Skywatcher Skymax 150

[inedible_hulk]

Hi Guys, I finally got a proper 'first light' with the scope tonight after loosing the weekend to a faulty handset cable on my mount. Thin cloud softened the focus, but I still got some fabulous views of Jupiter at x120 (watching Ganymede move off Jupiter's limb). I found a  #82A Light Blue filter really improved the clarity of the view. I pushed my luck and tried x225, but it was way too much for the conditions. I took a quick view of Venus, but the thin cloud and the low aspect resulted in a very poor view. Focusing requires some very fine adjustment to the focusing knob, but I soon got a feel for things. Overall I'm blown away, Jupiter looks like a dinner plate compared to what I'm used to  . Thanks for all your comments and suggestions. Folk on SGL are the best!

[knobby]

Stick a clothes peg on the knob

[Vox45]

I read that the 180mm is too much to handle for an HEQ5 ? If only doing planetary/lunar imaging with a webcam would this mount be sufficient ?

[recceranger]

Hi Vox,

I had a 180 about 2 years ago and it was fine mounted on an HEQ5 with my D3000 attached. The answer is yes, it will handle a 180 with webcam etc

The only reason I now have the 150 is because I use it as a portable set up.

The 180 on HEQ5 is well within working performance

[Vox45]

Hi Vox,

I had a 180 about 2 years ago and it was fine mounted on an HEQ5 with my D3000 attached. The answer is yes, it will handle a 180 with webcam etc

The only reason I now have the 150 is because I use it as a portable set up.

The 180 on HEQ5 is well within working performance

thanks for your answer

I just sold my C6 to get a 80ED to start my journey on the DSO side (gulp) !

I was thinking of getting a MAK next year so I would have 2 very specialised scope instead of going down the big SCT road ( and forget about dob or newton as I have some space contraint) After reading this thread and some more, the MAK seems the ideal choice for me and the fact that the mount is a good match for a 80ED AND good enough for the MAK is good news

I was thinking of getting a 2" focuser for the MAK so I can swap the diagonal, EPs, etc from one scope to the other. It is a more expensive road, but I think this will give me the best of both worlds: Planet/Lunar in Paris, DSO in the Alps... I think I can live with that

[recceranger]

Vox,

Your set up will be exactly as mine. I have the SW ED80 and SW MAK 150 Pro. Both used on an HEQ6

The ED I would be without. Perfect for visual and AP wide field. The views on the double cluster and M45 are outstanding.

The MAK I use on doubles, globulars, planets and lunar. The views up at around 200X on the moon are like being in orbit looking down. Additionally I got a perfect night viewing in the Brecon Beacons of M3 and 13. The best view on DSO's I've had!

I'm modifying the MAK by fitting and SCT Focuser. I'm waiting on Telesope House getting more of the new Revelation Super Rack and Pinion SCT Focuser. It's priced at £120 and is receiving rave reviews. Moonlights etc are just a little too pricey and I would rather spend the difference on a decent 30 - 40mm SWA lens etc

[recceranger]

That should say - HEQ5!!!!!

[recceranger]

And it should say - the ED I wouldn't be without!

[Vox45]

Vox,

Your set up will be exactly as mine. I have the SW ED80 and SW MAK 150 Pro. Both used on an HEQ6

The ED I would be without. Perfect for visual and AP wide field. The views on the double cluster and M45 are outstanding.

The MAK I use on doubles, globulars, planets and lunar. The views up at around 200X on the moon are like being in orbit looking down. Additionally I got a perfect night viewing in the Brecon Beacons of M3 and 13. The best view on DSO's I've had!

I'm modifying the MAK by fitting and SCT Focuser. I'm waiting on Telesope House getting more of the new Revelation Super Rack and Pinion SCT Focuser. It's priced at £120 and is receiving rave reviews. Moonlights etc are just a little too pricey and I would rather spend the difference on a decent 30 - 40mm SWA lens etc

Haaa glad to see that I am not alone

My initial plan was to go for a C9.25 but I was put off by the size of it and the mount that would be needed. I was lucky enough to get a C6 and HEQ5 mount (Sirius) second hand for 500€ (with motofocus and solar glass filter) but I felt that investing into a focuser and a focal reducer would give me an 'average' setup at best for DSO and an average setup for planets/moon/solar

So I sold my C6 for 400€ and bought a second hand 80ED with Baader click lock for 410€ (!) I added a 99% dielectric diagonal and a Orion guide scope with focuser.... But now I am short on a planetary scope...

Like they say: "teach your kid astronomy, they'll never have enough money to buy drugs"

I'll be following you on your '2 scopes journey' and learn from your success or, god forbid, mistakes I already learned from you that the MAK is also good on globular cluster and double stars... I did not realise that, but thinking of it it makes sense due to the long focal, hence it's separating power

I see that we are both '70ers a fine year !

[Macavity]

I'm still "trucking on", with my old Mk.I "Gold" MAK150. 

This was purchased as a "deal" from FLO (Ta Steve)

Rumour was that there was a bit of "mirror flop" in them.

But I anyway use a TS Monorail "Crayford" focusser.

For me, the BIG thing is that the MAK150 is much like

a "bigger MAK127" and retains it's many virtues too?

The f/1800mm is not THAT excessive  - The MAK180

is perhaps more of a "planetary scope" at f/2700mm.

The only issue here is that EVEN the MAK150 is quite

a "heavy little beggar". The specific Tube rings are not  

available, but I was able to get a fair fit after removing

the fuzzy felt! At 16lb(!), it's close to the HEQ5 limit.

But. as a "Video Astronomer", I may yet just be able

to squeeze my Altair 66mm on top of it... (Maybe)! 

[Vox45]

Big coincidence I just received my (French) astronomy magazine and this month's review is the SW 180 MAK

They have only good things to say about it the the con's they are listing (small FOV, long cooling) are expected .. I would only use it for lunar/planetary anyways (and double stars I guess) so I am ok with the f/2700mm. I was concerned about the weight of course... but according to recceranger that is not an issue, glad to hear that

The only issue here is that EVEN the MAK150 is quite a "heavy little beggar". The specific Tube rings are not  available, but I was able to get a fair fit after removing the fuzzy felt! At 16lb(!), it's close to the HEQ5 limit.

I think you forgot to convert lb to kg (?) The HEQ5 limit is (according to FLO description) 11kg for imaging, 15kg for visual and the MAK 180's weight is 7.8kg so I still have room for an imaging cam like the ASI120MM and a couple of bits.

[Macavity]

I think you forgot to convert lb to kg (?) The HEQ5 limit is (according to FLO description) 11kg for imaging, 15kg for visual and the MAK 180's weight is 7.8kg so I still have room for an imaging cam like the ASI120MM and a couple of bits.

Well, maybe... <chuckle>

I do think the whole specification is incredibly confusing! But I am currently looking quite

carefully at this very issue. (Achievable loading in practice etc.) The way I look at this:

The default HEQ5 comes with two 5.5kg (11lb) weights. Total weight 22lb.

Wnen located at the middle of the weight bar, the combined centre of mass is about 10"

from the balance point. Multiply the 22lb by 10", you get (force times distance) 220 lb.in.

Whichever scope, in the range 6-8" diameter, placed on the other side of the mount, the

centre of mass is 13" to 14"  from the axis. Divide 220 lb.in by this, you get approx.16lb. 

Put simply, any scope of this size must weigh less than the default counterweight 22lb!

As in theory, so in practice? Anecdotally, the HEQ5 "maximum load" is quoted between

15 - 20kg? Most astronomers seem to quote scope "payloads" HALF of the lower value

for imaging? I CLAIM the maximum imaging scope limit is 15kg / 2 = 7.5kg (or 16-17lb)!

Aside, I do envisage pushing the total scope weight limit to about 10kg (MAK150 + ED66)

via a small  extension to the weight arm. But I am a VIDEO astronomer after all! lol. I am 

admittedly "pre-decimalisastion" - But I am also "bit decrepit". Thus I *still* claim to know

the difference between a 16lb scope (which I can loft in one hand) and a *16kg* one. lol.

The latter would have me "seeing coloured lights" - Even if I could hold it up as long?

No pedant -  Ever happy to be wrong! Just happened to be thinking about this one...

[Vox45]

Well, of course, if you start throwing math and facts and logic in a discussion how do you expect people to argue ! Didn't you learn anything about the internet ?

I remember reading that the practical load is usually 50% of the one stated... now, because of you, I understand why

Still, what would be the impact of having more than the 50% weight ? Strain on the gears, bad tracking ? If this is the case I am not sure if this has a great impact on planetary imaging as my target usually bounce around anyway and I track manually.

Any ideas ?

[inedible_hulk]

My Skymax 150 complete with finder, diagonal etc. is just shy of 6.5kg. The max load for the EQ5 Pro is 9kg, so I'm over half load. I've not had any noticeable problems using it visually or whilst planetary imaging, so long as I remember to balance it [emoji4].

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Vox45]

Yes, I would think that weight could be an issue on DSO and guiding. I guess that too much weight would put strain on the gears... but isn't it the point of using counterweight and balancing

[Macavity]

Yes, I think balance is fairly key! But, scopes like the MAK are fairly compact

and avoid many problems associated with the "intertia" of longer OTAs.

Certainly the Mk.I Gold version is "built like a battleship" so is unphased by

any WIND blowing. Unlike my "stick and string" build of budget 8"/F4 Newt.

Under remote computer control, I did have problems with *planetary* imaging

at higher magnification. Basically, if I just touched the scope, I could lose the 

whole Planet! But this was traced to *backlash* in the gears - The end-stops

on the worm drive shafts had worn lose with time - Were never tightened?

Apart from classical imagers (who often use tiny refractors on huge mounts!),

I sense many people who use (can only afford, lol) EQ5s, HEQ5s etc., slightly

exceed the *payload* limits from time to time? Visual (video) astronomers can

probably get away with such things, to some extent...

Reading around this subject, it seems more sensible to make (buy?) 

a short extension to the weight shaft, rather than add a THIRD weight! 

The latter only adds to the overall load, without facilitating the balance. 

Of course, it goes without saying, one should tread carefully...

[Vox45]

Your post are always informative thanks for sharing you experience on the matter !