75 replies to this topic

[paulsky]

Hello,
I'm looking into upgrading a SW Mak 127, I love the lunar views, double stars and planets, it really is what I can see best from my backyard...
I like the Maksutov Cassegrain system... It would be worth upgrading to a Mak-Cass. 150mm? Or is the jump too small?
I will be happy to read your advice.
Thank you.
Paul

[Brain&Force]

I personally feel like the jump from 5" to 6" is not all that significant. I'd personally go to an 8" SCT (or classical Cassegrain if you want to go wild). That difference is much more noticeable.

[Barlowbill]

Too small for me

[carolinaskies]

Hello,
I'm looking into upgrading a SW Mak 127, I love the lunar views, double stars and planets, it really is what I can see best from my backyard...
I like the Maksutov Cassegrain system... It would be worth upgrading to a Mak-Cass. 150mm? Or is the jump too small?
I will be happy to read your advice.
Thank you.
Paul

Will you see more detail?  Yes.... but as a relative change it's not going to floor you.  

If you really want to jump AND stay with a Mak move up to 180mm if you have a capable mount to hold it.

5" is on the cusp of detail and 7" really is enough light on planets to see better detail and split more doubles.  

The other option if you are staying visual, consider finding an older 8" Cave Astrola F/8 which are ideal for planetary and double star.  

[Shed9]

If you like the views you are getting from a 127 and what to upgrade within the Maksutov options, I'd personally advise you go with the 180 over the 150.  A much more significant and material change over the 150 and will give you the jump you are looking for.  

[vtornado]

What mount do you have?  And will your existing mount support the 150 well?

 

I have moved up from a 5 inch newt to a 6 inch newt, which I assume is similar to your question.  The 6 is a little bit brighter, a little bit better in what I can see lunar details wise.  Not a giant leap.   I purchased the 6 inch newt because this is the absolute biggest tube I can fit on my mount.  I wanted to maximize my aperture with my mount as the constraint. 

 

I agree that the 180 is the difference maker, but ... it is big, and will most likely require a bigger mount.

Edited by vtornado, 17 January 2025 - 05:43 PM.

[RichD]

I upgraded from the SW 127 to a 150 for the same reason as vtornado above. The 150 works on my existing mount, which I was happy with.

It's not a huge leap from the 127, but it is still significant. Quite a difference on globs and PN in particular and a fair jump on moon and planets. I don't know if it would be the jump you are looking for however. I suspect most would agree with the others above and recommend a 180 or C8. But as mentioned, the 180 is a huge jump in weight. The C8 is the same as the skymax 150.

Good luck with your choice.

[quilty]

I'd go for any size I can afford and am willing or able to handle.
The 6 beside the 5 is not worth it but instead it is anyway.
Specially for the Skymax the reports tell that the huge performance step is from 5 to 6 and not from 6 to 7.
I'd have the 7 tough if it wasn't too heavy for me. It has to compete with the C9 (or a Mew 180 or 210), my Skymax 6 just with the GSO CC6

[Terra Nova]

I'd go for any size I can afford and am willing or able to handle.
The 6 beside the 5 is not worth it but instead it is anyway.
Specially for the Skymax the reports tell that the huge performance step is from 5 to 6 and not from 6 to 7.
I'd have the 7 tough if it wasn't too heavy for me. It has to compete with the C9 (or a Mew 180 or 210), my Skymax 6 just with the GSO CC6

I think this is the key right here: optical performance by virtue of the quality of the optics themselves. I’ve not had a current Synta 127mm Mak but I did have one (Celestron) about 10 years ago and I was very underwhelmed. Moreover, remember the Synta 127s still only perform with an effective aperture of ~118mm as the primary actually is 127mm. The newer Synta 150mm Maks do perform at 150mm because they now have the enlarged primary (>150mm). But beyond that, for years, the 150s and 180s have been reported to have exceptional optics and perform wonderfully. The downside of course is that it has almost double the weight.

[CHASLX200]

Even a jump from a 8 to a 10 is not a big diff.

[alnitak22]

I personally feel like the jump from 5" to 6" is not all that significant. I'd personally go to an 8" SCT (or classical Cassegrain if you want to go wild). That difference is much more noticeable.

Not my experience at all. I’ve compared my friend’s 5” Skywatcher Mak several times now with my 6” Synta Mak and the difference, especially on Jupiter is quite apparent. Seems a bigger difference than the 1” separation would suggest actually.

[Dave Novoselsky]

“Seems a bigger difference than the 1” separation would suggest actually”

 

This comment illustrates a common misunderstanding as to the real difference made by what appears to be a minor increase in viewing ability.

 

The aperture or diameter is not the correct measure of the ability of the scope.  Viewing is a fundamental function of the light gathering ability of the primary optic, and that is based on the overall surface area and not simply the diameter of the optic.  If you do the math, the increase in surface area between the 5” and the 6” Mak will surprise you.  Indeed, the surface area difference between the 6” and 7” is even more substantial as it is not a simple, lineal one inch progression.

 

Of course weight and cost increases again in a non lineal progression.

Edited by Dave Novoselsky, 18 January 2025 - 01:20 PM.

[quilty]

Of course weight and cost increases again in a non lineal progression.

This is the only line in the above post which makes sense

Edited by quilty, 18 January 2025 - 12:22 PM.

[quilty]

withdrawn

Edited by quilty, 18 January 2025 - 12:26 PM.

[Dave Novoselsky]

This is the only line in the above post which makes sense

?

[Dave Novoselsky]

The math, 5” optic has a surface area of 19.6 square inches . The 6” has a surface area of 28.7 square inches.  

[Shed9]

The math, 5” optic has a surface area of 19.6 square inches . The 6” has a surface area of 28.7 square inches.  

I think most people understand the rudiments of this, despite most people stating the basics of going up in aperture size in their comments.  Also, whilst I appreciate the inch measurement is nominal over the metric sizing, doing the maths and using the true size, the difference is actually 19.635 (127), to 27.390 (150), to 39.442 (180).  Effectively this translates as a <40 gain with the 127 and a >100% gain going with the 180.

 

I appreciate your point was to show the generalised difference in area comparative to aperture increase, my point was to relate this to gain and accounting for the very small difference in the actual size of the specific optics being discussed is all, nothing more.  

Edited by Shed9, 19 January 2025 - 05:25 AM.

[quilty]

“Seems a bigger difference than the 1” separation would suggest actually”
 This comment illustrates a common misunderstanding as to the real difference made by what appears to be a minor increase in viewing ability.

+++Sorry, what missunderstanding? by whom?++++
 
The aperture or diameter is not the correct measure of the ability of the scope.

++++It is so much more than the ability to light grasp++++

 Viewing is a fundamental function of the light gathering ability of the primary optic, and that is based on the overall surface area and not simply the diameter of the optic.  If you do the math, the increase in surface area between the 5” and the 6” Mak will surprise you.

++++no math necessary. Who would be surprised?+++++

 Indeed, the surface area difference between the 6” and 7” is even more substantial as it is not a simple, lineal one inch progression.

++++yes, well?++++

++++all pointless+++
 
Of course weight and cost increases again in a non lineal progression.

This is true, price and weight go about along the third power of aperture.
A pity that the scope's performance does only with the first power (linearly) and not even that in general, rather less so

Edited by quilty, 19 January 2025 - 06:01 AM.

[carolinaskies]

Videos and pictures can be found of examples of performance of 127s, 150s, 180s, etc.   While the 150 does improve on the 127, given the targets cited, there isn't the kind of improvement that excites acclaim. 

Now if you had the opportunity to TRADE up recouping some of the investment in the 127 towards the 150 would that be worthwhile?  Sure.   

If money isn't any issue buying 2" extra aperture is the better choice but nearly 2x as much as buying 1".  Is the extra worthwhile?  I think alot of people would say yes since anything above 6" is getting into serious equipment when talking cassegrain designs.  On an MCT that meniscus gets thicker and the whole OTA gets heavy so you may need to figure in a new mount if you're using something that works for maybe up to a 6".  

 

[quilty]

Specially at these Skymax' (the only available serious series at moment) the goldilocks optically seem to be the 150 in that line considering the reports. The 5 seems to operate at just 118 mm aperture and the 180 at full aperture and f/15 though, gets not that enthusisatic reports the 150 one finds.
I hope I can join soon
Mine from 2006 (I think) seemed a bit mushy and show little contrast at its fist (and only yet) light.
Hope it was just seeing, no true star pattern @Polaris and 320x

And yes, it doesn't make too much sense beside the decent Bresser 5"(and the Intes 703 which I not yet really firstlighted neither). But maybe beside the Skymax 5
The Skymax 6 weighs 5.5 kg, the 703 6.0.
The Skymax 7 weighs 7.8 kg

Edited by quilty, 19 January 2025 - 07:58 AM.

[Dave Novoselsky]

“Specially at these Skymax' (the only available serious series at moment)”

Let’s not forget the oft overlooked but actually quite good Maks sold in the US branded as Explore Scientific, Bresser in the EU/UK, and Maxvision on eBay.  I have and find well built, optically excellent and built /weighing like a tank the ES 152.  They are offered in the 100 through 152 range.

 

Pics below the 152 comes with two items lacking in the Skymax series but often added at extra expense: A ‘real’ focuser and a set of tube rings and a scope handle that makes moving and mounting much easier. See below

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 
• 

Edited by Dave Novoselsky, 19 January 2025 - 10:39 AM.

[RichD]

With the gregory Maksutov design, 6" and f12 is a nice place to be. It seems to suit a reasonable number of people's needs, and the skymax seems to be fairly consistent quality wise. Hence the good feedback.

[CHASLX200]

With the gregory Maksutov design, 6" and f12 is a nice place to be. It seems to suit a reasonable number of people's needs, and the skymax seems to be fairly consistent quality wise. Hence the good feedback.

My SW150 Mak was past insane nuts freaky sharp.

[quilty]

“Specially at these Skymax' (the only available serious series at moment)”
Let’s not forget the oft overlooked but actually quite good Maks sold in the US branded as Explore Scientific, Bresser in the EU/UK, and Maxvision on eBay.  I have and find well built, optically excellent and built /weighing like a tank the ES 152.  They are offered in the 100 through 152 range.
 
Pics below the 152 comes with two items lacking in the Skymax series but often added at extra expense: A ‘real’ focuser and a set of tube rings and a scope handle that makes moving and mounting much easier. See below

You're right, forgot about JOC.

Edited by quilty, 19 January 2025 - 11:21 AM.

[quilty]

My SW150 Mak was past insane nuts freaky sharp.

Nevertheless you let it go