Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Orion spaceprobe 130st

beginner equipment eyepieces Orion reflector
This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
34 replies to this topic

#26 Sky Muse

Sky Muse

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,078
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012

Posted 04 December 2015 - 07:48 AM

Up to a 6" f/5, an equatorially-mounted, fast Newtonian is managed easily enough, and in rotating the optical tube for the best viewing position.  Anything larger than that and I tend to cringe, and not an ideal recommendation for beginners, although some have been more adventurous...

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=T6v47k6gMAE

 

Equatorials are for more serious study, to better hone one's observing skills, without the less-capable mechanics, and if one prefers.  Conversely, alt-azimuths are for casual observations, in flitting from one object to another; this one over here and that one over there, and all in the space of a minute; but not ideal for extended observations and the benefits thereof, no.

 

The EQ2 equatorial is at least not an EQ1; and a 5" f/5 Newtonian is not undermounted upon such, and fine for visual.  The mount can be tuned by disassembling, cleaning and re-lubricating the mount-head's mechanics, and perhaps a part or two replaced with those of better quality; metal for plastic, that sort of thing.



#27 Hesiod

Hesiod

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,021
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2013

Posted 04 December 2015 - 08:38 AM

While I can agree that small fast Newtonians are quite manageable even if eq-mounted, I can not absolutely agreed on your statement that alt/az mounts are only for casual observations.

Most of my "hi-res" observations are done with my C8 riding a manual alt/az mount, and I can assure you that such setup is perfectly fit (as a good dob would) to observe a planet for 2-3 hours at 300x.

 

A Vixen Porta (or SW Az4) is better crafted and has a greater stability than an Eq2, and therefore is better suited to prolonged, high-power observations than the latter.

And where is the advantage of autotracking if the mount can not be properly polar aligned?

 

I think that the real distinction is between good mounts and bad mounts, and between suitably sturdy mounts and undersized mounts.



#28 gene 4181

gene 4181

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,397
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2013

Posted 04 December 2015 - 09:06 AM

 In a perfect world , the az-4 skywatcher would be a  great combo with the 130 st and the 2inch focuser , but at the entry level price point  , you get what you get.   The equatorial is  usable, serviceable   but not the greatest.   But you remember being that Noob  , it didn't stop us from using it , matter of fact the mount was the farthest thing from our attention , it was the view thru the eyepiece that mattered. IMO



#29 Sky Muse

Sky Muse

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,078
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012

Posted 04 December 2015 - 09:43 AM

I simply wrote that it wasn't ideal. 

 

Would that this were priced similarly in Europe as it is here in the States... http://www.teleskop-...-Eyepieces.html

 

I once had a Japanese-made EQ2-class equatorial, and with an 80mm f/11 achromat.  It performed quite well, tracking Venus for several hours one morning, years ago.  Study the two closely...

 

http://www.astromart...99/831871-2.jpg

http://www.tavcso.hu...pek/1004076.jpg

 

I see no reason to believe either to be under-mounted.



#30 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 96,227
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004

Posted 04 December 2015 - 11:22 AM

I simply wrote that it wasn't ideal. 

 

Would that this were priced similarly in Europe as it is here in the States... http://www.teleskop-...-Eyepieces.html

 

I once had a Japanese-made EQ2-class equatorial, and with an 80mm f/11 achromat.  It performed quite well, tracking Venus for several hours one morning, years ago.  Study the two closely...

 

http://www.astromart...99/831871-2.jpg

http://www.tavcso.hu...pek/1004076.jpg

 

I see no reason to believe either to be under-mounted.

 

 

Have actually spent time with the 130mm F/5 Newtonian on the EQ-2 mount?  I like to keep in mind that when I recommend something, people maybe spending their hard earned money, I like to be pretty careful in my recommendations, I like to have had experience with the scope or something very similar..

 

-I owned the Towa-Meade 80mm F/11 on that mount in the photo, it was undermounted but it was usable.. 

 

- The reflector is on an EQ-2 mount, it's basically the same scope as the SpaceProbe 130ST.  As has been discussed previously, I owned one of these for a while.  By my standards, it is under mounted.  In my mind, under mounting means that the mount will limit the capabilities of the scope, it will vibrate and wobble, making precise focusing difficult or impossible, it will vibrate in a slight breeze.  Stiffer legs are a help, I would recommend to Giovanni that he build or purchase some wooden legs.. It has been my experience that these mounts can be significantly improved significantly. With a Newtonian, they can be very short so they can be one piece. 

