as to what the 150mm would've been like; particularly in that the 150mm had been only fifty pounds more at the time.

[bemak187]

Yes I would say it is worth the extra £50 for the additional light gathering.

[Louis D]

The extra aperture also allows for more resolution.  Large globular clusters like M13 will start to resolve in the 6".  Not as well as in even larger scopes, but at least there are hints of it happening around the edges.

[LukeSkywatcher]

I have the 130P. I bought it the year it was released. I love it.  I don't think the 150 was even available. For £50 extra, I'd go for the 150.

Edited November 25, 2022 by LukeSkywatcher