John

1 hour ago, Carl Au said:

Thanks, that does look good. Any one with any experience with an ED 100 and an AZ4?

Not an ED100 but I have tried my Takahashi FC100-DL on the AZ-4 (it is a similar length and weight to the ED100) and Personally I thought the mount vibrated just a bit too much at high magnifications for my liking.

That might be a personal preference though. Other might find the combination is OK.

I don't own either but having used an Evolution mount (with an 8 inch SCT) I would think that clearance between the focuser end of the FC-100DZ and the mount base might be an issue when the scope is pointing above 45 degrees altitude ?

In this thread on another forum, this is discussed and modifications are shown which allow a 4 inch Takahashi to be used with an Evolution so that it clears the base:

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/632855-refractors-that-work-with-evolution-mount/

Having owned a couple of AZ-4's I think you are right to be cautious over the length of the scope you put on it. I found the F/9 refractors (ED120 and Tak 100) just a little bit too much for my AZ-4's but my Vixen 102 F/6.5 is very happy on one even at high magnifications.

A 102mm F/7 would probably be a good refractor choice (ED doublet). Something like this (when back in stock):

https://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/altair-starwave-102-doublet-refractor.html#SID=1706

Altair do a 102mm F/11 in as well but I do think that tube length would be too much for the AZ-4

Here is my Vixen ED102 F/6.5 on the AZ-4 - a nice combination:

36 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Sure, but how well do SCT corrector plates stand up to common carrier shipping?

This is but a small sampling of images I found online (mostly on CN).  Most were damaged in shipping.

I couldn't locate a single image of a broken Mak meniscus corrector.  I rest my case.

That makes the point !

Thinking back, the SCT's that I've owned have been collected from the seller myself so not put at that risk.

The meniscus of a mak-cassegrain is quite a lot thicker than the corrector of an SCT.

I use the Skywatcher and Celestron RACI's on my scopes. 9x50's and 6x30's. They do a good job. Similar quality to the Astro Essentials one I would think.

I guess it depends just how tight your budget is.

In terms of the actual views you will get, both scopes will deliver very similar performance.

The Skywatcher is hardly a poor prospect - there are many, many happy owners of the Skywatcher dobs on here and around the world.

I agree with the other posters - if you can get the ED150 it is a much better scope or even an ED120.

I've owned a few of the Evostar 150's and they have been fun scopes but I would not pay £500+ for one.

7 hours ago, Spier24 said:

 

Someone on the other thread mentioned that they've heard a lot more reports about SCT's been damaged during shipping due to their mirror design where as this doesn't happen to Maks as much. They just sound more durable in general.

 

Another thing that sticks out is that quite a few people have said that Maks will give you a sharper image and that it is noticeable if you get a Mak and an SCT side by side.

I agree that maks are can be sharper than SCT's. I've owned several of both types and the build seemed solid on all of them.

The Skywatcher, Celestron and Orion (USA) maks are all made by Synta as are the Celestron SCT's now, at least the ones under 11 inches in aperture. Possibly those as well now. Even Meade seem to be selling a Synta made mak now:

https://www.meade.com/telescopes/maksutov-cassegrain/lx65-mak-6.html

3 minutes ago, Spier24 said:

SCT's seem like better general purpose scopes to me which fits what I want nicely. The only issue I picked up on that thread is that SCT's are more likely to arrive out of collimation and are tricker to collimate.

Mak-cassegrains can need collimation tweaks as well and are also challenging.

There is probably more stuff written about SCT collimation.

Refractors as well, I've found, sometimes need some collimation adjustments.

150mm F/8 dobs also benefit from collimation tweaks but are a lot less expensive than either the SCT or the mak-cassegrain of the same aperture. If DSO's are the primary interest, aperture makes such a lot of difference so the 200mm f/6 dobs, or even larger, do make a lot of sense.

My sky is bortle 5, sometimes 6 (depends which direction I look in !).

I recently had the Explore Scientific UHC for a while. It was not that effective I thought. I have now got an Astronomik UHC and find that having more impact on responsive targets. I will still use the O-III (Lumicon) more I think but I feel that a good UHC like the Astronomik will earn it's keep.

I think the band pass of the ES UHC was a bit to wide which reduced the impact that it had. 

The Orion that you are looking at is a Synta product as Louis says, nothing to do with Orion Optics of the UK.

I think the Orion USA 150mm mak-cassegrains are the same as the Skywatcher Skymax mak-cassegrains so comments on the 150mm Skymax should apply.

Orion Optics UK do make cassegrains but theirs are 140mm and 200mm in aperture.

The original poster has not been on the forum for well over a year now so I suspect they have moved on to other things.

I still have my Skywatcher ED120 and Takahashi FC100-DL though

I use 6x30 RACI's on my 4 inch refractors and 9x50 RACI's on my larger fracs and my 12 inch dob. I seem to have developed a collection of these things !

Observation report here of this SN and others. Sounds a good prospect even without NVD:

Great report Alan

Can't wait to have a crack at 2021j myself. Actually a crack at anything would be nice !

Mag 14.5 or brighter is doable with my 12 inch dob without NVD.

There are low profile diagonal units around. Celestron use one on their illuminated RACI finder and the Meade ETX scopes had a low profile diagonal that screwed straight onto the back of the scope. An eyepiece with the focal plane well below the "shoulder" would help as well eg: the Tele Vue 40mm plossl.

7 minutes ago, Newforestgimp said:

This is what i feared, however, to achieve focus 'straight through' the focuser is almost all the way out hence why Im assuming i need more inward travel than is available to accommodate the WO 45deg ? or am i thinking the wrong way here.

Inward travel is what is needed but quite a lot of it. Probably more than the helical focuser can manage.

It's nice to be able to experiment with different filters on different targets to see the effects. Alternating between no filter, a UHC, an O-III and an H-B on Messier 42 for example shows some really interesting differences in extent, the enhancement and sometimes the diminishment of the various parts of this complex target 

If the finder was originally intended as a straight through one, it's tube is probably too long to enable a diagonal of any sort to be used. Diagonals use up a fair amount of light path so the finders that are designed to use them have shorter tubes to accommodate this.

2 hours ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

As the SN is a point source, it should take quite some magnification, and sky background need not be a huge problem 

That's what I've found with SN. Find the galaxy then bang up the magnification to tease out the faintest points of light. At least with NGC4414 the host galaxy is likely to be visible. With the last SN that I observed, the host, NGC 514 was very hard to see at all even with my 12 inch scope. Averted vision can help with both the host galaxy and the SN itself of course.

My first double star was Algieba (Gamma Leonis) with my first telescope - the Tasco 60mm refractor. I split this into two stars (much to my amazement) at 64x magnification but it became clearer at 133x which was pretty much the max for that scope.

You never forget your "firsts" in this hobby

I have a Tak FC100-DL. It is a light and easy to mount scope. I don't image so I've found a Vixen GP, Giro Ercole and the Skytee II mounts work very well with the DL while remaining portable. Nothing has heavy or complex as the AZEQ6 for me:

Well, if and when we do get there, something will be glad to see us

The maximimum theoretical magnification is rarely useful because of the seeing conditions we have to endure.

I think a more practical range of high magnifications for your scope would be 140x - 200x.

33 minutes ago, Spier24 said:

 

 

 

 

Skywatcher would be my brand of choice if they offered a 150 SCT. Or a 150 Mak with a GoTo mount. 

 

I actually looked into buying their 150 Mak and then buying one of their GoTo mounts to go with it. However their GoTo mounts don't support the weight of the 150 Mak.

 

Synta own the Skywatcher brand and make their scopes. They also now own the Celestron brand and make many scopes under that branding. So in that way Skywatcher do offer a 150mm SCT, branded Celestron - the 6 inch SCT. I think the Celestron C6 was the first SCT design that had it's manufacture transferred to Synta after the takeover.