 

Regarding that you wrote that "it was not ideal."  This is what you wrote:

 

Equatorials are for more serious study, to better hone one's observing skills, without the less-capable mechanics, and if one prefers.  Conversely, alt-azimuths are for casual observations, in flitting from one object to another; this one over here and that one over there, and all in the space of a minute; but not ideal for extended observations and the benefits thereof, no.

 

 

This is simply not true..  Serious observation is very doable with alt-az mounts, driven or undriven.  The virtue of an alt-az mount is that it makes larger apertures possible, makes them practical, and yes affordable..  Honestly, I have to think you have not spent much time with larger aperture scopes, "seriously studying" the many varied object within reach of today's amateur astronomer.

 

I doubt this discussion is of much use to Giovanni but I do believe it is important to clarify what is said on this forum.  I get it that you don't like ALT-AZ mounts.  Myself, I have both, generally prefer ALT-AZ mounts because of their simplicity,  For smaller apertures, I use mounts with slow motion controls so tracking at high magnifications is not an issue. With larger apertures, the Dobsonian mount, properly setup, is very effective and much more practical.. 

 

Jon

 
(My two 12.5 inchers)
 
4765185-meade 12.5 inch Will work for stars.jpg


#31 Hesiod

Hesiod

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,021
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2013

Posted 04 December 2015 - 11:35 AM

A 130/650 altazimuthal bundle is available at 500€ (by Vixen) or at less than 200€ (by Skywatcher, the Heritage mini-Dob).

The former is quite expensive (for the same price I would purchase a different telescope), but 400€ for a 130/650 on an eq2 is to me almost "outrageous", even with the 10% discount (I would get this instead http://eu.telescope..../p/103631.uts).

 

The latter is a great bargain, and probably the most stable beginner's telescope in the 5" class.



#32 SeaBee1

SeaBee1

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,262
  • Joined: 19 Mar 2015

Posted 04 December 2015 - 11:55 AM

At one time, I thought the refractor/reflector debate was the contentious debate de jour... now the GEM vs alt-az?...  :ohmy:

 

:gotpopcorn:

 

CB



#33 gene 4181

gene 4181

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,397
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2013

Posted 04 December 2015 - 04:11 PM

Thank you all for your answers, I understand that most of you think I should get a dobsonian but unfortunately that type of telescope is not portable enough for me as even when disassembled it is still pretty big, also I am already stretching my budget by choosing this telescope. If possible could someone give me some review of the actual optics and eyepieces that come with the telescope and with the beginners kit (http://eu.telescope....yCategoryId=528 ) in addition to the mount? Because it looks like every telescope similar to this does not have a mount that is perfectly stable so I wanted to know if the rest of the telescope was ok. 

Thank you all

 

Giovanni

Considering what  Giovanni mentions here, I think we all covered the ups and downs of the scope pretty well , he mentions budget , the need for a compact/portable  set-up .  I started out with a tasco Galaxee , 625 power  , 114 f7.9  reflector on a EQ -2 mount. .   It was a decent scope for the money  and I wanted for nothing more than a decent barlow and a few good eyepieces.  But then I started reading Cloudy-nights,  :bomb:      I'm hoping the first words out of Giovanni's mouth is Honey , come here and look at Saturn or Jupiter, or  Wow, look at the moon or  the Orion nebula is really cool , 


Edited by gene 4181, 04 December 2015 - 04:18 PM.


#34 GiantsNerd

GiantsNerd

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 251
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2014

Posted 04 December 2015 - 05:45 PM

I have owned a SpaceProbe 130ST on an EQ-2 mount. In addition to what others have noted, another problem with the mount is that the setting circles are useless (they were to me anyway). There is also no way to mount a polar alignment scope. (Yes, there are other ways to polar align). Seems to me you lose two of the big advantages of having an EQ mount with these two deficiencies.

 

Optically, the 130ST is a great scope, but the mount and focuser ( :vomit: ) make it difficult to use. It is a good beginner scope, but if you start to take this hobby more seriously, you will outgrow it quickly.



#35 Sky Muse

Sky Muse

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,078
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012

Posted 05 December 2015 - 07:36 AM

https://www.youtube....h?v=CG-EJzBVGDU




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics