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)
curiosidad
sage


Reged: 06/09/11

SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak?
      #5371315 - 08/16/12 09:51 AM

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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
brianb11213
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 02/25/09

Loc: 55.215N 6.554W
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: curiosidad]
      #5371394 - 08/16/12 10:43 AM

Not much difference in physical size / weight between the 6" SCT and 5" Mak tubes, but the extra aperture is definitely a bonus for deep sky and doesn't hurt for anything else.

Alternatively consider this scope which is the nicest small cat I've seen in a while, and quite reasonably priced - I'm sure this would be available in the USA for about the same price in dollars as we have to pay pounds sterling >8-(


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
RichD
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 11/08/07

Loc: Derbyshire, UK
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: brianb11213]
      #5371410 - 08/16/12 10:54 AM

In the US, C6. It's a bargain and a great little scope.

The Apex is good too and over here in the UK it's much cheaper than the C6 so it's an easier choice.

You won't go far wrong with either.


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

Reged: 10/11/09

Loc: Clever, Missouri
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: brianb11213]
      #5371491 - 08/16/12 12:00 PM

This scope is sold in the US as the iOptron MAK 150mm Maksutov-Cassegrain OTA. They are sold at several retailers. I took ownership of a used one last week and can't wait to have first light on it, alas, the weather never cooperates when I get a new scope....EVER

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Wes James
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/12/06

Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: PatHolland]
      #5371722 - 08/16/12 03:00 PM

The iOptron version is a sweet scope... I have one. Great 2-speed focuser. It's definitely a bigger scope/requires more mount than a 5".

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: curiosidad]
      #5389035 - 08/27/12 12:28 AM

I like both, but a C6 with starbright XLT coatings is going to be *much* brighter and go significantly deeper than the 5" MCT which won't have enhanced coatings on the mirrors typically (in addition to losing an inch of aperture to the SCT).

- Jim


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
RobertED
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 07/11/03

Loc: Smithfield, RI
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: jrbarnett]
      #5389349 - 08/27/12 08:55 AM

Definitely go with a good 6" mak, (or a C-6 w/coatings) if desired!! I had an ORION 5" (127mm) mak-cass and, though good enough for Lunar and Planetary work....it needed more help on deep sky!!! Aperture always wins out!!!

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


Reged: 02/15/09

Loc: Alicante, Spain
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: RobertED]
      #5389457 - 08/27/12 10:03 AM

Hi

I would choose the Mak, the contract is much better and the turbulence will affect less them in the SC.

Regards

Toni


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


Reged: 06/09/11

Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: titanio]
      #5389486 - 08/27/12 10:24 AM

..."the turbulence will affect less them in the SC"
Why?


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


Reged: 02/15/09

Loc: Alicante, Spain
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: curiosidad]
      #5389670 - 08/27/12 12:20 PM

In the C6 6" f10 and 37% secondary obstruction ...
In a Mak 5" f12 and less obstrucction

Toni


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: titanio]
      #5389750 - 08/27/12 01:11 PM

Between the two i would say minimal differences as long as you get a good 6" SCT.
If it were me i would still prefer the MAK from what ive seen.
A 150 MAK would be sweet!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
John59
sage


Reged: 11/06/11

Loc: Round Rock,TX
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: Tank]
      #5389974 - 08/27/12 03:35 PM

I have Orion's 180mm MCT and really enjoy it. With binoviewers, barlows, focal reducers and a solar filter there is a lot to see. I almost got the 150mm but glad I decided for the more aperture. While I love the MCT also consider where you live. Cool downs on a MCT can be lengthy and if the temperature is continually dropping it may never stabilize for decent viewing. Here is Texas there is not much of a winter so it is no problem.

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: jrbarnett]
      #5390029 - 08/27/12 04:12 PM

I'd add that the C6 puts up brighter images at a given magnification than the Orion 180mm MCT. The coatings make that much difference. SCTs are also easier to collimate.

- Jim


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

Reged: 06/12/10

Loc: Englewood,FL
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: jrbarnett]
      #5390049 - 08/27/12 04:19 PM

I've had a c6 while also owning the orion 127mm mak.For me,side by side,the mak ruled everytime on the planets.For deep sky the 6 will win.In both instance we are not talking about signifigant differences.For "one handed" ease both will work very well on the early cg4's or orion astroviews.Both of these mounts come up often in the classifieds and are inexpensive,even with drives.

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]
      #5390055 - 08/27/12 04:25 PM

Jim
starbright XLT coatings must be great if the image is brigher!
I had a go with a C8 vs my SW 180 MAK and the clear winner was the MAK sharper and brigter wasnt hard to see, wasnt a HD thou.
Could have been a collimation issue but i doubt that would have to do with the brightness!
hmmm
In my mind i would have to go to a 8" HD or a ACF to match my 180 SW MAK, but not sure if that will suffice.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ed Holland
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 06/16/10

Loc: San Jose, CA and Oxford, UK
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: Tank]
      #5390072 - 08/27/12 04:37 PM

Tank, that's an interesting result (C8 vs SW180). Were you able to compare at very similar magnifications when making the judgement of brightness?

I have an Orion 127 Mak and a C8 (XLT coatings) and the C8 is a very clear winnerin brightness and resolution, which is to be expected. If only I had a full range of Mak sizes against which to make comparisons. I think 5" to 10" in 1" increments should be enough...

Ed


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

Reged: 06/12/10

Loc: Englewood,FL
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: Ed Holland]
      #5390134 - 08/27/12 05:27 PM

Ed,
In the past I had an excellent c8(sharp at 350-400x) set up side by side with my 180mm mct orion.In terms of resolution the mak won easily every time.It sank the meade 10 sct I had as well.Both of the larger scopes,to me,were of course brighter but definition ruled,always pulling out finer details,in the case of these comparisons.However in the case of the orginal poster,the differences between my c6 and orion 5" mak were somewhat marginal.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
atelierbks
super member
*****

Reged: 01/29/09

Loc: St. Marsal, France & Grahamsto...
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: mdowns]
      #5390163 - 08/27/12 05:43 PM

It's my understanding that Bosma makes the iOptron 150mm MCTs. Is that true of the Altair model as well? Does anyone know who ultimately fabricates the Orion 150 and 180 MCTs?

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


Reged: 06/09/11

Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: atelierbks]
      #5390191 - 08/27/12 06:05 PM

Then, one inch "up" inch "down" is not especially important, regardless of the type of telescope?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
brianb11213
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 02/25/09

Loc: 55.215N 6.554W
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: atelierbks]
      #5390193 - 08/27/12 06:07 PM

Quote:

It's my understanding that Bosma makes the iOptron 150mm MCTs. Is that true of the Altair model as well?



They seem to be identical.

Quote:

Does anyone know who ultimately fabricates the Orion 150 and 180 MCTs?



Those are identical to the Skywatcher MCTs of the same apertures and come from a Synta-owned factory in China. And on my experience they're inferior in mechanical construction as well as optically to the Altair 150/1800 Mak. (Single speed focuser with mirror shift vs dual speed apparently free of mirror shift; primary mirror lacks collimation screws on the Synta Maks; finish appears cheaper on the Syntas. And the secondary mirror is a silvered spot on the back of the corrector plate instead of being in an independently adjustable holder.)

Personally I'd prefer a C6 SCT tube to a Synta Mak of the same aperture because it will cool down faster and because the optics can be collimated easily. OTOH I'd certainly prefer the Altair 150/1800 Mak to a C6, for planetary work ... the optics are just so much crisper (once it's cooled). It's a little heavier and bulkier and the light grasp may be fractionally less (due to slightly less efficient coatings) but the quality feels better as well as being better optically and at least you don't have to shell out for a microfocuser as well.


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

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  
Classic8
professor emeritus


Reged: 04/12/06

Loc: Naperville, IL, USA
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: rmollise]
      #5820299 - 04/24/13 05:22 PM

Quote:

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."




