SW Skymax 150 - First Light, First Thoughts

[iPeace]

Third Light

DISCLAIMER: just a reminder that this is one geezer's subjective experience on a single night, not meant as consumer advice. A few more of these will be necessary to get the full picture and draw conclusions.

 

It had not been looking good - rain all day, wind blowing, all basic ingredients for misery in ample supply - but nothing a cup of tea and a good book wouldn't remedy. It had been so for several days and I was resigned to waiting. However, Clear Outside insisted that things would improve dramatically and that from 22:00 onwards, the show would be on. So, with cautious optimism, I lined up the gear to be ready.

At just before 19:30 I went up to the top floor of our dwelling to see if I could catch the scheduled ISS pass. No chance, but the skies were already opening up and with the assurance that it would not rain for the rest of the night, I put the plan in motion. A day of rain followed by clear skies; it could turn out to be a pretty good night. It was finally time to have the first real head-to-head lunar session between the TV-85 and the Skymax 150. We now seem to be fully sorted with regard to setup routine, and with the Mak's new, perfectly-fitting, heated dew shield in place we were ready to go. This would be my first chance to really see whether this Mak - as prepared as it could be, living in my unheated shed - might be the Big Lunar Scope I had been looking for.

The Moon - finally - had nowhere to hide. As stated earlier, I had the whole herd of eyepieces out for this (all 1.25"); Panoptics, Naglers, Vixen HRs, Nagler Zooms and Baader Zooms. And a DeLite and a Plossl. I could compare views using identical eyepiece designs, or indeed let each scope play to its strengths insofar as the available eyepieces would allow. The scopes were equipped with identical Baader T2 Amici prism diagonals.

I started off with direct comparisons of the views at magnifications either equal or as close as I could get them, starting low and gradually taking the magnification up. Naturally, from the outset, Stanley the TV-85 did what it does best: did-someone-say-focus-SNAP-there-you-are. Meanwhile, the Skymax, with its focal length triple that of the frac, wasn't quite as unequivocal with regard to the optimal focus position. I was, quite honestly, struggling. I did not let this put me off, as the air was still cooling and conditions were not forecast to be as good as they would get until about 22:00, so I relaxed and continued.

One very noticeable difference was colour. Even with eyepieces of identical design (Naglers), the colour of the Moon's surface through the Skymax was cooler, whiter, seemed to have more purity. I am inclined to assume that the difference in exit pupil size plays a part here; the TV-85 gave the view a very slight tinge, not objectionable to my eyes, but obvious in comparison. Now, if only the Mak would tighten things up a bit... Stanley was continuously and quite effortlessly delivering all the ragged, sharply-chiseled details at each magnification, while things on the other side of the mount were not quite as satisfying. Not bad, mind you, but clearly not as good.

I won't deny that I did begin to wonder. 'Aperture wins', as they say, but on this occasion aperture was having its drawtube cleaned out. As the night progressed and conditions improved, the performance of the Mak did edge ever closer, but the TV-85 remained clearly in the lead. All right, I thought, let's see where the TV-85 starts to lose it. There must be a magnification at which the view degrades such that I'm better off looking through the Mak. If the frac is so much better, let's see it work for it. Well...

Stanley didn't so much as sniff. All the way down to the 1.6mm Vixen HR - giving 375x with 0.11 deg FOV and calculated exit pupil of 0.23 - the view was more enjoyable than through the Mak at 257x. Now, please don't think I've lost my remaining tenuous grip on reality here, using this magnification is really pushing it, floaters and all, and the view certainly fluctuated with the seeing as it always does. But where the TV-85 was showing me the Moon at high magnification without any fuss, with the Mak it was more like observing Jupiter; waiting for those few perfect moments, never quite sure whether the focus is as good as it will get.

Let's take a moment to reflect here; all this indicates that the conditions, as good as I may have perceived them to be, were not ideal for the Skymax. Scopes don't just have the view fade in and out of focus by themselves. Sure, it was clear and cool, and the rain had settled things nicely, but there was definitely a brisk wind up at altitude, which would become more apparent later on as stray clouds started to rush through the theatre of observation. What I take from this is that the TV-85 sure does a good job of cutting through, while the Mak needs a better night to show me what it's got.

