Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_annual.thumb.jpg.3fc34f695a81b16210333189a3162ac7.jpg

Skywatcher Skymax 150 and 180 PRO now have SCT threads


Recommended Posts

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 :smiley:

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. 
skymax_150_pro_ota.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

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

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 annou

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.  :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't a dumb question :smiley:

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 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :rolleyes:

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

We agree :smiley:

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

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Edited by Naemeth
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :).

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by hobsey
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Naemeth
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :smiley:

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 :smiley:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 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.

Edited by scoobee
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :smiley:

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 
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 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.