|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |