My 3.5" scope is better then my 5" scope?!

[Herzy]

Alright, I know this seems ridiculous but it's true! The other night I had a side-by-side comparison of m42 and the 3.5" was far better then the 5" scope!

Scope 1: Celestron 127eq

Scope 2: NexStar 90slt Computerized.

The mount on the 127eq isn't very good but that doesn't seem to be the issue, any ideas?

[Putaendo Patrick]

I suspect the 127 might be the Powerseeker. If so, Herzy is comparing a 127mm Jones-Bird design reflector with a Maksutov-Cassegrain. Chalk and cheese so to speak!

Aperture isn't everything all of the time. Optics play their part too! And the Mak is better in this case, no doubt.

[Herzy]

Yea it's the Powerseeker, not the 127 mak. So which one should I use? It seems like I can see a lot more stars with the 127eq Powerseeker, but all DSO's are better in the mak.

[Mak the Night]

I think it's the nature of Mak's to be good with large bright objects in general. I can't get higher than a 3.1mm exit pupil with my 102mm Mak. But getting 208x for a 0.5mm exit pupil is comparatively easy. M42 looks spectacular with the 102mm at everything from 31x to 130x. I doubt I'll see the Horsehead Nebulae with the Mak anytime soon though lol.

[Putaendo Patrick]

It's worth remembering that the two scopes have different focal lengths (Powerseeker 1000mm versus Mak 1250mm), so if you use the same eyepieces in both you will have different magnifications. For example a 10mm EP in the Powerseeker gives x100, but in the Mak it will give 125mm. Less magnification = wider view = more stars?
 

Similarly, bigger aperture = more light gathering = more fainter objects. But this doesn't necessarily mean better views. A Mak is especially good for Lunar and planetary observation as well as brighter objects in general. As they say, there are horses for courses!

I agree that the Powerseeker mount is poor - but I have found the 127 OTA surprisingly good for its level (mentioning anything good about Jones-Bird designs will get me a hail of meteorites thrown in my direction - but that has been my experience). Can you put it on the NexStar mount or is it totally incompatible?

[Charic]

The 5" should be better, but as its the 127 EQ Powerseeker, you should destroy the Powerseeker, its just a poor excuse for a telescope, its the reason I upgraded to a Skyliner!

[Herzy]

Unfortunately, it's incompatible with the NexStar mount. The NexStar is dovetail... Could anyone possibly link me a few good high aperture/good scopes that would be compatible with this mount?

[happy-kat]

The heritage 130p uses a dove bar and weighs about 3.6 kilo for the tube.

I don't know if skywatcher dove bar is the same compatible with a celestron.

How much does the mak weigh?

[Herzy]

Which part of it? The optical tube or mount? I'm assuming you mean optical tube, and all I know is that the recommended weight is about 8 pounds.

[Herzy]

In response to AEAJR, When I say "better" I mean the Orion Nebula was just dimmer. Yes I was using the same eyepiece, so the magnification was different. However, if I increased the magnification on the 127eq to make the same field of view in both scopes, the nebula was even dimmer! IDK, it's just a strange situation... 

I haven't collimated it recently, but it seems a little scary considering i have a bird-jones design. Yes the mount is shaky but thats not the issue, I'm talking about the detail Im able to see.

[Charic]

40 minutes ago, Herzy said:

I haven't collimated it recently, but it seems a little scary considering i have a bird-jones design.

In real terms with a spherical mirror, you just need to centre the secondary and see the primary mirror clips from the same point of view. I even centre spotted my 127EQ making  no difference to the image quality.

The 127EQ Powerseeker  telescope can provide some close-up views of the Moon, and with its correcting eyepiece, allows for Daytime usage, apart from that, I found nothing really to favour the scope.

A small 1-2mm hole punched in the eyepiece dust-cap is all you need to assist in the alignment of your eye when checking the above.