Jump to content


Photo

nice 5" class Mak?

  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 NHRob

NHRob

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4910
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2004
  • Loc: New Hampshire

Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:19 AM

Looking to downsize to a 5" class Mak-Cass for casual observing. Finances are an issue so I probably can't swing Russian optics.
Any good recommendations of one vs. another? ... Skywatcher vs. Orion, etc?

Thx,
Rob

#2 t.r.

t.r.

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4415
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:36 AM

Hey Rob, I Don't have any 5" Mak experience to relay to you...BUT, I can say that the C6XLT would go along way to satisfying as a casual scope. IMHO, the extra inch will trump the "better" image that the mak design gives. I had a C5 and it didn't quite satisfy, particularly when it came to deep sky. The C6 hit the mark. I have been absolutely mesmerized by the view of the double cluster in this scope! Everything, DSO's, planetary, lunar and doubles are just plain fun in this scope. Cool down is only about 30 minutes or even less in summer. Their quality really is very good. Add a quality zoom and casual doesn't get any better! Celestron got it right. Mine tested by Bob Piekel at close to 1/8th wave (1/6-1/7 solid), where mild undercorrection began to show. It is sharp and has depth of focus with snap. Sorry if I steered off topic for you, but in this size/price range, you must consider the C6! I think it is just what you are looking for. My :penny: :penny: ;)

EDIT: The C6XLT is the one scope that I find satisfying when putting away the AP 130 GT for winter if that says anything! All the smaller scopes I tried for that role, I was left wanting.

#3 NHRob

NHRob

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4910
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2004
  • Loc: New Hampshire

Posted 02 February 2013 - 09:05 AM

Thx for the input Tim. C6 .... hmmm!
Down the road I will spring for a 5" class apo again (after downsizing the house) but, for the short term I will be going cheap!
Maybe I should wait for NEAF and see if any good deals pop up there??
:bounce:

#4 Eddgie

Eddgie

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12535
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 02 February 2013 - 10:36 AM

There really isn't any benefit of the 5" MCTs over the C5. The COs are not really much different, and the f/10 C5 gives you quite a bit wider true field capability.

Some of these MCTs being sold today are actually not working at their full apeture. Keep that in mind.

I would recommend a C5 if size is the most important factor, or a C6 for more performance at about the same focal lenght (same true field size) and weight.

The short focal lenght of the C5 makes it a much better all around choice to me than a 5" MCT. I have owned both and kept the C5. It is just a more flexible scope.

But the reports of some of the 127 MCTs working at less than stated apeture, which means a slower focal ratio and narrower field than stated, really turns me off on them.

#5 Eric63

Eric63

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 918
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2012
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario

Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:07 PM

For what it's worth, I love my little 127mm SW Mak. The image is very sharp, I can get approx 1.3 degree view with a 2" 32mm 70 degree EP. Also, at this size I don't find cool down to be too much of an issue. I have this scope to compliment my 102mmF5 Achro, but it is turning out to be the one I use the most.

Eric

#6 RobertED

RobertED

    Gemini

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

Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:31 PM

I used to own the ORION 5" mak-cass....awesome little scope. I just traded it towards a C-11. I needed more aperture.

#7 Binojunky

Binojunky

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2756
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2010

Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:51 PM

Most of the 127mm maks are coming from Synta, the Orion Apex is a good performer, however it suffers from the usual mak problems, cool down time, narrowish field of view and contrast suffers a bit but it can and does give some rather jaw dropping views,DA. :waytogo:

#8 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15457
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 02 February 2013 - 01:08 PM

Another vote for the C5. The MCTs are nice, but the C5 is more versatile...

#9 Binojunky

Binojunky

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2756
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2010

Posted 02 February 2013 - 01:58 PM

Just after I got my Apex 127 I was offered a 5" S/Cass: OTAfrom Japan special optics, probably as clean a specimen as you could wish for, complete with all its accesories and wooden case, I find myself useing that more than the Apex,DA.

#10 KerryR

KerryR

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3068
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2007
  • Loc: SW Michigan

Posted 02 February 2013 - 02:56 PM

I have a 127mm Apex MCT and a C6. There's no front on which the C6 doesn't significantly out-perform it, more so than can be attributed, I think, to the aperture difference.

I know there are some really good Apexes out there, but I think design, executaion and QC may be better with the c5 and c6, so you may be more likely to 'draw' a good sample by going with the C sct.

I think it's worth looking at 5 and 6" f5 or 6 newts, too. They're often really, really inexpensive, easily mounted, and SOMETIMES come with 2" focusers if you look around/wait long enough. Their simple design reduces the number of places optical errors can happen to 2, so you may get the best optics that way, if you can stand the coma.

#11 Binojunky

Binojunky

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2756
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2010

Posted 02 February 2013 - 04:25 PM

Yuo can pick up the Vixen 130 newt on the Porta Mount for under $400 new,an excellent scope for the money,my apologies to Mak and Cass: lovers,DA.

#12 Rat8bug

Rat8bug

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Michigan

Posted 02 February 2013 - 04:45 PM

If your interest is planetary,moon, double stars, then I would go Apex 127 mak. Mak is more rugged scope than SCT, and no issue with collimating.

http://www.barrie-tao.com/apex127.html

Ciao....Barry

#13 rg55

rg55

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 999
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2008
  • Loc: western US

Posted 02 February 2013 - 05:45 PM

What Barry said. My two G & G's are my 5" mak and my C80ED. Between the two of them I'm covered for everything.

#14 RobertED

RobertED

    Gemini

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

Posted 03 February 2013 - 08:50 AM

Another vote for the C5. The MCTs are nice, but the C5 is more versatile...


