choosing between ETX-125PE or C130-MGT

Hello, I'm a newbie interested mostly at looking at planets, the moon,
double stars (i.e., I got a thrill looking at Albireo in binoculars).
Also, I live in very polluted skies in eastern Maryland and on most
nights just see the brightest stars and nothing much else of less
magnitude.

I've been Googling and reading up for the past 6 weeks. I also got the
Sep and Oct issues of Sky and Telescope. I've also learned some
constellations in the meantime (the ones that I could see in my light
polluted sky). I've done some learning and I think I'm ready to buy my
first telescope. I know the SCT is the more preferred type, but I think
I want to get a Mak Cass for now.

I've read the posts by renowned Rod Mollise on his recently purchased
ETX-125PE and I got a lot of information from what he wrote. I
understand that his main purpose for getting it is to have something
easy to bring during vacations, the ETX-125PE being relatively small
and portable. I also understand that he has got many better telescopes
for use in his backyard.

If I did not have small size and portability as one of my deciding
factors (since I'm going to use this only in my backyard for 99% of the
time), or say that it is but optical quality and reliability are more
important deciding factors for me, should I consider getting the
C130-MGT instead? I know the CG-5 mount is one of the reasons it's
heavier, but doesn't this also make for more stable views, i.e., the
German equatorial mount would be a plus for me for my described
backyard needs? I also read that the ETX-125PE has more plastic parts
with some of them just begging to be accidentally broken off. Otoh, do
the UHTC coatings on the ETX-125PE matter enough to make a difference
when comparing with looking through the C130-MGT?

I don't know if Rod would be able to read and comment on this post, but
if anyone of his caliber could comment and share their knowledge and
experience I certainly appreciate it.

Btw, I've also read posts comparing AutoAlign and SkyAlign, and just to
simplify things let's say that I can live with either of them so it's
not a deciding factor.

Thanks a lot in advance.

Alex of eastern Maryland

wrote in message
ps.com...
Hello, I'm a newbie interested mostly at looking at planets, the moon,
double stars (i.e., I got a thrill looking at Albireo in binoculars).
Also, I live in very polluted skies in eastern Maryland and on most
nights just see the brightest stars and nothing much else of less
magnitude.

I've been Googling and reading up for the past 6 weeks. I also got the
Sep and Oct issues of Sky and Telescope. I've also learned some
constellations in the meantime (the ones that I could see in my light
polluted sky). I've done some learning and I think I'm ready to buy my
first telescope. I know the SCT is the more preferred type, but I think
I want to get a Mak Cass for now.

I've read the posts by renowned Rod Mollise on his recently purchased
ETX-125PE and I got a lot of information from what he wrote. I
understand that his main purpose for getting it is to have something
easy to bring during vacations, the ETX-125PE being relatively small
and portable. I also understand that he has got many better telescopes
for use in his backyard.



ETX 125 or C130 ?
Why not a Borg 120 or a Nexstar 5... ? There are so many models, including
short tube refractors !
If you need a portable scope, as you say the main constraints after the
price are the weight and sizing, thus the optical configuration (f/ratio),
and diameter, but the larger the best to gain in resolution and luminosity.

Visit also a dealer or a club using them. A check de visu is worth thousand
words
And read as many reviews as you can on dedicated forums
Read first Cloudy nights reviews and Mike Weasner archives. That could help.
C130
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthrea...sed/sb/5/o/all
ETX http://www.weasner.com/etx/archive/fb_archives.html

Thierry
http://www.astrosurf.org/lombry
PS. unfortuantely my pages about scopes are written in French. Not sure that
using the translate module, the translation will be correct (it improves but
it is not perfect yet).


If I did not have small size and portability as one of my deciding
factors (since I'm going to use this only in my backyard for 99% of the
time), or say that it is but optical quality and reliability are more
important deciding factors for me, should I consider getting the
C130-MGT instead? I know the CG-5 mount is one of the reasons it's
heavier, but doesn't this also make for more stable views, i.e., the
German equatorial mount would be a plus for me for my described
backyard needs? I also read that the ETX-125PE has more plastic parts
with some of them just begging to be accidentally broken off. Otoh, do
the UHTC coatings on the ETX-125PE matter enough to make a difference
when comparing with looking through the C130-MGT?

