Jump to content
  • Join the online East Midlands astronomy club today!

    With active forums, two dark sites and a knowledgeable membership, East Midlands Stargazers has something for everyone.

130P or 150P?


Dennis1954
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have looked and asked technical questions about scopes but I would like to know if I would really see much more in a 150P compared to a 130P reflector. Is it worth the extra amount I would pay? Also how does a similar sized Maksutov - Cassegrain compare as I have done some observing through one and so already have some expectation. Any opinions appreciated. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Dennis, having a bigger primary mirror is always going to be more benificial, but will it make a massive difference, hmmmm, not sure about that (I'm talking visual wise not for astrophotography).

Your next point, that's a totally different kind of scope, with a much longer focal length, so for the planets it will be better suited, but not so much for DSO's, than a similar sized Newt.

In my opion, you need to decided what sort of things you would like to see the most, then you need to decide what scope fits that requirement and if it falls into the reflector category then get the biggest primary mirror you can afford.

So for example, I wanted to see everything, planets, DSO's, open and globular clusters etc so went for a 200P at F6, which is a bit fast for the planets but a bit slow for DSO's, so right in the sort of middle for everything. The 8" primary was around the price I wanted to pay for my first scope so got the biggest I could afford at the time.

Edited by Daz Type-R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually bigger is better, although an extra inch in mirror size under the midlands skies might not make the biggest of difference, better upgrades might be the focuser or a better eyepiece for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that input. My idea, as a complete beginner, is to look at planets and DSOs. I would like to dabble in simple photos eventually, holidays are now "dark skies" not white beach so midlands is less of a concern. Does that harden anyone's opinion? I am moving to 150P as the biggest I can afford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis, if your looking at astrophotography then the mount you choose is quite possibly the most import thing you will buy, an expensive scope and camera will be useless on a wobbly cheap mount.


If you go down the reflector route then you could (and for photos you probably would need to) get a decent Barlow or power mate which (if you get the 2x Barlow/power mate) would double the focal length of your scope (so a F6 would become a F12 for example).  Now if you go down the Mak-Cas route, some of these are F12, F15's so good for the planets but then for the DSO's you would like to see, then you would need a reducer (on a F12 a 0.63 reduced would make your focal length a F4), nice and fast for DSO's :)


For visual, I don't know how much difference a F6 newt would look compared to a F12 Mak-cas, I have never looked through one to be honest.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Dennis. I started with a 150P and subsequently owned a 130P. I also have a Mak127.


 


Comparing the 150P with the 130P - the 150P will be a little brighter and more contrasty than the 130P cos it has 100mm of extra focal length. Also with the wider aperture you'll see deeper into space than the 130P because it gathers more light. Both of those make it worth the extra outlay imho.


 


The focal ratio doesn't make any difference when observing and they are both f-5 anyway if you are considering astro photography. AP however does demand a solid stable platform and accurate tracking mount as mentioned - it's the most important part of an imaging rig.


 


Planets appear tiny in all three - Saturn is about the size of a garden pea in the 150P with a 15mm eyepiece - smaller in the others. But you'll see varying detail depending on magnification used, the seeing, and scope focal length. Generally it's better to see a smaller, more contrasty, brighter object than a larger fainter one - it'll reveal more detail. So you'll want to know your scope's magnification possibilities and limitations well, and how this is affected by UK weather patterns.


 


Dso's can be seen by all three - but the Mak has the narrowest fov making the other scopes more appropriate. Large faint objects require the larger fields of view and light gathering capabilities of the two Newtonians. Hth :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh one other thing - if possible get a minimum EQ5 mount if possible - the vibrations in anything less are just not worth tolerating imho :)

 

I'll second that. I started off with an EQ3-2 and it was pretty awful to be honest. The mount isn't too bad, but the tripod legs are very wobbly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big difference I noticed between my 150p and 200p was the brightness of the image in the bigger scope.


I would go with the 150p or the 127 mak as these will re-sell easily if you later upgrade.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.