Manual scopes v's Go-To scopes.

[LukeSkywatcher]

I have just read the article in this months S@N magazine about the contest held to finally put the argument of manual v's Go-To, to bed. It was a time trial to locate and observe 10 certain objects in the night sky.

Both setups were identical except one was a manual EQ mount and the other was a Go-To.

The manual scope won (as i expected it to), BUT i dont think it was a fair competition because they used a seasoned observer (with the manual setup) and a relative newbie (with the Go-To setup). For it to be a fair competition they should have used a relative newbie on BOTH setups or seasoned observers on both.

While i am delighted that manual scopes won the day.............

I dont think it was a fair competition.

[roundycat]

pretty pointless I would say as goto are at their best finding objects that observers cannot even see.

Dennis

[part timer]

You can never put that 'argument' to bed as it is really down to personal choise.

I just can't stand any form of goto. Can't bear it. Makes me want to smash the telescope and give up. And that's if it's working properly.

I just want to relax and enjoy myself with the sky.

Other people get the same feeling of enjoyment from having goto. Of course for super hardcore imagers it's pretty well essential but then I can't stand imaging either!

What ever you enjoy, just do that!

[Macavity]

As an uncritical (to a fault?) reader, even I was flagging after SIX pages.

[Astro_Baby]

Uh huh well put the manual dude up against me and I could do every M, NGC, SAO and solar system obhect thats above the horizon in a few hours including the ones that are all but invisible.

Whats more I could have the EQ polar aligned to perfection and GoTo alignment done in around 15-20 minutes tops and that includes dragging the scope out the car and assembling.

Course the thing thats missing is the expert observer spent 10 years learning the sky. Put two newbies on the case and I'd bet GoTo would win hands down.

But its a stupid argument and assumes all things are equal. They never are in my experience.

[mdstuart]

But with a go to you miss that " WOW there it is, I knew it must be around here somewhere but I guess I was going left when I should have been goign right feeling!...

Mark

[adamsp123]

But with a go to you miss that " WOW there it is, I knew it must be around here somewhere but I guess I was going left when I should have been goign right feeling!...

Mark

No I don't! LOL

[mdstuart]

Fair enough!

[Astro_Baby]

If I want that oh-wow moment which is more usually defined as 'I just cant find it at all' moment I can always switch the GoTo off. thats what the off button is for.

I consider it in the same league as satnav in a car. Yes I can find my way round with maps, asking strangers, going the wrong way for 20 minutes etc but its a lot easier with a satnav and one less thing to worry about it.

Come to think about it thats what the car is for - I could walk everywhere (dont want to use a new fangled idea like a bicycle) but a cars a bit more convenient even if I do miss that 'whew I got her moment' when I arrive

[John]

Rather a pointless contest if you ask me - sounds like S@N Magazine are having to scratch around a bit to fill column space

Both types of mount (and alt-azimuth ones as well) have their rightful place in the hobby and each will have a fan-base.

[LukeSkywatcher]

Course the thing thats missing is the expert observer spent 10 years learning the sky. Put two newbies on the case and I'd bet GoTo would win hands down.

I agree. The expert observer using the manual setup has obviously experience and knows the night sky. It was a very unfair competition and the results mean NOTHING.

ANT: COMMENT REMOVED - making accusations you can't prove.

I personally will LWAYS use manual scopes because i enjoy the "WOW" factor of hunting down my targets. The hunt is most of the fun.

It was very unfair how S@N did things and really proves NOTHING.

It IS a personal choice. There is no winner nor loser.

[LukeSkywatcher]

Rather a pointless contest if you ask me - sounds like S@N Magazine are having to scratch around a bit to fill column space

Both types of mount (and alt-azimuth ones as well) have their rightful place in the hobby and each will have a fan-base.

John i agree. I think S@N were trying to do nothing more then fill space in their magazine.

Patrick Moore is a living legend. The tv show Sky at Night is an institution. The magazine is increasingly becoming an insult to both Patrick Moore and the TV show.

Harsh words, i know but lets be honest. The S@N magazine is fast becoming a shambles.

[part timer]

The S@N magazine is fast becoming a shambles.

Some (me), would say it's already a shambles and has been for some time!

There really is no reason for anyone to compare goto or not. It's simply a matter of your own preferences. As long as you are aware of what you missing by choosing one or the other you can make up your own mind what is important to your enjoyment of astronomy.

To each his/her own!

[RobH]

Personally, I like both.

With my imaging setup, I have no intention of struggling to find an object that will be invisible to my eye anyway, and have a superb accurately aligned mount connected to a laptop running planetarium software which will put me bang on the button with what I want to find.

Visually, I like to scan the sky manually and bump into interesting objects on the way to finding what I was planning on finding originally.

It really is down to what you plan to do and what your preferences are.

It seems like a rather silly comparison really.

Cheers

Rob

[sn00p]

I think some of you are missing the point.... imho it wasnt a "whats best or quickest" even though the title suggested....i personally took it as an insight to just how quickly a complete newb can effectively see as much within the same time as a seasoned astronomer with a goto set without any know how what so ever....

weither you like goto or not is neither here nor there.... for me it was merely pointing out that a complete newb opening a box of tricks that day could see just as much as pro could in 1 evening... And lets be honest here if the guy using goto had a few dummy runs with the setup and alignment before starting out he would have pished the other guy. Imagine if they both where newbs...