Agreed!!
I found the 5" mak-cass not as good on faint-fuzzies as the Moon and planets.

#15 Eric63

Eric63

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 918
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2012
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario

Posted 03 February 2013 - 09:31 AM

That's why I use both the 127mak and the 150f5 Newt. The mak is better for high power and the Newt for faint and fuzzies plus wide field.

#16 moynihan

moynihan

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2315
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2003
  • Loc: Lake Michigan Watershed

Posted 03 February 2013 - 09:55 AM

Another thread that illustrates the CN tendency for nearly any question about a Mak to generate a plethora of responses extolling the superiority of the SCT.

Has the time come for a new sub-forum, for Maks, as we have divided the newts/fracs/Cats :question:

#17 t.r.

t.r.

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4415
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 03 February 2013 - 10:11 AM

I don't think so, they are both catadioptrics, which other designs fall into as well. The purpose of CN is to engage in seeking and exchanging information. This is accomplished, but we often don't get the responses to our questions that we were expecting or perhaps desire. This is due to the posting of others experience that goes beyond our own. Also, it enables thinking outside the box and gives perspectives that we hadn't considered. Collateral learning if you will. If the OP doesn't want the topic to stray, they can simply limit and narrow the "conversation" as they desire. Mods do this as well. Personally, I welcome ALL comments when I post, positive to my position, negative and even tanget. What's the hurt in this? Playing "Devil's Advocate" is not necessarily...evil. In fact, the only disservice I see here on CN is absolutes! ;)

#18 moynihan

moynihan

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2315
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2003
  • Loc: Lake Michigan Watershed

Posted 03 February 2013 - 10:55 AM

... the only disservice I see here on CN is absolutes! ;)


Indeed. ;)

#19 NHRob

NHRob

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4910
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2004
  • Loc: New Hampshire

Posted 03 February 2013 - 12:06 PM

I have no problem including SCTs in the discussion. Good information is always welcome, IMO.

#20 hottr6

hottr6

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2339
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2009
  • Loc: 7,500', Magdalena Mtns, NM

Posted 04 February 2013 - 07:52 AM

I'd have to agree..... the difference between 5" and 6" cannot be overstated.

I don't have any experience with the 5" MCTs, but I do spend a lot of time comparing my 5" and 6" Newts (both f/5), and the 6" can go a lot deeper. The 6" hints at details that can be seen in my 10" Newt, details that are utterly absent in the 5".

My 6" Synta MCT is a heavy little bugger, and requires an appropriate mount... I recommend CG5 class as a minimum. No doubt the 5" would require a lot less mount.

The Synta 6" suffers the same shortcoming of the 5".... 1.25" visual back. The 6" may also require more cooldown time, something that I have found makes the difference between a great night under the stars, and a waste of time. I presume this is an area that the 5" would be a winner.

#21 t.r.

t.r.

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4415
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 04 February 2013 - 08:18 AM

but I do spend a lot of time comparing my 5" and 6" Newts (both f/5), and the 6" can go a lot deeper. The 6" hints at details that can be seen in my 10" Newt, details that are utterly absent in the 5".


I think thats the most important point to highlight...there is a threshold crossed with the 6". Excellent point! I noticed a similar "threshold" going from a 4" apo to a 5" on planetary detail.

#22 orion61

orion61

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4528
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Birthplace James T Kirk

Posted 04 February 2013 - 10:18 AM

Another vote for the C5. The MCTs are nice, but the C5 is more versatile...

I find my 127 Mak superior to my c5
Far better contrast, that's why I kept the Mak.
The question was for casual viewing. Just use a lower power eyepiece, the flatter field is nice.
Just a few more minutes cool down time..
BUT + ! for the Mak Forum, a guy cant ask a simple question about a Mak without being piled on how better a SCT is.
In 40 yrs of observing I have found over all sharper and more contrast of views through a Mak. I PREFER THEM Visually.

#23 KerryR

KerryR

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3068
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2007
  • Loc: SW Michigan

Posted 04 February 2013 - 11:46 AM

I don't think anyone is trying to insult the Mak. It'd just appear that there are more folks posting who found they prefered the C5 and 6 to the Orion Maks, which suggests more folks got lucky with their C5's and C6's than with their lower end maks.

Higher end Maks, particularly those with a separated secondary (or ground in, like Questar), would appear to be a different story.

#24 orion61

orion61

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4528
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Birthplace James T Kirk

Posted 04 February 2013 - 12:07 PM

I have an early ETX Astro. Bought in 98, I cant imagine a better scope. I had a beautiful Questar. Beautiful on the outside that is. Optically it was horrible, the SA was so bad there were 6 diffraction rings and the center airy disk was a little blob.
My 7" Meade Mak is fantastic as well. I have had 2 Intes Maks 6" MK65 and MK66 both were Good but just Good.
The SCT's outnumber small (4-5") Maks about 15 to one out there.
My favorite Grab and Go scope is My 127 Celestron SLT ,
that is after I replaced the spindly tripod.
I have nothing against SCT scopes I have a great 8" and a 12" LX200 both have great optics, the 8" cant touch the Meade 7" on Lunar/Planetary/Doubles. I myself prefer the larger image scale of the Mak and the flatter field.
But look at the original post, it does not read whats better a Mak or SCT, every time some one posts a question about a mak it takes about one reply before someone hijacks the thread turning it into a Mak vs SCT Thread.
I wish folks would answer the question and if they want to start a This Vs That thread then start your own. That is all we are getting at.

#25 t.r.

t.r.

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4415
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 04 February 2013 - 12:36 PM

Nope, no one is insulting the Mak...the SCT is just more versatile. :poke:






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics