Jump to content


Photo

Orion/Skywatcher 127mm Mak v Celestron C6

  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 dweller25

dweller25

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1449
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Lancashire, UK

Posted 07 August 2014 - 07:31 AM

I am interested in buying a small light scope for traveling and have narrowed it down to a Orion/Skywatcher 127mm Mak or a Celestron C6.

 

I would like to see the relative size of the scopes side by side so if anyone has these two scopes could you please post a photo

 

Thanks in advance :)

 



#2 evan9162

evan9162

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 341
  • Joined: 20 Sep 2013
  • Loc: Boise, ID

Posted 07 August 2014 - 08:53 AM

They are pretty much the same length, but the C6 is noticeably larger in diameter.  In fact, I'd say it crosses the threshold of portability.

 

The Mak would be the one I would choose for a travelling scope.  It's a bit lighter, substantially smaller, but built MUCH more sturdy.  I doubt you'd ever knock it out of collimation - but you'd probably be tweaking collimation constantly with the C6.  

 

I can post a photo of them side-by-side when I get home from work.


Edited by evan9162, 07 August 2014 - 08:54 AM.

  • dweller25 likes this

#3 caheaton

caheaton

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1566
  • Joined: 26 May 2009
  • Loc: SW Ohio

Posted 07 August 2014 - 09:32 AM

I have both...I can post a side by side photo tonight.  I agree with Evan about the MAK being more portable and rugged.  It's sturdy and very compact and significantly smaller than the C6.  The C6 on the other hand is very light weight for it's size and can go noticeably deeper in light gathering.  A mark against the C6 is the noticeable field curvature...curvature that I haven't observed with the MAK.  Both do well on planets, but the MAK seems a bit sharper (though I've never compared both side by side on the same night).  I use an Orion backup for the C6 and it pretty much fills the pack.  The MAK is carried in the handy little duffle like case that comes with the scope (about the size of a small soft sided cooler).  I'll include photos of the cases as well.

 

I'd say the final choice may come down to your favorite targets.  If you prefer planets and the moon I'd choose the MAK.  If deep sky is your preference I'd choose the C6 (in fact, I bought my C6 as an alternative to my MAK for use on deep sky...they're both compact and can be used equally easily on the same mounts).


  • dweller25 likes this

#4 Binojunky

Binojunky

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2010

Posted 07 August 2014 - 09:47 AM

I had both at one time, also the 5" Celestron, I kept the Apex mak, sold the others, comes in a case, compact easy to move etc, one thing worth considering is how you are going to mount it.

   A side saddle configuration can put the finder and focus knob in a awkward place, also upgrade the supplied diagonal to a dielectric, the supplied finder though ok for day time use is limited at night, upgrade to a 50 mm or a red dot, great scope for not a lot of money, DA. :waytogo:



#5 dweller25

dweller25

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1449
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Lancashire, UK

Posted 07 August 2014 - 12:21 PM

They are pretty much the same length, but the C6 is noticeably larger in diameter.  In fact, I'd say it crosses the threshold of portability.

 

The Mak would be the one I would choose for a travelling scope.  It's a bit lighter, substantially smaller, but built MUCH more sturdy.  I doubt you'd ever knock it out of collimation - but you'd probably be tweaking collimation constantly with the C6.  

 

I can post a photo of them side-by-side when I get home from work.

Thanks for the feedback Evan, a photo would be great ....


Edited by dweller25, 07 August 2014 - 12:24 PM.


#6 dweller25

dweller25

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1449
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Lancashire, UK

Posted 07 August 2014 - 12:23 PM

I have both...I can post a side by side photo tonight.  I agree with Evan about the MAK being more portable and rugged.  It's sturdy and very compact and significantly smaller than the C6.  The C6 on the other hand is very light weight for it's size and can go noticeably deeper in light gathering.  A mark against the C6 is the noticeable field curvature...curvature that I haven't observed with the MAK.  Both do well on planets, but the MAK seems a bit sharper (though I've never compared both side by side on the same night).  I use an Orion backup for the C6 and it pretty much fills the pack.  The MAK is carried in the handy little duffle like case that comes with the scope (about the size of a small soft sided cooler).  I'll include photos of the cases as well.

 

I'd say the final choice may come down to your favorite targets.  If you prefer planets and the moon I'd choose the MAK.  If deep sky is your preference I'd choose the C6 (in fact, I bought my C6 as an alternative to my MAK for use on deep sky...they're both compact and can be used equally easily on the same mounts).

Thank you for the info Craig - photo would be much appreciated....


Edited by dweller25, 07 August 2014 - 12:24 PM.


#7 evan9162

evan9162

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 341
  • Joined: 20 Sep 2013
  • Loc: Boise, ID

Posted 07 August 2014 - 06:43 PM

 

They are pretty much the same length, but the C6 is noticeably larger in diameter.  In fact, I'd say it crosses the threshold of portability.

 

The Mak would be the one I would choose for a travelling scope.  It's a bit lighter, substantially smaller, but built MUCH more sturdy.  I doubt you'd ever knock it out of collimation - but you'd probably be tweaking collimation constantly with the C6.  

 

I can post a photo of them side-by-side when I get home from work.

Thanks for the feedback Evan, a photo would be great ....

 

As requested:

Attached Files



#8 caheaton

caheaton

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1566
  • Joined: 26 May 2009
  • Loc: SW Ohio

Posted 07 August 2014 - 09:05 PM

As promised, here are some more photos:

 

Attached Files



#9 dweller25

dweller25

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1449
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Lancashire, UK

Posted 08 August 2014 - 01:00 AM

Evan, Craig,

 

Thanks very much for taking the time to send these photos - they are very helpful.

 

Just need to decide which one now but I think I am leaning towards the 127mm Mak.

 

All the best,

 

David.



#10 Saturninus

Saturninus

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 368
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2013

Posted 08 August 2014 - 05:04 AM

Not to muddy the waters, but ever thought of a C5? Lighter and shorter than the 127. Not as rugged and maybe not as sharp. It does, however, have a full 127mm aperture, whereas the 127mm Mak actually has an effective 118mm aperture because of something about the mirror. 



#11 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 8201
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: La Union, PI

Posted 08 August 2014 - 05:22 AM

...whereas the 127mm Mak actually has an effective 118mm aperture because of something about the mirror. 

Sine the meniscus is a negative lens offering a diverging wavefront to the primary, the primary mirror has to be a few percent larger in diameter to capture the entire divergent light cone from the meniscus. In some Mak designs the primary is the same diameter as the meniscus which means the primary is a few milimeters too small to do the job. This vignettes some of the light passing through the 127mm aperture meniscus and missing the edge of the same sized mirror. It does not make them bad scopes by any stretch, but they are working at a less effective aperture than advertised.



#12 dweller25

dweller25

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1449
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Lancashire, UK

Posted 08 August 2014 - 06:28 AM

Not to muddy the waters, but ever thought of a C5? Lighter and shorter than the 127. Not as rugged and maybe not as sharp. It does, however, have a full 127mm aperture, whereas the 127mm Mak actually has an effective 118mm aperture because of something about the mirror. 

Yes I have considered it for all the reasons you mentioned but I have read several reports about them not being sharp which swayed my decision away from them.



#13 Eric63

Eric63

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 943
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2012
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario

Posted 08 August 2014 - 08:29 AM

I love my Skywatcher 127Mak, very portable and tack sharp images.  Cool down is not much of an issue in the summer since my house is air conditioned and therefore the scope is at the same temp as outside when I take it out.  In the fall and spring  I simply precool the scope with an ice pack in its case. Winter however is more problematic if the scope is kept inside,  It needs a good 45 minutes to an hour before I can do high power.  That is why I also have an ED80, it's my quick view scope for the winter.    I have also compared the Mak to my excellent 150F5 Newt with a re-figured 1/10th wave mirror and there is not that much difference to them.  The newt is brighter (of course) and has a bit more resolution, but that little Mak keeps up to it very well.  I am very impressed with it.

