helpwanted
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/04/07
Posts: 1759
Loc: Phoenix, AZ
|
|
thinking of either a 127 orion mak, or a celestron 6" schmidt... compair OTAs for me.
optical quality, DSO & planetary, cool down time, fit and finish... the focal lenghts are very close, so i am wondering which is the better scope.
thanks,
david
--------------------
|
Dennis Sakva
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 10/19/04
Posts: 1067
Loc: Kiev, Ukraine
|
|
MAKs use all-apherical optics which are easier to make than aspheric Schmidt plates. I would go with mak.
|
rmollise
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/06/07
Posts: 1674
|
|
Quote:
MAKs use all-apherical optics which are easier to make than aspheric Schmidt plates. I would go with mak.
The Synta MCTs are nice, but IMHO, the C6 now being produced is better optically. Not that the 127 is bad, but the C6 is just Real Good right now. The SCT is also quite a bit more versatile.
--------------------
Uncle Rod
Watch for Rod's New Book:
Choosing and Using a New CAT--coming in December!
|
helpwanted
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/04/07
Posts: 1759
Loc: Phoenix, AZ
|
|
wow... so far the replies are 50/50 !!
i was all set on the mak, but i see HighPoint has a 6" Schm OTA for $399, so that puts them in the same range.
what about cool down times for either?
quality on planets and DSOs (i know, tight fov)?
thanks,
david
--------------------
|
Adamski
member
Reged: 06/21/08
Posts: 40
Loc: Halesowen, UK
|
|
I have a 4" Mak and the planetary viewing quality is superb. Cooldown is slightly longer than the SCT, but Maks are much more robust especially if you are transporting them because the secondary mirror is actually part of the lens. As far as I know, Maks don't need collimating and many don't even have the facility for collimation because it's fixed spot on at the factory. And even if they do require it, then it's probably no more frequent than a refractor scope.
To be honest, most days I don't bother waiting for the cooling down and I still get decent views 5 minutes after taking the scope outside.
IMHO I would go for the Mak.
Adam.
--------------------
Celestron NexStar 4 SE - Fantastic
SkyWatcher Explorer 200P EQ5 (SOLD!)
Celestron PowerSeeker 127 - Crap! (Until I make it better...)
|
spencerj
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/17/04
Posts: 577
Loc: Derry, NH
|
|
Quote:
As far as I know, Maks don't need collimating and many don't even have the facility for collimation because it's fixed spot on at the factory. And even if they do require it, then it's probably no more frequent than a refractor scope.
Maks and SCT's both require collimation. They both hold collimation well, but you definately want the ability to touch it up when necessary.
--------------------
--Jason
"I am the victim of a series of accidents, as are we all." --Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Intes-Micro MN66 with Moonlight CR1 focuser
TeleVue 102
PST
Unistar Deluxe with TeleVue Sky Tour
CG-5 ASGT (quieted and tuned-up by Trapezium Telescopes & Services)
10" Orion Dob
WO 66 SD (stays in my truck for spontaneous observing sessions)
15x70 Oberwerk Binos
|
Adamski
member
Reged: 06/21/08
Posts: 40
Loc: Halesowen, UK
|
|
I would expect that the Mak will hold collimation much longer than the SCT due to the design.
--------------------
Celestron NexStar 4 SE - Fantastic
SkyWatcher Explorer 200P EQ5 (SOLD!)
Celestron PowerSeeker 127 - Crap! (Until I make it better...)
|
Eddgie
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/01/06
Posts: 1746
|
|
Well, not sure why you would want to do that (Buy a 5" or 6" Mak). Neither would be a good compliment to your existing scope.. Both are longer focal length meaning that they would have an even narrower field of view than your current scope. So rather than getting something "New" in terms of viewing capability, you simply get less aperture and smaller field of view in a compact package.
A better compliment to your current scope would be something with a wider field of view.
But you have your reasons..
Given that, I personally would go with the 6" SCT. I have owned both 5" and 6" scopes, and the difference in brighness is enough between the 5" and 6" to be noticable.
Optically, the tradeoffs are about equally weighted. Both will be similar planetary performers. While the SCT might have a bigger central obstruction, it has more aperture, so you will still have about the same amount of CLEAR aperture, and the extra brigtness in the larger scope should allow you to use a bit more power.
The internal baffle in both scopes is similar in size, and since they are similar in focal length, both will generate about the same 1.1 degree field before edge of field illumination falls below 65% (if that matters to you).
And while the MCT Might hold collimation a bit better, the SCT is EASIER to collimate (and if you tighten the screws on the SCT tight enogh using the standard screws and not Bob's Knobs so you can get the screws TIGHT, it will hold collimation quite well, thank you...)
So, to me, in this case, Bigger is Better.
Good luck with your decision.
--------------------
Celestron C14, CGE (Big Al)
Astro-Physics 6" f/8 (Buffy)
Televue 101 (No name, but I call it my Widescreen HD Space TV)
The night sky is my mistress. She seduces me away from all other lovers.
|
sang33ta
professor emeritus
Reged: 07/08/08
Posts: 539
Loc: UK
|
|
C6 will give you brighter lower f-ratio for imaging.
The Mak will give you sharper views for your eyes and works better in light pollution in my opinion.
You can get 6" Maks for similar to C6 prices now if you look at Hioptic.
--------------------
Hioptic 152mm f12.5 Maksutov
Celestron Advanced CG5-GT Mount (Mr Noisy!)
Meade 4000 Super Plossl Set
Casio QV-2900UX
Got fed up of waiting for Meade ETX-150 so put this together for £500/$1000 
Edited by sang33ta (07/31/08 10:24 AM)
|
bcuddihee
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 11/04/06
Posts: 935
Loc: Cincinnati Ohio
|
|
Everything Eddgie said.
BC
--------------------
B Cuddihee
On the quest to find the best for the least!
--------------------------
1968 Jason Empire 60X700mm refractor (my buddy from way back)
Celestron Nexstar8SE(a remarkable 8" grab and go)
Feathertouch Microfocuser
Stellarvue 50mm "Sparrowhawk" finder
Denk bino's with Power x switch
Pair of 26m Celestron Silvertop Plossls
Pair of Smart Astronomy 19 EF's
Pair of Smart Astronomy 16 EF's
Agena 38 SWA
Agena 26 SWA
Garrett 2" 2x ED Barlow
|
a-l-e-x
professor emeritus
Reged: 12/25/07
Posts: 503
|
|
I saw a review comparing the Orion 150mm mak-cass to the C6 and the C6 produced slightly brighter images, even on the planets. Perhaps it was the xlt coatings shining through?
--------------------
**************************************************
--------------------------------------------------
We love our precious Harmony, our sweetest Destiny and our darling Sonya Marie !!!
--------------------------------------------------
**************************************************
|
Eddgie
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/01/06
Posts: 1746
|
|
The perception that the Mak is better in light pollution is an optical trick. The only reason that the Mak might look better is that the smaller aperture simply doesn't gather as much sky brightness. Used at the same powers, the bigger exit pupil of the larger scope just lets more sky glow in. But it also lets more light from the target in, and the target will also be brighter in the larger in the smaller scope.
A VERY great deal of the "Sky is brighter" or "Sky is Darker" in this or that scope dialog is really mostly just a function of people makeing comparisons that are not equal.
I saw a posting the other day where a guy said his 4" scope didn't look quite as good as his buddies 4" scope (both ultra-premium APOs). In his post, he said that his scope was being used at 176x, while his buddies scope was being used at 162X (or something like that)... I pointed out to him that even though the difference in magnification was small, the exit pupil of the 162x power in his buddies scope made the image 20% BRIGHTER in his buddies scope, and guess what.. 20% image brightness can make one scope look MUCH better than the next.
So, The sky in the 5" will fool people somehow into thinking that the scope is doing better in light pollution, but the reality is that the larger scope (all other things being equal, which in this case they are fairly close) will be the better scope in light polluted skies.
My regards.
--------------------
Celestron C14, CGE (Big Al)
Astro-Physics 6" f/8 (Buffy)
Televue 101 (No name, but I call it my Widescreen HD Space TV)
The night sky is my mistress. She seduces me away from all other lovers.
|
southmike
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 11/22/04
Posts: 2821
Loc: Fayetteville, NC
|
|
besides what others have pointed out.
my orion mak has built in t-threads so that is a plus,
the c6 has an sct thread so many accessories fit .. there is alo an adapter to go from orion to sct threads so that can help.
course there is always the 150mm mak
--------------------
group scope pic
my refractors
LX200 10"-St120
LX200 8" f6.3-Orion 80ed
LX200 8" f10-Orion 90 Mak setup pic
Meade 102ED LXD650
Sky Watcher 100 ED Triplet prototype
Nexstar 5
etx125
etx70's
|
insinu8
sage
Reged: 01/22/08
Posts: 362
Loc: Sunnyvale, CA
|
|
Get both used. Try them both out across a range of EP's looking at many different objects on the same night.
Then keep the one that makes you smile more frequently
--------------------
Christopher
--------------------
AT66ED
ED80
120ST (Moonlit)
NP127is
TMB 130SS
MN55 (Moonlit)
150MCT
TEC160ED (DOB: 11.06.08)
SN8
MN86
C9.25 (Moonlit)
XT10 Dob
Obsession 18"UC
|
amys
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 06/12/06
Posts: 1771
Loc: Groton, CT
|
|
Just an FYI: There's an Intes Micro 500 Mak for sale on A-mart now . . .
--------------------
Amy
|
doug76
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/05/07
Posts: 2652
Loc: SE Louisiana
|
|
Aperture rules, and the optics, in this case, don't lie. Get the C6. I have one, it is optically superior, and at Highpoint's price, you can't beat it. I own a 5" SCT also, and I can see the difference between the 5" and the 6", although I do like both.
Doug
--------------------
Doug
The Truckstop Astronomer
Meade 12" Lightbridge/Dob Driver II
Celestron C6 SCT
Celestron C6R/Moonlight focuser
Celestron XLT150
Astro-Tech AT80EDT
TOWA 60/700 (under construction)
Celestron CG5-ASGT, CG-4
Celestron Nexstar SE (large)
Meade SWA 34mm
Televue Panoptic 24mm
Pentax XW 10mm, 7mm
------------------------
Astro-Tech AT66ED
Celestron Nexstar SE (small)
Televue Plossl 32mm
Smart Astronomy Solar System 14.5mm
BO/TMB Planetary 9mm, 7mm, 5mm, 4mm, 3.2mm, 2.5mm
|
helpwanted
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/04/07
Posts: 1759
Loc: Phoenix, AZ
|
|
Eddgie...
thanks (to everyone) for their posts... as for why this scope with my current (8"f6 dob)... the dob will go this fall.
my line up is a 4" achro for wide fields (in about a month, after the monsoons leave), a 5" or 6" mak or schmt for higher mags... and a 12" lightbridge... which happens to be right in the same range of focal length as these two scopes in this thread!
the 4" achro and which ever cass- both on a sky view or EZ touch for grab and go...
--------------------
|
RAKing
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 12/28/07
Posts: 824
Loc: Clouds-ville, Virginia
|
|
Quote:
Eddgie...
thanks (to everyone) for their posts... as for why this scope with my current (8"f6 dob)... the dob will go this fall.
my line up is a 4" achro for wide fields (in about a month, after the monsoons leave), a 5" or 6" mak or schmt for higher mags... and a 12" lightbridge... which happens to be right in the same range of focal length as these two scopes in this thread!
the 4" achro and which ever cass- both on a sky view or EZ touch for grab and go...
In that case, I definitely vote for the C6. I also have a 4 inch achro, a C6, and the two bigger cats. The 5 inch Mak won't be that much brighter than the achro; the 6 inch SCT fits that lineup much better, IMHO.
Ron
--------------------
Time spent looking at the stars is added to your life.
Orion XT10i / Moonlite CR2 -- The New "Time Machine"
"Hi Def" TV-102
C925-CF SCT
Ethos and Naglers
GM-8 GEM / A-P Portable Pier
|
Kolenka
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/01/08
Posts: 600
Loc: Seattle Area, WA, USA
|
|
Even though I have and enjoy an ETX-125, I agree that the C6 is probably a better choice in this case. I'm not sure I would compliment a 4" achro with a 5" MCT/SCT. Pretty much means the only thing I would use the MCT/SCT for are planets and doubles (and other tiny DSOs)!
--------------------
Meade 10" LX200R
Orion 80ED
Nagler 7T6, 9T6, 13T6, 17T4, 26T5
Canon XSi (Modded), TIS DMK 31AF03
Northwest Astro Photoblog
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 