Trying to decide on a portable scope setup

[a-l-e-x]

I couldnt find a more appropriate forum to post this in than here, so here goes.

I need a portable scope as my location (long island, NY) is severely light polluted... Im about 25miles from the center of NYC! I already have a 10" dob and its a bit too heavy for me, so Im looking for a more portable CAT scope with at least a moderate aperture. The two scopes Ive been looking at are the Nexstar 6se and the ETX 125 PE UHTC. How does the image quality differ between these two scopes? I want an all-arounder that does well with the moon, planets as well as some of the brighter deep space objects (M13 Globular, M42 Orion and M31 Andromeda Galaxy, etc.) as well as a scope for birding and terrestrial photography. (Night time photography afocally is also a possibility of the moon and planets with a point and shoot digical camera. Maybe deep space later on with the deep sky imager.) I've heard the ETX might produce sharper, more contrasty views but not sure about that, and I dont know if the extra 0.9" of aperture the nexstar 6se provides much of a difference compared to the etx. Thanks for any help!

[Veeger]

I have an older model etx 125 and I think its a great little scope with excellent image quality (but not as portable as I might like, however). But unless significant improvements have been made in the tracking drives, I wonder how useful it would be for long exposure astrophotography?

-V

(btw this thread may end up moved to the "astronomical observing and equipment" forum)

[RickJ]

As Veeger says Maks are rather heavy scopes compared to the Celestron SCTs. Optically both are good but again that added aperture would help a bit. The big problem I see is the step down in aperture may be more of a problem than you expect. Try stopping down your 10 to 6" and see if you are happy with the brightness of the image. Image quality will suffer due to the too large secondary obstruction reducing contrast but look at the brightness and see if you can live with the drop.

In our club one of our experienced members got tired of hauling his 10" around and now does most of his viewing the the 9.25 NextStar on an alt azimuth mounting as it was far less hassle for him. The loss of light was minor and the high quality optics made up for it.

Over the years I've watched many of our older members go to smaller scopes as their main scope got too heavy. Usually that put an end to their viewing, they just couldn't go back down in aperture though our skies are far darker than yours.

Personally I've hated goto scopes as their computer systems drive me nuts. That said, I've found the Celestron's system far easier for me to use and it works more like I work. That doesn't mean that you'd see it the same of course!

There has to be astronomy clubs in your area. You'll likely find ETX and NextStar scopes there. A little hands on should decide the issue for you.

Rick

[a-l-e-x]

I like the stopping down idea, however the reason I want a smaller scope is for more portability. I might end up going with the nexstar 8se, as it weighs only 3 pounds more than the 6se and will still retain 78% of the light the 6" would have given away as compared to the 10"

[dazastar]

OK this might be a consideration, Maks have alot less obstruction from the secondarey mirror than small schmids. It is not surprising to see a 6" Mak beat the pants of a 8" schmid. Ive demo'd my Mak at many star gatherings and have had the same comment time and time again that the Maks vere clearer and more vibrant than the other schmids in the same class.

I also have solved the portabilty issue one way. I got one of those ioptron cube's, then I obtained a skywatcher mak 102 and used the cube to replace the eq2. What I ended up with was a fully goto gps Mak system (80,000 object database too) that is fully portable and cost a total of around $800.00. After flashing to the latest fimware, found it to be the scope I now use the most. I have very little problems locating dso's and planetary use is superb.

Hope this helps.

[aurora]

Is weight the major or only consideration in portability for you?

Other possible issues would be fitting the scope in a specific vehicle, and the number of trips you would have to make to carry it (does it all fit in one container)?

[a-l-e-x]

OK this might be a consideration, Maks have alot less obstruction from the secondarey mirror than small schmids. It is not surprising to see a 6" Mak beat the pants of a 8" schmid. Ive demo'd my Mak at many star gatherings and have had the same comment time and time again that the Maks vere clearer and more vibrant than the other schmids in the same class.

I also have solved the portabilty issue one way. I got one of those ioptron cube's, then I obtained a skywatcher mak 102 and used the cube to replace the eq2. What I ended up with was a fully goto gps Mak system (80,000 object database too) that is fully portable and cost a total of around $800.00. After flashing to the latest fimware, found it to be the scope I now use the most. I have very little problems locating dso's and planetary use is superb.

Hope this helps.

I felt this way as well... but on the cloudy nights forum people repeatedly keep telling me that the etx125 (5" mak) will get beat by a 6" sct, let alone an 8" one. So, now Im thinking either nexstar 6se or 8se.

[dazastar]

My only reply I can think of is I dont know how a schmid could beat a mak in the same class or sightly bigger. I put my 6" Mak up against 8" inch celestron schmid and a vixen cat. Not just one or 2 but several people commented on how the image looked better in the Mak. On a pure technical note - its like comparing lemons to oranges - both are citrus but very different. You just have to suck it and see. The bigger the obstruction form secondary, the less contrast your going to have, that is why you can get such awesome astro photo's from a 4" refractor over a cat twice its size.

Get to a club meet, theres heaps of them around and i'm sure you will see this for yourself. I think this is the only way you will get your honest answer - as everyone has a different idea on what is a good image.

[a-l-e-x]

How do you like the visual appearance of DSO's in your Mak? BTW which Mak do you have? I was looking at the Orion Skywatcher Pro 150mm Mak... nice, quality instrument.

[dazastar]

I have a Synta (they make both celestron and skywatcher) 150 1900 mak and a skywatcher 102 1300 mak

I observed the sombrero galaxy(m102), tarantla nebula, hamberger galaxy (centaurus ngc5128), omega centauri, swan nebula, running man nebula, crab nebula, eta carina nebula even the 102 showed good detail, just to name a few.

I live in a northern part of Queensland Australia, so I'm a bit spoilt with good dark skies. But even in the locations closer to the city, I have still been able to do well with dso's.

One thing though, the 150" mak is a very heavy beast (8kg)that needs a heavy duty mount. Thats why I got a ioptron cube and the skywatcher 102(2.5kg). Ive been very happy with the performance and very good portability. What you do is get the skywatcher 102 mak ($399) with the eq2, keep the tripod base and legs get an ioptron cube goto for $200 (a little more for gps) and you mount the cube to the skywatcher tripod. What you then have is one very sturdy and powerfull mak goto system that competes even with the etx.

Hope this helps you