Bigwings

Thanks for the input guys. 

Tried the Starsense on the Newt and it's survived. 

The focuser needed a few tweeks with the aln key and screwdriverand appears full functional.. 

Not sure about the diagonal. 

The Mak 😭😭

FLO have priced a corrector plate at £213   3-4 months delivery time. That's about the same cost as the excess would be on an insurance claim plus the premium would go up. 

Is changing the corrector a DIY job. There doesn't seem any other visible damage.... 

Advice needed. 

1. Is the Starsense camera likely to be OK. 

No direct bang and no sign of damage. 

2. Can the OTA be economically repaired and if so by who. 

3

Is the diagonal likely to be scrap. 

3 Will the focuser be ok

 No sign of damage but its slack. 

Im gutted

I have dropped my Skymax 150 complete with focuser and Starsense camera. 

Hard landing on the 2" dielectric  corner

Glass 

Welcome, Hope you enjoy the community your part of. 🍾

I have used a Skymax 150 on an EQ5 Pro and I enjoyed it. 

The scope is a cracker on planets, doubles and it good on smaller DSO, s. 

The 180 Mak is a big beast and some would argue that the 150 hits the sweet spot. 

Maks have a narrow field of view so be aware of that. 

Think where you are going in the future. Imaging, deep sky, planets or all of these. 

The EQ5 Pro is a good mount but doesn't give you much headroom in max weight. 

I now use my Skymax 150 and my Explorer 130PDS on an AZ-EQ6 at the same time in Az mode so I can have wide and narrow high mag views available at the same time. 

My advice would be to think about future proofing your purchase and spend your money on the mount. 

Have a look at the AZ-EQ5 and don't be afraid of Newts they give tremendous bang for the buck. My little  130 is a gem and can be used well on my mount in EQ mode for imaging. 

Best of luck with your choices. I love Mak's but they would not be my choice for beginners. 

1 hour ago, Jonk said:

I once had a SW 300pds on mine in eq mode and it worked fine with a couple of counterweights.

 

Bet it was fun turning the tube to get the EP and focuser in a usable position 😜

49 minutes ago, Paul M said:

That's a great looking set-up. And I admire your stamina. 

I have the NEQ6 Pro and over the last year have started separating the mount from the tripod to carry them from the garage. I used to manage both together but I can't seem to get a secure grip these days. Even when separated the mount head is about as heavy as I'd care to carry.

I'm about at the limit of my mount with my 250P DS. Not only from a performance point of view but manually handling the scope to get it on the mount. But what to do? I still have raging aperture fever! 🤩

 

 

A big Dob with a set of wheels on its own platform and 3 screw Jack's for levelling I guess

On 08/01/2021 at 10:50, Voyager 3 said:

One thing is sure , your are a skywatcher fanboy! 

I do like Skywatcher and the rig is nicely colour balanced essential for astro 😉

The finders are Baader as are a lot of my EP's

Thanks for input so far guys. 

The scope responds to SynScan perfectly and  skywatcher SynScan is selected in SkySafari. 

What ip address and port should be in SkySafari setup? 

Running SynScan Pro in Az mode on my AzEQ 6 mount via the skywatcher WiFi dongle. 

Running SkySafari 6 on same device, a Huawei P30 Pro. 

SkySafari returns a message saying it cant connect to the scope. Any help appreciated. 

Clear Skies

Bigwings

After a long think I spent my money on a mount rather than a big Dob. 

Mainy a visual observer I do have a a DSLR and realise I might be seduced by the photographic side. I decided on an AZ EQ mount for flexibility abd dithered between the 5 and the 6 Skywatcher offerings. 

I'm no spring chicken at 73 so was a bit worried about the weight. 

Availability was a huge issue and when I sourced an Azeq6 Pro I ordered it. 

Two big boxes arrived and I set about putting the mount onto the hefty tripod. BIG AND HEAVY. 

It sat in the dinning room as I pondered it's weight vs my age. 

It's a lovely well made mount and it just kept whispering to me "keep me". 

It made tha short journey to the garage to meet its family of tripods and astro stuff and I started building. 

I just love it.

A planet killer and wider views available in seconds and the flexibility to rejig if the astro bug really bites. 

With regard to weight, with the scopes pointing streight up I can pick up the mount and move it 10 yards or so. 

