Mak or sct

[Wavytone]

Morton from mine at least, the Skywatcher 180mm Maks out-resolve most C8 or Meade 8" SCT's on lunar and planetary. Contrast is also better. The image is however noticeably dimmer in side-by-side comparisons with a C8.

A C9.25 EdgeHD or 10" Meade ACF however is a match in most respects with better light grasp (aperture) and if a good one came up secondhand I'd say buy it.

Ultimately up to you.

If I had $25k to spare and the time to go observing, I would definitely order one of the APM 275mm f/14 Maks currently on Astromart without hesitation. But I haven't got the time anymore. Maybe when I retire...

[Camelopardalis (Dunk)]

Originally Posted by MortonH

There are lots of people on CloudyNights that rave about the Orion (Synta) 127mm Mak-Cass. I've always fancied trying one since they're so compact. Central obstruction is only 30% so contrast should be reasonably good, certainly better than a typical SCT.

If anyone reading this has a 127mm they want to sell , send me a PM!

I used to have one...it got replaced by an orange C6

The C6 cooled quicker and has almost 2x the light gathering for fuzzies, giving up nothing when it came to planetary.

[AG Hybrid (Adrian)]

I find the cool down time of my 150 to not be bad at all. About an hour. Then again once been conditioned for the last six years to wait for a 12" to cooldown. I think people exaggerate how long it takes. Maybe it's because they ate often compared to little refracters. But Then a 5" or 6" refracter still takes some time to cool down.

[astro1965 (Nick)]

Does anybody have any opinions whether there is a difference visually between a 6 and 7 inch Mak or would the views be very similar and not worth going for the 7 inch.Thanks,Nick.

[MortonH]

Originally Posted by astro1965

Does anybody have any opinions whether there is a difference visually between a 6 and 7 inch Mak or would the views be very similar and not worth going for the 7 inch.Thanks,Nick.

I've had both sizes and would say the 7" would be a worthwhile improvement. Of course the negatives are more weight, longer cool-down, etc.

[Camelopardalis (Dunk)]

Originally Posted by AG Hybrid

I think people exaggerate how long it takes. Maybe it's because they ate often compared to little refracters. But Then a 5" or 6" refracter still takes some time to cool down.

I think on the east coast of NSW, QLD there's a gentler temperature gradient between day/night/inside, compared to most over the big pond that bleat about it when they take it from a heated house to a sub-zero deck

[MortonH]

Originally Posted by Camelopardalis

I used to have one...it got replaced by an orange C6

The C6 cooled quicker and has almost 2x the light gathering for fuzzies, giving up nothing when it came to planetary.

That C6 is a great scope and a keeper!

Have had an offer to borrow a 127mm Mak so will be interesting to compare them side by side on the planets.

[raymo]

I think your figure was a bit off, Morton. The C-6 has slightly less than
1.5x [1.44x] the light grasp of the 127mm, not slightly less than double.
cheers raymo

[dannat (Daniel)]

ray it wasn't morton that suggested it almost Dbl light gathering

[Camelopardalis (Dunk)]

Yeah my bad I was thinking C6->C8...

[MortonH]

If the 127mm Mak is an older one with effective aperture of 118mm, and taking into account Celestron's superior coatings, I estimate that the C6 could be transmitting about 80% more light to the eyepiece.

[MortonH]

FWIW, I've just been viewing Mars at 250x in my C6. Great little scope.

[raymo]

My humble apologies Morton.
raymo