trauma

[raymo]

Selling up everything is proving traumatic:(:(:(:(; I might have to end up selling everything, and getting a smaller, lighter rig for observing only, such as a lighter mount and a 180mm Mak.[ I loved my previous Maks].
raymo

[Somnium]

it is sad to see all of your gear go up on the classifieds section

[janoskiss]

Nothing wrong with a 180mm Mak. And if you're only going to have one scope it's definitely one of the best.

[Atmos]

Cannot even imagine what it would be like selling everything after so many years :/

Is it worth changing from a 8" newt to a 180mm Mak? Having never looked through a Mak I have no idea myself. Would have thought that the newt may have been lighter without the corrector plate.

[raymo]

Hi Colin, The tube weights would pretty similar, but the OTA is less than half
the length of my Newt, and as I won't be imaging, I can go down to a
significantly lighter mount. The 180 Mak is terrific; if you get the chance
take a look through a 150 or 180.
raymo

[Atmos]

That's a good point :) You may be able to get something along the lines of a Celestron 8SE as a mount. Computer controlled alt/az mount that will be able to hold the Mak. Not sure what the weight is like though, only ever seen thee 4SE up close.

[janoskiss]

If an experienced observer is going for just a single all-purpose scope, definitely yes imho. The SW 180mm Maks are excellent scopes, with refractor-like performance on planets (views comparable with premium 130-150mm refractors costing many $$$ more) plus they have extra aperture for more light gathering and resolution.

Of course a slow Mak would need additional optics to be viable for deep sky imaging but I naively presume that's not too difficult to obtain (??). But raymo won't be imaging so yeah, go the 180mm Mak, raymo! It's a fantastic scope. But you already know that. ;)

[raymo]

I have no idea whether a Mak would work with a reducer similar to
those used on SCTs.
raymo

[julianh72]

For what it's worth, I have a Celestron 0.63x Reducer (mainly for use with my 200 mm Meade SCT), and it works fine on my 90 mm Mak. Note: I haven't done any optical-bench testing, but for visual use it seems as razor-sharp as the "naked" Mak, and it also seems to be spot-on for my so-far very limited astro-photography.

(I use a Mak-to-SCT thread coupler to be able to fix SCT accessories onto the little Mak's rear port, but I think the bigger Maks use a standard SCT thread, so a SCT Reducer should fit straight on without needing an adapter.)

[raymo]

Thanks for that Julian, it would make the big Mak more versatile.
raymo

[Camelopardalis]

Can't help thinking that a good, pre-loved C8 would be a more versatile instrument...

[rustigsmed]

yes Raymo it is very traumatic for a lot of us reading about you selling up and spending less time on your hobby! however hearing you talking of purchasing a new scope is good news too!! if a mak is what would get used then i say go for it :)

[janoskiss]

No way in my unlearned opinion. C9.25 perhaps but not a C8. :P

[raymo]

Been there, done that, never seen a C-8 that can hold a candle to the image
quality of the the 180 Mak. Even better if a reducer could be used as Julian
does with his smaller Mak. It remains to be seen whether I will be able to afford the 180, if not then I'll have to rethink the whole thing.
raymo

[MortonH]

A Mak may be sharper than a SCT of equal aperture but the SCT will generally give a brighter image due to enhanced coatings such as Celestron's Starbright XLT.

FWIW I've owned a 7" Mak, several 6" Maks and a few SCTs. Currently I own a C8 and a C6 but no Maks. SCTs aren't perfect but I prefer their deep sky performance over a typical Mak.

[raymo]

I take your points Morton, but DSOs don't feature much in my future
observing plans. I've never spent a great amount of time on lunar and
planetary, so I thought I'd finish up rectifying that omission.
raymo

[MortonH]

In that case go Mak! :thumbsup:

[janoskiss]

Sounds like you know what you want and you should get it. Re cost it's not much at all considering the years of enjoyment you'll get out of it. Ever since I've looked through a SW Mak-180 I've been wanting one (more than their 120ED).

But just the title of this thread makes me a bit uncomfortable. Real trauma with lasting impact is something that few of us have experienced. It's a technical term used in psychiatry and medicine, and it's got nothing to do with telescope selection or giving up possessions. It's real serious stuff... Just so you know and for sake of trauma sufferers on this forum - and there must be quite a few just looking at the stats. It's a complex and difficult topic and I wish not go into it any further. Just felt I had to say something.

[Camelopardalis]

If I ever make it over to WA raymo, I'll bring my C8 with me ;)

[raymo]

Steve, Trauma was just a convenient word that I used, perhaps I should have
titled the thread "emotion". Anyway, after discussion with my wife, we have
decided that owing to the minimal number of usable nights here I shall just
keep the 102mm frac for an occasional peek.
raymo

P.S. Dunk, if you decide to bring your C-8, don't forget to fit it with a windscreen wiper,
or a Kent clearview screen as used on many ships' bridges.

[kittenshark]

Why soften it down to "emotion"?

I think "trauma" is apt. :'( It's natural to be attached to stuff because we associate them with memories--once you relate an event to an emotion, it gets burned into your memory.

The good news is that even if the stuff is gone, the memory remains and nothing will take it away from you. :)

[brian nordstrom]

:thumbsup: My old club back in NZ has a 150mm Mak as a loaner scope on an EQ5 and tho it takes a long time to cool the views when it has are very nice , almost as good as my Chromocor'd 6inch Saxon for sharpness and overall aesthetics of the image , a nice scope if you give it at least 1-2 hours to cool before using . Or leave it in the shed :D .

A vote for the Mak's as well .

Brian.

ps. my C9.25 would better either on all objects .

[janoskiss]

Because real trauma is something very different and a lot more serious and needs long-term medical and psychiatric treatment if a person is to pull through. For example, experiencing horrors of war first hand is trauma. Deciding to sell your telescopes is not trauma.

[PCH]

I think you need to chill a bit Steve - he's just using it in a lighthearted way. Who could possibly find fault with it?

No offence intended, just my 2 bobs worth :)