Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Orion Maks: 6" or 7"?

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 JoeBftsplk

JoeBftsplk

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 355
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2007
  • Loc: North of the Fingerlakes-NY

Posted 09 November 2018 - 09:36 AM

Looking at Orion's two bigger Maksutovs. The planets, moon, and double stars are the viewing goals. My favorite mount is the Portamount. If the 6" works well on the Porta, I'd probably buy that as the setup would be almost grab-n-go and would see more use.
 
OTOH, if the Mak, with its narrow FOV and high magnifications, needs tracking and a sturdier mount, then I'll have to drag out a GEM (probably a SVP) and might as well get the bigger 7" Mak.
 
So has anyone used a 6" Mak on a Portamount? How did it work for you? Was lack of tracking a big annoyance?

#2 Sky Muse

Sky Muse

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5938
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012
  • Loc: Mid-South, U.S.

Posted 09 November 2018 - 10:06 AM

I have a longer 6" telescope, an f/5 Newonian, on this alt-azimuth...

 

6 f5r.jpg

 

The salt-shaker there is to give a hint as to the scale.  It would be perfect for a 6" Maksutov...

 

https://agenaastro.c...ltaz-mount.html

 

Incidentally, when I last looked at that listing, about a month ago, ten were in stock, now four.  I don't know, however, if it would support a 7"; possibly.  It supports that longer 6" telescope quite well.

 

As it is, a 6" Maksutov comes with a rather lengthy acclimation period, not to mention the focal-length; a 7" would naturally take and be longer, respectively.


  • Jaimo! likes this

#3 Taosmath

Taosmath

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 825
  • Joined: 21 May 2014

Posted 09 November 2018 - 10:34 AM

I had a skywatcher 6" Mak.  It was great optically.  I tried it on a NEXSTAR Mount designed for an 8" SCT but I found the MAK wobbled too much for me to enjoy using it.

 

The 6" Mak was most happy on my CG5 mount, so my expectation would be that it wouldn't matter if you used a 6" or a 7", you'd still need to use your SVP.  A one armed Alt AZ mount is not likely to be beefy enough.



#4 JoeBftsplk

JoeBftsplk

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 355
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2007
  • Loc: North of the Fingerlakes-NY

Posted 09 November 2018 - 10:51 AM

Thanks, Muse. Maybe the smart thing would be to figure out how to disassemble my ETX125 5" Mak without destroying it, find some rings for it and give that a try. It always was optically excellent. Mechanically and electronically is a different story, but it did work as well as those things do.

Anyone got a link to ETX disassembly instructions?

Edited by JoeBftsplk, 09 November 2018 - 10:54 AM.


#5 Jaimo!

Jaimo!

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 3046
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Exit 135 / 40° North

Posted 09 November 2018 - 06:25 PM

I have a longer 6" telescope, an f/5 Newonian, on this alt-azimuth...

 

attachicon.gif 6 f5r.jpg

 

The salt-shaker there is to give a hint as to the scale.  It would be perfect for a 6" Maksutov...

 

https://agenaastro.c...ltaz-mount.html

 

Incidentally, when I last looked at that listing, about a month ago, ten were in stock, now four.  I don't know, however, if it would support a 7"; possibly.  It supports that longer 6" telescope quite well.

 

As it is, a 6" Maksutov comes with a rather lengthy acclimation period, not to mention the focal-length; a 7" would naturally take and be longer, respectively.

I had the AT Voyager branded version of this mount and It worked very well with my MK-67 6" Mak, I particularly liked the slow motion knobs, this was my grab and go rig for years.  I don't think the AT Voyager could support the weight of the 7" Mak, although I have no data to back that up.  I also don't think I would be happy with the performance of a 6" Mak on a Porta Mount, as the Porta has a lower weight capacity than the AT Voyager.  In fact, I would not put a Makustov over 5" on the Porta.

 

IMG_1205 - Small.jpg


  • terraclarke and Sky Muse like this

#6 Freezout

Freezout

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 427
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2017
  • Loc: North Europe, Bortle 4 zone, altitude 11 meters

Posted 09 November 2018 - 07:54 PM

My 6 inches Mak was very stable on my Skyview Pro, but I intend to go Altaz. I will purchase a Skytee 2 (rated 13 kg). The lighter ones are very attractive (especially the one shown by Sky Muse) but don't look sturdy enough for me, I have been used to rock solid!
  • Far Star likes this

#7 JoeBftsplk

JoeBftsplk

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 355
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2007
  • Loc: North of the Fingerlakes-NY

Posted 09 November 2018 - 08:24 PM

Well I got the ETX off its fork mount. Wasn't hard, I don't think I hurt it any. I'll order some rings and a dovetail and give the ETX a try on the Porta when they come in. If it works well, I'll have another grab-and-go rig. If it works really well, I might still buy a bigger Mak to use on the SVP.

Happy to get the ETX going again. It's about 20 years old and hasn't been used for over a decade. Used to really like the sharp images it would put up at high magnifications.
Bob

Edited by JoeBftsplk, 09 November 2018 - 08:25 PM.

  • 3 i Guy and Conaxian like this

#8 3 i Guy

3 i Guy

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 422
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Tampa, FL

Posted 09 November 2018 - 08:56 PM

Here you go Joe

 

 

 

Mark



#9 JoeBftsplk

JoeBftsplk

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 355
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2007
  • Loc: North of the Fingerlakes-NY

Posted 09 November 2018 - 09:33 PM

BTW, from reading another thread I discovered that Orion puts the mounting dovetail on their Maks on the bottom of the scope tube. This would put the finder bracket at about the 7:30 position (near the bottom) of the scope if the dovetail is attached to a sidearm mount like the Porta.

#10 Sky Muse

Sky Muse

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5938
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012
  • Loc: Mid-South, U.S.

Posted 09 November 2018 - 09:37 PM

I had the AT Voyager branded version of this mount and It worked very well with my MK-67 6" Mak, I particularly liked the slow motion knobs, this was my grab and go rig for years.  I don't think the AT Voyager could support the weight of the 7" Mak, although I have no data to back that up.  I also don't think I would be happy with the performance of a 6" Mak on a Porta Mount, as the Porta has a lower weight capacity than the AT Voyager.  In fact, I would not put a Makustov over 5" on the Porta.

 

attachicon.gif IMG_1205 - Small.jpg

My own is the Astro-Tech Voyager I.  I got it back in 2006 or '07, or perhaps before then; I really don't remember as it's been so long.  I had gotten the pier and the eyepiece-tray for it as well.  Someone at Astronomics wanted to give me a discount on the tray, as it was used, according to them, but I couldn't tell that it was used, so I refused the offer.



#11 JoeBftsplk

JoeBftsplk

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 355
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2007
  • Loc: North of the Fingerlakes-NY

Posted 09 November 2018 - 09:38 PM

Here you go Joe
 
 
 
Mark


Great! They're sure cheaper than Parallax rings. Guess I'll give 'me a try.
Thanks, Mark.

#12 Jaimo!

Jaimo!

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 3046
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Exit 135 / 40° North

Posted 09 November 2018 - 11:17 PM

My own is the Astro-Tech Voyager I.  I got it back in 2006 or '07, or perhaps before then; I really don't remember as it's been so long.  I had gotten the pier and the eyepiece-tray for it as well.  Someone at Astronomics wanted to give me a discount on the tray, as it was used, according to them, but I couldn't tell that it was used, so I refused the offer.

I also had the pier and eyepiece tray, I picked the mount up at NEAF, on Sunday but cannot remember the year for $175 new...  I miss that mount.



#13 Jaimo!

Jaimo!

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 3046
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Exit 135 / 40° North

Posted 09 November 2018 - 11:22 PM

My 6 inches Mak was very stable on my Skyview Pro, but I intend to go Altaz. I will purchase a Skytee 2 (rated 13 kg). The lighter ones are very attractive (especially the one shown by Sky Muse) but don't look sturdy enough for me, I have been used to rock solid!

I ended up with a WO EZTouch, which is now made by AKO Swiss.  I was a little hesitant about not having slow motion controls, but this mount is easily adjustable and the movements are so fine, I can easily observe above 200x with out slow motion controls.  And I can load up a second scope for wider field viewing, this is my current "grab and go".

 

IMG_20180608_230104-small.jpg

 

Jaimo!



#14 3 i Guy

3 i Guy

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 422
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Tampa, FL

Posted 10 November 2018 - 10:36 AM

Great! They're sure cheaper than Parallax rings. Guess I'll give 'me a try.
Thanks, Mark.

Get the felt too.



#15 Rock22

Rock22

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2017
  • Loc: Diamond Bar, California

Posted 10 November 2018 - 11:12 AM

My 180mm Orion mak works in my Porta II, but I’ll only use that set up for a quick look and not all night. My mak is insulated and difficult to mount sideways in the Porta II, but it works. A 5” or 6” mak would likely work much better, but I agree what everyone else on this thread is saying - better to not undermount such a fine scope.

The Porta II is such a versatile and easy to transport and use mount, I should have picked one up much earlier. I can’t keep my mounts out and extended because I don’t have the space at home, but if I did, I would get a dual-Scope alt-az like the ES Twilight II or Omegon dual-scope mount. Those would hold the mak and a wide field refractor just fine.

#16 PowerM3

PowerM3

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 105
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2010

Posted 10 November 2018 - 11:41 AM

I have had the privilege of owning both the 6 and 7" Orion Maks. The 7" is much larger and heavier. Optically they where both excellent. If I was limited to a lighter mount I would defiantly go with the 6". I used it on a twilight 1 and it worked relatively well. There was no way that the 7" would ride on that mount. My LXD75 was barely sufficient for the 7". Best, Vlad. 



#17 Phil Barker

Phil Barker

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 615
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2009
  • Loc: hokitika New Zealand

Posted 14 November 2018 - 03:25 PM

the 6 will give a much wider field of view and be more portable.  i own the 7 inch sw and its a fantastic instrument optically but f15 restricts it for dso's.


  • gene 4181 likes this

#18 elwaine

elwaine

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2111
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2006
  • Loc: Jupiter

Posted 15 November 2018 - 12:25 PM

the 6 will give a much wider field of view and be more portable.  i own the 7 inch sw and its a fantastic instrument optically but f15 restricts it for dso's.

Yes...No... Maybe so. It depends on which DSO's one is referring to and which eyepieces one uses. (BTW, I've owned 3, 150mm f/12 Maks and one 180mm f/15 Mak.)

 

I agree that the f.o.v. is wider in the 150 f/12, but I wouldn't characterize it as "much wider." Second, there are many DSO's that fit nicely in the f.o.v. of both of those Maks. Just to name a few: M1, M2, M3, M5, M13, M27, M51, M57, M80, M81, the Trapezium in M42.... There are also DSOs that won't fit the f.o.v. of either one of them. But in general, there are more DSO's that fit, than ones that do not fit.

 

Let's compare objects viewed at similar brightness.

The 180mm Mak, with an Ethos 10mm ep. has an exit pupil of .67mm.

The 150mm Mak with an Ethos 8mm ep. also has an exit pupil of .67mm;

So each Mak will show all of the above listed DSOs (and many more) in their entirety with equal brightness. But the 180mm Mak will show those objects at 270x Magnification while the 150mm Mak will yield only 225x Mag. Advantage: the 180mm Mak.

 

Let's compare objects viewed at similar magnifications.

180 Mak with a Delite 13mm ep. has a magnification of 207x and an exit pupil of .87mm.

150 Mak with a Delite 9mm ep. has a magnification of 200x and an exit pupil of .75mm.

The DSO will appear brighter in the 180mm Mak at the same magnification. Advantage: the 180mm Mak.

 

I'm not saying that under all circumstances DSOs will look better through the 180mm Mak, but in most cases, that has been my experience. In addition, the 180mm Mak will have a noticeable (but not overly dramatic) edge when viewing the planets and the Moon. 


  • Illinois, payner, Phil Barker and 1 other like this

#19 Phil Barker

Phil Barker

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 615
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2009
  • Loc: hokitika New Zealand

Posted 17 November 2018 - 02:55 PM

Nicely put however the potential field of view in the 1800mm fl 152 is 50% wider than the 2700 mm 180.  To me that makes a difference.  I have a 6 inch f5 SW newt with 1.25 inch focuser and its much wider of course than either I would love to compare the mak to the newt which has excellent optics. 

 

I use a 31mm Baader hyperion in the Mak and its very good on DSO's in general but some of the bigger southern objects don't really fit  in the field of view.

 

Phil 



#20 luxo II

luxo II

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 736
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 19 November 2018 - 04:35 AM

the 6 will give a much wider field of view and be more portable. i own the 7 inch sw and its a fantastic instrument optically but f15 restricts it for dso's.

Yes the field of view of the 6” is wider but the extra light grasp of the 7” makes it the better pick - and I’ve had three of these scopes - under dark skies quite a few galaxies are within its grasp and I found it gave quite a nice field with a 38mm 70 degree SWA or 40mm Paragon.

But if you really want wide and image quality you should try to find a secondhand Intes or APM Maksutov Newtonian, the last ones were made about 2-3 years ago and occasionally one comes up for sale - a beautiful APM 8” sold a few weeks ago and there’s a 10” if you have the $$$.

At the moment they seem to be somewhat unloved and underrated but well worth having if you can find one.

To be honest I won’t recommend the ES or SW mak-newtonians for visual, they are simply not in the same league as the intes ones

Edited by luxo II, 19 November 2018 - 04:47 AM.



CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics