Skymax 127 vs Omni XLT 127 - red dot finder vs finderscope

[Rebus]

Hi all,

I'm about to get my first scope after a few years using eyeballs and bins only

I've narrowed things down to two scopes:

Skywatcher Skymax 127 (EQ3-2)

or

Celestron Omni XLT 127 (CG-4)

My main interest is in lunar/planets and generally just looking around the night sky. I don't have any intention of imaging yet (except for the odd short(ish) exposure shot of the moon etc. using my Canon 7D).

My main question is how good is the RDF that is supplied with the Skymax? I hear that some of these are a bit naff ??

The Omni XLT comes with a 6 x 30 finderscope and assume this is pretty good?

Could a similar finderscope be fitted easily to the Skywatcher? (no drilling/sticking etc.)

Also, do the mounts have any significant differences regarding stability or use?

Thanks in advance for any assistance

[Cornelius Varley]

There should be no problem fitting a finderscope. The Skymax uses a standard vixen dovetail mount for this. The CG4 has better stainless steel legs which should be more stable than the aluminium legs of the EQ3-2.

Peter

[rowan46]

The scope itself is the same, as to rdf or finder that really is down to personal choice I like rdf. the cg4 and eq3 are essentially the same mount except the cg4 has better bearings and a better tripod I don't know whether the celestron is £70 better but it is a slightly better package

[Cornelius Varley]

The scope itself is the same, as to rdf or finder that really is down to personal choice I like rdf. the cg4 and eq3 are essentially the same mount except the cg4 has better bearings and a better tripod I don't know whether the celestron is £70 better but it is a slightly better package

The Omni XLT 127 is a SCT, the Skymax 127 is a MCT. The Celestron SLT 127 is the same telescope as the Skymax.

Peter

[Rebus]

There should be no problem fitting a finderscope. The Skymax uses a standard vixen dovetail mount for this. The CG4 has better stainless steel legs which should be more stable than the aluminium legs of the EQ3-2.

Peter

I thought the adaptor on top looked similar so it looks an easy job to swap-out if required - Good info about the legs, Thanks

The scope itself is the same, as to rdf or finder that really is down to personal choice I like rdf. the cg4 and eq3 are essentially the same mount except the cg4 has better bearings and a better tripod I don't know whether the celestron is £70 better but it is a slightly better package

Appreciate it's down to choice, but I've heard some people don't like the rdf's so wanted to get people experiences of this one in particular. Thank you

The Omni XLT 127 is a SCT, the Skymax 127 is a MCT. The Celestron SLT 127 is the same telescope as the Skymax.

Peter

They also have different focal lengths - I've heard SCT's require collimating sometimes, whereas Maks don't?

Thanks for the replies I must admit to leaning towards the Celestron - It's also a nice colour!!

[rowan46]

Peter you are as usual absolutely right i havent been to bed yet after a night shift. In that case definitely get the celestron the mak 127 is a nice scope but the c5 tube would swing it for me

[CGolder]

why would a 5inch sct swing it?

Maks are normally sharper and cheaper than the sct but are also heavy by comparison and take longer to cool down.

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

[Cornelius Varley]

The Skymax is easier to collimate, just the primary mirror to do and maks tend to hold their collimation once set. The SCT has primary and secondary collimation screws.

Peter

[Rebus]

why would a 5inch sct swing it?

Maks are normally sharper and cheaper than the sct but are also heavy by comparison and take longer to cool down.

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

Cost is not a major issue - Interesting about SCT's taking longer to cool and being sharper.

The Skymax is easier to collimate, just the primary mirror to do and maks tend to hold their collimation once set. The SCT has primary and secondary collimation screws.

Peter

I must admit that one reason I am keeping away from a reflector is because I don't want to have to collimate it all the time (a slight exageration?).

Why can't choosing a scope be easy!

[Cornelius Varley]

Cost is not a major issue - Interesting about SCT's taking longer to cool and being sharper.

Its the other way round. MCTs have a thicker corrector lens than SCTs so take longer to cool. They also tend to be sharper than SCTs.

Peter

[rowan46]

I have a c5 and find it better on most things than a 127 mak it cools quicker I have never had to collimate the primary although I have collimated the secondary occasionally. It may be a personal thing these things often are but given the choice between a skymax 127 and a c5 I find the sct gives the nicer view my c5 has lovely optics I find the mak to be a little dimmer it may be imaginary but it's what I have found when comparing side by side at star parties I am not saying tha mak is a poor scope I just think my c5 views are a little brighter using the same eyepiece in both.

[RikM]

I must admit that one reason I am keeping away from a reflector is because I don't want to have to collimate it all the time (a slight exageration?).

SCT's and Mak's are reflectors, just not Newtonian reflectors.

I have a Skymax 127 and have looked through a few C5's including rowan46's at SGL7 and I would take a C5 over a Skymax as well. Whichever one you choose, you will need a dew shield with it

[Rebus]

SCT's and Mak's are reflectors, just not Newtonian reflectors.

I have a Skymax 127 and have looked through a few C5's including rowan46's at SGL7 and I would take a C5 over a Skymax as well. Whichever one you choose, you will need a dew shield with it

Yes I've already budgeted for a dew shield. From what I gather these type of scopes are considered 'dew-magnets'.

Thanks to everyone for the helpful comments!

[nightfisher]

Yes I've already budgeted for a dew shield. From what I gather these type of scopes are considered 'dew-magnets'.

Thanks to everyone for the helpful comments!

they are, my 180 would dew up in an instant, but thanks to last owner it has a monster of a dew shield, and it really works! if you end up making a shield, make it a bit longer than you think it should be, and depending on what you make it from try flocking it inside, as a guide make it the same length as the scope tube

[Cornelius Varley]

I have a c5 and find it better on most things than a 127 mak it cools quicker I have never had to collimate the primary although I have collimated the secondary occasionally. It may be a personal thing these things often are but given the choice between a skymax 127 and a c5 I find the sct gives the nicer view my c5 has lovely optics I find the mak to be a little dimmer it may be imaginary but it's what I have found when comparing side by side at star parties I am not saying tha mak is a poor scope I just think my c5 views are a little brighter using the same eyepiece in both.

The C5 has a focal ratio of 9.84 and the 127 Mak has a focal ratio of 11.81. The C5 will probably give a slightly brighter view.

Peter

[CGolder]

I think either would be a cracking scope, I have owned many maks can and scts and love them both.

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

[Alkaid]

Just a quick point, the new SW 127 on the AZ Goto mounts now come with Schott glass as standard, same OTA as the 127 Black Diamond series. Make sure you get this one if you go down the Mak route. The Celestron units are not offering this.

Info obtained from a reputable dealer.

Steve

[tjr]

You are colorectal Steve, Skymax is Black Diamond with Schott glass as standard now I believe.

In answer to your original question Rebus, they also come with finderscopes rather than RDFs as standard now too, so no need to worry about the quality of that.