Maksutov v Schmidt

[Quacker64]

Good GOTO helps me

Would really help me too.

One key difference between SCTs and Maks is the thickness of the corrector plate. This means on the one hand that SCT corrector plates may fog up slightly quicker than a Mak (due to lower thermal capacity of the thin plate), but that SCTs for a given aperture tend to be lighter in weight. My 8" SCT (black, 20 y.o. C8) OTA weighs in at under 5 kgs, and is lighter than all 6" Maks I am aware of. That makes the C8 a breeze to set up. My C8 was my only scope for many years until I got a wide-field refractor to complement it. I might well get a big Dob for deeper DSO work, but the C8 isn't going to be for sale, it is such a great travel instrument (at least by car). My scope has no go-to, just a massive finder. This has allowed me to pick up over 900 DSOs so far.

The large LX90 - another 8in was an option. I've not even got a dream scope yet. Mind I like the look of the Celestron Evolution series.

Here's another way of thinking about things.

Meade -

LX-90 8" goto £1749

The LX90 is an 8" scope, fork mounted goto scope. The tripod is sturdy. At the outset the scope will come in Alt-Az configuration, but can be changed to EQ with the addition of a wedge.

This scope is over your buget, but I'm certain will tick every single box that you could want for a number of years to come. It's price, but I don't think you'll be left wanting with it.

ETX-125 £649

This is the little brother of the LX-90. It's f/15 instead of f/10. It's also a Mak instead of an SCT.

Again comes with Goto, and tripod. This can be configured for both Alt-Az or Eq right out of the box.

the 125 is the side of the optics, 125mm or 4.9 inch.

The ETX range uses the same hand crontroller as the LX-90 - known as the #497 Autostar controller.

Skywatcher

Skywatcher Skymax 127 SynScan AZ GOTO Telescope £359

Single arm mount - will get wobbly when there's alot of weight on the scope (camera, or large eyepiece)

Mount: Alt-Az, looks like it cannot be easily converted to EQ

Optics 5" mak.

Tripod looks sturdy.

Has goto functions.

Overall for the price I'd say this is a superb looking visual scope. I think you'll hit a wall the moment that you start wanting to add a camera to the equation.

Skywatcher Startravel 80 EQ1 Telescope £130

This one is a real curveball that I think you might appreciate looking at.

It's a manual scope.

80mm refractor at f/5

The tripod is a bit flimsy. The mount is an EQ mount.

It's an EQ-1, which is the cheapest of the EQ- series.

However, it's an 80mm refractor. As a first telescope I'd highly recommend this. I have one that I bought as a second scope not as my first.

Here's the killer, it's dead easy to use. It's cheap enough that it'll not blow your budget. As it's a manual scope, it will force you to learn the night sky - something that people that buy a goto scope first don't tend to do (I regret that I've still not learned my way arount the night sky)

So, why is this such a killer? Firstly, it's cheap. You can use this to give you time to save up for a that bigger scope that I'm sure you are secretly drooling over. Then, when you get your bigger all singing and dancing goto scope. you can take this ST-80 and mount it on top of your new bigger scope, so that it will become a guidescope. That way, you can build up to a big scope, and already you'll have a fantastic piece of kit for if/when you get bitten by the DSO AP bug. (my profile picture is an ST-80 mounted on my LX-90)

Just a few ideas.

(I was going to add more - celestron and a couple of others, but I kinds need to get on with stuff)

Pity, I'd have like to know more about the Celestron Nexstars;-). But that word camera or phrase AP keeps rearing its head I see.

I'd just stick my canon DSLR onto an ED80 if I was to take that route. With the compulsory EQ mount of course;-)

Out of interest, what would the mead 125 give over the 127 Mak for the extra £300? as very similar aperture.

[ollypenrice]

F ratio is really neither here nor there for visual observers because every time you change the eyepiece you change it. (The effective focal ratio.) The only important issue concerns focal length since long ones preclude wide fields of view.

I've tried hard to resist offering the opinion I'm about to offer, especially since Peter Drew will not agree with it and he is, in anybody's terms, an expert and more knowledgeable than I am on most things astronomical. However, I do believe that the Catadioptric is often a beginner's mistake. So many beginners buy them (I must be honest and confess that I bought two!) but they are not 'do it all' scopes, they are specialist scopes.

They are short, compact and have a good proportion of aperture to overall volume. That's clear. They give very good images and Maks can give great ones.

But... they have tunnel vision due to the long focal length and they fog up faster than Sherlock Holmes' London. They are indifferent performers for deep sky imaging though, since Damian Peach uses them for planetary, they clearly have the best planetary results ever taken from the earth. Literally the best.

