Skymax 150 pro or celestron C6

[Dunkster]

Another point to consider is the baffle tube diameter. On the C6 this is 27mm, so you're pretty restricted as to how wide a FOV you can get. I don't know what the baffle tube diameter is for the skymax, but given they bundle it with a 28mm 2" EP, I'd be surprised if it was smaller (but it's a strange world).

[johninderby]

Another point to consider is the baffle tube diameter. On the C6 this is 27mm, so you're pretty restricted as to how wide a FOV you can get. I don't know what the baffle tube diameter is for the skymax, but given they bundle it with a 28mm 2" EP, I'd be surprised if it was smaller (but it's a strange world).

On the Skymax 150 the baffle tube diameter is 25mm so not much difference.

I have tested a few small Maks and SCTs with 2" EPs (with a 2" visual back of course) and surprisingly despite the small baffle tube you can get a bigger FOV with a 2" EP. I found a 30mm 70 degree 2" eyepiece was particularly good.

John

[Dunkster]

Colour me surprised

[Macavity]

Yep - It's hard to predict the limiting of field, by measuring the baffles externally. See diagram by Meade:

http://www.discoverytelescope.com/meade/meade%20big%20ones/MCOptSystem.gif

Certainly the MAK 150 (like the smaller MAK127) can happily use a 32mm 72 deg eyepiece (maybe more).

Even if the illumination is not 100% at the edges, it's of little consequence visually. Idem the SCT?

[russbio]

Hi all,

Does this mean that potentialy my 40mm ep might not work?

I'm pretty much settled on the C6 now.

Russell

[Macavity]

I think the only thing on can totally rely on is (personal) experiment?

Squeezing the very last percent of (framing) field from a MAK / SCT is a fine thing to do.

A dramatic increase in field usually requires a different type of scope.

[Dunkster]

Depends on the FOV... 40mm is possible with a 1.25" EP, but only at something like 40 degree FOV. There was a thread over @CN a while back about max FOV out of the C6, I'll see if I can dig it up. The shorter the FL the wider FOV you can get away with, before vignetting (which I've not experienced, without it slapping me in the face at least)

I don't really understand the reasons why, but I wonder if the Maks can go wider because of the meniscus corrector (flat on an SCT) or whether its the oversized mirror on that Meade or both or something else... sorry

[andrew63]

Did you know that FLO have a special on the skymax 180 pro on clearance offer.

http://stargazerslounge.com/showthread.php?t=188592

[Macavity]

I don't really understand the reasons why, but I wonder if the Maks can go wider because of the meniscus corrector (flat on an SCT) or whether its the oversized mirror on that Meade or both or something else... sorry

I recall reading somewhere that (Celestron?) SCTs had "better baffling" than Skywatcher MAKs (which indeed have rather little!) - Ironically leading to smaller maximum fields, because light can no longer "creep 'round the edges". Dunno.

[russbio]

That Skymax 180 is tempting but a bit over what I'd intended to pay.

Russ

[Dunkster]

Yeah and you can get a C8 XLT for a couple of £££ less

[stickbow]

Hi there

I have the skymax 150 pro and yes it is heavy but the quality

Is fantastic and the planets are nothing short of amazing

I can highly recommend it and the dew shield is easy to make

I posted some pics last Saturday look at " home made dew shield" I saw the Cassini division twice last Saturday night,

I did buy a 9mm super plossal which gives me 200X mag but

The image was razor sharp 10/10 for this scope.