A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » UK Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Skywatcher Explorer 130M - any good?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 6th 03, 11:17 AM
TSS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Skywatcher Explorer 130M - any good?

I've currently only have a small 60mm refractor on an equatorial mount
(although it does seem to have quite sharp lenses and the images look far
better than other small scopes I have seen including my friend's more
expensive 70mm).

I am on a very, very limited budget (and am only an occasional observer) so
upgrading to something more expensive is a complete non-starter and bear in
mind I am only looking for a sensible step up from my 60mm. I have seen the
Skywatcher 130M for £179 which seems a quite a reasonable price and
specification. Has anyone any personal experience of this scope? Is it
o.k.? Is it a worthwhile upgrade from my refractor.

My other choice would be the Tal-1 but I can't stretch to the motor drive
version and as I would like to try some simple photography this might be a
drawback.

My prime interest will be the moon and the planets but I would like to view
deep space as well.

I'd be grateful for any views especially as to how the 130M compares with
the Tal-1 optically.

Thanks


  #2  
Old December 6th 03, 09:02 PM
Steve B
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm just starting in astronomy as an active hobby and I've recently bought a
130M as it seemed the best buy around at this price level. It seems remarkable
value to me, it's well built and does what it is supposed to but the assembly
instructions were poor so be prepared to stare at the thing for hours trying to
work out where the motor fits as there's not one word about the thing in the
instructions. Clue:- the short metal lever that flops around is a motor gear
release mechanism to enable you to move the main tube around manually when the
motor is fitted.
The mount is stable enough if all the screws are done up tight; there's a bit of
bounce that settles in a second or two and the motor tracks objects well. The
fine controls work OK as well. The optics seem fine to me but the overcast
weather means I haven't used it much yet but Saturn seemed about par for the
course going by web pictures of Saturn taken with similar scopes. I got 2
plossl eyepieces with mine, a 10mm and a 25mm, which give nice clear views, and
a x2 Barlow but this doesn't seem to add anything to me, it reduces the
brightness too much. I haven't used a TAL-1, it was also on my shortlist but I
discounted it because the monopole stand would be useless I felt, used in a
sloping and uneven back garden like mine. A tripod gives you more flexibility
under adverse conditions. I've no idea if the 130M is better than your 60mm
refractor though.



"TSS" wrote in message
...
I've currently only have a small 60mm refractor on an equatorial mount
(although it does seem to have quite sharp lenses and the images look far
better than other small scopes I have seen including my friend's more
expensive 70mm).

I am on a very, very limited budget (and am only an occasional observer) so
upgrading to something more expensive is a complete non-starter and bear in
mind I am only looking for a sensible step up from my 60mm. I have seen the
Skywatcher 130M for £179 which seems a quite a reasonable price and
specification. Has anyone any personal experience of this scope? Is it
o.k.? Is it a worthwhile upgrade from my refractor.

My other choice would be the Tal-1 but I can't stretch to the motor drive
version and as I would like to try some simple photography this might be a
drawback.

My prime interest will be the moon and the planets but I would like to view
deep space as well.

I'd be grateful for any views especially as to how the 130M compares with
the Tal-1 optically.

Thanks




  #3  
Old December 7th 03, 01:05 AM
TSS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks Steve. How much detail could you see in Saturn, could you identify
the division in the rings?

Regards

TSS

"Steve B" sbrads@nildramDOTcoDOTuk wrote in message
...
I'm just starting in astronomy as an active hobby and I've recently bought

a
130M as it seemed the best buy around at this price level. It seems

remarkable
value to me, it's well built and does what it is supposed to but the

assembly
instructions were poor so be prepared to stare at the thing for hours

trying to
work out where the motor fits as there's not one word about the thing in

the
instructions. Clue:- the short metal lever that flops around is a motor

gear
release mechanism to enable you to move the main tube around manually when

the
motor is fitted.
The mount is stable enough if all the screws are done up tight; there's a

bit of
bounce that settles in a second or two and the motor tracks objects well.

