88 replies to this topic

[quilty]

You collimate the SC once like the Mak.
And it's no issue because it's faster than with the Mak and really easy.

Collimating the SC is really simpler than the Skymax

1. Just 3 instead of 6 screws.
2. The Skymax' scews are pairs of pull and push screws. But because the flange is rubber loaden, loosening or fastening of any screw in any scope position has an effect. You can't just direct the scope skywards and only tweak the push screws. Once understood, it's no big problem still but I'd say it's double as complicated as the SC at least.
In the end you should have a level tension on all three screw pairs in order to provide a long term stability.
Unlike the SC. Here the tension divides automatically level to the three screws.

I wouldn't use a torque wrench (after lubricating the threads) but that might make sense to the Skymax

Edited by quilty, 30 January 2025 - 09:56 AM.

[paulsky]

Then, the collimation have more complication in the Mak in relation at SCT? 

[quilty]

Yes

[paulsky]

It's something to think about!!

[quilty]

I think collimation isn't really an issue at neither scope type

[ABQJeff]

Maks do require collimation, less than an SCT, just only if you jostle them a lot (eg in overhead bin on an airplane, carrying on a bus, going thru security, walking thru the airport, etc.)

 

SCTs don’t require collimation often, like every couple years depending on number of trips over dirt roads or fast breaking to dodge elk you do.

[paulsky]

After so many posts, for which I am infinitely grateful...
I really come back to my initial question, is it worth upgrading to a 6" from a 5"?
My conclusion is No.
I don't know if I'm wrong or not...
Time will tell?

[quilty]

All this talk to end up with - nothing?
I withdraw all my posts, this one included :-)

[Asbytec]

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.

 

Yes, my Orion 150 MCT has the proper oversized primary. I recall people being surprised and somewhat disappointed the 127 was undersized. But they loved their scope, anyway. My 150 primary is around 161mm in diameter, but it was tightly baffled. You could not see the meniscus from the visual back.  

 

I think I agree, too, a jump from 5" to 6" is not that significant. The Synta 7" is a better choice. Unless you can find and afford an AP 10" or an older Intes 8" delux, of course.

Edited by Asbytec, 17 February 2025 - 05:42 AM.

[quilty]

My golden 6 (from 2006, therefore the name :-) has already 165mm mirror diameter, chamferring included: 168mm
The clear aperture was stopped to about 145mm by the sec. baffle.
Yet I think, the newer models might be better still.

[Freezout]

Wise you are, to resist to aperture fever!

[paulsky]

I really appreciate your advice... but after thinking about it, I think it might be better to wait a while and "upgrade to a Mak 7"... I think that way I would notice the difference that I would like to see.
Paul
PS: Yes, I do think that this whole discussion has helped me a lot to think about this subject and come to that conclusion.

[Asbytec]

There are several ways to see a difference. Two of which are a larger aperture and gaining practical experience and knowledge. Together both can show a pleasing difference. Even in the same aperture. Conditions, collimation, and the rest play a roll, too, but the human observer is where the rubber meets the road. A 180 MCT is a modest aperture, but it's a capable scope when it all comes together.

[paulsky]

A wise answer Norme!!
Thanks

Paul