 

I prepared a word document with simple collimation instructions if anyone is interested.  Just PM me your email address and I will send it to you.  I tried to cut and paste it here but I am having too much trouble with that function and I can't seem to get images loaded  :(   I guess I still have lots to learn about this new format.  :lol:

 

Eric



#14 scupking

scupking

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 211
  • Joined: 22 May 2005
  • Loc: Enfield, CT

Posted 08 August 2014 - 09:26 AM

I had an apex 127 years a go and sold it (shouldn't have but needed some money at the time). I just ordered another one this week. Its a great all around scope! I was going to get a 127mm achro but I look at mostly planets and some deep space so the mak will be perfect for me.



#15 paulsky

paulsky

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 502
  • Joined: 17 Feb 2004

Posted 08 August 2014 - 09:53 AM

Hello,
  I had a 127mm Maksutob and although the image of the planets and the moon were very, very good, when I looked deep sky objects always seemed to me a very, very dark telescope ..
This was the reason I sold (plus took a long time to cool down ..)
I'm reading the posts and I see that between 127mm Mak and SCT 6 "there is not much difference, no?
And even when compared with Newton 150mm F / 5 there is no substantial difference?
I guess then we would have to observe with an 8 "to notice some more tangible difference?
regards

Paul


  • Sanjeev177 likes this

#16 dweller25

dweller25

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1449
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Lancashire, UK

Posted 08 August 2014 - 11:43 AM

I love my Skywatcher 127Mak, very portable and tack sharp images.  Cool down is not much of an issue in the summer since my house is air conditioned and therefore the scope is at the same temp as outside when I take it out.  In the fall and spring  I simply precool the scope with an ice pack in its case. Winter however is more problematic if the scope is kept inside,  It needs a good 45 minutes to an hour before I can do high power.  That is why I also have an ED80, it's my quick view scope for the winter.    I have also compared the Mak to my excellent 150F5 Newt with a re-figured 1/10th wave mirror and there is not that much difference to them.  The newt is brighter (of course) and has a bit more resolution, but that little Mak keeps up to it very well.  I am very impressed with it.

 

I prepared a word document with simple collimation instructions if anyone is interested.  Just PM me your email address and I will send it to you.  I tried to cut and paste it here but I am having too much trouble with that function and I can't seem to get images loaded  :(   I guess I still have lots to learn about this new format.  :lol:

 

Eric

Hello Eric,

 

Thanks for the info.

 

How does the ED80 compare to the 127 Mak on the planets ?



#17 Eric63

Eric63

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 943
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2012
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario

Posted 08 August 2014 - 05:15 PM

 

I love my Skywatcher 127Mak, very portable and tack sharp images.  Cool down is not much of an issue in the summer since my house is air conditioned and therefore the scope is at the same temp as outside when I take it out.  In the fall and spring  I simply precool the scope with an ice pack in its case. Winter however is more problematic if the scope is kept inside,  It needs a good 45 minutes to an hour before I can do high power.  That is why I also have an ED80, it's my quick view scope for the winter.    I have also compared the Mak to my excellent 150F5 Newt with a re-figured 1/10th wave mirror and there is not that much difference to them.  The newt is brighter (of course) and has a bit more resolution, but that little Mak keeps up to it very well.  I am very impressed with it.

 

I prepared a word document with simple collimation instructions if anyone is interested.  Just PM me your email address and I will send it to you.  I tried to cut and paste it here but I am having too much trouble with that function and I can't seem to get images loaded  :(   I guess I still have lots to learn about this new format.  :lol:

 

Eric

Hello Eric,

 

Thanks for the info.

 

How does the ED80 compare to the 127 Mak on the planets ?

 

 

The ED80 is quite nice and gives a sharp image, but it does not have the aperture of the 127Mak.  The Mak has 118-122mm of aperture which gives it better resolution and a brighter image (it is equivalent in brightness to a 100mm refractor).  Contrast under average conditions is about the same on both and if you are under the jet stream you will not see much difference between the two most of the time; but under good to excellent conditions, the Mak will let you see more. 

 

The ED80 does however have a wider field of view and is nice under a dark sky, but I have my 150Newt for that.  I keep the ED80 for grab and go in cold weather.

 

Eric



#18 TONGKW

TONGKW

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1080
  • Joined: 16 Jan 2007

Posted 08 August 2014 - 09:49 PM

Just to show how the  Skywatcher 150 Mak  compares with the Celestron C5 SCT in sizes.

Skywatcher 150 Mak = 8.75 lb.

