Skymax 127 vs Startravel 102

[pvaz]

And here I come putting my personal opinion out, instead of minding my own business...

Anyway I'll put out my PERSONAL point of view, though I'm sure many will have different opinions: I'm picky on quality. I rather have less with more quality then lots of stuff with imperfections.

To me this refractor would never be an option for the following reasons:

- It's strength is wide field for DSOs, which is also my main interest. But DSOs are so faint and lacking in details then to have a scope that does not have enough aperture to show me as many DSOs as I plan to see and introduces aberrations on the ones it can show, seams to me like a waste of my money. I mean even with 8" most DSOs are faint smudges and you need to use tricks as averted vision and such to even detected a hint of a dust lane on galaxies. Why would I want my task made harder when I have options free of this imperfections at similar prices?!

- On planets the CA may be too much and then again it's already the weak spot on this scope.

- The money saved on the scope would soon be spent in double (or more) on quality EPs to perform well at this f ratio.

The Mak:

- I would need to get a nice wide field 1.25" plossl for it, to be satisfied.

- The portability would be nice. It would be excellent on planets and good enough on DSOs to get started. I would need a big dob to add to it sooner then later, for DSOs, but it would always have it's place as a planetary scope and a portable option.

- Knowing the optics provide an image without introducing aberrations makes it a very easy choice. Having better images out of cheap EPs (due to the high f ratio) even more so.

Again this is a very personal point of view, I'm sure others will prefer this refractor for the positives it haves, but to me, I just couldn't live with the negative aspects of it and would certainly feel disapointed.

[AWR]

The Mak:

- I would need to get a nice wide field 1.25" plossl for it to be satisfied.

- The portability would be nice. It would be excellent on planets and good enough on DSOs to get started. I would need a big dob to add to it sooner then later, for DSOs, but it would always have it's place as a planetary scope and a portable option.

See below

[Kef9]

Hi Guys

I've done alot of thinking and completely out of the blue I have ordered a Celestron C100-ED Refractor telescope inc CG5 Mount.

I decided that the price was too good to refuse for a 4" ED refractor. It solves all the problems that you guys were talking about regarding colour abberation so I should be getting some pretty good sights through my scope. I also decided that GOTO wasn't really a good idea once I had researched it in more detail. I thought It better to have a proper equatorial mount and I didn't see the point seeing as you had to allign it and point it at objects anyway. With this mount I can always upgrade to GOTO later using the EQ5 upgrade kit.

It also seems like a telescope that I will want to keep for a very long time. I decided that I can get a light bucket of some kind later. For my back garden in a light polluted area I thought this was perfect as my first scope and I can focus on the moon and planets as its an ED refractor and have the wide field for those big DSO's. The fainter ones I would have trouble seeing anyway.

I've got a lot of learning to do now and I can't wait. Ive been looking forward to this for the past 6 months since I started to take an interest. I hope I have made a good decision!

[AWR]

I think you've made an excellent decision. It's a good scope by all accounts.

Now you've only got the problems of the clouds that come with it:)

Andrew

[pvaz]

Seams like you made a great choice. That's a keeper!

Even if somewhere down the line you wan't more aperture for DSOs, it will always have it's place and if you just observe casually, then it will probably be all you need for many years to come.

I think you made a very good choice. Now when you look through the scope you'll know "This is the best views similar equipments can provide." and you won't be left wondering: "Should I have spent more?" or "Can I sell this now without loosing too much money?".

Have fun, and if you need any help getting started we're here to give you a hand.

[RobH]

I have an ST120, and on low power, using long focal length eyepieces it is fine. Great for the Orion nebula, double cluster, brighter globulars etc. It's a good value scope for that.

If you want good views of the planets though, you need to use barlow leneses. Increasing the magnification to much more than x60 or so just gives rotten views with lots of colour fringing.

If you want a scope that can give both clear planetary views at higher power, and wider DSO views at lower power, the Mak is leagues ahead of the ST scope.

It can do both, while the ST will only be able to do low power widefield well.

Plus, you get more aperture

Rob

[Jove]

How is the imaging on the Skymax 127 Synscan GOTO?

The mount seems to be able to track, so you can make long exposure shots for DSO's.

But will the mount be able to sustain my Canon EOS400D camera attached to it?

