SW Skymax 150 - First Light, First Thoughts

[iPeace]

1 hour ago, Highburymark said:

the Mak may require its own eyepiece strategy - how about a 10mm ortho, 11mm TV plossl or 9mm TV Delite for super sharp lunar views at a sensible power level ?

I was contemplating a 9mm DeLite anyway, for use with the Borg 71FL, because the 18.2mm works so well...

As it is, I have a Baader Zoom and a pile of T6 Naglers to try with it. But I remain open to suggestions.

[GavStar]

Mike,

If the 120mm frac was too long for you, have you considered a 100mm frac eg FC100d. I know it’s not cheap but you have perfect mount for it and my 100mm gives me noticeably better planetary and lunar views  compared with my tv85? The only reason I have kept the tv85 is due to airline portability.

Gavin

ps very nice report!

[David Smith]

Worth a read for con-dew-sive pun if nothing else

[iPeace]

8 minutes ago, GavStar said:

have you considered a 100mm frac eg FC100d

Thanks, yes, I have considered a 100mm Tak. That's quite possibly where things will be going if a big Mak doesn't do it for me.

Reasoning is to first let aperture do its thing, and only then conclude that I'm a hopeless frac nut. At least we'll know...

[John]

2 minutes ago, iPeace said:

Thanks, yes, I have considered a 100mm Tak. That's quite possibly where things will be going if a big Mak doesn't do it for me.

Reasoning is to first let aperture do its thing, and only then conclude that I'm a hopeless frac nut. At least we'll know...

Perhaps you should look out for the Equinox ED80 that mikeDnight used to own as mentioned here ?

 

[iPeace]

2 minutes ago, John said:

Perhaps you should look out for the Equinox ED80 that mikeDnight used to own as mentioned here ?

 

Well, I have similar *sentiments* with regard to my TV-85 - and Stanley does operate in full denial of its aperturial limitations, indeed of the laws of nature itself. But I'm with you on this one, nonetheless...

[Piero]

Congratulations for your new Mak! 

Together with your refractor on the other side, it looks impressive! Looking forward to reading your impressions on the Moon. 

[PurpleFringe]

On 15/01/2018 at 16:33, iPeace said:

If it shows me lunar details I wouldn't otherwise see at all, but with an image that is a bit less pleasing, well...maybe this is the Big Compromise all of us geezers are up against.

Great first light review thanks. I enjoyed your writing and quips.

[Macavity]

I love my MAK150. Back in the day, Maks were often dismissed as "planetary only"
but it is mostly a matter of focal length. <wink> I actually do find a MAK150 to be
surprisingly general purpose... More like a "Big Mak 127" than e.g. a Mak 180...

In days before I switched to 8" Fast Newts (and Video Astronomy), my Mak 150
gave me a first "proper" view of Galaxies + a use for a Baader 31mm Aspheric!

It now has a Baader Monorail Focusser and (recently) a budget Flip mirror too...
Hoping to do a bit of Planetary Imaging again with the (G)old thing. AND moved
(back, if not retrograde!) to giving Visual Astronomy "another go"... via Sky Tee 
as a Dual mount with Mak + "some" Frac!?!? Indeed, an inspiring / fun review.

[nightfisher]

Mike, one little tip i can give re the 150 Mak, dont base its performance on one or 2 sessions, as i said before seeing conditions really do play with Maks, unless you are viewing at very low powers, on nights of very good seeing i still feel the 150 Mak will outdo a 120ED

[Paz]

Great report, a really interesting read.

Something to consider when observing the moon with a maksutov is to pick a couple of good double stars that are easy hops from the moon and check them out, it adds another dimension to a lunar session without a lot of effort.

[iPeace]

1 hour ago, nightfisher said:

Mike, one little tip i can give re the 150 Mak, dont base its performance on one or 2 sessions, as i said before seeing conditions really do play with Maks, unless you are viewing at very low powers, on nights of very good seeing i still feel the 150 Mak will outdo a 120ED

That's good advice which I will take to heart, thanks.

As it is, it "only" has to outdo my TV-85 - and only really on Luna - to be worthwhile for me. If the objective cover worked in such a way that it only came off if the Moon was above the horizon, that would be fine.

In earnest, I'm being careful not to pass any real judgement yet, as I have not really compared its performance to that of any other scope. In retrospect, to get a better overall impression, I could have done a bit more with the 32mm Plossl on DSOs, as from a certain point onwards I just left the 24 Panoptic in the diagonal. I can imagine getting a 40mm Plossl in order to find out how the Mak serves up DSOs with the even larger exit pupil (I'm strictly 1.25" now, and will stay that way for the time being).

I really want this scope to work for me. Indeed, for its form factor, build quality and value it deserves every chance. There's no deadline.

[iPeace]

Second light was a through-the-gaps-between-the-clouds affair. I was doubtful it would be worth it, but the forecast promised it would not actually rain and the Moon would be up for a couple more hours, so I went for it. Not an occasion for comparing views through different scopes, though - so more of a teaser than one from which to draw conclusions.

I went with a minimal setup - just the Mak and a dew shield, no heater or finder. Again, straight from the unheated shed, the Mak - cold to the touch - didn't seem to need any time to freshen up. I inserted the Baader Zoom and managed to get the waxing Moon in view without a red dot.

Again, it takes some getting used to the shift in dimensions. At the 24mm setting, the view at 75x was as if using the 8mm setting in the TV-85, only - reportedly, according to my spreadsheet - with just over half the field of view and just under double the exit pupil. So much for the calculations, as I couldn't compare the views, but I did think, right away: hey, this is good. I don't know whether it's better, but it's good.

Not only were the clouds constantly passing by, but the seeing was fluctuating as well. As I cycled through the zoom's settings and played with the focus, there were moments when I suspected I was close to peak performance, but it will certainly take a few much better nights to determine what I've got. As it is, my impression is of a more "open" view of the lunar surface (perhaps due to larger exit pupil?), with possibly a tad less of the crispness of a good frac. This last point may well be inaccurate, mind you, because one's mind does play tricks. The brightness of the view suggests a much lower magnification than is actually in use, and so the mind thinks the view isn't as crisp as it should be at this brightness, while the view through the (smaller) frac at the same magnification is not only dimmer, but also (equally?) less crisp. So again, any real conclusions will have to wait. In all, it seemed very promising, and summary trials with the 7mm and 5mm Naglers left me hoping for some nights of good seeing soon (as if we weren't already longing for some).

In the mean time, I was once again really enjoying using this scope. The compact form factor, the stability on the mount, the feeling of hands-on immediacy (undoubtedly a personal perception) all contribute, and I'm really comfortable with it. The ritual visits to the shed for retrieval and storage are now routine, after only two sessions. In short, there's nothing really to put up with, no niggles or faff to work through while I wait to see what's in store on better nights. Which is good - almost half the battle, methinks.

To be continued.

[Alan White]

Roll episode 3........... the moon awakens.

Sounding promising indeed.

[Ags]

Glad I found this thread. The Skymax 150 is a scope that I keep planning to buy - in the time I have procrastinated over buying one, it has gone through three color schemes! I don't know if this is a relevant factor for you, but for me I need  higher exit pupil to minimize floaters. Sadly a small perfect scope won't work very well with my very imperfect eyes, at least not as far as solar system viewing goes.

[F15Rules]

On 15/01/2018 at 21:41, iPeace said:

I was contemplating a 9mm DeLite anyway, for use with the Borg 71FL, because the 18.2mm works so well...

As it is, I have a Baader Zoom and a pile of T6 Naglers to try with it. But I remain open to suggestions.

Mike,

At F10, why not try the bottom of a Coke Bottle?

Could be the real thing????.

Ok, ok,.I'm going..

Dave

[iPeace]

4 minutes ago, F15Rules said:

Mike,

At F10, why not try the bottom of a Coke Bottle?

Could be the real thing????.

Ok, ok,.I'm going..

Dave

Worse - f/12

[iPeace]

Third light just concluded - very informative. Very. Must allow my thoughts to settle into words. Will sleep on this one before reporting.

[nightfisher]

Look forward to your post on 3rd light.............something that is niggling me in all this is the use of a Zoom ep, this is not an eyepiece i would rush to use with a narrow field Maksutov, i would want to use 3 separate ep`s say a 26mm plus a 12mm and a 9mm 

[iPeace]

1 hour ago, nightfisher said:

Look forward to your post on 3rd light.............something that is niggling me in all this is the use of a Zoom ep, this is not an eyepiece i would rush to use with a narrow field Maksutov, i would want to use 3 separate ep`s say a 26mm plus a 12mm and a 9mm 

That's a niggle I would classify as reasonable. For sure, my entire collection of eyepieces is in on this and each and every one with a focal length that seems to make sense gets a workout.

[Timebandit]

 

 

Obviously there are benefits of having more than one scope. Different focal ratios ,Optical abilities for different types of views.

But also come the requirements to be able to have a number of eyepieces to suit all scopes, to get the best out of them. So you could end up having quite a collection of eyepieces to suit your ever growing scope family 

 

Your going to be joining up in the collectionist eyepiece club me thinks??

 

 

[25585]

At least with a Mak or SCT cheaper wide field eps are an option. With a short fl/fr Newtonian coma corrector + prime ep = costly. I find a good finder is more important on my C8 than on my other scopes due to the SCT's limitations.

[iPeace]

2 hours ago, Timebandit said:

Your going to be joining up in the collectionist eyepiece club me thinks??

That diagnosis has long been confirmed...

[Captain Scarlet]

I have a Skymax 180 and a Skymax 127, with the Mak 180 on an AZ-EQ6 GT which handles it easily. It sounds from your (excellent and readable) comments that the 150 is a "larger 127" rather than a "smaller 180". The 127 is 1500mm focal length, the 150 is 1800mm, whereas the 180 is 2700mm! I don't know how "wieldy" the 150 is, but I can hold the 127 in one hand while I fit the dovetail into the mount while keeping eyes on the clamp - I cannot do that on the 180, it's far too big, I have to cradle it across my chest and insert it into the clamps by finger-feel and release veeery gently to ensure it's secure.

I'll be interested to read how you get along in the longer term...

Cheers, Magnus

[spaceman_spiff]

Very interesting reading about the Skymax 150. Especially comparing it with the 120ED refractor. I went from using an 120mm achromat to the Mak 150 and the difference was pronounced. The mak does have its drawbacks, the biggest including its sensitivity to thermal currents and bad seeing. However, when it is cooled properly on a good night I can get so much detail with no noticeable distortions like spherical aberration or non-flat fields.

Dan