Celestron C5 = 5.6 lb

 

K W TONG
C8+CG5 GT, TSA102+HEQ5 PRO, MK67+Voyager, NexStar 6SE, C5+Mizar K, WO ZS80FD+Kenko NES, Megrez 72FD+Kenko KDS, Mini Borg 50, PST.

 

----

Attached File  SW127 vs C5.jpg   136.77KB   0 downloads



#19 Eric63

Eric63

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 943
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2012
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:00 PM

Is that a 150Mak  or a 127Mak? looks like a 127 to me. 



#20 dweller25

dweller25

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1449
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Lancashire, UK

Posted 09 August 2014 - 12:40 AM

 

 

I love my Skywatcher 127Mak, very portable and tack sharp images.  Cool down is not much of an issue in the summer since my house is air conditioned and therefore the scope is at the same temp as outside when I take it out.  In the fall and spring  I simply precool the scope with an ice pack in its case. Winter however is more problematic if the scope is kept inside,  It needs a good 45 minutes to an hour before I can do high power.  That is why I also have an ED80, it's my quick view scope for the winter.    I have also compared the Mak to my excellent 150F5 Newt with a re-figured 1/10th wave mirror and there is not that much difference to them.  The newt is brighter (of course) and has a bit more resolution, but that little Mak keeps up to it very well.  I am very impressed with it.

 

I prepared a word document with simple collimation instructions if anyone is interested.  Just PM me your email address and I will send it to you.  I tried to cut and paste it here but I am having too much trouble with that function and I can't seem to get images loaded  :(   I guess I still have lots to learn about this new format.  :lol:

 

Eric

Hello Eric,

 

Thanks for the info.

 

How does the ED80 compare to the 127 Mak on the planets ?

 

 

The ED80 is quite nice and gives a sharp image, but it does not have the aperture of the 127Mak.  The Mak has 118-122mm of aperture which gives it better resolution and a brighter image (it is equivalent in brightness to a 100mm refractor).  Contrast under average conditions is about the same on both and if you are under the jet stream you will not see much difference between the two most of the time; but under good to excellent conditions, the Mak will let you see more. 

 

The ED80 does however have a wider field of view and is nice under a dark sky, but I have my 150Newt for that.  I keep the ED80 for grab and go in cold weather.

 

Eric

 

Thanks Eric



#21 TONGKW

TONGKW

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1080
  • Joined: 16 Jan 2007

Posted 09 August 2014 - 08:46 AM

Is that a 150Mak  or a 127Mak? looks like a 127 to me. 

----

My mistake.

It is actually a Skywatcher 127 Mak. That one is a very early model.

 

---

 

Now, just for size comparision, some more OTA are shown.

 

----

Attached Files


  • Sanjeev177 likes this

#22 dweller25

dweller25

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1449
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Lancashire, UK

Posted 09 August 2014 - 11:44 AM

@TONGKGW - another great photo - thanks.



#23 Dom543

Dom543

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 245
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2011

Posted 09 August 2014 - 04:29 PM

Celestron 127 Mak   -   7.5 lbs

Celestron C-6 SCT   -   8.4 lbs

 

I sold the Mak and kept the C-6 as air travel scope because I like DSO's and the 50% more light gathering power matters. It travels well in a backpack.

 

--Dom



#24 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16698
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 12 August 2014 - 09:50 PM

Two disadvantages to Maks are their heftier weight and somewhat slower cool-down time compared to SCTs. My Bosma 6" Mak is actually a half-pound heavier than my EdgeHD 8"! And the 6" Mak is 75% heavier than my C6.

 

Mike


Edited by Sarkikos, 12 August 2014 - 09:52 PM.


#25 Sanjeev177

Sanjeev177

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2013
  • Loc: New Delhi (IN)

Posted 21 August 2014 - 12:52 PM

Yes paulsky is absolutely spot on. The mak seems to work only on planets and bright objects to say.....and no doubt gives great views but once you are away to some faint deep sky objects it seems helpless. The one plus of the mak is its solidly built and almost never needed collimation and great for day time spotting scope. It also work great as big tele lens for nature photography with dslr on sunny day.


Edited by Sanjeev177, 21 August 2014 - 12:55 PM.







Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics