Jump to content

NLCbanner2024.jpg.2478be509670e60c2d6efd04834b8b47.jpg

battle of the 127 maks

sparkyjon

Recommended Posts

sparkyjon

sparkyjon

Posted
Posted

ok whilst doing my daily internet browse (ok with my broken ankle thats all i do these days), i've come across another mak previously undiscovered by me..

the bresser messier 127.. this ota is £50 more than the skywatcher but seems to have 400mm focal length advantage..

i'm on for a smaller ota to my c8 so was going to buy the skywatcher 127 but now after seeing this , is it worth the extra 400mm focal length consdidering my goal is web cam imaging..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

I'm not familiar with that scope, but I'm unconvinced that the extra focal length is worth much. With a single relatively low power barlow you can reach the limits of the Skywatcher Mak's aperture anyhow for many targets. Certainly in my experience so far the limitation of the Skywatcher Mak is not achievable focal length, but just not being able to get enough photons on the sensor in time.

Of course what you really need to do is to buy both and try them out side-by-side :D

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sparkyjon

sparkyjon

Posted
  • Author
Posted

hmm i guess i'll see what happens with the sale of the c8 , i'm open to part ex on it and have preferenced a skymax 127 with goto , so i'll decide when it's over..

i want to concentrate on imaging but i do want to view as well so it might be worth the extra buck..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

should be acceptable for planetary with a web cam..

I do agree. For clarity my opinion is not that it would not be a good scope. Just that I struggle to see a justification for paying more for the extra focal length compared with the Skymax 127 if it is to be used for planetary imaging. You can reach f/36-ish without that much pain with the Skymax and even with the larger pixels of an SPC900 or DxK21 I'm not sure there's a justification for going much further than that. If you look at Darryl's work with the ASI120 cameras he's coming down to less around f/20 due to their smaller pixel sizes. That's perhaps actually easier to achieve with the Skymax than the Bresser.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sparkyjon

sparkyjon

Posted
  • Author
Posted

i'm using the eq 3-2 with dual motors , 5kg is not right for my c8 it might be for the c8's of recent years , with my rings and dove tail it's over 7kg and that's without a telrad , flip mirror diagonal ,2" visual back , zoom EP and wecam inserted in the back ..

as far as i'm aware 7kg is the eq 3-2 payload so it's a bit too close for comfort.

i've done the maths with weight and my bank balance lol i cant afford a heavy duty enough mount to hold the c8 and all that goes with imaging and have auto trak. i've already sacrificed goto which i originally wanted to control everything off my netbook..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PARTY MARTY

PARTY MARTY

Posted
Posted

To be honest with you! I own Skywatcher 127mm MAK and it comes very close to performance with the Meade ETX 125 which I also used to own! I would say stick with Skywatcher 127mm everytime and providing you use it for planetary imaging you can't go wrong! The weight on the tube isn't going to hinder the performance on EQ 3-2.

I've suggested a lot of guy's about this scope and no one came back complaining about it's performance, In fact more people wanted to let me know how happy they were of it's capabilites!

Seriously with the 5" apeture at such a great price go for Skywatcher, the scope is definitely a keeper that's for sure! :headbang:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sparkyjon

sparkyjon

Posted
  • Author
Posted

yes just double checked 5 kg for imaging and 7 kg for visual.

i am in contact with someone who is looking to exchange my c8 and all the kit for a celestron 127 slt goto system, so with the eq 3-2 an alt azimuth goto and a pier i can do almost anything i want lol...

i'm assuming the celestron 127 mak is simular spec to the skywatcher

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PARTY MARTY

PARTY MARTY

Posted
Posted

The Celestron is exactly the same Mak as the Skywatcher one mate? But if you're lucky enough, I would get the Skywatcher, I know managed to get the Skywatcher with Schott glass and enchanced coatings, you can get them And I think they now do them with this better glass! I would cut to the chase and get a good EQ-5 mount instead which handle 10Kgs maxed out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.