Are DSO's worth it with a 6"reflector

[Questions]

I'm down to my last few questions, of course I want to see the planets, but I am very interested in DSO's are they simply too small for a skywatcher 150, or should the minimum be 200.

Also (in regards to portability), is there a lot of difference between the 150 and 200 weight wise?.

And one last question:

Whats the smalestl mount that can take a 200 reflector (skywatcher)?

[richbyers]

for one of your q.s

i have a 130mm and i find it worth it with even that. It all depends on your expectations- you're never going to get hubble quality, no matter what scope you have as you will well know.

with a 200mm you'll get good detail

go for the most aperture you can get in your price range

rich

[brantuk]

Although you may be affected by light pollution, you should be able to see dso's with a 150. You would be better off going to a dark site though. Even then galaxies will appear as fuzzy patches only - no structure or dust lanes. Nebulas will have discernable shape, globulars and open clusters will be fine but there will be a limit on the number of stars you can resolve in them.

But everything will be in black, white, and grey, nothing like the long exposure colour photography you see on the net or in mags. You will see planets in colour however, and some doubles will have distinct blu/gold hues.

The 200 will give similar views but you'll be able to resolve more stars in clusters and get marginally more definition on other objects due to the extra light gathering power. IMHO the 200 will be best served with a dobsonian mount, but not good enough for LE photography. If you're going EQ then the absolute minimum would be an EQ5 - better still an EQ6.

Hope that helps.

[John]

I've had some great views of DSO's with 4" scopes so 6" is well worth it. As others have said, getting to a dark site would improve things even more but there are plenty of nice DSO sights to see with 6" of aperture.

[Doc]

The 200 will show a few more dso's then the 150, but mainly the 200 will be brighter then the 150, but as others have said, it's the quality of the sky that is important.

[RikM]

I have seen loads of DSO's with my 150P even from the outskirts of Gloucester. Star clusters are great and there are some very nice coloured doubles well with reach of a 6" Newt. If the moon is not making a nuisance of itself washing everything out, then galaxies and nebulae are also fairly easily visible, but as others have said you don't get much detail, but that's the same with an 8" at least from my garden. The view is a little bit brighter with an 8" but not radically different. With darker skies, the difference is more apparent and the extra inches really show their worth. There is quite a significant difference in size and weight between a 150P on an EQ3-2 and a 200P on an EQ-5.

Rik

[Questions]

Thanks guys, The reason I ask about the eq is in case I want to upgrade, however I doubt even if I'm seriously into it I won't go higher than 200 (due to space portability etc).

So the generalview is,you won't see a lot more with the 200,just a bit brighter and more defined.

I think the skywatcher explorer 150pl, that way the the planets may be a tad nicer than the 150 (due to the higher focus)

Do you think as a novice a 150 is a bit too complicated, what with setting it up and star hopping, is the learning curve a bit too high, should I invest in a goto?

Also, once ive got my hed around the kit, is setting it up a long job? 10 mins 30 mins?

sorry for the silly questions

[Doc]

Some people find star hopping pretty easy, others hate it and find it very hard. The setting circles on these EQ mounts leave alot to be desired, they are not very accurate.

The go-to is pretty accurate if it's set up right, but under light polluted skies you will be pointed correctly at the object and struggle to see it.

To throw another spanner in the works, why not get a big 12" dob, and learn your way around the sky, you won't need a goto as you will proberly see it easy enough.

I always recommend a dob to beginners as it's so easy to learn on, and mostly you are not dissappointed with what you view through the eyepiece.

[Questions]

I would if my garden wasnt to tiny, luckily however I am close to the countryside so a 5 minute drive and im in the middle of nowhere

[M110]

I'll second the dob idea - certainly a flextube version would be reletively easy to transport by car and isn't really much larger than a 8" on an EQ mount that you're thinking about.

In terms of the ground footprint (you mentioned the size of your garden) an EQ5 probably takes up a larger area than the dob would.