I don't know if Rod would be able to read and comment on this post, but
if anyone of his caliber could comment and share their knowledge and
experience I certainly appreciate it.

Btw, I've also read posts comparing AutoAlign and SkyAlign, and just to
simplify things let's say that I can live with either of them so it's
not a deciding factor.

Thanks a lot in advance.

Alex of eastern Maryland

wrote:
Hello, I'm a newbie interested mostly at looking at planets, the moon,
double stars (i.e., I got a thrill looking at Albireo in binoculars).
Also, I live in very polluted skies in eastern Maryland and on most
nights just see the brightest stars and nothing much else of less
magnitude.

I've been Googling and reading up for the past 6 weeks. I also got the
Sep and Oct issues of Sky and Telescope. I've also learned some
constellations in the meantime (the ones that I could see in my light
polluted sky). I've done some learning and I think I'm ready to buy my
first telescope. I know the SCT is the more preferred type, but I think
I want to get a Mak Cass for now.

I've read the posts by renowned Rod Mollise on his recently purchased
ETX-125PE and I got a lot of information from what he wrote. I
understand that his main purpose for getting it is to have something
easy to bring during vacations, the ETX-125PE being relatively small
and portable. I also understand that he has got many better telescopes
for use in his backyard.

If I did not have small size and portability as one of my deciding
factors (since I'm going to use this only in my backyard for 99% of the
time), or say that it is but optical quality and reliability are more
important deciding factors for me, should I consider getting the
C130-MGT instead? I know the CG-5 mount is one of the reasons it's
heavier, but doesn't this also make for more stable views, i.e., the
German equatorial mount would be a plus for me for my described
backyard needs? I also read that the ETX-125PE has more plastic parts
with some of them just begging to be accidentally broken off. Otoh, do
the UHTC coatings on the ETX-125PE matter enough to make a difference
when comparing with looking through the C130-MGT?

I don't know if Rod would be able to read and comment on this post, but
if anyone of his caliber could comment and share their knowledge and
experience I certainly appreciate it.

Btw, I've also read posts comparing AutoAlign and SkyAlign, and just to
simplify things let's say that I can live with either of them so it's
not a deciding factor.

Thanks a lot in advance.

Alex of eastern Maryland

Alex,

Aperature rules. I wouldn't pay $1000 for A 5" scope, unless it was an
APO. For the same price you could get the C8 N-GT. Bulkier, but only
a few pounds heavier. More than twice the light gathering power.
Greater ability to use high magnification on planets.

MCT's can be better than SCT's of the same aperature. Change the size,
and the larger one wins regardless of design. Even a 6" would be
better. But, 8" delivers great views.

Also, check out http://www.scopereviews.com.

Greg

wrote:
Hello, I'm a newbie interested mostly at looking at planets, the moon,
double stars (i.e., I got a thrill looking at Albireo in binoculars).
Also, I live in very polluted skies in eastern Maryland and on most
nights just see the brightest stars and nothing much else of less
magnitude.

If I did not have small size and portability as one of my deciding
factors (since I'm going to use this only in my backyard for 99% of the
time), or say that it is but optical quality and reliability are more
important deciding factors for me, should I consider getting the
C130-MGT instead? I know the CG-5 mount is one of the reasons it's
heavier, but doesn't this also make for more stable views, i.e., the
German equatorial mount would be a plus for me for my described
backyard needs?

The two main advantages of the GEM are that you can change telescopes
without changing mounts, and you can use them for imaging if it's of
sufficient quality.

Neither of these seem to be in your criteria. What's worse, is that the
GEM is more demanding for setup. It has a tripod, a head, and a
counterweight shaft (with weights). Alone this might be be 45 lbs or so.
Compare that to the ETX or NexStar SE series mounts, which are fork and
tripod only (two easy to carry assemblies, no additional weights).

It is amazing how little things can make a big difference in your
willingness to setup and observe.

Some other things to consider:
Larger aperture means higher resolution of fine details (important for
planets). Aperture, is not just for deep sky.

High quality optics are a must for the absolute best any aperture has to
offer, but even more so at smaller apertures than larger. (i.e. The
average decent quality inexpensive 10" F5 or F6 reflector is gonna SMOKE
any 5" out there for visual use, regardless of design, but a high
quality 6" scope is sure to please).

