SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak?
Posted 16 August 2012 - 08:51 AM
I'm looking at some Cat model that is manageable enough to move with one hand, not too heavy, but with sufficient diameter to enjoy the deep sky objects and planets ..
Perhaps the SC 6 "Mak or 127 ..? Some others?
Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:43 AM
Alternatively consider this scope which is the nicest small cat I've seen in a while, and quite reasonably priced - I'm sure this would be available in the USA for about the same price in dollars as we have to pay pounds sterling >8-(
Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:54 AM
The Apex is good too and over here in the UK it's much cheaper than the C6 so it's an easier choice.
You won't go far wrong with either.
Posted 16 August 2012 - 11:00 AM
Posted 16 August 2012 - 02:00 PM
Posted 26 August 2012 - 11:28 PM
Posted 27 August 2012 - 07:55 AM
Posted 27 August 2012 - 09:03 AM
I would choose the Mak, the contract is much better and the turbulence will affect less them in the SC.
Posted 27 August 2012 - 09:24 AM
Posted 27 August 2012 - 11:20 AM
In a Mak 5" f12 and less obstrucction
Posted 27 August 2012 - 12:11 PM
If it were me i would still prefer the MAK from what ive seen.
A 150 MAK would be sweet!
Posted 27 August 2012 - 02:35 PM
Posted 27 August 2012 - 03:12 PM
Posted 27 August 2012 - 03:19 PM
Posted 27 August 2012 - 03:25 PM
starbright XLT coatings must be great if the image is brigher!
I had a go with a C8 vs my SW 180 MAK and the clear winner was the MAK sharper and brigter wasnt hard to see, wasnt a HD thou.
Could have been a collimation issue but i doubt that would have to do with the brightness!
In my mind i would have to go to a 8" HD or a ACF to match my 180 SW MAK, but not sure if that will suffice.
Posted 27 August 2012 - 03:37 PM
I have an Orion 127 Mak and a C8 (XLT coatings) and the C8 is a very clear winnerin brightness and resolution, which is to be expected. If only I had a full range of Mak sizes against which to make comparisons. I think 5" to 10" in 1" increments should be enough...
Posted 27 August 2012 - 04:27 PM
In the past I had an excellent c8(sharp at 350-400x) set up side by side with my 180mm mct orion.In terms of resolution the mak won easily every time.It sank the meade 10 sct I had as well.Both of the larger scopes,to me,were of course brighter but definition ruled,always pulling out finer details,in the case of these comparisons.However in the case of the orginal poster,the differences between my c6 and orion 5" mak were somewhat marginal.
Posted 27 August 2012 - 04:43 PM
Posted 27 August 2012 - 05:05 PM
Posted 27 August 2012 - 05:07 PM
They seem to be identical.
It's my understanding that Bosma makes the iOptron 150mm MCTs. Is that true of the Altair model as well?
Those are identical to the Skywatcher MCTs of the same apertures and come from a Synta-owned factory in China. And on my experience they're inferior in mechanical construction as well as optically to the Altair 150/1800 Mak. (Single speed focuser with mirror shift vs dual speed apparently free of mirror shift; primary mirror lacks collimation screws on the Synta Maks; finish appears cheaper on the Syntas. And the secondary mirror is a silvered spot on the back of the corrector plate instead of being in an independently adjustable holder.)
Does anyone know who ultimately fabricates the Orion 150 and 180 MCTs?
Personally I'd prefer a C6 SCT tube to a Synta Mak of the same aperture because it will cool down faster and because the optics can be collimated easily. OTOH I'd certainly prefer the Altair 150/1800 Mak to a C6, for planetary work ... the optics are just so much crisper (once it's cooled). It's a little heavier and bulkier and the light grasp may be fractionally less (due to slightly less efficient coatings) but the quality feels better as well as being better optically and at least you don't have to shell out for a microfocuser as well.
Posted 27 August 2012 - 06:00 PM
Posted 28 August 2012 - 04:24 PM
Posted 28 August 2012 - 05:38 PM
Lighter, quicker to cool, brighter- so better on DSOs and if well-collimated(easy to do) very little difference between it and a 5" MAK on planets.
Posted 29 August 2012 - 12:29 PM
Besides, at 31% the 127mm MCT has an undesirably large CO anyway. You give up almost nothing with the C6 and gain aperture, resolution, light grasp and contrast transfer. The two cost the same, too. A C6 will give a 150mm Synta MCT a run for its money. There's not much competition when comparing it to a 127mm MCT from the same maker.
Larry Carlino did a nice review of the C6, including some comparisons to the 150mm MCT, here:
"A day later, the Straight Wall became visible near the terminator and displayed its subtle irregularities and the elusive Rima Birt nearby. The view was strikingly similar to that afforded by the Orion 150mm Mak-Cass at similar magnification. Initially, I had the impression that the Orion scope had slightly better contrast, but now it seems that the significantly brighter image of the Celestron gave an erroneous read. These scopes are so close in revealing lunar and planetary detail that it’s difficult to choose one over the other – both are very good."
If the C6 is neck and neck with the 150mm MCT...
Posted 29 August 2012 - 06:39 PM
Brand new ones and used ones, better on deep sky, pretty good on the moon, but planetary detail banding on jup and sat, not good.