Jump to content


Photo

SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak?

  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 curiosidad

curiosidad

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 509
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2011

Posted 16 August 2012 - 08:51 AM

Hello
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?
Thanks

#2 brianb11213

brianb11213

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9047
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2009
  • Loc: 55.215N 6.554W

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:43 AM

Not much difference in physical size / weight between the 6" SCT and 5" Mak tubes, but the extra aperture is definitely a bonus for deep sky and doesn't hurt for anything else.

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-(

#3 RichD

RichD

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1965
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Derbyshire, UK

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:54 AM

In the US, C6. It's a bargain and a great little scope.

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.

#4 PatHolland

PatHolland

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 2337
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Clever, Missouri

Posted 16 August 2012 - 11:00 AM

This scope is sold in the US as the iOptron MAK 150mm Maksutov-Cassegrain OTA. They are sold at several retailers. I took ownership of a used one last week and can't wait to have first light on it, alas, the weather never cooperates when I get a new scope....EVER :(

#5 Wes James

Wes James

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5504
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2006

Posted 16 August 2012 - 02:00 PM

The iOptron version is a sweet scope... I have one. Great 2-speed focuser. It's definitely a bigger scope/requires more mount than a 5".

#6 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 19888
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 26 August 2012 - 11:28 PM

I like both, but a C6 with starbright XLT coatings is going to be *much* brighter and go significantly deeper than the 5" MCT which won't have enhanced coatings on the mirrors typically (in addition to losing an inch of aperture to the SCT).

- Jim

#7 RobertED

RobertED

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3198
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2003
  • Loc: Smithfield, RI

Posted 27 August 2012 - 07:55 AM

Definitely go with a good 6" mak, (or a C-6 w/coatings) if desired!! I had an ORION 5" (127mm) mak-cass and, though good enough for Lunar and Planetary work....it needed more help on deep sky!!! Aperture always wins out!!! ;)

#8 titanio

titanio

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 267
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Alicante, Spain

Posted 27 August 2012 - 09:03 AM

Hi

I would choose the Mak, the contract is much better and the turbulence will affect less them in the SC.

Regards

Toni

#9 curiosidad

curiosidad

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 509
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2011

Posted 27 August 2012 - 09:24 AM

..."the turbulence will affect less them in the SC"
Why?

#10 titanio

titanio

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 267
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Alicante, Spain

Posted 27 August 2012 - 11:20 AM

In the C6 6" f10 and 37% secondary obstruction ...
In a Mak 5" f12 and less obstrucction

Toni

#11 Tank

Tank

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2352
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Stoney Creek, Ontario, CANADA

Posted 27 August 2012 - 12:11 PM

Between the two i would say minimal differences as long as you get a good 6" SCT.
If it were me i would still prefer the MAK from what ive seen.
A 150 MAK would be sweet!

#12 John59

John59

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 507
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2011
  • Loc: Round Rock,TX

Posted 27 August 2012 - 02:35 PM

I have Orion's 180mm MCT and really enjoy it. With binoviewers, barlows, focal reducers and a solar filter there is a lot to see. I almost got the 150mm but glad I decided for the more aperture. While I love the MCT also consider where you live. Cool downs on a MCT can be lengthy and if the temperature is continually dropping it may never stabilize for decent viewing. Here is Texas there is not much of a winter so it is no problem.

#13 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 19888
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 27 August 2012 - 03:12 PM

I'd add that the C6 puts up brighter images at a given magnification than the Orion 180mm MCT. The coatings make that much difference. SCTs are also easier to collimate.

- Jim

#14 mdowns

mdowns

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1653
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Englewood,FL

Posted 27 August 2012 - 03:19 PM

I've had a c6 while also owning the orion 127mm mak.For me,side by side,the mak ruled everytime on the planets.For deep sky the 6 will win.In both instance we are not talking about signifigant differences.For "one handed" ease both will work very well on the early cg4's or orion astroviews.Both of these mounts come up often in the classifieds and are inexpensive,even with drives.

#15 Tank

Tank

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2352
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Stoney Creek, Ontario, CANADA

Posted 27 August 2012 - 03:25 PM

Jim
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!
hmmm
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.

#16 Ed Holland

Ed Holland

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2093
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2010
  • Loc: San Jose, CA and Oxford, UK

Posted 27 August 2012 - 03:37 PM

Tank, that's an interesting result (C8 vs SW180). Were you able to compare at very similar magnifications when making the judgement of brightness?

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... ;)

Ed

#17 mdowns

mdowns

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1653
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Englewood,FL

Posted 27 August 2012 - 04:27 PM

Ed,
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.

#18 atelierbks

atelierbks

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 162
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2009
  • Loc: St. Marsal, France & Grahamstown, S. Africa

Posted 27 August 2012 - 04:43 PM

It's my understanding that Bosma makes the iOptron 150mm MCTs. Is that true of the Altair model as well? Does anyone know who ultimately fabricates the Orion 150 and 180 MCTs?

#19 curiosidad

curiosidad

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 509
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2011

Posted 27 August 2012 - 05:05 PM

Then, one inch "up" inch "down" is not especially important, regardless of the type of telescope?

#20 brianb11213

brianb11213

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9047
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2009
  • Loc: 55.215N 6.554W

Posted 27 August 2012 - 05:07 PM

It's my understanding that Bosma makes the iOptron 150mm MCTs. Is that true of the Altair model as well?

They seem to be identical.

Does anyone know who ultimately fabricates the Orion 150 and 180 MCTs?

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.)

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.

#21 mdowns

mdowns

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1653
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Englewood,FL

Posted 27 August 2012 - 06:00 PM

Depends on several things really.The smaller the aperature then the larger the difference.For example a 100mm rfr will always blow away a 75mm assuming the same build and quality.The same is true with a 127mm when compared to a 100mm.The difference continues with each step up but is of less impact as the difference decreases (porportionally)in one inch increments.When your comparing one inch differances in different scope types (sct vs mct)then other factors come in to play.FLs,secondary obstruction,etc all factor in.We can all suggest our choices based on our experience but your the best judge of what's best for you.In your case,whats your inclination? Does the 6" sct come to mind first? If so,I'd go with it.That lustfull part of your telescope heart is telling you something :grin: Or perhaps its the 127mm mak.Either way,your coming out with winners :jump:

#22 ken hubal

ken hubal

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
  • Joined: 01 May 2007

Posted 28 August 2012 - 04:24 PM

I would choose the Mak over the SCT because of the Mak's smaller secondary obstruction.

#23 Kon Dealer

Kon Dealer

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 692
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011
  • Loc: Cambridge UK

Posted 28 August 2012 - 05:38 PM

I'd go for the 6SE every time.
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.

#24 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 19888
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 29 August 2012 - 12:29 PM

:waytogo:

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:

http://www.astromart...?article_id=333

"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...

- Jim

#25 vct123

vct123

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 324
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2009
  • Loc: Staten Island, N.Y.

Posted 29 August 2012 - 06:39 PM

The c6 is a dog on planets, I had 3 or 4 of them.
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.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics