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

Meade 6 inch mak lx65

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Stopforths

Stopforths

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2018

Posted 21 October 2020 - 01:19 AM

Just opened the boxes today and will be using tonight.

 

6 inch f12 Mak

 

some observations

much smaller than skywatcher 180 I used to own

Obstruction is about the same as 180 clearly baffled for 1.25 inch only check out size of primary baffle much smaller than 180SW proportionally.

 

Doesn't look to be skywatcher in my opinion tube  length is 40.5 cm diameter of tube 185mm

weight 5.5 kg.(ota only)

will get back with impressions later.  and the lx65 also.

Attached Thumbnails

  • meademak.jpg

  • Starman27 and Kevin Barker like this

#2 Stopforths

Stopforths

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2018

Posted 21 October 2020 - 01:20 AM

Here's the scope on a mount.  OTa to my eye looks like a scaled up etx90.

 

Phil Barker

Attached Thumbnails

  • lx65.jpg

  • Starman27, eros312 and Kevin Barker like this

#3 Stopforths

Stopforths

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2018

Posted 21 October 2020 - 04:08 AM

OK a quick impression after a couple of hours with the new scope.

 

The finderscope supplied with the scope is imho cheap rubbish will be replacing it with a 6 x 30 mm finder.  Why because the lowest setting on the red dot is too bright and I hate red dot finders.

 

The OTA gives bright  sharp views.   Took a while a acclimatize  but once it settled I was able to see lovely diffraction even patterns each side of focus. Jupiter seeing was ok and plenty of detail nice contrast etc same with Saturn and mars.  

 

Seeing came and went I used a 12mm plossl and a 26mm plossl.   47 Tukana was amazing very bright and well resolved.  You northerners don't get to see 47 Tukana its a delightful sight and the 6 inch Mak really showed it in all its glory.  Busted a few clusters lovely views in the 26mm sharp to the edge. 

 

I looked at Alpha Centaurus the double star and the in focus view of this was superb like 2 bullet holes.  No image shift in focus and focus ok better than I thought it would be.

 

Collimation perfect and excellent star test well done Meade on the optics I would have to say.

 

Just put it in the case I used for an intes 715 sold years ago and the sw180 and its much much smaller.  They only just fitted into the box.  Comparing to Skywatcher 180 and meade etx125 its much closer to the later in size.

 

re the setup and goto found this a tad difficult as I set it up as the wrong scope and couldn't get out of the equatorial menu then once I could it worked very well.  Very solid and this scope weights setup around 12 1/2 pounds.  I wish it had a speed key to ngc messier objects etc like celestron and sky watcher.  I'll read the manual before its next outing its been decades since I used an lx200.

 

Overall very impressed its a good piece of kit I had tripod legs extended so i could stand and look in the eyepiece.

 

Is it a good quick look scope I would say its far easier to setup than an eq6az with an 8 inch GSO Cass I can attest to that.    Its quick and easy to setup  and I plan to use it plenty.

 

The tube is quite heavy but portable it would be very interesting in better seeing to push it a bit.    I used a gso dielectric diagonal at some stage I will compare to the stock meade one and see if its brighter etc.

 

I have a little C5 my brother lent me and the Mak seemed a lot brighter and more capable than the 5 inch Celestron with XLT    coatings.  I will mount both and see how they compare  at some stage.   I made an effective dewshield out of cardboard for the first light it would have been nice for a sliding dewshield on this scope.  If meade really want to make it even better I recommend this and a better finderscope say 5 x 24 or 6 x 30.


Edited by Stopforths, 21 October 2020 - 03:26 PM.

  • Starman27, Phil1, eros312 and 3 others like this

#4 Sandy Swede

Sandy Swede

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 421
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2018
  • Loc: Delaware beaches

Posted 21 October 2020 - 05:08 AM

Nice review.  Keep it coming.

 

I have a fondness for maks.  I read that you had a SW180 mak.  What were your impressions and what was the main reason for getting rid of it?  Don't want to hijack your thread, so feel free to PM me.  Thanks.


  • Stopforths likes this

#5 Starman27

Starman27

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 9,418
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2006
  • Loc: Illinois, Iowa

Posted 21 October 2020 - 10:22 AM

Thanks for your "First Light" report. Reports like this are very helpful.


  • Stopforths likes this

#6 Phil1

Phil1

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2007
  • Loc: N.C.

Posted 21 October 2020 - 12:33 PM

Very nice review. I have the LX65  6 inch Mak also. And as you I really like it.


Edited by Phil1, 21 October 2020 - 08:33 PM.