I still have one, a 10 inch Meade, and it has its place... Why am I rather indifferent towards it? I don't really know, but I am.

Olly

[CSM]

I would suggest something like a Celestron 6SE plus power tank and dew shield to start with.  That would work fine for an hour or two in your garden and be light enough to easily transport, and comes well within your budget.  And of course download Stellarium if you haven't already done so.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The C8 has 1.33° max FOV, which is hardly tunnel vision. The fact that mine had lasted me 20 years (next month) shows it is hardly a beginners mistake. I will grant it is not a great DSO imager, but is an excellent all-around visual scope, and very nice planetary imager. It has shown me the eclipse in 1999 in superb detail. No other 8" scope could have done that, because I wouldn't have been able to bring it in the little Peugeot we had. It has bagged me the majority of my 900+ DSOs, so performs well on DSO hunting.

[cjdawson]

Would really help me too.

The large LX90 - another 8in was an option. I've not even got a dream scope yet. Mind I like the look of the Celestron Evolution series.

Pity, I'd have like to know more about the Celestron Nexstars;-). But that word camera or phrase AP keeps rearing its head I see.

I'd just stick my canon DSLR onto an ED80 if I was to take that route. With the compulsory EQ mount of course;-)

Out of interest, what would the mead 125 give over the 127 Mak for the extra £300? as very similar aperture.

Doing a direct comparison of the ETX-125 AT v the Skymax 127 Synscan AZ GOTO

Before I begin, I think it important to say that I do not own or have access to either of these scopes.  I'm making the comparison based on the links that I gave above.

Meade ETX 125.

Focal length 1900mm f/15

Fork mounted

Maksutov-Cassegrain

26mm eyepiece included

Full height Stainless steel tripod with carry bag - The tripod has a fitting that allows it to be put into equatorial mode giving options.

#497 Autostar included (that's the better of the two possible hand boxes, and has a built in serial port that allows the scope to be controlled by an external device like a computer or tablet)

Skywatcher Synscan 127

Focal length 1500mm (f/11.8)

Single arm mounted (not as secure as a fork mount - will flex more but won't be a problem for visual observing)

Maksutov-Cassegrain

includes both 10mm and 25mm eyepieces, 2x barlow, and a camera adapter.  90° star diaganol

Tripod - no bag

Synscan is the Skywatcher version of the Autostar,  again allows the scope to be connected to a pc or tablet.

Looking at the two scopes, honestly, I'm of the opinion that the Skywatcher is a better prospect than the ETX-125.  The Pro's of the Skywatcher is that the optics are reported as 2mm bigger. The f ratio is lower, so it's a faster scope.  It's goto, and looks like SkyWatcher are actively working on the code to improve things.   You get 2 eyepieces and a barlow, so should have a good start on the observing side of things.  The cons are that it's a single arm rather than a fork mount.  A fork mount supports the OTA in two places which is a bit more stable.  There's no bag for the tripod included - but having said that, I'd bet that the bag supplied with the ETX is low quality.  Overall.  I'd go SkyWatcher.

[John]

Doing a direct comparison of the ETX-125 AT v the Skymax 127 Synscan AZ GOTO

Before I begin, I think it important to say that I do not own or have access to either of these scopes.  I'm making the comparison based on the links that I gave above.

Meade ETX 125.

Focal length 1900mm f/15

Fork mounted

Maksutov-Cassegrain

26mm eyepiece included

Full height Stainless steel tripod with carry bag - The tripod has a fitting that allows it to be put into equatorial mode giving options.

#497 Autostar included (that's the better of the two possible hand boxes, and has a built in serial port that allows the scope to be controlled by an external device like a computer or tablet)

Skywatcher Synscan 127

Focal length 1500mm (f/11.8)

Single arm mounted (not as secure as a fork mount - will flex more but won't be a problem for visual observing)

Maksutov-Cassegrain

includes both 10mm and 25mm eyepieces, 2x barlow, and a camera adapter.  90° star diaganol

Tripod - no bag

Synscan is the Skywatcher version of the Autostar,  again allows the scope to be connected to a pc or tablet.

Looking at the two scopes, honestly, I'm of the opinion that the Skywatcher is a better prospect than the ETX-125.  The Pro's of the Skywatcher is that the optics are reported as 2mm bigger. The f ratio is lower, so it's a faster scope.  It's goto, and looks like SkyWatcher are actively working on the code to improve things.   You get 2 eyepieces and a barlow, so should have a good start on the observing side of things.  The cons are that it's a single arm rather than a fork mount.  A fork mount supports the OTA in two places which is a bit more stable.  There's no bag for the tripod included - but having said that, I'd bet that the bag supplied with the ETX is low quality.  Overall.  I'd go SkyWatcher.

The effective aperture of the Skywatcher 127 is around 120mm though. But I'd still go for it over a Meade ETX-125, not for the optics but to avoid the Meade ETX mount which does not have a particularly good reputation.

Perhaps a Meade ETX 125 optical tube on the Skywatcher mount would be the best combination

[jambouk]

The mount in a the Skywatcher 127 GOTO alt-az package is reasonable, but definately a relflection of what you pay for. It is no where near as stable as an HEQ5, workds apart. But it is vastly easier to carry and store. It is easy to set up, once you know how, and if the user does everything correctly and accurately the GOTO can be pretty much spot on even with the long focal length of a 127. A common problem which many have tried to resolve is the shake / vibration transmitted through the mount into the telescope after making an adjustment to the focus or making a position change with the handset - it means one has to wait a few seconds for it all to stop vibrating. It os annoying and does hinder the enjoyment a little, but it is relatively cheap, relatively accurate but very portable. There is a whole thread [several infact] about the mount and how people have attempted to add stability. Again I do have one of these should you ever be passing through Nottingham and wanted to have a hands on look at one. You say you are not keen on second hand, but if I were goving someone advice about mounts, I would be suggesting a well looked agter second hand HEQ5, which could be obtained for £400-500, rather than this alt-az GOTO mount if money allowed. The improvements in stability and accuracy and quiteness of the HEQ5 mean it is a winner in my book.

The 150 Mak (or the 180 Mak) would sit gloriously on an HEQ5. If you wanted to add a 130 or 150mm Newtonian or a refractor to your collection for much wider field of views, it would handle these with ease too.

James

[Ruud]

I have a 6" SCT and the optics are good, but I only use it with exit pupils ranging from .65 to 2.4 mm. That's a magnification range of not even 1:4, and most of those magnifications are quite high.

It's nice as a second instrument but it has me always wanting for lower magnifications and less narrow views.

[Quacker64]

Thanks again all. More food for thought.

James, regarding the mount, I had some great discussion about the mount and specially as you said the idea of a future-proof mount. The HEQ5 and EQ5 were mentioned a lot. I'd have no qualms having. Used mount - especially one of those mentioned if someone was upgrading to an EQ6.

I notice a lot of people come on here regarding first scope purchase then either disappear altogether or never quite get around to that first purchase (I look at people's signature to see what they're using. They may choose not to have a signature of course).

The portability issue is an important one. The flimsiness of the Mak127 may or may not be an issue. The reviews I have read, admittedly few, don't mention this weakness, but then again, I've probably looked at lesser review sites;-)

It's club night again tonight. I might be there again with my questions and notepad this time. Will take more time speaking with Mak/Scmidt users. Nexstar 6 is interesting but as I've read on hear and elsewhere 8in would give me the best views for planetary and some DSO viewing.

I'm off work now until Tuesday and having a weekend in Bournemouth so time for a little more research. Might even find a shop in the Bournemouth or Poole area as precious little in this area.

Steve

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The step up from 6" to 8" is significant. The 8SE is also still very portable and easy to set up (one SGL member in a wheelchair uses one). If you want a sturdier mount you can certainly go for the HEQ5 (very good mount, by all accounts) or even the EQ5 or AVX mounts (lighter, should you need that). My C8 sits comfortably on a Vixen Great Polaris mount. The EQ5 is a clone of that venerable mount. Early models of the EQ5 were clearly not as well-engineered as the GP mount, but the modern crop are reported to be very similar. Going for a second-hand mount (or scope) is a good way to keep the cost down

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

BTW, as planetary imager the C8 has delivered me these results

[Macavity]

Perhaps the greatest enemy of an aspiring astronomer is "analysis paralysis"?

Or a feeling that unless s/he can afford "the right stuff", it isn't worth bothering!

Buy a scope and learn about it! Buy books about Astronomy? Use Google even! 

The brutal truth is you could make (many / few) mistakes... But you will learn...

We live in an age where Astro gear is *relatively* much cheaper than... "my" 70s

frustrated youth! lol. These days, a lot of beginner kits (even MAK / SCT based)

will deliver rewarding experiences. But do require a time/learning investment?

People shell out £400 on a "mobile"... Spend HOURS fiddling with the bloomin'

things (reject them for a better / newer model). Buy a telescope instead, guys! 

[Stu]

Perhaps the greatest enemy of an aspiring astronomer is "analysis paralysis"?

Or a feeling that unless s/he can afford "the right stuff", it isn't worth bothering!

Buy a scope and learn about it! Buy books about Astronomy? Use Google even!

The brutal truth is you could make (many / few) mistakes... But you will learn...

We live in an age where Astro gear is *relatively* much cheaper than... "my" 70s

frustrated youth! lol. These days, a lot of beginner kits (even MAK / SCT based)

will deliver rewarding experiences. But do require a time/learning investment?

People shell out £400 on a "mobile"... Spend HOURS fiddling with the bloomin'

things (reject them for a better / newer model). Buy a telescope instead, guys!

Actually I do tend to agree with this. If you stick to known brands and more common scope types you are unlikely to go wrong. Most give excellent views and the only real way to learn is to start!

Do some research, of course. The important things like size, weight, can you manage it ie don't by a 16" dob and expect to be able to carry down a flight of stairs on your own, does it fit in your car (does it need to!) for visual most of the popular scopes will do a good job so my view is its better to make a start and get observing, than to agonise over it for a year or two!

Even better, buy (carefully) used off the forum or ABS and you are unlikely to lose much money if and when you sell it.

[Quacker64]

The step up from 6" to 8" is significant. The 8SE is also still very portable and easy to set up (one SGL member in a wheelchair uses one). If you want a sturdier mount you can certainly go for the HEQ5 (very good mount, by all accounts) or even the EQ5 or AVX mounts (lighter, should you need that). My C8 sits comfortably on a Vixen Great Polaris mount. The EQ5 is a clone of that venerable mount. Early models of the EQ5 were clearly not as well-engineered as the GP mount, but the modern crop are reported to be very similar. Going for a second-hand mount (or scope) is a good way to keep the cost down

  

BTW, as planetary imager the C8 has delivered me these results

  

Yes, when considering a scope, a lot of people forget about the mount. First thing I was told at the club was the first scope might be changed, but the first mount would last a very long time if chosen correctly. That's why they pointed me toward EQ mounts. Although imaging isn't my bag, and not something I'm considering, those were very good and something you must be proud of.

Perhaps the greatest enemy of an aspiring astronomer is "analysis paralysis"?

Or a feeling that unless s/he can afford "the right stuff", it isn't worth bothering!

Buy a scope and learn about it! Buy books about Astronomy? Use Google even! 

The brutal truth is you could make (many / few) mistakes... But you will learn...

We live in an age where Astro gear is *relatively* much cheaper than... "my" 70s

frustrated youth! lol. These days, a lot of beginner kits (even MAK / SCT based)

will deliver rewarding experiences. But do require a time/learning investment?

People shell out £400 on a "mobile"... Spend HOURS fiddling with the bloomin'

things (reject them for a better / newer model). Buy a telescope instead, guys! 

Fantastic post and analysis paralysis is a wonderful way and much more succinct as the ubiquitous "too much choice". Your mobile phone analogy has helped me no end. I have no qualms paying almost £1k over a 2 year contract on the latest Samsung or Apple phone. I might just keep my existing phone and get the 8in and hang the budget!

Mind you, I thought I was getting closer with a 6se or 8se then read about the Evolution models!

I never made the club tonight unfortunately, but I'm all scoped out and got a little 363 mile drive to the south coast in the morning. You see the scope will be a relaxing pastime compared to an obsessed traveling football fan.

I'm slowly moving away from the Mak 124 and even 5 or 6 in scopes. Now up to 8. Need to make a shortlist and stick with it! Nexstar 8se/evolution another Celestron (I forget model) and Meade LX 90 - the latter two owned by club members. Time to quiz them having used or looked through both in the field.

I'm changing my mind more than that Harry Enfield character from a few years back!

Steve

[happy-kat]

Stick a skywatcher ST80 ontop as your finder, get lovely wide field views to go with your 8 inch sct or mak.

[Quacker64]

Stick a skywatcher ST80 ontop as your finder, get lovely wide field views to go with your 8 inch sct or mak.

Was that a serious suggestion as seems a little ott to me.

Apologies my plans are all on hold as I suffered a stroke on 19th so am recovering now :-( my grand plans temporaririly thwarted!!

[happy-kat]

No it was a serious thought even if ott it was not tic.

Hope your recovery is strong and smooth, the brain is very plastic and the body responds well to the right fuel.

[RT65CB-SWL]

These two may help...

Mike Weasner http://weasner.com/etx/menu.html

Rod (Uncle Rod) Mollise http://skywatch.brainiac.com/used/index.htm (free PDF download)

PS - get well soon!

[Quacker64]

Thanks Happy Kat. I'm sure things will be good again. I've been advised there's no reason why it won't be. Got too much time on my hands now! so will have almost unlimited time to research.

Will be a good few weeks (hopefully not longer) before I can get out and play.