Just seems like most of the time in SCTs the image seems "soft" and it's hard to believe that so many people have telescopes that are not collimated, if they hold their collimation that well.


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

Reged: 12/05/07

Loc: SW Michigan
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: Classic8]
      #5821699 - 04/25/13 10:03 AM

Quote:

Quote:

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."




Just seems like most of the time in SCTs the image seems "soft" and it's hard to believe that so many people have telescopes that are not collimated, if they hold their collimation that well.




I suspect most folks don't tighten the collimation screws sufficiently. It's also often commented that scopes with Bob's Knobs don't hold collimation as well. It is surmised that this is because sufficient tightness is difficult to achieve with the thumb wheels.

Soft images in SCT's are most often due to a lack of thermal equilibrium in the tube, assuming decent seeing-- the top of the tube looses heat to the sky faster than the lower side, so there's a constant thermal battle inside the tube. Same thing happens in metal tubed Newts. Active venting helps a ton, as does thermal isolation of the interior space.

Edited by KerryR (04/25/13 10:03 AM)


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

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: Classic8]
      #5821720 - 04/25/13 10:12 AM

Quote:


Just seems like most of the time in SCTs the image seems "soft" and it's hard to believe that so many people have telescopes that are not collimated, if they hold their collimation that well.





It may be hard for you to believe, but that is indeed just the way it is. The problem with collimation is that it's often not done or not done correctly. Over the years, people have--for no reason--been AFRAID to collimate their SCTs.

If an SCT is correctly collimated it will most assuredly hold that collimation, and its images will most assuredly not be "soft."


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: rmollise]
      #5822464 - 04/25/13 03:59 PM

Quote:

Quote:


Just seems like most of the time in SCTs the image seems "soft" and it's hard to believe that so many people have telescopes that are not collimated, if they hold their collimation that well.





It may be hard for you to believe, but that is indeed just the way it is. The problem with collimation is that it's often not done or not done correctly. Over the years, people have--for no reason--been AFRAID to collimate their SCTs.

If an SCT is correctly collimated it will most assuredly hold that collimation, and its images will most assuredly not be "soft."




What about the comment above that with Bob's Knobs the collimation screws may not be tightened enough? I had heard that before....also, you can't collimate it until the tube has completely cooled down, correct? It would be easy to think it has cooled down completely when it really hasn't.


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

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: Classic8]
      #5822573 - 04/25/13 04:49 PM

Quote:



What about the comment above that with Bob's Knobs the collimation screws may not be tightened enough? I had heard that before....also, you can't collimate it until the tube has completely cooled down, correct? It would be easy to think it has cooled down completely when it really hasn't.




That has not been my experience with Bob's Knobs. Quite the opposite as a matter of fact. And I've had 'em on my Ultima 8 OTA for at least a decade...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hottr6
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 06/28/09

Loc: 7,500', Magdalena Mtns, NM
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: curiosidad]
      #5822780 - 04/25/13 06:45 PM

Cannot comment on SCT vs MCT, but I am with others when they suggest "choose aperture".

My 6" Newt and MCT ALWAYS trump my 5" Newt on every object I have ever compared them with. The difference, e.g., is viewing M13 as a blob, or 100+ resolved stars.

The main reason to consider a 5" over a 6" is that the 6"-class demand more of a mount than the 5"-class. 5" cats will also cool faster than a 6".


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


Reged: 01/17/13

Loc: Northern California
Re: SC 6 "vs. 5" Mak? new [Re: hottr6]
      #5823351 - 04/25/13 11:11 PM

My 5" Mak is an awesome scope. Beat a C5 in contrast and resolution, but not sure if the newer C6 would prove much better or not. Also tested my little guy against a couple 4" apos and it was closer than I thought.
I love the package size. My dream scope is a 5" Mak with the light gathering power and resolution of a 24". Yeah, I know all about the laws of physics, but I can dream.


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


Extra information
17 registered and 34 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Starman27, kkokkolis 

Print Thread

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


Thread views: 3814

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics