celestron nexstar 127 slt mak -cass
Posted 29 November 2012 - 08:35 AM
Posted 29 November 2012 - 09:25 AM
And the MCT will not be as flexible as the Celestron C6.
The problem with the forum is that you will find people that love love love almost any kind of equipment you might ask about and you will get a lot of "Oh yes, get this scope" from people that maybe haven't had a lot of experience with a lot of other scopes.
Me? I find that for good brand telescopes, aperture alone is the most important differentiator in how two similar design telescopes will work (MCT/SCT are somewhat similar).
I would go with the C6 in this case. It is a bigger scope, and in my book, bigger is almost always better.
I have a 5" Celstron SCT. I like it well enough, but if it were going to be my only scope I would not be as happy with it. A 6" scope would be at the bottom end of what I would want if I were only going to get one scope.
Aperture is your friend. Don't be fooled into thinking that somehow a smaller MCT is going to be a better scope than a larger SCT.
Posted 29 November 2012 - 09:34 AM
Posted 29 November 2012 - 10:22 AM
What makes an image large is the eyepeice, and if your friend's scope shows a bigger image than you see in your scope, then you need an eyepeice that will give higher power.
And unless the optics in your scope are very poor, your scope should give a better planetary image than either the 127 MCT or the 6" SCT.
As I said, aperture is generally your friend, and for planets, more aperture is almost always better.
Get an eyepeice that shows you about 200x.
If your scope is an f/4.9 or f/5 scope (focal lenght is 1200 to 12070mm), just get some good eyepecies in the 6mm or 5mm range (TMB planetary or similar) and try that.
The image will likely be as big or bigger than your friends scope, and better too.
If magnification is all you care about, the formula is focal lenght devided by eyepiece focal length.
Your friend's scope is likely about f/12.5, so this would give a focal lenght of about 1600mm or so. Your telescope likely has a focal lenght of about 1200 or so.
The C6 would have a focal lenght of about 1500 or so, so you would have to use a slighly shorter focal lenght eyepiece in the C6 to get the same size image in your friends scope.
Do your homework though. If planetary observing is high on your list, you may do better by having your mirror professionally refinished. A 10" reflector with high quality mirrors will provide far more compelling planetary viewing than a C6 or 127mm MCT.
Posted 29 November 2012 - 10:56 AM
Images are crisp.
Posted 29 November 2012 - 12:17 PM
Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:37 PM
Posted 29 November 2012 - 02:48 PM
I don't really understand where "Go-To" would be different in these scopes except that the 130 reflector would likely be able to get targets into a low power field more often simply because the field would be wider.
My advice is to research these different scopes a bit more. Don't ask us because we will tell you what we like, and that is maybe a bit different from what you might like.
My own advice is to always buy a scope from a major manufacturer to ensure that you are getting good quality, and get as much clear aperture (primary minus secondary) as you can comfortably manage.
But I am unclear of what your goals are.
Of the two scopes you mention though, my preference would be the C6. These are fine little telescopes. They are compact, light, and offer enough aperture ( and more clear aperture than the 127 scope) to make them decent all around performers.
Below 6", and I personally would start looking at refractors. For what you would spend on a 127 MCT, you could get a used 100ED and these are excellent little telescopes.
But do your homework. What do you want in your small scope? Deep Sky? Planets? Wide views? Cheap as possible?
Don't worry about how much magnification you can get because you really can't use much more than about 40x per inch of aperture for most work (Doubles and lunar you can go higher). But as you can see, a bigger scope can go to higher magnificaitons than a smaller scope. It is nothing to do with the focal ratio of the scope, but rather the brightness of the image for a given magnification (for example, at 125x, the C6 will show a brighter image than the 127 MCT will at 125x).
Posted 29 November 2012 - 03:26 PM
Posted 29 November 2012 - 06:36 PM
Posted 29 November 2012 - 09:41 PM
I have owned or viewed through just about every kind of scope out there.
I have a 127 NexStar SLT it has great optics but as it is sold, the system is nearly unuseable because it is so shakey
I'm talking 7 seconds to settle down after a good tap, Im not Kidding!
I used the tripod from a 90mm Meade Refractor and now the settle down time is down to 2-3 seconds after a pretty good tap. It is also over a foot taller so a guy taller than 5'2" can use it.
I also replaced the tinker toy red dot finder(sorry that is disrespectful to Tinker Toys)The back plate is tinted so dark it blocks all but the brightest stars. After those mods its a great scope, it can be collimated if out a bit.
The OTA's are built to a very high standard, My opinion is a much superior feel to them than the ETX.
They are great for Lunar/Planetary, and Doubles. (Izar in Bootes is a thing of beauty) My SLT computer is very accurate.
Just pointing it North and level then useing the Solar System Align slew to Jupiter, it stayed in the field for well over an hour. Align time was about 2 minutes!
Useing the 2 Star puts DSO's centered or nearly so.
I don't know why but Auto Align (pointing to any 3 bright objects)fails nearly every time.
It is true that the C6 is more versitile, but it depends what you are going to observe mainly.
I have both a 6se and 127, I honestly use the 127 2 to 1
over the C6, don't get me wrong the C6 is a great scope.
The 127 is a better built piece of equipment, it is heavier for the size, the focuser is silky, the contrast is higher
and the airy disk is cleaner.
It takes about 30% longer to cool down.
If you plan to do AP get the C6. You will be happy with both.
The C6 is a better ALL AROUND instrument and if you only had one scope it would make more sense.
In your case the 127 is a better fit.
The 127 is also better for land based observing due to the smaller dia. It cuts through turbulence better.
The Mak stays aligned and I havent had to touch it since I tweeked the collimation when new at 500X.
Posted 03 December 2012 - 07:02 PM
Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:49 AM
I appreciate the feedback and advice.
Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:27 PM