The mount tracks but is Alt/Az and so can't track an object with a single motion - you get little steps in the Alt and Az directions. You also get field rotation - so it's not particularly good for long exposures - I'm looking to get mine onto an EQ3 or better when I come to do more serious imaging.

Weight wise, I hang a Nikon D80 on the back and the mount just about copes with that.

Hope this is useful !

[RobH]

Just caught your post about the Celestron....sorry for coming in late before!

A fine choice, and one that you can go a heck of a long way with.

Have fun

Rob

[GuillermoBarrancos]

The mount tracks but is Alt/Az and so can't track an object with a single motion - you get little steps in the Alt and Az directions. You also get field rotation - so it's not particularly good for long exposures - I'm looking to get mine onto an EQ3 or better when I come to do more serious imaging.

Weight wise, I hang a Nikon D80 on the back and the mount just about copes with that.

Hope this is useful !

Yes I just noticed it.

I guess I just buy the (H)EQ5 first and then go for a scope afterwards.

I can then look for either a 200mm Newt, a 100mm ED or a 150mm SCT.

I have the Canon 400D myself.

[Deneb]

If you was to simulate a FOV marker in your favourite sky chart software, you would find that there is very little difference between the fov of a F5 8" Newtonian compared with the C100ED at F9. One thing about the C100ED, you don't have to collimate it, just set up wait for about 10mins then observe/image. A lot more easier.

Cheers

Nadeem.

[great_bear]

I've done alot of thinking and completely out of the blue I have ordered a Celestron C100-ED Refractor telescope inc CG5 Mount.

Quite frankly I can't see you'd get a better scope without spending a lot of money on areas that make little difference initially. It may also be the only scope you ever need. It makes me laugh when people go on about "light buckets" being the best option. Far better to have a scope that's practical to carry to dark-sky locations whenever the whim takes you - where you can see more in one evening, than most people would ever see with back-yard light-bucket viewing.

You've made a fantastic and well-informed choice!

You will get a lifetime of enjoyment out of your C100ED - just make sure you're never tempted to sell it under some misguided idea of "upgrading" to a big dob!

I'm delighted - and slighted envious - despite already having three scopes myself!

I wish you many happy evenings with your C100ED!

[Macavity]

Sounds like a very happy ending! I too salute the "adventurist" (Or simply uz terminally decrepit?) who might find a Newtonian (Dob) a tad hard to manage. I think it's good that the MAK127 is now better aknowledged as having a significant ("level 2"?) smaller-DSO capability. Indeed, on the basis of that, I plumped for a MAK150 as my "ultimate" scope - Thus far, I am very happy...

If I am to be bold (and speculative) it seems to get beyond the perfomance cusp of the "127" - Notably on my coveted Open Clusters! Heck, folk wisdom (in another place) informs me it's somewhere around the performance of a 4-5" ED' <G>. "Physics" (and their example) suggests I'd be UNWISE to compare it to someone's cherished, mega-buck, 6-inch triplet APO tho'!

[Kef9]

Hi Guys

Thanks for the responses. I'm glad everyone thinks its a good choice!

Its been sent out today. Welcome the the world of cold nights and frustration!

[pvaz]

Hi Guys

Thanks for the responses. I'm glad everyone thinks its a good choice!

Its been sent out today. Welcome the the world of cold nights and frustration!

That's the spirit!

[gordyb]

The Skymax 127 is more expensive as well maybe it was'nt a fair comparison.

[Kef9]

Flippin Eck!

Well gordyb this bring back the memories. It seems like an age ago when I knew absolutely nothing! I definitely made the right choice though. The C100ED is a magnficent scope. The focuser though is rubbish and will be upgraded once the eyepiece collection is completed.

I find it great that I can just pick up the scope and mount and walk through the french doors with it and plonk it outside in the rough direction of polaris. Let it cool down for 10 mins and off you go. The ease with which this is done cannot be underestimated. I have also took this scope to dark skies on holiday in Wales since I've had it - Absolutely superb! Its been great and I've not felt the need to upgrade once. I've just added the F5 150 Startravel for those DSO's. Little did I know then how much my eyepieces were going to cost me! I just wish I would have known what I was getting myself into!

Just got to wait 10 years at least now for the Astrophysics to come through!