Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu uh, User

Equipment Discussions >> Cats & Casses

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)
mdowns
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 06/12/10

Loc: Englewood,FL
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: curiosidad]
      #5390260 - 08/27/12 07:00 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 Or perhaps its the 127mm mak.Either way,your coming out with winners

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ken hubal
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 05/01/07

Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: mdowns]
      #5391933 - 08/28/12 05:24 PM

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

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Kon Dealer
professor emeritus


Reged: 01/05/11

Loc: Cambridge UK
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: ken hubal]
      #5392050 - 08/28/12 06:38 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.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jrbarnett
Eyepiece Hooligan
*****

Reged: 02/28/06

Loc: Petaluma, CA
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: Kon Dealer]
      #5393231 - 08/29/12 01:29 PM



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.com/articles/article.asp?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 its difficult to choose one over the other both are very good."

If the C6 is neck and neck with the 150mm MCT...

- Jim

Edited by jrbarnett (08/29/12 01:54 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
vct123
sage
*****

Reged: 11/17/09

Loc: Staten Island, N.Y.
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: jrbarnett]
      #5393840 - 08/29/12 07:39 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.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dsohunter
sage


Reged: 08/14/09

Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: vct123]
      #5393856 - 08/29/12 07:48 PM

Quote:

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.




I have found the opposite to be true and have been quite impressed, especially once thermal equilibrium was achieved. I'm sure this is a situation where YMMV.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jrbarnett
Eyepiece Hooligan
*****

Reged: 02/28/06

Loc: Petaluma, CA
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: dsohunter]
      #5393879 - 08/29/12 08:09 PM

Ditto.

The C6s have been the most consistently high quality SCTs I've used from Celestron.

The C6 I have now gives nothing up to the 150mm MCT I had and is within a hair's breadth of the Intes M715 Deluxe I had, across the board (planets, double stars, DSOs, etc.).

Regards,

Jim


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Tank
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 07/27/09

Loc: Stoney Creek, Ontario, CANADA
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: jrbarnett]
      #5393959 - 08/29/12 09:02 PM

Bottom line i think is both are good scopes and well i tend to lean towards apeture, but i must say every MAK i have looked thru seems to impress i can say the same with some SCTs.
Cant beat a DOB value wise, to confuse things any intrest in a DOB??

Edited by Tank (08/29/12 09:03 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
curiosidad
sage


Reged: 06/09/11

Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: Tank]
      #5394365 - 08/30/12 05:13 AM

Hello,
How long does it take each of them to get the thermal equilibrium?
Best


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ken hubal
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 05/01/07

Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: curiosidad]
      #5395357 - 08/30/12 05:55 PM

I've had the pleasure of viewing through several C6's and was duely unimpressed when compared with the views through my 5 inch MCT and as well as other 5 and 6 inch MCT's. Every instrument in the comparison had reached thermal equillibrium and was properly collimated. The views in the C6 were typical of SCT's, poor contrast with little to recommend.
The MCT wins, HANDS DOWN!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: curiosidad]
      #5395375 - 08/30/12 06:10 PM

Quote:

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




I love my 5-inch MCT but...the SCT, the C6, in addition to adding an inch of aperture--nothing to sneeze at--is at heart a more versatile scope than a long focal lenght MCT. If nothing else, one can use most of the tons of accessories developed for SCTs over the years.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
vct123
sage
*****

Reged: 11/17/09

Loc: Staten Island, N.Y.
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: rmollise]
      #5395825 - 08/30/12 11:04 PM

Thanks Ken , wow, at least one person sees what I see when they look thru a c6, not much to talk about.
Maybe some need to check their eye-glass perscriptions


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BillP
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 11/26/06

Loc: Vienna, VA
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: vct123]
      #5400795 - 09/03/12 10:01 AM

I've had both, and no contest the C6 wins. Extremely bright, not as compact as the 127 but still small, very versatile. My 127 could go no where near as deep as my C6.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
vct123
sage
*****

Reged: 11/17/09

Loc: Staten Island, N.Y.
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: BillP]
      #5400923 - 09/03/12 11:40 AM

Well, reading the older posts here, the original is comparing a c6 to a 5" mak, but some started comparing the c6 to a 6" mak, so there are two different threads in one.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
UnderDriven
member


Reged: 04/22/13

Loc: Pennsylvania
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: vct123]
      #5820027 - 04/24/13 03:24 PM

Which is better for photography? I suppose that comes down to the flatness of the image plane. As I understand it, the non-EdgeHD SCTs don't have a particularly flat image plane, although the focal reducer helps (but now it's a shorter focal length).

Cheers, Keith


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: UnderDriven]
      #5820068 - 04/24/13 03:37 PM

Quote:

Which is better for photography? I suppose that comes down to the flatness of the image plane. As I understand it, the non-EdgeHD SCTs don't have a particularly flat image plane, although the focal reducer helps (but now it's a shorter focal length).

Cheers, Keith




Depends on what sort of photography you fancy. Imaging the deep sky at f/15 or so really ain't much fun...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
bierbelly
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/23/04

Loc: Sterling, VA
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: rmollise]
      #5820089 - 04/24/13 03:47 PM

So obviously the consensus here is to go with the AstroPhysics 6"...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Classic8
professor emeritus


Reged: 04/12/06

Loc: Naperville, IL, USA
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: bierbelly]
      #5820160 - 04/24/13 04:23 PM

The SCT may be easier to collimate, but aren't you more likely to have to collimate it, or have to collimate it more often? And when you do collimate it, is it as well collimated as it was when it came from the factory?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: Classic8]
      #5820178 - 04/24/13 04:31 PM

Quote:

The SCT may be easier to collimate, but aren't you more likely to have to collimate it, or have to collimate it more often? And when you do collimate it, is it as well collimated as it was when it came from the factory?




Not at all. When collimated properly they hold that collimation very well...as in "months or even years."


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
UnderDriven
member


Reged: 04/22/13

Loc: Pennsylvania
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: rmollise]
      #5820184 - 04/24/13 04:32 PM

Quote:

Depends on what sort of photography you fancy.



Sun and Moon...

Cheers, Keith


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)


Extra information
17 registered and 28 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  cbwerner, Starman27, kkokkolis 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 3919

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics