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

Best Planetary telescope: 6" SCT OR 6" MAK

  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 Stargazer3236

Stargazer3236

    Skylab

  • ****-
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4,346
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Waltham, MA

Posted 01 June 2020 - 08:11 PM

I am thinking of buying a new telescope for planetary imaging only. I am looking at the Meade LX65 with either the 6" F/15 Mak or the 6" F/10 ACF SCT. Which one will give me the best resolution for imaging Jupiter and Saturn?



#2 Augustus

Augustus

    Fly Me To The Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,500
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2015
  • Loc: Stamford, Connecticut

Posted 01 June 2020 - 08:25 PM

IMO, no point. You have a C8 which will beat either


  • George Bailey, eros312, Hesiod and 1 other like this

#3 Stellar1

Stellar1

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 531
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2018
  • Loc: Ontario, Canada

Posted 01 June 2020 - 08:32 PM

Well, I am not an expert but, I can tell you that I had a 6 inch mak and, when it comes to the moon and planets, Mak's kick @#S and ask questions later. The smaller central obstruction allows for a slightly more contrasted image and, they tend to hold collimation like nothin..g else, short of a grenade blast of course. My skywatcher mak provided some nice images of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars, using a bare bones cheap camera. When it comes to Lunar, my mak was unstoppable, razor sharp views that just begged for more magnification. If you'd like I could PM you some images I took, I'm sure others will weigh in with more detailed information but, trust me on this one, you'd love a mak.

 

The only reason I sold my Mak is because I came across a deal I couldn't refuse on a triplet APO, I can see myself getting a mak again, for sure, I always sell a scope for another then realize I shouldn't have then buy it again.


  • gitane71 likes this

#4 fcathell

fcathell

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,322
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Tucson, AZ

Posted 01 June 2020 - 08:49 PM

For imaging I would have to agree with Augustus.

 

Frank


  • Augustus likes this

#5 Kokatha man

Kokatha man

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14,005
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2009
  • Loc: "cooker-ta man" downunda...

Posted 01 June 2020 - 10:02 PM

...this is an absolute no-brainer despite any commentary to the contrary - Zane (Augustus) is 100% correct: it's like asking me whether I want my C14 or go back to a C11..! lol.gif (very similar % increase/reduction btw. wink.gif )


  • eros312 and Augustus like this

#6 Stargazer3236

Stargazer3236

    Skylab

  • ****-
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4,346
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Waltham, MA

Posted 02 June 2020 - 12:19 AM

Well, I use my C8 for deepsky, but I like to image the planets under 6" to prove I can get good images with a smaller scope. I am 60 years old and eventually I will no longer be able to handle the 8", so I am looking for a smaller scope to take into my post 70 years.


  • Maryland Mike likes this

#7 Kokatha man

Kokatha man

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14,005
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2009
  • Loc: "cooker-ta man" downunda...

Posted 02 June 2020 - 05:04 AM

Well, I use my C8 for deepsky, but I like to image the planets under 6" to prove I can get good images with a smaller scope. I am 60 years old and eventually I will no longer be able to handle the 8", so I am looking for a smaller scope to take into my post 70 years.

Strike me senile..! rofl2.gif I thought I read a post which isn't here now where someone gave my age away - heading towards 71 I'm still quite disinterested in thinking about downsizing from the C14, but of course getting smarter with things like the portable pier, EQ head & ota mounting approaches is quite beneficial... wink.gif

 

Incidentally wrt my comparisons the increase in primary mirror area of a C14 compared to a C11 is 170% or so...& from a 6" to an 8" is about 180% or so...although there is of course nothing wrong with the challenge of imaging with smaller scopes! smile.gif


  • Tulloch likes this

#8 Hesiod

Hesiod

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,936
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2013

Posted 02 June 2020 - 05:39 AM

The 6" MCTs are really close in weight and length to a C8, so I see little gain in this move...by the way, at which focal ratio you should shot?

With my camera I got the best results around f/20, so a f/15 telescope would be rather nasty to use if compared to a f/10 (or other focal ratios I could turn into f/20 through Barlow lenses and the like).

Once the appropriate sampling is met, given the fact that both are 6" will get the same level of detail (or resolution).

 

By the way, if want a real challenge may think to a C5 instead: the telescope is very small and handy, and I feel it to be a better companion to your C8 than the C6 (those are IMHO too close: the C6 would save you maybe 1kg and a few inches)



#9 Toddeo

Toddeo

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,298
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012
  • Loc: Sierra Vista, AZ

Posted 02 June 2020 - 09:15 AM

The 6" Mak will weigh the same or more than your C8 Sct.



#10 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • -----
  • Posts: 5,458
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 04 June 2020 - 02:18 AM

6" F/5 Newtonian will beat both 6" Mak and C6, because it is faster and sharper, and with 2x Powermate or even TV 3x you will be at same league of C6 or 6" Mak, and i said 6" F/5 Newt because you can use it for DSO also very nice, i swear you can you this 6" F/5 Newt for birding and wildlife too.



#11 MikiSJ

MikiSJ

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 806
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2006
  • Loc: San Jose, CA

Posted 04 June 2020 - 02:32 AM

I don't have any skin in this game, but if one wants to view planets and the moon solely with one scope - why not get a good Maksutov with a native f/15 focal length. It will make it easier to use longer focal length eyepieces with better eye relief. I never like using a Barlow.

 

The only downside I see is the slower cooling with the more glass of the Maksutov versus the SCT.



#12 BQ Octantis

BQ Octantis

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,761
  • Joined: 29 Apr 2017
  • Loc: Red Centre, Oz

Posted 04 June 2020 - 03:14 AM

I am thinking of buying a new telescope for planetary imaging only. I am looking at the Meade LX65 with either the 6" F/15 Mak or the 6" F/10 ACF SCT. Which one will give me the best resolution for imaging Jupiter and Saturn?

To answer your question, a Mak-Cass will outperform an SCT of the same size. This is based on my comparison of a Celestron C5 against an Orion StarMax 127 (5-in apertures), plus my comparison of my Skywatcher 180 (7-in Mak) against a C8. Based on the comparisons, I would wager that the 5-in StarMax 127 would perform as well as the 6-in SCT.

 

Cheers,

BQ



#13 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • -----
  • Posts: 5,458
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 04 June 2020 - 03:31 AM

To answer your question, a Mak-Cass will outperform an SCT of the same size. This is based on my comparison of a Celestron C5 against an Orion StarMax 127 (5-in apertures), plus my comparison of my Skywatcher 180 (7-in Mak) against a C8. Based on the comparisons, I would wager that the 5-in StarMax 127 would perform as well as the 6-in SCT.

 

Cheers,

BQ

Visually i agree, but i don't know if that is true for imaging, i feel my 8" F/5 Newt can outperform my Skywatcher 180 Mak easily if i make perfect collimation, but when i put my Mak for visual, it was sharper [and dimmer] than the view i saw from C9.25 and Meade 10" SCT for the planets and the moon.



#14 BQ Octantis

BQ Octantis

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,761
  • Joined: 29 Apr 2017
  • Loc: Red Centre, Oz

Posted 04 June 2020 - 03:46 AM

Visually i agree, but i don't know if that is true for imaging, i feel my 8" F/5 Newt can outperform my Skywatcher 180 Mak easily if i make perfect collimation, but when i put my Mak for visual, it was sharper [and dimmer] than the view i saw from C9.25 and Meade 10" SCT for the planets and the moon.

I would love to see an imaging comparison of a Mak 127 with a C6 SCT. The starting point for the Mak output is so much cleaner than the SCT (presumably because of the better suited, sharper focal ratio and the smaller central obstruction), I find it to require much less processing. Invariably, the extra processing for the SCT runs into artifact limitations before I hit where I feel the aperture's performance limit should be…

 

BQ


Edited by BQ Octantis, 04 June 2020 - 03:47 AM.


#15 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • -----
  • Posts: 5,458
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 04 June 2020 - 04:28 AM

I would love to see an imaging comparison of a Mak 127 with a C6 SCT. The starting point for the Mak output is so much cleaner than the SCT (presumably because of the better suited, sharper focal ratio and the smaller central obstruction), I find it to require much less processing. Invariably, the extra processing for the SCT runs into artifact limitations before I hit where I feel the aperture's performance limit should be…

 

BQ

I remember somewhere in this site while ago someone made a comparison between 3 scopes, one Mak and 2 SCT of different sizes, the surprise was that both SCT outperformed that of the Mak, i may say because of the SCT size aperture, but even without that it sounds that the SCT is the more recommended by planetary imagers community, i have a Mak and i want to get something else so BADLY, but can't afford SCT larger size so i will risk to go with larger Newt to replace my Mak.



#16 BQ Octantis

BQ Octantis

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,761
  • Joined: 29 Apr 2017
  • Loc: Red Centre, Oz

Posted 04 June 2020 - 04:48 AM

I remember somewhere in this site while ago someone made a comparison between 3 scopes, one Mak and 2 SCT of different sizes, the surprise was that both SCT outperformed that of the Mak, i may say because of the SCT size aperture, but even without that it sounds that the SCT is the more recommended by planetary imagers community, i have a Mak and i want to get something else so BADLY, but can't afford SCT larger size so i will risk to go with larger Newt to replace my Mak.

I'm finding a lot of jibber-jabber comparing the 5-in Mak to the 6-in SCT (seems to be a draw in opinion space), but no apples-to-apples imaging comparisons (i.e., same camera, seeing, workflow, imager, ad nauseum, ad infinitum).

 

Foc and Tulloch both have C6s…maybe we could find a way to get one of them a Mak 127 to do a head-to-head?…

 

BQ


Edited by BQ Octantis, 04 June 2020 - 04:50 AM.


#17 Tulloch

Tulloch

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,362
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2019
  • Loc: Melbourne, Australia

Posted 04 June 2020 - 04:58 AM

Foc and Tulloch both have C6s…maybe we could find a way to get one of them a Mak 127 to do a head-to-head?…

 

... or we could send our C6 to someone who has a Mak 127. My C6 is currently sitting in a box in my garage - alone, unloved, and wondering what it did to deserve to go from being the most loved toy in the box to now being an outcast bawling.gif


Edited by Tulloch, 04 June 2020 - 04:59 AM.


#18 BQ Octantis

BQ Octantis

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,761
  • Joined: 29 Apr 2017
  • Loc: Red Centre, Oz

Posted 04 June 2020 - 05:01 AM

... or we could send our C6 to someone who has a Mak 127. My C6 is currently sitting in a box in my garage - alone, unloved, and wondering what it did to deserve to go from being the most loved toy in the box to now being an outcast bawling.gif

Lol!

 

For quality control, I'd have to ship you with the scope! lol.gif

 

BQ


Edited by BQ Octantis, 04 June 2020 - 05:01 AM.


#19 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • -----
  • Posts: 5,458
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 04 June 2020 - 05:03 AM

... or we could send our C6 to someone who has a Mak 127. My C6 is currently sitting in a box in my garage - alone, unloved, and wondering what it did to deserve to go from being the most loved toy in the box to now being an outcast bawling.gif

Lend it to me [FREE] for few days or weeks and i will fill images everywhere with it, and i will return it back to you to make it see the light again by you. wink.gif grin.gif lol.gif



#20 BQ Octantis

BQ Octantis

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,761
  • Joined: 29 Apr 2017
  • Loc: Red Centre, Oz

Posted 04 June 2020 - 05:39 AM

Unfortunately, the two Mak 127s I have access to are in San Antonio and D.C. Lacaille has one, but I don't think it's in Australia…


  • Tulloch likes this

#21 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • -----
  • Posts: 5,458
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 04 June 2020 - 05:49 AM

Forget Mak 127, it should be 150 Mak or even 180 Mak, nothing less, i am willing to test my 7" Mak with anyone borrowing me his C6 SCT wink.gif



#22 Foc

Foc

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 697
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2016
  • Loc: South Canberra

Posted 04 June 2020 - 07:42 AM

Since I just got some use out of my 6 inch Cat, I instead propose you could always compare a 7 inch Mak to an 8 inch Cat or if you are really confident, Andrew's 9.25 Cat instead. But as BQ indicated, single 1 against 1 comparisons do not usually give you convincing data. This debate does not seem to be about premium versions of either design.  I liked my 4 inch Meade Mak Cass and so I speculate basic Maks would often do well if in average hands,  the more forgiving optical figure for collimation of the (usually) Skywatcher Mak relative to a slightly larger consumer grade Cat (usually Celestron ) that is possibly of more variable quality and if not owned by a master imager such as Darryl may not be collimated as well.  But like Tareq not enough Skywatcher (and now in recent times Celestron) Mak users around the world are posting much in the way of Planetary images on CN to let us all see a good population of consumer Mak planetary imagers.  With many more such postings perhaps we might be all convinced one way or the other.



#23 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • -----
  • Posts: 5,458
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 04 June 2020 - 09:36 AM

I try to avoid posting much from my Mak here as i don't see myself matching those with SCT from Celestron and similar from 8" and up to 16", on Facebook i got popularity, i can post more and image more from my Mak with nice results, but i try very very hard to justify going with larger scope, larger than 10",so i don't shoot more with my 7" Mak, and i just recently -very recent- got 6" F/4 Newtonian, i can try to use that sometimes if necessary.  



#24 ROursamajor

ROursamajor

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 117
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2012
  • Loc: Braila, Romania

Posted 04 June 2020 - 12:10 PM

Mak127@1500@Powermate2.5x@Lifecam Studio webcam... an older photo.

Attached Thumbnails

  • Saturnpfssm.jpg
  • Saturnpfs.jpg

  • Foc likes this

#25 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • -----
  • Posts: 5,458
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 04 June 2020 - 01:01 PM

Skywatcher 180mm Mak and ASI385MC camera, poor seeing

Attached Thumbnails

  • 22_20_28_lapl6_ap15.jpg

  • Foc likes this


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