The
fine controls work OK as well. The optics seem fine to me but the

overcast
weather means I haven't used it much yet but Saturn seemed about par for

the
course going by web pictures of Saturn taken with similar scopes. I got 2
plossl eyepieces with mine, a 10mm and a 25mm, which give nice clear

views, and
a x2 Barlow but this doesn't seem to add anything to me, it reduces the
brightness too much. I haven't used a TAL-1, it was also on my shortlist

but I
discounted it because the monopole stand would be useless I felt, used in

a
sloping and uneven back garden like mine. A tripod gives you more

flexibility
under adverse conditions. I've no idea if the 130M is better than your

60mm
refractor though.



"TSS" wrote in message
...
I've currently only have a small 60mm refractor on an equatorial mount
(although it does seem to have quite sharp lenses and the images look

far
better than other small scopes I have seen including my friend's more
expensive 70mm).

I am on a very, very limited budget (and am only an occasional observer)

so
upgrading to something more expensive is a complete non-starter and bear

in
mind I am only looking for a sensible step up from my 60mm. I have seen

the
Skywatcher 130M for £179 which seems a quite a reasonable price and
specification. Has anyone any personal experience of this scope? Is

it
o.k.? Is it a worthwhile upgrade from my refractor.

My other choice would be the Tal-1 but I can't stretch to the motor

drive
version and as I would like to try some simple photography this might be

a
drawback.

My prime interest will be the moon and the planets but I would like to

view
deep space as well.

I'd be grateful for any views especially as to how the 130M compares

with
the Tal-1 optically.

Thanks






  #4  
Old December 7th 03, 07:28 AM
Steve B
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Just. Mind you, I was looking at Saturn through hazy cloud and it was only
25deg up. When's the weather going to improve, it always seems to be cloudy
since I bought a telescope.



"TSS" wrote in message
...
Thanks Steve. How much detail could you see in Saturn, could you identify
the division in the rings?

Regards

TSS

"Steve B" sbrads@nildramDOTcoDOTuk wrote in message
...
I'm just starting in astronomy as an active hobby and I've recently bought

a
130M as it seemed the best buy around at this price level. It seems

remarkable
value to me, it's well built and does what it is supposed to but the

assembly
instructions were poor so be prepared to stare at the thing for hours

trying to
work out where the motor fits as there's not one word about the thing in

the
instructions. Clue:- the short metal lever that flops around is a motor

gear
release mechanism to enable you to move the main tube around manually when

the
motor is fitted.
The mount is stable enough if all the screws are done up tight; there's a

bit of
bounce that settles in a second or two and the motor tracks objects well.

The
fine controls work OK as well. The optics seem fine to me but the

overcast
weather means I haven't used it much yet but Saturn seemed about par for

the
course going by web pictures of Saturn taken with similar scopes. I got 2
plossl eyepieces with mine, a 10mm and a 25mm, which give nice clear

views, and
a x2 Barlow but this doesn't seem to add anything to me, it reduces the
brightness too much. I haven't used a TAL-1, it was also on my shortlist

but I
discounted it because the monopole stand would be useless I felt, used in

a
sloping and uneven back garden like mine. A tripod gives you more

flexibility
under adverse conditions. I've no idea if the 130M is better than your

60mm
refractor though.



"TSS" wrote in message
...
I've currently only have a small 60mm refractor on an equatorial mount
(although it does seem to have quite sharp lenses and the images look

far
better than other small scopes I have seen including my friend's more
expensive 70mm).

I am on a very, very limited budget (and am only an occasional observer)

so
upgrading to something more expensive is a complete non-starter and bear

in
mind I am only looking for a sensible step up from my 60mm. I have seen

the
Skywatcher 130M for £179 which seems a quite a reasonable price and
specification. Has anyone any personal experience of this scope? Is

it
o.k.? Is it a worthwhile upgrade from my refractor.

My other choice would be the Tal-1 but I can't stretch to the motor

drive
version and as I would like to try some simple photography this might be

a
drawback.

