First Telescope (Skymax?)

[r-mo]

Looking to get my first telescope at xmas, really for viewing the planets although some nebulae, binaries etc would be nice too. I've been mulling it over for a while now and am thinking of going for a Skymaster Skymax scope. I decided on one of these as I really need it to be fairly portable. Living in a 3rd floor flat with pretty narrow stairs pretty much ruled out a dob and these seemed to give a lot of bang for your buck in a more portable package. I had been avoiding the motorised mounts as I suspect there's more to go wrong, I'm not sure how sensitive they are and I kind of liked the idea of manually fiddling around to get the best alignment. However in looking at the prices on FLO the skymax 127 is £75 cheaper with the super trak as opposed to the EQ3-2 mount, which I really can't afford, leaving me with the alternative of a 102 on an EQ2. My budget had started out at £200 max and now I'm looking at a £280 scope

So, questions

How much better is the 127 than the 102, what kind of detail would I be able to see with the 127 that I wouldn't with the 102?

Would I be better off with the 102 and some additional decent EPs as I've heard the ones supplied are not so good?

How good is the super trak mount?

Any other advice? am I barking up the wrong tree entirely?

Thanks in advance

Steve

[pvaz]

On the portability side both are good options.

For the targets you said, Nebula are pretty dim even on 8". You won't see much on these targets, except for the orion nebula. But, living in a 3rd floor with narrow stairs I think I would choose portability over aperture and see whatever is there.

The 150p dob is somewhat portable, not too heavy but a bit bulky and within your budget. If you get a chance to see one in person maybe you'll consider it an option and it will provide a bit more aperture for nebula.

[yeti monster]

Agreed about portability! And a motorised unit would, I presume, require the porting of power packs etc.

[TheThing]

There's not a huge difference between the two size wise, so I'd say go for the larger aperture. You should still find it fairly portable, but will benefit from the extra light gathering capabilities.

Maks are always considered to be less useful for DSOs, but in my opinion, they are a pretty good all round. to be honest, as a beginner, you wont notice that it is dimmer on DSOs than other scopes.

I've got a 4" Mak that I've found to excellent on plantes and the DSOs that are readily visibile from my LP site. It compares favorably to my 6" Newt and a 4" frac that I had before.

If you've got space for a dob though....

[r-mo]

Thanks for the advice guys, I'm pretty sure I'm going to end up going for the 127, it's just too tempting I really would love to get a dob and if/when I get a 2nd 'scope I'm pretty sure I will. I know the views would be more spectacular but I just wouldn't get to use it anywhere near as much..

[jimhaleysscomet]

For a given aperture, nothing is more portable than a dob. Were I in your shoes I would be looking at the Skywatcher Heritage 130 flex tube dob. SUPER EASY AND SUPER PORTABLE. You might want a stool to set it on.

Or even better the Orion XTi 6" computerized dob. I carry my 8" XTi up and down the stairs no problem.

[TheThing]

For a given aperture, nothing is more portable than a dob. Were I in your shoes I would be looking at the Skywatcher Heritage 130 flex tube dob. SUPER EASY AND SUPER PORTABLE. You might want a stool to set it on.

Or even better the Orion XTi 6" computerized dob. I carry my 8" XTi up and down the stairs no problem.

Why do that? He doesn't want a dob, he wants a Mak. It would be helpful to keep on topic. I do find it annoying when people put spurious posts like this!

A Mak is much smaller and therefore more portable in any case.

[AWR]

Steve,

I have the SW 127 Mak on an EQ3-2 mount which I bought last winter as my first scope. I had similar requirements - I live in a maisonette with narrow stairs and wanted something I could move easily. I leave mine set up on the tripod in the corner of the room (it makes an interesting conversation piece) and carry it down when I want to use it.

I went for th EQ3-2 mount because I didn't want a GOTO for my first scope, I had this idea of wanting to do things properly (whatever that means - I'm not GOTO bashing). I wanted to learn my way around and learn how the mount works. For visual use (all I do at the moment), alignment is nothing more than making it roughly level and pointing it approximately north. I've found that the EQ mount has made following star-hopping instructions (as in Turn Left at Orion) much easier as the scope moves N-S and E-W independently. I also do not have the problem of needing any sort of power supply.

The scope is great on planets (as expected) and also double stars (which I've got quite into). Clusters and brighter nebulae are also good. I have a lot of light pollution, so dimmer, widefield DSO's would be a problem anyway.

In terms of accessories, there is nothing wrong with the supplied EPs - they do their job. Of course in the future you will probably upgrade them but they are not defective and do not need to be replaced straight away. I would buy (or make) a dew shield.

The other thing I replaced quite early on was the red-dot finder. This was mainly because trying to find dim guide stars in a light polluted sky can be quite hard. I replaced it with a combination of a Quikfinder (to get me in the area) and a 9x50 finderscope. If you have darker skies I imagine you will be fine.

To sum up: I've found the 127 Mak a great starter scope which seems to have plenty of potential (I have more upgrades in progress). I haven't used the smaller version and so cannot make the comparison.

Hope this helps,

Andrew

[r-mo]

The one I'm looking at has a 6x30 finderscope rather than the usual red dot finder you see with these. It's not 9x50 but I imagine it's better than the red dot

Maksutov - Skywatcher Skymax 127 SupaTrak

The mount isn't a goto either. It's just a motorised Alt-Az with auto-tracking so I'd still have to get to know the sky better. I'm not too bad with that as it is though, I've been showing people how to find polaris using the plough and cassiopeia since I was little and stellarium and google sky map on my phone have been brilliant in helping me learn the other constellations and where the planets are. So hopefully it won't take too long to learn to follow directions to some smaller objects.

Great to know about the eyepieces as well. I didn't think they'd be completely useless but it sounds like they'll give me a lot of viewing pleasure before I need to upgrade them.

My Dad is hugely into photography (of steam trains mostly) and has been asking about attaching a camera to it. I noticed that it comes with an X2 Deluxe Barlow Lens 1.25” (with Camera Adaptor). I was wondering how the camera adaptor part works? what fits onto it? I'm pretty sure he'll want my camera to attach to it but from what I've read I won't have any joy with that. It's a Lumix FZ20 bridging camera with a 62mm attachment ring which is hardly going to work digiscoping through a 1.25" eyepiece) I was more thinking of going down the webcam route if and when I get into astrophotography, but would still like to know what I could attach to it.

[AWR]

The finderscope looks much better than the red-dot finder!

I'm not qualified to talk about astrophotography other than for long exposure you'll need a much better mount and a big cheque book.

I've bought a webcam (Philips Vesta, £2.20 from EBay) but I haven't had time to do anything with it yet. I'll need an adapter and a IR filter but the software I can download for free. There is a good introduction in the Primers section. I'm looking forward to having a go at some planetary imaging over Christmas.

Andrew

[r-mo]

I'm assuming the supplied barlow with camera adaptor is this one

Skywatcher - Skywatcher Deluxe 2x Barlow

I've been googling to try and find out the specs of "a camera-thread for photography" and I think I've come up with the solution. Is this a 42mm T-Mount?

[jimhaleysscomet]

Why do that? He doesn't want a dob, he wants a Mak. It would be helpful to keep on topic. I do find it annoying when people put spurious posts like this!

A Mak is much smaller and therefore more portable in any case.

The original poster pointed out that he liked the dob design but thought them not portable. I was just trying to point out that FOR A GIVEN APERTURE.... a flex tube dob is just as portable as a MAK. If he wants a long focal length mak then go for it... but not because it is more portable, because it really isn't. I just hope he realizes cool down will be longer and he will have a narrow field of view, and it will cost twice as much as the Heritage H130P.

I can transport my FULLY ASSEMBLED Collapsed Heritage 130P Flex tube dob on the car seat next to me (or on the floor, or in the trunk). I can easily carry it with one arm, so I can carry an eyepiece case and a few books in the other hand. The optical tube assembly is protected by the base... no case required, no separate "optional" power supply to carry. I could be wrong, but I think that makes it at least as portable as a 127 MAK.