Seeing as you have access to dark skies a 12" dob would dob would certainly reveal a wealth of DSO treasures.

regards,

Alex

[kniclander]

I had some wonderful views under dark skies with my 6" dob. If you are happy to find things yourself (and I for one actually enjoy the "thrill of the chase") a 6" dob is ideal to start off with. there's something to be said for starting with a smallish scope and then down the line selling it and getting a much bigger one - that way, you'll really appreciate the extra aperture.

[brantuk]

Dobs are a little quicker to set up because, with an eq, you have to balance both axes and counter balance the ota. None of that's neccessary with a dob - basically just put the base down level and drop the tube onto it and your set.

That said the time difference is minimal and I find both as easy to use - with the eq though you only have to track in one plane once it's polar aligned.

[Rusty Strings]

I'd go with the dob too. I got the EQ5 with my 200p and then built a dob base for it, the EQ5 barely gets used these days.

A solid tube OTA could be EQ mounted at a later date.

[SlipperySquid]

What is it with people and dobs???? It's like dob mania!!!

I had a 150 on an eq3 and then went to the 200p on an eq5, the joy of the eq mount when you get used to it is you can have a go at taking pictures if that's your bag!

Personally I'd go for the 200p if you can stretch the budget.I found a big difference between the 150 and the 200 in my skies. More detail and contrast to images and the moon is something else in the 200p!

Drop me a pm if you need to ask anything about the 200p matey.

[Astro_Baby]

Well the 200 is a fair bit bigger than the 150. See the attached pic to give you an idea - thats a 130 next to a 200 - the 150 isnst that much bigger than a 130. I'm about 5'6" so the pic should give you a scale to work from - the pic was shot wide angle so the 200 looks a bit 'squeezed'.

The real issue is the weight of the mount goes up. The 200 will mount on an EQ5 and be stable enough for observing, and HEQ5 more so but for astro-imaging I'd suggest an EQ6 cos the weight of all the extra gear (guidescope, camera etc will push the HEQ5 to the limit). Mines almost at the limit on an HEQ5 cos of the weight of the super duper focuser, heavyweight EPs and the heavy super duper finder. An HEQ5 is about the limit of what I can lug - its heavy and the counterweights are 10kg with the scope as standard but mine needs 15kg of counterweights

Dobs ? Well if you can learn the sky its a good option BUT learning the sky depends on you having a decent view of it so if you have super bad light pollution it may be near on impossible. If you have very limited time it may also be a tough one to ever achieve. I started out wanting to learn the sky but 6 months of appaling weather, never being free on the one clear night plus heavy light pollution (which means I have to spend the best part of an hour travelling to a dark sky site) pretty much meant I ended up upgrading to GoTo or else I'd never get to see anything, and fbeing frank, I would have given up the hobby.

How portable is a 200 on an HEQ5 - well its doable - I live in a block of flats and have to hump it around BUT its aint easy and of late, much as I love my 8" newt, it largely gets to stay at home in favour of lighter more compact scopes. A 200 on an HEQ5 is a fair bit of weight - the scope and its bolt ons weight in at 12kg, eyepiece case weights in at about 4kg, mount head around 10kg, counterweights 15kg, tripod legs probably around 6kg plus an accessory case, power supply, cables, odd and ends - it all mounts up quite fast. The all up weight is about 40kg I guess.

Would you see more with an 8" - absolutely yes - but you'd see even more with a 42" and at the end of the day Palomars 200" will top even that. So what you might see has to be tempered against what you can afford and what you are prepared to lug about with you.

DOnt forget also that the weight of a tube goes up quite fast with the mirror size.

[bish]

I had a 150mm on eq-3 for 2 years. Excellent scope and very portable. Obviously the darker the sky the better but I spent pretty much every clear night out with it in the first year. I also took it up to Skye and Kielder. I've never tried a dob so can't really compare.

[dobbie]

then thers the az4 mount and a 150 , no dob mount no eq mount and its ultra portable, with the az/alt programs on ipod/iphone these days easy to find dso, as well , but for me the dob wins....

[Questions]

Thanks again guys.