MAK127 and C6 SCT

[SuperG]

There us a lot on this in the internet but a C6 sct costs just under twice as much as a MAK127. Is there much difference for Jupiter and Saturn when imaging?

[casstony]

Probably very little difference, with the optical quality of the particular telescope being more important (luck of the draw). It's also worth noting that a new C6 purchased in Australia will devalue by half the moment it leaves the shop.

[Camelopardalis (Dunk)]

Both great little scopes, I'd be surprised if you could ever tell the difference for planetary. For DSO visual, the C6 has the slight edge with the larger mirror.

Keep your eye out for a C6 or C8 on the used market, they can be had reasonably in expensively compared to new. The C8 is a good step up for faint fuzzies visually.

[dannat (Daniel)]

Personally I prefer the mak over a sct, for planets they are pretty close

[MortonH]

There have been a few of each sold here so I'd post a Wanted ad to save on buying new.

If the scope is for planetary imaging only the Mak may be slightly better, but if you will also use it for visual the C6 will show a lot more. I also prefer my C6 over the 150mm Skywatcher Mak I used to own.

Note that Maks are heavier than SCTs. The 127 Mak weighs about the same as a C6.

[egoleonard (Leonard)]

They are pretty much the same length, but the C6 is noticeably larger in diameter. In fact, I'd say it crosses the threshold of portability.

The Mak would be the one I would choose for a traveling scope. It's a bit lighter, substantially smaller, but built MUCH more sturdy. I doubt you'd ever knock it out of collimation - but you'd probably be tweaking collimation constantly with the C6.

[raymo]

I'm now in my 60th year of owning telescopes, and thinking back over that period, there is only one scope that I regret selling, my
SW 150 Mak; pin sharp views, and it split Antares as well as any scope
under 8" that I have ever tried, and that includes APOs.
raymo

[Camelopardalis (Dunk)]

Originally Posted by egoleonard

The Mak would be the one I would choose for a traveling scope. It's a bit lighter, substantially smaller, but built MUCH more sturdy. I doubt you'd ever knock it out of collimation - but you'd probably be tweaking collimation constantly with the C6.

I don't necessarily agree, but each to their own experiences I've never had any problems keeping my C6 in good collimation and at least it is easily collimatable, and never felt it was any less sturdily built than other scopes of similar size

[brian nordstrom (As avatar)]

I agree , tho I don't have a C6 I do have the C9.25 and it gets taken out on the back of my ute all the time and I have not had to touch it in over 12 months , holds it very well .

Brian.

Originally Posted by Camelopardalis

I don't necessarily agree, but each to their own experiences I've never had any problems keeping my C6 in good collimation and at least it is easily collimatable, and never felt it was any less sturdily built than other scopes of similar size

[MortonH]

Originally Posted by egoleonard

They are pretty much the same length, but the C6 is noticeably larger in diameter. In fact, I'd say it crosses the threshold of portability.

The Mak would be the one I would choose for a traveling scope. It's a bit lighter, substantially smaller, but built MUCH more sturdy. I doubt you'd ever knock it out of collimation - but you'd probably be tweaking collimation constantly with the C6.

I don't see any difference in build quality between the Skywatcher Mak and Celestron SCT. They're both made by Synta so you'd expect them to share the same materials. I think the additional weight of the Mak may give the impression of being more sturdy, but really it's just the thicker front corrector plate.

The Skywatcher Maks have a fixed secondary while SCTs allow collimation of the secondary. Since the OP said this scope is for imaging I would imagine he'd be checking collimation each time anyway.

Collimation should hold pretty well unless it gets bumped around, something I try to avoid with ANY type of scope.

[raymo]

I had a 1982 C8 for several years, and never had to touch the collimation.
raymo