About me:
I'm not a Mak fan (but you certainly can be, and maybe should be). Maks
don't seem to do well in my local environment here in Massachusetts
(cold and damp). They take too long to cool, and once they do, they need
to be well managed to prevent dewing of the front meniscus lens. Lots of
people swear by them though, both here on saa, and elsewhere.

I like reflectors for their lack of chromatic aberation, seeming
imperviousness to dew, and their ease of use on a simple Dobsonian or
altazimuth tripod mount arrangement. In practice I prefer the SCT for
its larger aperture (I'll take an 8" SCT over a 5" Mak any night of the
week), its portability (like the Mak), its versatility as both a visual
scope and an imaging scope (it's faster and shorter than a Mak, and has
imaging accessories galore), its faster cool down times and its ease of
dew management (the front lens is thinner than a Mak meniscus lens).

I generally refer dedicated planet and double star observers to DGM
Optics, and Dan's 5.1" Off Axis Newtonian, but this is a specialty scope
with a specific niche of being a lower cost alternative to the long
focus (F8/F9) 5" apochromatic refractor.

I hope this post hasn't confused you any more than it should. However,
it should give you some idea that there's quite a bit to consider when
it comes to picking a scope. Stuff the first scope buyer can avoid by
following the simple and often recommended $300 to $400 8" F6 Dobsonian.

It is recommended as a first scope for a few reasons. First it is a
large enough aperture to render images that are typical of what the sky
has to offer, and second, it's inexpensive enough that you won't mind
keeping it when you buy your second scope.

A third benefit is that with that experience under your belt, you will
better understand your need/lack of need for an electronic finder
system, and whether or not you can live with a scope that you "nudge"
along while observing.

I do prefer a driven scope, but it's more work to setup, and with
experience it is hardly a requirement. Besides, when it comes to budget,
2" or 4" more aperture is better than a motor drive and an electronic
finder system. When I go out to poke about, I generally look at the old
favorites with their wow factor. A quick look at globular cluster M13 in
an 8" scope is MUCH better than a long look in a 5" scope. Make that a
12" scope and the wow factor goes up so high that you will invariably
observe that one object for much longer than you will with a 5" scope,
and happily nudge your undriven scope along.

-S. Paul

wrote:
Hello, I'm a newbie interested mostly at looking at planets, the moon,
double stars (i.e., I got a thrill looking at Albireo in binoculars).
Also, I live in very polluted skies in eastern Maryland and on most
nights just see the brightest stars and nothing much else of less
magnitude.



Hi:

As Thierry points out, there are plenty of choices. You might very well
like the ETX125PE. Yeah, there's a lot of plastic, but I haven't had
any trouble with it. And yet...and yet...

I suppose if I had to do this again, I'd look at a comparable
telescope, the Celestron Nexstar 5SE instead. Why? Less plastic, and a
more versatile telescope. At f/10, there's plenty of focal length for
the Moon, planets and double stars, but the telescope can also be used
with an f/6.3 focal reducer to really open out your field of view for
at least a taste of widefield viewing on the deep sky. The telescope,
unlike the 125, you see, uses a standard SCT back/rear port, and can
use most SCT accessories. If you're set on a scope in this aperture
range, you could do worse. IMHO, something like this is easier for
beginners to handle than a GEM like the CG5, too.

However, again, while I'd probably have chosen the Celestron if it had
been available at the time of purchase, I'm, again, very happy with the
125 for what I use it for.

;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
and
_The Urban Astronomer's Guide_
http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user

Don't Be Evil wrote:

Aperature rules. I wouldn't pay $1000 for A 5" scope, unless it was an
APO. For the same price you could get the C8 N-GT. Bulkier, but only
a few pounds heavier. More than twice the light gathering power.
Greater ability to use high magnification on planets.



Hi:

Aperture DOES rule. I myself would be very hesitant to invest in any
scope of less than 8-inches as my primary instrument. Aperture is the
most important thing, after all. All things being equal. Alas, not all
things are always equal. 5-inches _will_ show you a lot, and if you
want portability, 5 - 6 inches is where that happens. A C8 _is_ a
great all-round choice; you couldn't be more right about that, but for
some people it's still too much.

As for a 5 inch APO, you're not going to get one for 1000 dollars, and
if you do (never know about those Chinese factories), the difference
between that and what you'll see in an ETX 125 will be minimal. The
ETX125 has some of the best optics I've seen in any commerical
telescope. The sticking point with it is the "everything else." I will
admit that Meade improved the fork substantially with the PE version,
but this is still not a scope you'll use for long exposure imaging.
OTOH, the original poster didn't indicate an interest in that. For his
goals, casual visual observation of the Moon and planets, the 125 will
serve quite well, thank you. ;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
and
_The Urban Astronomer's Guide_
http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user

Stephen Paul wrote:

High quality optics are a must for the absolute best any aperture has to
offer, but even more so at smaller apertures than larger. (i.e. The
average decent quality inexpensive 10" F5 or F6 reflector is gonna SMOKE
any 5" out there for visual use, regardless of design,

I agree on the high quality optics.

As for a 10" SMOKING a 5" -- read on:

I happen to own a good 10" f/5.6 Newtonian (in its own observatory) as
well as a high quality 5.1" f/6 apo refractor. At the current time,
my 10" scope is my least used telescope; and the 5" is my most used
telescope.

It's true that a good 10" will show more than any 5" telescope; but
there's more to the story. A good 5" will show a great deal when it
comes to double stars, the moon, and planets (what the original poster
wanted the scope for).

While my 10" is capable of showing more planetary detail than my 5",
the difference is not as great as one might expect. In the past few
*years* I've been pleased enough with the 5" views that I've had
little desire to break out the 'big gun'. The 5" can show Jupiter's
(four brightest) moons well enough to identify each one by their
apparent sizes. The 5" can show fine structure in Jupiter's belts and
zones. The 5" can show Saturn's "C" ring. The 5" can show structure
in Saturn's "A" ring. The 5" can show plenty of Martian detail when
the planet is near opposition . . . etc.

Part of this is a simple, personal preference issue. There was a time
when the 10" was my most used telescope. Now I'm more interested in
pushing the 5" to its limits.

Even for deep sky (the kind of observing I do most often) I currently
prefer to use the 5" rather than the 10". Yes, the 10" will show more
and will provide brighter, more detailed views; but once again, the 5"
shows *enough* to keep me happy. I've seen the Horsehead Nebula with
the 5" refractor without the help of a filter. The 5" has shown me
Pluto. Of course, the 10" will show both objects with greater ease.

A big reason for all the small telescope bashing that goes on is the
poor skies that so many observers have to observe under. I think it's
fair to say that most (certainly not all) of today's amateurs would be
unable to see the Horsehead nebula (without using a filter) with a 10"
telescope. Few of those observers can imagine the kind of views a 5"
is capable of under a *good* sky!

My sky (when free of smoke, etc.) tends to be reasonably close to
'pristine'. Under such conditions a 5" makes an *excellent* deep sky
telescope!

The other side of this is: Under a light polluted sky one *needs*
more aperture in order to see what a smaller telescope can show under
a *darker* sky; but even so, there are some objects for which even the
added aperture is no substitute for the darker sky.

In closing: A 5" will show *plenty* of lunar and planetary detail. A
5" can split enough double stars to keep many observers happy. Under
a *dark* sky a 5" can show a huge number of deep sky objects, with a
fair amount of detail visible in many of them. (I guess I didn't like
the use of the term "SMOKE" as it was used above ;-)

Willie R. Meghar
Recent Observations at:
http://meghar.blogspot.com/

I want to thank all of you for responding, especially Stephen, Rod,
Willie for taking the time to write at length. Thank you all for your
responses--you made me stop and think more carefully. I'm humbled by
all that you know, and I've realized that I've been rushing myself into
buying a telescope. Overexcitement I guess. After all, I've been into
this hobby for about 3 months only.

I'm going to continue using my binoculars for a couple more months
together with Terence Dickenson's Nigh****ch book. I now agree with
Terence that taking a whole year to familiarize myself completely with
the night sky is the best thing for me to do in the meantime, i.e.,
that education and experience in finding my own way around the night
sky is what I need.

From all your responses and from reading other posts on SAA and
elsewhere I now think that something like a 6" or an 8" SCT on a fork
mount--Rod's posts on SAA have had a good deal of influence on
me--would be a good personal hobby telescope for me to save for next
summer. Well, that's what I think for now anyway. Who knows what I'll
be thinking in June next year.

Thanks again to everyone for enlightening this newbie.

Alex

P.S. I haven't read anyone ever saying this somewhere, but somehow my
light polluted backyard sky has had a silver lining for me--it has made
identifying the major constellations easy for me since most of the
"background" stars have been grayed out. I know though that after I'm
done learning the constellations the light pollution will start to feel
like a curse than a blessing. Well, already it is--I don't ever see the
Milky Way band like the way I see it in book pictures, and it makes me
envious of people who can with darker skies.

P.P.S. Willie, I've been reading your recent Sep posts in your blog,
and I have to say that it's been educational and entertaining. Btw,
Mighty Mouse does seem an apt name for your telescope. I'm going to
have to think hard of a nice name for my future telescope. 8-)


Willie R. Meghar wrote:
Stephen Paul wrote:

High quality optics are a must for the absolute best any aperture has to
offer, but even more so at smaller apertures than larger. (i.e. The
average decent quality inexpensive 10" F5 or F6 reflector is gonna SMOKE
any 5" out there for visual use, regardless of design,

I agree on the high quality optics.

As for a 10" SMOKING a 5" -- read on:

I happen to own a good 10" f/5.6 Newtonian (in its own observatory) as
well as a high quality 5.1" f/6 apo refractor. At the current time,
my 10" scope is my least used telescope; and the 5" is my most used
telescope.

It's true that a good 10" will show more than any 5" telescope; but
there's more to the story. A good 5" will show a great deal when it
comes to double stars, the moon, and planets (what the original poster
wanted the scope for).

While my 10" is capable of showing more planetary detail than my 5",
the difference is not as great as one might expect. In the past few
*years* I've been pleased enough with the 5" views that I've had
little desire to break out the 'big gun'. The 5" can show Jupiter's
(four brightest) moons well enough to identify each one by their
apparent sizes. The 5" can show fine structure in Jupiter's belts and
zones. The 5" can show Saturn's "C" ring. The 5" can show structure
in Saturn's "A" ring. The 5" can show plenty of Martian detail when
the planet is near opposition . . . etc.

Part of this is a simple, personal preference issue. There was a time
when the 10" was my most used telescope. Now I'm more interested in
pushing the 5" to its limits.

Even for deep sky (the kind of observing I do most often) I currently
prefer to use the 5" rather than the 10". Yes, the 10" will show more
and will provide brighter, more detailed views; but once again, the 5"
shows *enough* to keep me happy. I've seen the Horsehead Nebula with
the 5" refractor without the help of a filter. The 5" has shown me
Pluto. Of course, the 10" will show both objects with greater ease.

A big reason for all the small telescope bashing that goes on is the
poor skies that so many observers have to observe under. I think it's
fair to say that most (certainly not all) of today's amateurs would be
unable to see the Horsehead nebula (without using a filter) with a 10"
telescope. Few of those observers can imagine the kind of views a 5"
is capable of under a *good* sky!

My sky (when free of smoke, etc.) tends to be reasonably close to
'pristine'. Under such conditions a 5" makes an *excellent* deep sky
telescope!

The other side of this is: Under a light polluted sky one *needs*
more aperture in order to see what a smaller telescope can show under
a *darker* sky; but even so, there are some objects for which even the
added aperture is no substitute for the darker sky.

In closing: A 5" will show *plenty* of lunar and planetary detail. A
5" can split enough double stars to keep many observers happy. Under
a *dark* sky a 5" can show a huge number of deep sky objects, with a
fair amount of detail visible in many of them. (I guess I didn't like
the use of the term "SMOKE" as it was used above ;-)

Willie R. Meghar
Recent Observations at:
http://meghar.blogspot.com/

wrote:

P.P.S. Willie, I've been reading your recent Sep posts in your blog,
and I have to say that it's been educational and entertaining. Btw,
Mighty Mouse does seem an apt name for your telescope. I'm going to
have to think hard of a nice name for my future telescope. 8-)

Thanks for your comments!

Mighty Mouse is only about 9 1/2 inches long. When the diagonal is
added the length approaches one foot The name does indeed seem
appropriate. I recently completed a home-made equatorial wedge for
Mighty Mouse. The paint is hardening as these words are being typed.

Willie R. Meghar
Observational Notes at:
http://meghar.blogspot.com/