Difference between Skywatcher Explorer 130 and 130P

[Surfr]

I think I've narrowed down my first scope choice to the Explorer 130 and I quite like the idea of a motorised equatorial mount as is available on the 130M from FLO, however this kit seems to be based on the Explorer 130 rather than the 130P which retails for more without the motor. What difference is there between the 130 and the 130P mount and am I likely to notice?

I'd like to use the motor mount to enhance my wildfield astrophotography (mounting the camera direct on the mount).

[steppenwolf]

The 130P has a focal length of 650mm and a parabolic mirror (a good thing) and the 130M has a focal length of 900mm and a circular mirror (not so good optically).

You would certainly notice the difference in the focal length as the longer it is, the greater the magnification and magnification is not necessarily the most important aspect of a telescope.

[Surfr]

Thanks Steppenwolf. I presume I'd do well to go for the 130P then? I could always add the motor later I guess.

[steppenwolf]

Purely personally, I'd go for the 'P' - the 600mm focal length is great for someone starting out in astronomy/astro-photography but you WILL need an RA motordive for any kind of deep sky astro-photography. As you say, you could add a motor later. For now, you could get used to the sky visually and then experiment with lunar imaging. If astro-photography floats your boat then you can re-consider your options later.

[causerino]

Purely personally, I'd go for the 'P' - the 600mm focal length is great for someone starting out in astronomy/astro-photography but you WILL need an RA motordive for any kind of deep sky astro-photography. As you say, you could add a motor later. For now, you could get used to the sky visually and then experiment with lunar imaging. If astro-photography floats your boat then you can re-consider your options later.

In his case would it then be best for him to go for the

Supatrak Auto 130P

As its only £30 more, and provides the tracking for the astroimaging?

(not that I know much yet, its just I am looking at the same scopes now)

[dmahon]

That's the wrong kind of tracking for imaging (except short images of solar system objects) - you want to track on an equatorial plane rather than alt-azimuth (as this introduces field rotation).

[ollypenrice]

In his case would it then be best for him to go for the

Supatrak Auto 130P

As its only £30 more, and provides the tracking for the astroimaging?

(not that I know much yet, its just I am looking at the same scopes now)

Absolutely not the Supatrak. This is an alt-az (side to side/up and down) tracking mount, not an equatorial. Nice for visual use but not useful in photography (which TBH needs at least an HEQ5 mount to be viable anyway.)

Olly

[Surfr]

Thanks for the replies. I think I'll not worry about a motor tracking mount for now and just get a half decent scope on a usable mount for viewing. I've started turning my attentions to the 150 on an EQ3-2 due to the direct SLR mount for simple short exposure imaging which the 130p does not seem to allow. It's all to easy to get carried away upgrading both the OTA and the mount though. Need to keep myself tethered to the ground for now

[causerino]

That's the wrong kind of tracking for imaging (except short images of solar system objects) - you want to track on an equatorial plane rather than alt-azimuth (as this introduces field rotation).

Thanks for explaining that, I'll have to keep that in mind!

[brantuk]

Some of the 150P's do have a direct dslr connection (a T-thread on the focuser tube). Give FLO a call first and they will be able to advise on this for the scope you do eventually choose

[black5f]

The 150P has a single speed crayford as well. Very very pleased with mine, didn't break the bank too much either. Has a T thread for a camera on the focuser. Viewing here has been rubbish for weeks and now fog forecast for another week :-( But managed to grab this the other day, it was -10C outside but DLSR, no motor tracking on 150P, so you know what to expect. Tom

out1.bmp

[LukeSkywatcher]

The 130P has a parabolic mirror (curved) so more light is concentrated from the primary mirror towards the secondary. This is a GOOD thing.

[black5f]

I have no idea what the 130 is like but I have a Newtonian with a spherical mirror. Put me off newtonians for life till I got the 150P. What a difference, there is no comparison. the spherical one is still in the garage waiting for the next skip clear out, frustrated the hell out of me. It's about a six incher. If any body wants a mirror to regrind its yours, but don't try and use it.

Oh, canons (EOS) have the shortest mount to CCD distance and focus fine. Others may have a problem (Nikon is the longest mount to CCD plane) hence the 150pds I believe. Canon.. no issues. Ring FLO, they will sort you out, very nice, friendly and competative.

Tom

[black5f]

If you want to dabble in astrophotography like me then here's some pics of the 150P to help with your decision.

