Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

Recommended Posts

Skywatcher some, have it. It means can use fully goto, tracking or fully manual with or without power. Stardiscovery, Virtuoso ( small table mount goto is extra) and the new azgti models have it. Just means you don't need power for viewing which might be handy for terrestrial use. Many goto mounts only work with power and the handset.

Those are all altaz mounts.

Edit: I see that you have now chosen whilst I had this window open :-)

Edited by happy-kat

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AstronomicalCheeki said:

I made my decision.I will pick the skywatcher mak 127 and az3 

The AZ3 will serve as a first start for a 127mm Maksutov, but an AZ4, or dare I say an AZ5, would be ideal in the long run...



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The mount becomes very wobbly. And worst case (if you go too far over the recommended payload) then you risk the mount bot being able to hold the scope and something breaking - either mount or telescope falling. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AstronomicalCheeki said:

...A.What happens when for example you put a 8kg telescope on a 5kg payload mount.

The mount and scope are unstable so it becomes impossible to view through the scope at anything other than low magnifications.

An undermounted scope is a miserable device and the source of nothing but frustration.

Edited by John

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

An AZ-4 (In the USA these are available from Orion (USA) under the name VersaGo II) would work with a 127mm Maksutov-Cassegrain - fit these like the proverbial glove. The 127mm is the most popular Maksutov out there. All of these Maks are made by Synta in the P.R. China. My personal favorite are the Skywatcher-branded one's. I have a 150mm myself. And the AZ3, as previously stated, would be at it's limit with the venerable 127mm. I wouldn't recommend this mount.

The AZ-4 is at it's limit with my 150mm, so I use a Vixen Porta II at present, but this needs a better tripod. It would likely be better if the tubular-steel one's were available in the US, as they are across-the-pond in your nation. I have solved this, but I shouldn't have had to IMHO.

The 127mm Mak's are wonderful little telescopes. Their being the best-sellers is no accident - word travels well in the Astro-Communites we inhabit! Don't let their diminutive size fool you, Dear Readers. They pack a powerful optical package in them.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dave In Vermont said:

An AZ-4 (In the USA these are available from Orion (USA) under the name VersaGo II) would work with a 127mm Maksutov-Cassegrain - fit these like the proverbial glove. 

 Had a look at ABS and there's AZ4 minus tripod available for £50. As OP is on a budget, I would suggest considering second hand options, at least for some parts of the rig. 

 There is also Vixen Porta II for £145, minus tripod again, which I think is reasonable. Add to that Skywatcher Mak150, found £200 used, and you have a little performer. £345 total. Ok tripod is needed but these can be sourced for cheap. 


  • Thanks 1

Share this post

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.

  • Similar Content

    • By jadcx
      TS Optics Photoline 90mm Triplet
      On reflection (or should that be through the lens of reality?) this was overpriced at £800, so is now reduced accordingly  
      In excellent condition, I gave a small writeup about this when I bought it, and it is still an excellent scope.  However it has been losing out to the 60 and 76 Tak and now spends all of its time alone, safely flight-cased.
      Don't leave this scope to suffer a lonely and unused life.  Buy it and catch some great views this winter! 

      Payment: PayPal (buyer pays fees) or bank transfer (preferred).
      Postage: Not included.  Collection from Nottingham, UK is free (of course), otherwise you will need to arrange your own courier.
    • By Spacecake2
      What telescope brand would you choose?
      Reply below for your favourite telescope brand. It would be really helpful to know which brand to buy.
      Celestron, Meade, Orion, Skywatcher  etc.  
      Thank you for viewing
    • By Spacecake2
      Does anyone know if I should upgrade my telescope? I have a Celestron Nextar 127slt and I've been using it for a few years now. I want to see more detail on Jupiter, Saturn and Mars.
      Does anyone have any suggestions from Celestron?
      Kind Regards
    • By endlessky
      I have already posted my first astrophotographic session report in the telescope review thread: Tecnosky 80/480 APO FPL53 Triplet OWL Series - Review. But since that is more of a general review/diary of my experience with the new telescope, I feel some of the issues I am having are being buried and they will probably get more visibility if I post them - in a more synthetic version - in a dedicated thread.
      So, a few nights ago (October, the 5th) I took out my new telescope for its first light. All the photos have been taken with the 0.8x flattener/reducer and the Optolong L-Pro 2" filter attached to the reducer. The camera is an astromodified Nikon D5300. The only processing the following pictures have consists in this:
      - AutomaticBackgroundExtractor
      - ColorCalibration
      - Stretch
      Here we have a 90s shot of M31.

      And here's a mosaic generated with the AberrationInspector script.

      What I do like:
      - tightest, smallest, roundest stars I have gotten since I started doing astrophotography at the end of January. Obviously comparing it to what I have been achieving with a kit 70-300mm zoom lens, these can't be anything else but better by orders of magnitude
      What I don't like:
      - star shape not consistent in all areas of the image
      - residual chromatic aberration, especially on stars that are not round: there's clearly some red and blue edges visible
      I didn't expect this from an apochromatic refractor, but maybe it's just because the stars are kinda "smeared", so not all light is focused at the same spot? I don't see this around the center of the image (or, at least, the problem is less pronounced). Maybe I have some tilting in my imaging train/sensor?
      I have been doing some reasoning about it and it seems like a combination of tilting and/or backfocus spacing. According to the following image about backfocus spacing:

      if the stars are elongated radially, the sensor is too close, if they are elongated tangentially, the sensor is too far. But to me it seems I have a little bit of both: in the top right corner, for example, the stars look radially elongated, in the bottom right, they look tangentially elongated. Top left they look tangentially elongated, bottom left also, but a little less. Seems like there has to be some tilting as well, otherwise they would all have a symmetric shape on all corners, correct?
      How do I determine - is there even a way - if the issue is due to tilting only, backfocus only, or the combination of the two? Is there a sure proof way of checking for tilting? Like, rotating the camera and taking pictures with, say, the camera at 0°, 90°, 270° and 360°? If there's tilting, the pattern of the star shapes should follow the camera, correct?
      I also tried splitting the channels in R, G, and B components, doing a star alignment of the blue and red channels with the green as a reference, and recombining the channels. The blue and red edges become a lot less evident, which is good, but obviously the star shapes remain the same.
      In my Telescopius gallery you can also find two other images, Capella and Capella Mosaic showing pretty much the same issues.
      Also, one issue with the guide camera: ZWO ASI 224MC. When attached to the guide scope (Artesky UltraGuide 60mm f/4), I can't seem to get a "sharp" focus, I even tried on the Moon, and the best I got was a soft lunar disc, with some major features visible, mainly by change of color/brightness (the maria, for example), but no details. The image still seemed blurred/bloated. Is it because of lack of IR blocking filter? I tried the same camera attached to the main refractor, with the L-Pro filter (which blocks UV and IR, as well) and I could focus perfectly. Do I need an IR block filter for guiding or even if the stars appear a little soft, the camera guides just fine?
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.