Skywatcher Skymax 150 and 180 PRO now have SCT threads

[FLO]

The Skywatcher Skymax 150 and Skymax 180 PRO telescopes now feature a standard SCT thread for the attachment of accessories. 

Previously they had non-standard threads which was rather awkward so this is good news

For high magnification lunar and planetary observing the Maksutov optical design is an excellent choice because it is made entirely from spherical surfaces. Spherical surfaces are perfect for mass production, they can be easily and affordably ground and polished to a very high surface accuracy, hence their reputation for razor-sharp, high resolution, high contrast views. By comparison, aspherical or parabolic surfaces are considerably more difficult to manufacture so, unless you spend more, rarely have the same surface-finish accuracy. 

Maksutovs also have sealed tubes so are less prone to internal air currents and the mirror is protected from the elements. The only significant disadvantage to a large-aperture Maksutov is that its thick front corrector lens attracts dew and takes takes longer to cool than most other designs. Fortunately a dew heater tape will stop the dew and storing the telescope in a shed or garage (so close to the outside temperature) reduces the cool-down time. 

UPDATE: One customer has received a Skymax 180 without an SCT thread so we are now checking every Skymax-180 PRO prior to dispatch. 

[Mike73]

Ok so dumb question but what exactly is the SCT thread? Is it the spacer running from the OTA to focuser?

BTW Steve your link to the 180 above opens as an image and not linked to your site. 

[FLO]

It isn't a dumb question

It is the thread at the rear of the telescope. It is most commonly used on SCT telescopes and is the thread that the diagonal or eyepiece holder is screwed onto. 

These things are only easy when you know. 

HTH, 

Steve 

[knobby]

I found that one out too... After hunting down an adaptor!

[FLO]

BTW Steve your link to the 180 above opens as an image and not linked to your site. 

Oops. 

I pasted the photo link, not the product link. It should work now  

[FLO]

I found that one out too... After hunting down an adaptor!

We used to offer an adapter but soon after we released it Skywatcher changed the thread to another non-standard one 

If anyone reading this has an earlier Skymax 150 or 180 scope and needs a thread adapter you can normally buy one from Wayne Weedon at Billet Parts

HTH

[Earl]

This has to be one of those "About Time !" moments.

[FLO]

This has to be one of those "About Time !" moments.

We agree

Now if they change the NEQ6 casting to make it better suited to our latitude. Then we really would let off some party poppers

[Naemeth]

Steve, don't know if this is really the right place to discuss it, but would 180 Mak or C8 produce better planetary views / (and) images? Are the optics of the 180 and the C8 roughly the same standard, or is the Skymax slightly superior?

[Earl]

The sky max is F15 and gives great views, when i compared it to a 9.25 I think the 180 was better for planets and the moon.

[FLO]

Modern glass, manufacturing techniques and optical coatings have significantly improved the SCT design but it cannot compete with a similarly priced Maksutov for absolute contrast and acutence. 

Both designs will work well but for lunar and planets the Skymax-180 wins. 

HTH

[Naemeth]

Modern glass, manufacturing techniques and optical coatings have significantly improved the SCT design but it cannot compete with a similarly priced Maksutov for absolute contrast and acutence. 

Both designs will work well but for lunar and planets the Skymax-180 wins. 

HTH

That decides it. Skymax 180 in March time with probably a HEQ-5 / NEQ-6 for planetary imaging while I save up for a C14, then the 180 can still be used on the nights where the seeing isn't great .

Thanks Steve and Earl .

[hobsey]

Quick question about the 180 pro as I'm trying to decide between this and a Celestron C8.

I have a CG-5 GT and the approx weight limit for imaging is 7kg where as the 180 pro is 7.8kg. Would the weight of this scope be ok on the CG-5 just for video imaging as the visual limit is 10KG. Bearing in mind the other accessories, one being the Starsense.

Many thanks.

[knobby]

Should be OK if webcamming as the capture and software / Registax/ autostakkert will makeup for the mount... A bit :-)

[hobsey]

Thanks for that.

That has just made things that little bit more difficult to decide which one to go for. 

[JamesF]

Didn't they only change the threads on the Maks a year or so ago, or am I confusing things?

James

[knobby]

Didn't they only change the threads on the Maks a year or so ago, or am I confusing things?

James

Mines about 8 months old and it had the sct thread

[Crescent_moon]

Looks like a great scope - however most of the top planetary images seem to come from owners of big SCTs or big Dobs (I could be wrong).

Is the big Mak more for visual? or is it just the SCTs and Dobs come in bigger sizes to suit high resolution imaging?

[Naemeth]

Looks like a great scope - however most of the top planetary images seem to come from owners of big SCTs or big Dobs (I could be wrong).

Is the big Mak more for visual? or is it just the SCTs and Dobs come in bigger sizes to suit high resolution imaging?

The 180 Mak (7") is the largest Mak that Skywatcher do, whereas you can get up to a C14 (14" SCT) from Celestron - perhaps that begins to explain some of it.

[Earl]

Its more about the Achievable focal length.

[FLO]

Didn't they only change the threads on the Maks a year or so ago, or am I confusing things?

Mines about 8 months old and it had the sct thread

Yes, but we were not confident all stocks of non-SCT models were cleared so didn't update our website's product description. Today all Skymax 150 and 180 are arriving with SCT threads so we have announced the change. I guess there might still be one or two on dealers shelves still without SCT threads, but not ours

Looks like a great scope - however most of the top planetary images seem to come from owners of big SCTs or big Dobs (I could be wrong).

Is the big Mak more for visual? or is it just the SCTs and Dobs come in bigger sizes to suit high resolution imaging?

The 180 Mak (7") is the largest Mak that Skywatcher do, whereas you can get up to a C14 (14" SCT) from Celestron - perhaps that begins to explain some of it.

Yes, the question was Mak 180 (7") v 8" SCT for lunar and planetary. Personally I'd choose the Mak for it's greater acutance and contrast. But if it were Mak-180 v C11 or C14 then the greater apertures would achieve higher resolution so would be more desirable. 

HTH

[hobsey]

Yes, the question was Mak 180 (7") v 8" SCT for lunar and planetary. Personally I'd choose the Mak for it's greater acutance and contrast. But if it were Mak-180 v C11 or C14 then the greater apertures would achieve higher resolution so would be more desirable.

Well as I will probably never afford a C11 or C14, I think it will have to be the Mak 180 then.

[misterp]

I have an old gold tube 180 and I think it is fab.

Ian

[scoobee]

 Personally I'd choose the Mak for it's greater acutance and contrast.

Hi

I am researching on a scope for imaging split stars, to get that better image the sharpness with the star to background is important thus would the acutance (edge to edge sharpness) be achieved with the standard focuser?or would you benefit using an SCT focuser? if so, what would you say would give you a better acutance? On the bases of using the 180pro.

[FLO]

I am researching on a scope for imaging split stars, to get that better image the sharpness with the star to background is important thus would the acutance (edge to edge sharpness) be achieved with the standard focuser?or would you benefit using an SCT focuser? if so, what would you say would give you a better acutance? On the bases of using the 180pro.

Resolution is the telescope's ability to resolve fine detail. Acutance is best described as 'edge sharpness'. A high resolution, high acutence telescope will deliver fine detail that can be easily appreciated. The Skymax 150 and 180 have high resolution (as far as their apertures will allow) and high acutence (German Schott glass, spherical surfaces with a high surface accuracy and modern optical coatings) so are an excellent choice for lunar and planetary observing and imaging. They are also desirable qualities when splitting binary stars. 

A separate focuser won't affect the telescope's resolution or acutence but it will make it easier to achieve precise focus. A separate focuser will also overcome the small amount of image movement seen when you change focus direction (the built-in focuser moves the mirror up/down the tube). A number of customers (usually imagers) have fitted a separate focuser but I suggest you try it without first

If you do decide to fit a separate focuser then the telescope's SCT thread will make it easy. The focuser simply screws on. 

HTH, 

Steve