Just make sure everything is tight before trying that. 

I tried the mount with the Skywatcher WiFi dongle and it was very smooth and quiet.. 

Looking forward to lots of use with this rig. 

As for appature fever..... Well if the right 12" Newt turns up I have a mount that will handle it..... Now where's my credit card..... 

Hi guys.

I bought an AZ GTi when they first hit the market. 

Does this mount upgrade to present day standards with firmware/ software updates?

If so how do I do it?

Cheers and Clear Skies

Bigwings

Thanks for that. Very informative. 

Mike

Gently tiptoeing into astrophotography after many years visual. Contemplating a dedicated astro camera to compliment my old Canon 1000d. 

I have 3 scopes

Explorer 200p

Explorer 130 P DS

Skymax 150 Mak

Mount is an EQ5 Pro. 

I have a shortlist of the two cameras in the heading for a bit of planitary some DSO and some live stacking. 

Which is best fit and why please. Of course I could have it totally wrong. 

Thanks for your guidance..... Oh yes it can be my guide camera for long exposures with the DSLR.

Clear skies

Big wings the confused

Thanks for that. 

Clear Skies

Thanks indeed as I couldn't find my disk either. 

Clear Skies 

I have my old 1000d which has live view. Just ordered an Explorer 130P - DS which will sit atop of my EQ5 Pro. Thought I might like to do some Astrophotography. 

Usualy a visual guy with a Skymax 150 and an Explorer 200p.

How will the camera work with up to date astro programmes. 

Clear Skies

Mile

Thanks guys. It's the second version in Fig 1. 

Guess I have to work with it.

Bought this mount nearly new .When I look through the polar scope the markings seem to be upside down like I am looking through it from the wrong side.

Is it factory fitted ? Can it be fitted the wrong way?

Not used to EQ mounts having just moved from AltAz and Dobs.

Thanks

I noticed on another thread that Dobbie wanted to downsize from the Skymax 150 Mak to a 127 for portability . Today we exchanged scopes wi h a cash settlement.

Tonight M42 was passing to the front of the garage (unheated). To quote Oscar Wild (I think) " I can resist all things except temptation.

Lifting the EQ5 to the garage door I mounted the Skymax 150 and chose the Baader Aspheric 31mm. With clutches off and no power the finder was nudged to M42. A few seconds focusing and WOW......

M42 filled the field of view with great contrast and tac sharp stars showing trapezium as clear as I can remember. 

It seemed to me as good a view  as I can remember with the SE8 or my 8" Newt. Perhaps it's my memory. My first light with this scope fills me with anticipation of views lunar and planetary but it certainly can do a good job on bright DSO's. Cool down was not a problem when kept in a cold garage on this occasion.

Thanks Dobbie... I love it.

Using my Moto one action phone to control the WiFi to my EQ5. It was working fine.

I switched off the phone location permissions and a day later switched it back on again but Synscan won't find the location device. Tried reboots. Tried removing program and reinstall. No good.

Buying a tablet to use as a dedicated input device instead of my phone....hope it works.

Anyone had similar problems?

Anyone got a solution?

Cheers

Bigwings

Anyone advise me of the weight of the Skywatcher 150 Evostar (blue livery) with rings and Ep

Clear skies

Hi.

Looking at at a Skywatcher Evostar 150 . Blue tube with collimatable Cell.

Can anyone tell me when blue tubes changed to black.

I am a visual observer so what if anything do I gain adding this to my 127 Mak and 200p Newt?

Would I be pushing the limits of my EQ5 mount.

Never had a frac before so contemplating starting with a little one LOL. How much of a problem with CA is there likely to be. It has a Baader Fringe Killer filter.

Thanks for the advice.

Clear Skies

17 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I had an RC here belonging to a guest. We read the manuals, we watched the videos, we understood the theory, we had the tools (Howie Glatter) and we could not get it right. Random effects prevented the process from behaving as anticipated. One adjustment interacted with another unpredictably. 

For me, life is too short and rafractors are too good.

Olly

Thanks Olly. Better get a Frac....but try a few with the Mak 127 firstly

On 11/10/2018 at 17:19, Tim said:

RC telescopes are generally  better for photography than for visual use, the large central obstructions reduce the contrast at the eyepiece.

Colliiating them can be the devil's own work, but once properly set, they can produce excellent images. There is a review of the Omegon RC telescope in a recent Sky at Night magazine.

Thanks Tim. 

Sounds like I am better off with my Mak 127.

My interest is caused by an urge to try my hand at some photography and more light pollution is driving me to a goto mount anyway and a nice mount for sale is paired with an RC scope.

Mainly I am visual...

Perhaps an EQ5 goto is the way to go.

My main scope is a 10" DOB, not to difficult to collimate.

15 hours ago, vlaiv said:

I'll present my view on this topic, it might be a bit controversial, and it is not based on very big experience (although I've got some experience with RC scopes - I own larger brother of mentioned scope - RC8" F/8).

I've done a sort of comparison of scopes in this class (6") and here is what I think:

Let's take 5 representatives of different scope designs and compare, Newtonian, Refractor (we will limit ourselves to achromats due to price difference, and let's be honest, good APO triplet in 6" class will simply outclass all other designs on most comparison criteria), SCT, MCT and RC.

RC vs Newtonian:

- Newtonian will have an edge on planets, especially F/8 variant with small secondary obstruction. Such scope will be harder to mount (due to momentum arm, except for Dobsonian mount), but will have smaller FOV than RC (due to 1.25" focuser -  because of small secondary). In faster ratios coma will be an issue. RC will also have larger light throughput - due to 99% dielectric coatings, regardless of larger CO - newtonians usually have 94% mirror coatings (enhanced versions) - you can go for special coatings like 97% hilux - then they will be better matched.

- RC has better corrected field for AP so you can use pure mirror system without need for corrector. Corrector can be used to lower F/speed and further flatten already pretty flat field. Due to large illuminated circle - you can use 2" eyepieces and combined with focal reducer you can have wider views.

- For planetary AP, due to processing and sharpening, central obstruction and loss of contrast have tiny impact, so these two will be pretty much matched (long focal length newtonian).

- Price wise they are very close, newtonian being slightly ahead (cheaper).

- Light baffling and stray light protection - win for RC.

- Collimation ease - newtonian wins here.

RC vs SCT

- Shorter focal length and larger FOV for visual (f/9 vs f/10, 2" focuser).

- Less prone to dew problems, and better thermal properties (open design)

- Better photographic field (no coma, less curvature, ...)

- Similar "format" for mounting, similar weight

- SCT will have very slight edge on planets due to somewhat smaller CO, but light through put will be on RC side (again depends on mirror coatings, but SCT has additional corrector plate).

- price +RC, -SCT

RC vs MCT

- just look at difference between SCT and MCT usually mentioned on internet (thermal stability, planetary performance, smaller FOV) - and apply to previous section (RC vs SCT) - all RC strengths will be emphasized, while planetary performance will lag.

- price +RC, -MCT

RC vs Refractor

- it all comes down to fact that refractor - especially faster like F/8 or below will have very big CA issues - this means less contrast on planets, less contrast on DSO in spite of better ligth throughput - no CO at all. Photographic usability of such scope is limited to narrow band (you can do LRGB or OSC, but CA will have huge impact on final result).

- Achromat will be heavier and harder to mount, and it will loose in price department.

All in all, for that target budget, I think that RC is very overlooked option for good all around scope - both AP and visual. If you are worried about contrast loss on planets, have a look at this:

This is simulated MTF of 8" RC vs 5" refractor (both ideal figure). MTF diagram is usually used to represent contrast loss - X axis represents spatial frequencies (or think in terms of large/small features, large features close to origin, small features to the right) and Y axis represents contrast loss (or attenutation in %, going from 0 at origin to 1 or 100% at top). What you don't usually see is such diagram comparing two different scopes - different aperture sizes and different CO characteristics. When you align spatial features axis (X axis) then you can see that smaller scope, although having "higher" contrast, actually looses on detail, and if you use scope with large aperture and CO with small magnifications (equivalent to what you would use with smaller unobstructed scope - you can actually have less contrast loss).

Bottom line, RC might not perform as good on planets as other 6" options, however, it will  probably be on par or even better than 4" apo if you keep your magnification the same (up to x200).

Just to mention, those RCs seem to be optically very good instruments - I tested mine to system Strehl 0.94

Thanks for that informative contribution....food for thought.

Mike