Im not suggesting the goto is better im merely pointing out that for us newbs buying a £500+ setup and not viewing anything for weeks other than the moon is just boring... we would soon loose interest and probably give up or spend a few months reading and asking a ***** load of questions and getting very frustrated. With a goto at least we get a "chance" of finding some interesting stuff without having to put much effort in. As for the "wow" i just found this what a load of tosh.... its already been found... you just stumbled across it following some dodgy map or star hoping... NO big deal. Get off your high horse and accept that "goto" does have its place in society for us who dont have as much time to dedicate to our hobbies as some of you appear too.

[mdstuart]

Its no big deal...I find it rewarding to find the things that as you say were already there but I totally understand the benefits of a go to...

Mark

[acey]

Like trying to decide between a bicycle and a horse. It's a hobby, the whole point is you do things whatever way you like.

I use a map and I'm sticking with it.

As to how much you see, the crucial thing is the darkness of the sky. Ten minutes with binoculars at a dark site is better than an hour of GOTO at a light polluted one.

[themos]

Ten minutes with binoculars at a dark site is better than an hour of GOTO at a light polluted one.

Ain't that the truth!

[russ]

I can see the benefits of Goto (i certainly benefitted when imaging objects i couldn't see in the eyepiece) but for visual it's the challenge of finding the object because a lot of objects are really not all that inspiring once found. But everyone is different and get a buzz from the hobby in a different way.

As for the magazine article, well it was just a bit of fluff to pad the mag.

[AztecastroMcJ]

main advantage of goto is u dont have to use it

as AB said it can be switched off and used manually

best of both worlds

[Talitha]

Doesn't matter what you do, just enjoy yourself...

that's the most important thing.

[ZOG]

What a waste of time. The goto results are all a matter of the mounts slewing speed. An expert observer would find the objects faster without a doubt because he could move the scope faster than it can slew.

Now put a dob with a set of DSC's on it in the hands of a newbie and set that against a goto mount and I would bet that the dob would win out every time.

Not that it matters coz it's all down to personal choice.

[Ant]

Once again some comments have gone too far and made accusations that cannot be proved...

Please see below a response from Graham Southorn, the Editor of S&N magazine. This thread is now closed.

Can we all please ensure that libelous comments are kept to yourself - the offenders have been PM'd.

Regards

Ant

On behalf of Admin.

I’d like to respond to comments made about Sky at Night Magazine.

First, the ‘Go-to versus Manual’ feature in our May issue was intended to be entertaining and informative, and emphatically not a serious comparison between the two types of mount. It was not placed within the reviews section, and was never intended to be a review. Our reviews are labelled ‘Group Test’ (comparative reviews) or First Light (standalone reviews). As stated in the introduction to the ‘Go-To versus Manual’ feature, “We pitted an experienced astronomer armed with a manual setup against a relative newbie with a Go-To and watched the sparks fly”. It was fun to put together, and we hope that most of our readers enjoyed it.

Second, the suggestion that the most expensive product always wins the Group Test. This is categorically untrue. In the last 12 months, the most expensive product has failed to win on five occasions (see below). When the most expensive product wins, it merely proves that you get what you pay for in terms of quality. A while back we dropped our ‘value for money’ rating because it seemed extremely subjective, even for our own writers. One man’s £3,000 telescope might offer him incredibly good value for money if it lasts him a lifetime. Somebody else (a beginner) might consider a cheaper scope good value for money if they’re a beginner and they need to purchase other kit as well.

The overall ‘winner’, while indicative of the very best product, is not the be-all and end-all of our reviews. We carefully describe the pros and cons of each product, including what you get for the price. So you might decide that a product that came second still offers all the features and quality you need, but for less outlay than the winning product.

May 10

Winner: Helios Fieldmaster 7x50 binoculars £49.99

Most expensive: Visionary HD 7x50 £99.99

April 10

Winner: Bresser Messier R152S 150mm refractor £643.69

Most expensive: Celestron Omni XLT 150R 150mm refractor £769

September 09

Winner: Meade Series 4000 zoom eyepiece £126

Most expensive: Pentax XW 8-24mm zoom eyepiece £339

July 09

Winner: Sky-Watcher Explorer-200P (EQ5) 200mm Newtonian £429

Most expensive: Orion Optics Europa 200 De Luxe 200mm Newtonian £649

June 09

Winner: Celestron Ultima 100-45 100mm spotting scope £285

Most expensive: Visionary V100-A 100mm spotting scope £329

Finally, it’s been suggested that the company that sells the winning product has a big advert in the same issue. There are two points here.

Consider the size of the astronomy market. It is very small, with only a few distributors and stores in the UK. We source our products from as wide a range of outlets as possible. Ultimately, we are constrained by the number of companies willing to take part. We are grateful to them for doing so, and so are our readers. Our reviews section is rated as one of the most popular sections in the magazine in our reader surveys.

It goes without saying that we are grateful for the support of advertisers, without whom the magazine would not exist. With fewer advertisers, there would be fewer advertisements but also fewer editorial pages. Advertising bookings are administered entirely separately to reviews in accordance with BBC guidelines. This is the job of our advertising manager, who works apart from the editorial team. Reviewers never know which adverts are going to appear in a particular issue, and nor do we tell manufacturers or retailers the score a product has received before it is published. All reviews are carried out in accordance with BBC editorial guidelines for fairness and objectivity.

Graham Southorn

Editor, Sky at Night Magazine