Jump to content


Photo

Celestron C-6 SCT vs Orion Apex 127mm (??)

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Grandpa Jim

Grandpa Jim

    old fogey

  • *****
  • Posts: 411
  • Joined: 04 Aug 2012
  • Loc: GREAT AMERICAN DESERT

Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:08 PM

I am in the process of shopping for an SCT scope, and *besides* aperture, is there a quality difference between these two:
Celestron C-6 SCT vs Orion Apex 127mm (??) (price is identical)

#2 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15379
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:11 PM

The Orion is NOT an SCT, it is an MCT. In addition to the larger aperture, the Celestron is a much more versatile scope. Get the C6. The Mak is a nice scope but this is not a hard call.

#3 Grandpa Jim

Grandpa Jim

    old fogey

  • *****
  • Posts: 411
  • Joined: 04 Aug 2012
  • Loc: GREAT AMERICAN DESERT

Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:12 PM

That's what I needed........an informed opinion. Thanks.

#4 orion61

orion61

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4498
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Birthplace James T Kirk

Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:59 PM

If you wanted Primarily Lunar/Planetary/Doubles,
The MCT is hard to beat,
everybody else, C6

#5 rg55

rg55

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 998
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2008
  • Loc: western US

Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:32 PM

If you are often at dark sky sites, get the SCT. If you live in a light polluted city/suburb, the MCT fills the bill for the solar system stuff. They're both sweet grab and go's, you won't be sorry.

#6 GlennLeDrew

GlennLeDrew

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10491
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:00 PM

The Apex might be working at an effective aperture more like 118-121mm, instead of the stated 127mm. The C-6, as long as you don't push the focus far outside the back end, will work at its specified aperture of 152mm.

#7 Patrick

Patrick

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11267
  • Joined: 15 May 2003
  • Loc: Franklin, Ohio

Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:26 AM

They're both the same price (you can pick up the C6 OTA from High Point Scientific for $400). I've never used an Apex 127, but from all reports it's a decent scope. However, the C6 is one of those scopes that's very versatile for both deep sky and planetary viewing. The C6 will provide a wider field of view, yet takes power well.

Patrick

#8 t.r.

t.r.

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4385
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 07 November 2012 - 10:12 AM

The C6's have a good track record of having very good optics.

#9 Eddgie

Eddgie

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12486
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 07 November 2012 - 12:46 PM

If you wanted Primarily Lunar/Planetary/Doubles,
The MCT is hard to beat,
everybody else, C6



That would not be my advice. The C6 has more resolving power, and more clear aperture, so it will have better contrast transfer.

The quality of the C6s appears to be uniformly very good to excellent.

The Orion 127 has a bigger obseruction (by percentage) than the C6.

For must about anything one would want to do with them, including planets and doubles, the C6 would be a better choice.

Many people believe that somehow an MCT can outperform a larger SCT on planets. If the optical quality is equal, the only way it can outperform a larger SCT on planets is if it has more clear aperture (very small central obstruction) and most small MCTs simply don't have the tiny obstruction needed to allow this.

A good example would be the Orion 180mm MCT vs the C8. In this case, the clear aperture of the Orion is about 140mm but the obstruction is only 23%.

The C8 has an obstrucion that is about 133mm. This is a great example of how a smaller MCT can beat a larger SCT on planets. It has a small obstruction (by percentage) and more clear aperture than the C8.

But this is not at all the case for the Orion 127 vs the C6.

And if I am not mistaken, these are both made by the same company, so it is a fair assumption that the quality will be more or less the same.

#10 Paco_Grande

Paco_Grande

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1594
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2012
  • Loc: Banana Republic of California

Posted 07 November 2012 - 03:11 PM

Jim, I have both of those and honestly, regardless of the stats and numbers, and the sizes of the obstruction, et al, unless you sit down with both at the same time and compare views on different objects, you'll never know which is "better" because they're both really very good and very similar. Perhaps an astrophile might make hay over this or that, but even if you can see the differences, would they really matter? Overall I'd say no.

If I had to choose just one, I'd pick the C6. Why? Because it's a bit faster (slightly wider field) and a bit more aperture. I view the Mak as a bit more specialized and the C6 a tad bit more versatile. You're not giving up a single thing by going with the C6 - it's that good!

I bought the C6 new from HighPoint and the Mak used. Why both? Because the Mak was very nice used and, well, just because. :lol:

#11 Mkofski

Mkofski

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1516
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Greenfield, Indiana, USA

Posted 07 November 2012 - 03:39 PM

Yea... You need both. But then you'll need a second mount... And some more eyepices and maybe field flatner..., etc. See how this becomes an expensive hobby? For just 1, I'd go with the C6.9

#12 Grandpa Jim

Grandpa Jim

    old fogey

  • *****
  • Posts: 411
  • Joined: 04 Aug 2012
  • Loc: GREAT AMERICAN DESERT

Posted 07 November 2012 - 05:07 PM

Jim, I have both of those and honestly, regardless of the stats and numbers, and the sizes of the obstruction, et al, unless you sit down with both at the same time and compare views on different objects, you'll never know which is "better" because they're both really very good and very similar. Perhaps an astrophile might make hay over this or that, but even if you can see the differences, would they really matter? Overall I'd say no.

If I had to choose just one, I'd pick the C6. Why? Because it's a bit faster (slightly wider field) and a bit more aperture. I view the Mak as a bit more specialized and the C6 a tad bit more versatile. You're not giving up a single thing by going with the C6 - it's that good!

I bought the C6 new from HighPoint and the Mak used. Why both? Because the Mak was very nice used and, well, just because. :lol:


Pretty much decided on the C-6, now I just need to butter up "Santa" :bow: :bow: :bow:

#13 Mary

Mary

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 500
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Highlands Ranch, CO

Posted 09 November 2012 - 02:48 PM

I'm chiming in a bit late here, but FWIW I have an Orion Apex 127 and I have been quite happy with it. Have not observed through a C6 though, so unfortunately I am not able to give a comparision.

Mary

#14 sqrlman

sqrlman

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2008

Posted 09 November 2012 - 03:30 PM

Post deleted by sqrlman

#15 Chris_H

Chris_H

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4752
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2003
  • Loc: Norway

Posted 09 November 2012 - 04:17 PM

I believe the CO on the 180MAK is 29%. The 127MAK is actually one of my favorite telescopes but as people say, it's not really 127mm but 121mm. That plus the improved coatings on the C6 just makes the SCT a better telescope to buy.

#16 Grandpa Jim

Grandpa Jim

    old fogey

  • *****
  • Posts: 411
  • Joined: 04 Aug 2012
  • Loc: GREAT AMERICAN DESERT

Posted 09 November 2012 - 04:50 PM

Well......found out today that is to be even more bureaucratic BS with my Veterans disability benefits, so I won't be buying any new scopes for awhile.............. :ohgeeze:

#17 Keith

Keith

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 467
  • Joined: 14 May 2005
  • Loc: Costa Mesa, CA USA

Posted 10 November 2012 - 05:24 AM

I had a skyview pro version 127 years ago, and I found it to be pretty awesome, it beat most C5's on sharpness and contrast on planetary, but this was before the c6 came out. If I was to fill that hole again (I have nothing inbetween 4" and 8" since I sold the mak and my 6" reflectors), I would choose the C6 over the 127 for many of the same reasons others have stated. Specials have had them on sale as little as $299 in the past (wish I grabbed one), but $399 seems to be the going rate, could probably find one used under $300.

Easier adaptablility to 2" accessories and better compatibility with 6.3 reducer, along with it being a shorter tube (and I don't think it is any heavier, since the mak corrector is much thicker) gets my vote, not to mention the aperture.

That being said, the new SLT127 has exactly the same tube as the apex but with a celestron paint job, is a pretty nice portable goto setup, cheaper than nexstar 5 or 6.

When I sold my 127, it had a scopestuff SCT rear cell thread adpater, 2" OPT dielectric diagonal, and I threw in a 42mm superview in addition to the 25mm and 10mm sirius plossls, dewsheild, and it went with my baader bracket modified 80GT mount on a 1.5" steel wedgepod (tasco, but same as N4/5), it was quite a custom setup. I let it all go for $500 to a former bandmate. Despite naysayers, the 127 actually worked fine with the 2" 42mm superview.

I still say c6 regardless, if it was C5 vs the Mak I would lean towards the mak.

#18 orion61

orion61

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4498
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Birthplace James T Kirk

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:56 PM

PM sent Jim..

#19 ken hubal

ken hubal

    Apollo

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

Posted 15 November 2012 - 03:41 PM

When doing a direct comparison between the Orion 127 Mak and the C6, the Mak won out on sharpness and contrast with the C6 showing little to recommend it.

#20 Darren Drake

Darren Drake

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2772
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2002
  • Loc: Chicagoland

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:00 PM

That's an interesting result. Was the C6 collimated and cooled? What objects were viewed and what types of differences were seen?

#21 Chris_H

Chris_H

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4752
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2003
  • Loc: Norway

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:55 PM

That's not what I saw when I compared them. The C6 won on everything, even though it was close on Jupiter. I would check the collimation. Or you might have been unlucky and got a bad sample.

#22 Binojunky

Binojunky

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2740
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2010

Posted 16 November 2012 - 09:58 AM

Having a 127 Apex and a 125mm S/Cass: by Japan Special Optics I find them very similar however the Mak gives a slightly brighter image, newer coatings maybe? the Cass: is slightly sharper, I would expect the C6 to out perform the Apex and if the price is the same then thats the way to go, however I have see the Apex or its varients (Skywatcher) going for a good bit less money than the C6,DA.

#23 ken hubal

ken hubal

    Apollo

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

Posted 20 November 2012 - 05:28 PM

No, the C6 I viewed through was cooled, perfectly collimated, and in fine condition. Like a typical SCT, it simply didn't measure up to the Mak in terms of image sharpness and contrast. :grin:






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics