why is one worth more than the other?

[gidion]

With regards to:

Maksutov - Skywatcher Skymax 127 OTA

and

Reflectors - Skywatcher Explorer 130P SupaTrak AUTO

The later has more aperture and auto tracking.?

[brantuk]

Theres a lot of differences here.

First the price difference - with £35 between them (about the price of a cheap eyepiece) it's not so significant in terms of budget.

Second - the 127 is OTA only (optical tube assembly) i.e. no mount.

Third - they are totally different scopes - one's a Newtonian the others a Maksutov Cassegrain - The Mak corrects and then folds the light up and down the tube twice to achieve it's longer focal length - the Newt reflects it from a mirror at base to a secondary at the top (then into the focuser).

Fourth - The Newt has auto tracking in the mount so you are paying for electrics whereas the Mak money goes more on the optics. Doesn't necessarily make it better though cos there are more optics in a Mak so the money is spread.

These are only general differences - when choosing a scope you need to decide how you are going to use it, what budget you are happy with, and what facilities you require. It's a minefield for a newbie and I sympathise with that.

My advice is that you should read some of the primers on this site as well as articles in "Astronomy Now" and "Sky at Night" magazines. Give yourself a lot of time before making a purchase to learn as much as poss - I was reading and viewing websites and magazines for a good 3 months before I bought my first Newt.

A lot of astronomers start with a pair of binocs and follow the monthly challenges in the mags just to get a taste of the hobby without a significant outlay. An average pair of 10x50's is more than enough to start.

Hope that helps - feel free to ask at any time

[gidion]

Thanks Brantuk!

I guessed the MAK had the better optics due to it's higher price without tracking features and mount etc.

I guess my main question is, would the MAK 127 provide better views than the NEWT 130.

If so, what is it about the MAK that does this? Is it like you say, just the design and added focal length. Or is there some special coatings/mirrors etc that are contributing?

Thanks,

Luke

[jgs001]

Luke, it depends on what you want to look at more than anything else... The Mak, with the longer focal length, is much better suited to the moon and planets, it also has a much narrower field of view, so you may well find that a lot of DSO's don't fit in the ep. The Newt, with the shorted focal length and wider field of view, is better for deep sky. Not to say that with a wide FOV ep, the Mak can't be used for deep sky, nor, with the right ep's and a barlow, the Newt can't be used for planets and the moon.

I have a 102mm Mak and it is much easier to use to get in closer than my refractors on the planets and the moon.

HTH... some.

[brantuk]

True the Mak does specify "high transmission coatings" whereas the Newt makes no mention - however, nearly all scope optics are coated these days. The type/quality of coatings needs to be researched for a definitive answer.

I agree with jgs001 comments on the type of viewing, fov, focal length etc.

They are two entirely different beasts though. If you had a Mak at the same price as the Newt (on a stand with tracking) I'd go for the Newt because the Maks optics would almost certainly be inferior.

If you can get a copy, Novembers SAN has a good article comparing the different types of scopes and mounts available, what to consider, and how to choose the right one for you.