My prime interest will be the moon and the planets but I would like to

view
deep space as well.

I'd be grateful for any views especially as to how the 130M compares

with
the Tal-1 optically.

Thanks








  #5  
Old December 8th 03, 04:40 PM
Adam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I was out last night testing one for a nervous
friend who has bought it for her husband for Xmas.

To tell the truth, I was very pleasantly surprised
with the optics. I was expecting much worse.

Summary (Using my own high quality plossl EP's):-
Star test shows obvious bad undercorrection (well
it would with a 5" spherical mirror at f/6.9!)
In-focus, stars were quite tight.
Cassini Division on Saturn discernable at sides of
the planet
Bands in Jupiter easily visible (in poor seeing at
low altitude)
Castor very easily split
Double-Double (just) clearly split
Hole in Ring Nebula visible (in full moonlight)
M13 showing signs of granulation (in full
moonlight)
Trapezium obvious and clear in M42 (well it should
be, shouldn't it..)
Moon - very nice for a "beginner scope"

The supplied eyepieces are not as good as my own,
but were not unreasonable. The Barlow was not
tested.

The supplied finderscope is execrable (or worse!),
and I couldn't quite get it collimated with the
main OTA.

The telescope was badly mis-collimated as
supplied, and the mirror is not centre-spotted.
Collimation is easy however, and well explained.

I tested the OTA on my own substantial GEM, so
could not evaluate the supplied mount.

HTH

Adam



--
Eschew obfuscation. Eliminate such idiom previous
to rejoining.
"TSS"
wrote in message
...
I've currently only have a small 60mm refractor

on an equatorial mount
(although it does seem to have quite sharp

lenses and the images look far
better than other small scopes I have seen

including my friend's more
expensive 70mm).

I am on a very, very limited budget (and am only

an occasional observer) so
upgrading to something more expensive is a

complete non-starter and bear in
mind I am only looking for a sensible step up

from my 60mm. I have seen the
Skywatcher 130M for £179 which seems a quite a

reasonable price and
specification. Has anyone any personal

experience of this scope? Is it
o.k.? Is it a worthwhile upgrade from my

refractor.

My other choice would be the Tal-1 but I can't

stretch to the motor drive
version and as I would like to try some simple

photography this might be a
drawback.

My prime interest will be the moon and the

planets but I would like to view
deep space as well.

I'd be grateful for any views especially as to

how the 130M compares with
the Tal-1 optically.

Thanks




  #6  
Old December 8th 03, 07:25 PM
TSS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks Adam - seems like it could be the one for me then.

Regards,

Tim

"Adam" wrote in message
...
I was out last night testing one for a nervous
friend who has bought it for her husband for Xmas.

To tell the truth, I was very pleasantly surprised
with the optics. I was expecting much worse.

Summary (Using my own high quality plossl EP's):-
Star test shows obvious bad undercorrection (well
it would with a 5" spherical mirror at f/6.9!)
In-focus, stars were quite tight.
Cassini Division on Saturn discernable at sides of
the planet
Bands in Jupiter easily visible (in poor seeing at
low altitude)
Castor very easily split
Double-Double (just) clearly split
Hole in Ring Nebula visible (in full moonlight)
M13 showing signs of granulation (in full
moonlight)
Trapezium obvious and clear in M42 (well it should
be, shouldn't it..)
Moon - very nice for a "beginner scope"

The supplied eyepieces are not as good as my own,
but were not unreasonable. The Barlow was not
tested.

The supplied finderscope is execrable (or worse!),
and I couldn't quite get it collimated with the
main OTA.

The telescope was badly mis-collimated as
supplied, and the mirror is not centre-spotted.
Collimation is easy however, and well explained.

I tested the OTA on my own substantial GEM, so
could not evaluate the supplied mount.

HTH

Adam



--
Eschew obfuscation. Eliminate such idiom previous
to rejoining.
"TSS"
wrote in message
...
I've currently only have a small 60mm refractor

on an equatorial mount
(although it does seem to have quite sharp

lenses and the images look far
better than other small scopes I have seen

including my friend's more
expensive 70mm).

I am on a very, very limited budget (and am only

an occasional observer) so
upgrading to something more expensive is a

complete non-starter and bear in
mind I am only looking for a sensible step up

from my 60mm. I have seen the
Skywatcher 130M for £179 which seems a quite a

reasonable price and
specification. Has anyone any personal

experience of this scope? Is it
o.k.? Is it a worthwhile upgrade from my

refractor.

My other choice would be the Tal-1 but I can't

stretch to the motor drive
version and as I would like to try some simple

photography this might be a
drawback.

My prime interest will be the moon and the

planets but I would like to view
deep space as well.

I'd be grateful for any views especially as to

how the 130M compares with
the Tal-1 optically.

Thanks






  #7  
Old December 9th 03, 06:32 PM
Adam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

To add to my previous short review
below............

I made up Baader Film solar filter for an Xmas
presy for the soon to be owner of this scope.
Whilst the sun is not at its most active today, a
very quick look showed the visible small sunspots
clearly and surprisingly, very clearly, faculae at
the limb.

Again, this scope surprised me and I would
consider the one I am testing to be good value.

Adam

--
Eschew obfuscation. Eliminate such idiom previous
to rejoining.
"Adam"
wrote in message
...
I was out last night testing one for a nervous
friend who has bought it for her husband for

Xmas.

To tell the truth, I was very pleasantly

surprised
with the optics. I was expecting much worse.

Summary (Using my own high quality plossl

EP's):-
Star test shows obvious bad undercorrection

(well
it would with a 5" spherical mirror at f/6.9!)
In-focus, stars were quite tight.
Cassini Division on Saturn discernable at sides

of
the planet
Bands in Jupiter easily visible (in poor seeing

at
low altitude)
Castor very easily split
Double-Double (just) clearly split
Hole in Ring Nebula visible (in full moonlight)
M13 showing signs of granulation (in full
moonlight)
Trapezium obvious and clear in M42 (well it

should
be, shouldn't it..)
Moon - very nice for a "beginner scope"

The supplied eyepieces are not as good as my

own,
but were not unreasonable. The Barlow was not
tested.

The supplied finderscope is execrable (or

worse!),
and I couldn't quite get it collimated with the
main OTA.

The telescope was badly mis-collimated as
supplied, and the mirror is not centre-spotted.
Collimation is easy however, and well explained.

I tested the OTA on my own substantial GEM, so
could not evaluate the supplied mount.

HTH

Adam




  #8  
Old December 9th 03, 07:50 PM
Mike Murphy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:32:09 -0000, "Adam"
wrote:

To add to my previous short review
below............

I made up Baader Film solar filter for an Xmas
presy for the soon to be owner of this scope.
Whilst the sun is not at its most active today, a
very quick look showed the visible small sunspots
clearly and surprisingly, very clearly, faculae at
the limb.

Again, this scope surprised me and I would
consider the one I am testing to be good value.

Adam, your mini-review is most useful, do let us know what the
supplied mount is like if you can.
Thanks
- Mike


  #9  
Old December 9th 03, 09:12 PM
TSS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks again Adam.

Decided to take the plunge and ordered one today. Should be here by the
weekend so here's hoping for clear skies.

Regards,

Tim
"Adam" wrote in message
...
To add to my previous short review
below............

I made up Baader Film solar filter for an Xmas
presy for the soon to be owner of this scope.
Whilst the sun is not at its most active today, a
very quick look showed the visible small sunspots
clearly and surprisingly, very clearly, faculae at
the limb.

Again, this scope surprised me and I would
consider the one I am testing to be good value.

Adam

--
Eschew obfuscation. Eliminate such idiom previous
to rejoining.
"Adam"
wrote in message
...
I was out last night testing one for a nervous
friend who has bought it for her husband for

Xmas.

To tell the truth, I was very pleasantly

surprised
with the optics. I was expecting much worse.

Summary (Using my own high quality plossl

EP's):-
Star test shows obvious bad undercorrection

(well
it would with a 5" spherical mirror at f/6.9!)
In-focus, stars were quite tight.
Cassini Division on Saturn discernable at sides

of
the planet
Bands in Jupiter easily visible (in poor seeing

at
low altitude)
Castor very easily split
Double-Double (just) clearly split
Hole in Ring Nebula visible (in full moonlight)
M13 showing signs of granulation (in full
moonlight)
Trapezium obvious and clear in M42 (well it

should
be, shouldn't it..)
Moon - very nice for a "beginner scope"

The supplied eyepieces are not as good as my

own,
but were not unreasonable. The Barlow was not
tested.

The supplied finderscope is execrable (or

worse!),
and I couldn't quite get it collimated with the
main OTA.

The telescope was badly mis-collimated as
supplied, and the mirror is not centre-spotted.
Collimation is easy however, and well explained.

I tested the OTA on my own substantial GEM, so
could not evaluate the supplied mount.

HTH

Adam






  #10  
Old December 10th 03, 11:32 PM
Paul B
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Oh Tim now you've done it !!!!!

I was hoping for some clear skies over the weekend, but your new scope has
put that out of the question :-)

Hope you get it soon and welcome to the wonderful world of astronomy.

Best wishes and clear, dark skies.

--

/Paul B, York, UK.
http://homepages.tesco.net/paul.buglass/astrohome.htm


"TSS" wrote in message
...
Thanks again Adam.

Decided to take the plunge and ordered one today. Should be here by the
weekend so here's hoping for clear skies.

Regards,

Tim
"Adam" wrote in message
...
To add to my previous short review
below............

I made up Baader Film solar filter for an Xmas
presy for the soon to be owner of this scope.
Whilst the sun is not at its most active today, a
very quick look showed the visible small sunspots
clearly and surprisingly, very clearly, faculae at
the limb.

Again, this scope surprised me and I would
consider the one I am testing to be good value.

Adam

--
Eschew obfuscation. Eliminate such idiom previous
to rejoining.
"Adam"
wrote in message
...
I was out last night testing one for a nervous
friend who has bought it for her husband for

Xmas.

To tell the truth, I was very pleasantly

surprised
with the optics. I was expecting much worse.

Summary (Using my own high quality plossl

EP's):-
Star test shows obvious bad undercorrection

(well
it would with a 5" spherical mirror at f/6.9!)
In-focus, stars were quite tight.
Cassini Division on Saturn discernable at sides

of
the planet
Bands in Jupiter easily visible (in poor seeing

at
low altitude)
Castor very easily split
Double-Double (just) clearly split
Hole in Ring Nebula visible (in full moonlight)
M13 showing signs of granulation (in full
moonlight)
Trapezium obvious and clear in M42 (well it

should
be, shouldn't it..)
Moon - very nice for a "beginner scope"

The supplied eyepieces are not as good as my

own,
but were not unreasonable. The Barlow was not
tested.

The supplied finderscope is execrable (or

worse!),
and I couldn't quite get it collimated with the
main OTA.

The telescope was badly mis-collimated as
supplied, and the mirror is not centre-spotted.
Collimation is easy however, and well explained.

I tested the OTA on my own substantial GEM, so
could not evaluate the supplied mount.

HTH

Adam








 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How good is good enough? Amateur Astronomy 14 February 16th 04 05:44 PM
Requirements / process to become a shuttle astronaut? Dan Huizenga Space Shuttle 11 November 14th 03 08:33 AM
The Non-Innovator's Dilemma Rand Simberg Space Science Misc 76 September 27th 03 03:09 AM
The Non-Innovator's Dilemma Rand Simberg Space Shuttle 84 September 27th 03 03:09 AM
The Little Engineer That Could--Humor Karl Gallagher Policy 0 July 23rd 03 08:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.