The focuser has a T2 thread already, as does the supplied barlow.

The FLO Canon T2 adapter fits directly on for prime focus.

But additionally, the FLO one lets you screw the 1.25 holder back inside (you have to fit the adapter first).

If you get a shorter thumb screw for the 1.25 holder, you can fit cheap extension tubes over the 1.25 holder and eyepiece (EP now hidden) for very cheap eyepiece projection and greater mag. These tubes are canon mount from pixlamb on ebay and cost £7 inc postage!

The focuser is quite sturdy and seems to handle all this and the DLSR with ease.

My way on non motor mount is to adjust scope so polar lined roughly and that target (jupiter?) comes into view. Wait (while counting) till she's approx centre frame. .Readjust scope so just comming into view, click (£12 ebay) cable release to lock up the mirror and start counting, takes about 8 seconds to stop vibrating anyway. When get to count, press shutter again (1/10 second, ISO 1600 ish, try test shots). Do this about 30 times or until you freeze. Thaw out, have some sloe gin, download images and cut them up with ninox. I reassemble them to an AVI using freebmp2avi as registax seems to prefer avis? Stack them and drag wavelets one at a time until you see something! Even if the actual planet size is only 128x128 pixels you can still get good detail. I've also been trying some free software called EOS movie record which lets you stream the live view. This seems really good, lower resolution but, interestingly, not resampling the whole image but recording small sections of the CCD, so greater mag again and you can see the view on the camera for aiming.

The images won't be like some of the marvelous wonders you see on here but the setup costs very little for reasonable results and thats always satisfying! I'm hooked! Sturdy mount is very important, I have cured my wobbly tripod problem by making wooden legs!

Go on, buy one! Happy new year. Tom.

[nodavinci]

Sorry if this is going a bit backwards, but I am also considering buying an Explorer 130 - and the issue has just got more complicated for me! Could someone advise - do I need tracking? I had almost decided to buy the basic 130 (or 130P !!) and leave tracking and GOTO out of the equation until I know a bit more. But will I just spend my time loosing objects because I can't keep them in view with manual tracking? Do I therefore need tracking of some sort? And what is the difference between the 130M and the Supatrak? Oh and since I'm here, would you agree the 130 will be a better buy than a Skyhawk 1145? Thanks in advance.

[NGC 1502]

Tough call to advise as to whether you actually need tracking, just like all the techie stuff most of have, how much to we really need.

I've never had a scope that tracks, and get on fine, others won't  "get that"  and cannot do without tracking, go-to, GPS, scopes that talk to you, etc, etc.

If your EQ mount is only 'near enough' polar aligned, once you have found your object, you can manually track with the right ascension control, plus the occasional tweak on the dec control to centre your object which will have drifted out of the field of view north or south, due to alignment not being spot on.  Not a prob for many, but unacceptable for some.  For imaging, good polar alignment is much more of an issue.

Only you can decide what's best for you. If you could get along to a local clubs observing session, that could help a lot.

Sorry not to be able to give definite answers, Ed.

[nodavinci]

Thanks! Ihave just looked and there is an Aberdeen Astronomical Society, so I'll go and join. Back to buying my first telescope; Ebay private sellers seem unhappy to post but shops will obviously post -the question is, how likely is damage in the post? Just how delicate are telescopes? 

[John]

A vast number of folks on here (including me !) get on really well with scopes with no tracking or GOTO facility so I think you can conclude that it's an entirely feasible approach

Scopes are quite delicate, need careful packaging and I guess private sellers don't want to be responsible if the scope does not reach it's destination in the state it set off in, especially if they do not have the original packaging that came with the scope.

[nodavinci]

Great! Thanks for that! I'm starting off simple. No electric needed. Now back to the buying bit...can I assume whatever I buy (from a bona fide shop) will be OK to be delivered to me? I think I understand that mirror alignment is the most likely issue to be problematic? But HOW likely?

[John]

Great! Thanks for that! I'm starting off simple. No electric needed. Now back to the buying bit...can I assume whatever I buy (from a bona fide shop) will be OK to be delivered to me? I think I understand that mirror alignment is the most likely issue to be problematic? But HOW likely?

Dealers know how to pack their goods to ensure safe delivery. Newtonian scopes can arrive needing some collimation adjustment though and no dealer can ensure that this won't happen. It's not a big deal though - just as tuning a guitar before playing it isn't.