SkyWatcher 180mm Mak v. Various 8" SCTs

[HAL2001]

I'm trying to find out how the "SkyWatcher 180 mm Maksutov-Cassegrain with Goto HEQ5" stacks up against "8 Inch SCTs".

Hoping to get some well informed (and experienced) opinions from my fellow members.

Thanks and regards
Henri

[ving (David)]

hmm... havent personally tried any of them bur based on what you have said sofar its 180mm vs 203mm. i guess theres a little more aperture.

someone else with more knowledge will offer thier advice soon.
just hold in there!

[[1ponders] (Paul)]

That and the 7" mak is f/13 I think compared to f/10 for most 8" SCTs. What's your ultimate goal for the scope Henri? Planets, DSO, Solar?

[33South (Chris)]

Henri

The Mak is only 7.5Kgs, and feels solid - maybe a result of the more compact size. Even thought it has a smaller aperture the central obstruction is also smaller. Its f15 which gives it a focal length of 2700mm great for high power planetary views.

If like me you want to see what it can do on the planets come along to the Snake Valley Astro Camp, I'll be bringing my ProMak180.


Chris

[HAL2001]

Thanks Guys,

You're right Ving but as Chris mentioned the central obstruction in the MAK is smaller so that makes up for a bit of the aperture loss I imagine.

Paul, we intend to use the scope for planetary (especially for my wife) and stars and clusters etc. for me as well. As you can see I'm trying to cover as much as possible with one scope that allows us to take it around as well. Oh and we don't intend to get into imaging.

Thanks for the invite Chris, but I'm not sure yet if I will be attending Snake Valley. You are the first person in IIS with a ProMAk 180 (if I remember well). How happy are you with the ProMAK and what are some of the pros and cons in your opinion (would really like to hear more about it).

btw
I had my first viewing on Friday at an Astro Club and really enjoyed seeing a lot more than I do through my 7x50 monocular. Unfortunately there were only Dobsonians there that night but it was great.

Regards
Henri

[33South (Chris)]

The pros and cons are really the same thing -
smaller aperture - more portability, less light grasp.
long focal length - bigger image, small field of view.

I would not class it as an all purpose telescope, but no less than an 8"SCT. Mind you I dont know what I would choose, too many factors, thats why I have one mount and 3 telescopes.

I was happy with the out of the box impression,
Solid build and no blemishes
2 eyepieces (9 & 20mm, dont expect Ill ever use them)
Good finder (but Ive added a Telrad)
Collimation pretty well spot on

Two annoyances the visual back thread is a non standard size so I cant fit on my Meade 1209 focusser and the lens cap is easy to accidently flip off when carrying the OTA.

Although Ive had it for while its not been used much as the intention is to use it primarily when travelling. The first oppurtunity will be Snake Valley where hopefully it will get a good workout.

[HAL2001]

Thanks Chris,

I see the point you are making.
Is there anything that comes close to being an all purpose scope though (to some degree of course).

Regards
Henri

[merlin8r]

Hi Henri,
It kind of breaks down like this:

In the perfect world, everyone would own refractors. Problem is, they cost a bundle, especially in bigger apertures. Plus, a 6" refractor is about 5 feet long!

Reflectors are the cheapest, but again when you get big aperture, you also get a physically long tube.

Cassegrains are the good "in between" compromise, where you get big aperture in a physically short tube, that still has a long focal length.

Clear skies,
Shane

[HAL2001]

Thanks Shane,

Looks like I have to find a compromise I can afford and hope I can save up for a second scope some time in the future.

Thanks again guys, you have been very helpful.

Hope you all have better weather than we do in Melbourne.

CYA
Henri