  • Stopforths likes this

#7 USAFMissileer

USAFMissileer

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2020
  • Loc: Asbury, Iowa

Posted 21 October 2020 - 12:39 PM

Great review.  I have your 6" smaller cousin, the 5" Mak and I do like it thus far.  I love the LX65 mount as well.  A very well put together "mid range" telescope kit.  


  • Phil1 and Stopforths like this

#8 Stopforths

Stopforths

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2018

Posted 21 October 2020 - 01:51 PM

Nice review.  Keep it coming.

 

I have a fondness for maks.  I read that you had a SW180 mak.  What were your impressions and what was the main reason for getting rid of it?  Don't want to hijack your thread, so feel free to PM me.  Thanks.

Only sold the Mak to buy a gso 8 inch classical cassegrain out of curiosity.  Couldn't justify owning both.

 

SW180 no lemon wonderful optics when cooled.  Easily beat a superb 115mm apo i also owned.  Took a while to cool never a quick look scope.   Well designed for 2 inch fields too at f15.  The 6 clearly isn't able to do 2 inch fields but its nice and sharp and at f12 should do reasonably well.    I'll report on this when i use it next as I'm going to try a 35mm ultima I have for deep sky etc.  



#9 Kevin Barker

Kevin Barker

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 815
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2009
  • Loc: Auckland, NZ

Posted 21 October 2020 - 04:15 PM

Nice report Phil.

What is the focuser like ? Is there much in the way of image shift when focusing?

 

Is the mount stable in wind?? Would it work better with a small second scope mounted?? I think you can put 7 pounds on the other side.



#10 Stopforths

Stopforths

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2018

Posted 21 October 2020 - 05:48 PM

Focuser I think is a little better than the sw180.  Not too bad not much image shift smooth.

Nice report Phil.

What is the focuser like ? Is there much in the way of image shift when focusing?

 

Is the mount stable in wind?? Would it work better with a small second scope mounted?? I think you can put 7 pounds on the other side.



#11 maroubra_boy

maroubra_boy

    Vendor - Gondwana Telescopes

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 669
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 21 October 2020 - 05:50 PM

Stopforths,

 

Insulate the Mak and you won't need to wait for it to cool down before using it.


Edited by maroubra_boy, 21 October 2020 - 05:50 PM.

  • Dave Ponder and Bean614 like this

#12 carolinaskies

carolinaskies

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,367
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2014
  • Loc: Greenville SC

Posted 21 October 2020 - 05:50 PM

Congratulations on the new LX65 & 6" combo!   

I have the LX65 which I've used with a deforked ETX90, ST80, 80ED(have to watch balancing as I have to move it far forward.  I picked up an old C8 today I may defork and see if with a dovetail it will dress out less than that 14lbs(think it should be around 11lbs from calcs) 

Meade's 'quality' telescopes are Meade design only, they aren't made identical to the other mak's on the market partially due to the ACF designs.  It may be possible the mirrors could be sourced from the same factory but everything else seems always to be Meade specific. 

One modification you might consider(I'm thinking of doing myself too) is to remove the battery tray(will take some base disassembly) and putting a rechargeable lithium ion in it's place.  Also, you should check your AUX ports to make sure the postive/negatives haven't been reversed. This is supposed to have been fixed in later models, but it would be wise to check this so you don't fry an accessory(like a GPS module).  

  



#13 Phil1

Phil1

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2007
  • Loc: N.C.

Posted 21 October 2020 - 08:54 PM

I have very little image shift the focuser is a little tight. But for me is no problem. I have a William Optics 66mm refractor on the other side and the mount has no problem with the weight. I have very little vibration usually only when focusing. I have the mount set low as it will go which maybe why. And with the mount set that low. It's almost most perfect for me sit on my harbor freight mechanic stool and observe.



#14 gdjsky01

gdjsky01

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 404
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Southern California

Posted 21 October 2020 - 11:13 PM

Just remember the Meade's quality (SIC) also brought you LX-65 mounts with AUX jacks wired backwards so if anything tried to use them, it shorted out the mount's controller board. And they could care less. Check and make sure there is a white dot on the battery tray. Otherwise don't plug anything into the mount's aux ports without reversing gnd and 12v in the cable.

 

Cheers.

Glad the scope is good!
 


  • Bean614 likes this

#15 maroubra_boy

maroubra_boy

    Vendor - Gondwana Telescopes

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 669
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 21 October 2020 - 11:28 PM

It is a shame that there IS mirror shift to be seen, however small it is.  There SHOULDN'T be any, and there are primary mirror focusing designs that have no mirror shift.  Yet mirror shift is still present, and everyone seems to accept it hmm.gif   And an external focuser is a cop-out excuse.

 

Nice optics, but they then pee all over it with a crappy focusing mechanism that means collimation, TRUE collimation, is impossible because of the blooming mirror shift, and it keeps coming up time after time after time, scope after scope... 4.gif bangbang.gif

 

Design and make a focusing mechanism without mirror shift in the first bloody place and this would never more be an issue to plaque these fora!


Edited by maroubra_boy, 21 October 2020 - 11:32 PM.

  • Dave Ponder and Bean614 like this

#16 The Ardent

The Ardent

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 5,087
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Virginia

Posted 21 October 2020 - 11:34 PM

A robust 2" helical focuser in lieu of the standard visual back would be nice as standard equipment. 

 

Just a couple of mm's of fine focus to tweak the image without moving the primary mirror. 



#17 Stopforths

Stopforths

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2018

Posted 22 October 2020 - 03:00 AM

will get back soon focuser is fine bugger all image shift 

Nice report Phil.

What is the focuser like ? Is there much in the way of image shift when focusing?

 

Is the mount stable in wind?? Would it work better with a small second scope mounted?? I think you can put 7 pounds on the other side.



#18 carolinaskies

carolinaskies

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,367
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2014
  • Loc: Greenville SC

Posted 22 October 2020 - 05:42 PM

It is a shame that there IS mirror shift to be seen, however small it is.  There SHOULDN'T be any, and there are primary mirror focusing designs that have no mirror shift.  Yet mirror shift is still present, and everyone seems to accept it hmm.gif   And an external focuser is a cop-out excuse.

 

Nice optics, but they then pee all over it with a crappy focusing mechanism that means collimation, TRUE collimation, is impossible because of the blooming mirror shift, and it keeps coming up time after time after time, scope after scope... 4.gif bangbang.gif

 

Design and make a focusing mechanism without mirror shift in the first bloody place and this would never more be an issue to plaque these fora!

While there are more robust 'designs' the unit cost over a product run and design changes and relative low price of this OTA as part of the overall package mean more cost changing market price points against competitors.  An ATMer or 1% specialty shop can spend all kinds of time to devise the slickest version of something, but when it comes to production versions tweaking the component for every single unit never is practical or economically desireable to any corporation producing thousands of units. 

Want the best Mak, invest in a Questar.  But 99% of people aren't likely to find 1-arc-second slack that bothersome. 

What most people don't realize is that mirror shift is so miniscule in itself on these systems and it's only because of the magnifying factor of a spherical secondary which excentuates the minor variation.  This is why an external focuser of any type is quite helpful in an SCT & MAK design because nothing moves in the relationship between mirrors and remains a static quantity that can then can be colimated to perfection in an observatory environment and only has to be addressed on a much longer term check-verify-tweak basis.  



#19 Stopforths

Stopforths

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2018

Posted 24 October 2020 - 03:08 AM

Just had a quick session with the lx65 with a c5 and the 6 inch mak.

 

Really easy to line up the second scope I was using 150-250 on Jupiter, Mars, Saturn and the moon which is half at the moment.

 

Left both scopes out for 30 minutes and both were thermally stable when I started looking.

 

The mount easily handles this weight and I had a 7 x 50 mm finder on the Mak.

 

It works well was stable and really enjoyable.  The Mak was better than the C5 noticeably so on all objects.   Its sharp and well baffled and the focuser is better than the Celestron 5 a lot less movement.  The C5 is an Omni and not bad at all but the Mak imho is better.

 

Didn't try a wider field in the Mak and its cloudy now   when moon out of the way will try this.  Saturn superb at around 260 x.  Jupiter very nice at 180-200 times in the Mak.  Mars showed plenty and its low in the sky here at 260 x.  The C5 just wasn't keeping up.



#20 Stopforths

Stopforths

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2018

Posted 24 October 2020 - 03:10 AM

Alex

 

There isn't really any in the Mak and the focuser is smooth.  Is that big intes focuser sorted?

 

Phil

 

 

It is a shame that there IS mirror shift to be seen, however small it is.  There SHOULDN'T be any, and there are primary mirror focusing designs that have no mirror shift.  Yet mirror shift is still present, and everyone seems to accept it hmm.gif   And an external focuser is a cop-out excuse.

 

Nice optics, but they then pee all over it with a crappy focusing mechanism that means collimation, TRUE collimation, is impossible because of the blooming mirror shift, and it keeps coming up time after time after time, scope after scope... 4.gif bangbang.gif

 

Design and make a focusing mechanism without mirror shift in the first bloody place and this would never more be an issue to plaque these fora!




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