After a few hours and a couple of coffee breaks, I decided to switch gears and concentrate on seeing just how enjoyable the Mak could be, notwithstanding any comparison. So I started over and deliberately cycled through the eyepieces, tweaking the focus, even trying to improve things using the primary focuser, and things did gradually improve a bit - probably the shifting conditions, again, as it got even cooler. I decided that the 'sweet spot' for tonight was with the 11mm Nagler giving 163x, closely followed by the 9mm Nagler at 200x. Moving up to the 7mm Nagler at 257x - as stated earlier - was not as rewarding. Using the Baader Zoom was enjoyable, I found, with no noticeable drawbacks. Other eyepieces did show behaviour previously unseen in other scopes; the 16mm T5 Nagler (much loved by me, and reportedly a scaled-down version of the 31mm T5) showed a clear "ring of fire", a first for me, but perhaps this is that which has led some others into the waiting arms of DeLite. The 18.2mm DeLite did much better and suggests perhaps a 9mm counterpart would do well. In all, the Mak was as fun to use as ever and though focusing was a challenge, taken on its own this scope did a good job.

So, where does this leave me? Well, still en route. Things may or may not be going a certain way. I really like the Mak and wish for it to add some worthwhile dimension to my observing. Strictly for lunar - which is what I meant the Mak for, perhaps with the odd planet as their positions gradually become more favourable - if the conditions on this night were as good as they would ever get, then I would have to conclude that it has nothing to offer me which the TV-85 doesn't already provide. Indeed, this night, in raw lunar performance, it lags behind. I wish to be careful here, and take into account that one night is just one night. There will be other, (even) better nights. And I really like the hardware, and enjoy using it. It's well-behaved; "dew magnet" they say; with a nice (in this case: heated) shield there's no trace. But this first true comparison has of course got me thinking. With the TV-85, am I already spoiled? Stick Stanley on the mount, snap, boom, you're where you want to be. In my quest to find out how much better lunar views can get, I'm starting to wonder: how much better do they have to be?

Stuff happens for a reason. For the moment, just what this Mak is doing living in my shed remains to be seen - but it hasn't outstayed its welcome yet.

To be continued.

[25585]

So far its a cautionary tale

[iPeace]

33 minutes ago, 25585 said:

So far its a cautionary tale

Well, it's certainly not meant to be cautionary. What's more, I'm more than prepared to find out I was doing something wrong!

[Stu]

Interesting review Mike. For me, in the south of the U.K., the seeing conditions were about as good as they get last night, really lovely and stable so it's a shame you did not get the same.

Cooling is very important with these scopes and they can still end up chasing the temperature if it is dropping throughout the night. I found my 8" Mak a fickle beast, sometimes highly frustrating and ordinary, at others it gave views you would sell your right arm for.

I'm surprised that on the moon the ultimate resolution of the Mak didn't show more clearly though. I assume you directly compared specific features? Often looking for threshold objects shows the difference between scopes e.g. The Plato craterlets which you may have read about in the reports Gavstar and I submitted; I got three in my 100mm frac, he got nine in his 160mm frac. The difference is clear.

I also know exactly what you mean though. When I had my Tak side by side with my 8" Edge on Jupiter, the view in the Tak was just so much more stable and pleasing, despite not showing as much colour or detail as the SCT. The stability gives you time to enjoy the view and draw out the detail which is there much more easily. With the longer focal length scope you spend more time waiting for the view to come to you.

Anyway, looking forward to future reports to see how this one goes.

[iPeace]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

For me, in the south of the U.K., the seeing conditions were about as good as they get last night, really lovely and stable so it's a shame you did not get the same.

Still not sure what to think - the TV-85 was really humming!

1 hour ago, Stu said:

Cooling is very important with these scopes and they can still end up chasing the temperature if it is dropping throughout the night.

I'd like for that to have been the case; makes sense.

1 hour ago, Stu said:

I'm surprised that on the moon the ultimate resolution of the Mak didn't show more clearly though. I assume you directly compared specific features?

Oh yes, but it never really got close enough to count wrinkles or dots. The Mak just wasn't as crisp - like it couldn't quite be focused. I was expecting the views to be equally sharp, with more dots and wrinkles showing up in the Mak. Surely that can't be right?

1 hour ago, Stu said:

The Plato craterlets which you may have read about in the reports Gavstar and I submitted; I got three in my 100mm frac, he got nine in his 160mm frac. The difference is clear.

That's as it should be.

1 hour ago, Stu said:

The stability gives you time to enjoy the view and draw out the detail which is there much more easily. With the longer focal length scope you spend more time waiting for the view to come to you.

That's interesting.

[Stu]

8 minutes ago, iPeace said:

Still not sure what to think - the TV-85 was really humming!

How did it look through the scope? I found that I was just seeing gentle ripples across the moon even at high power, whereas often it is wobbling like a jelly!

[25585]

8 minutes ago, iPeace said:

Still not sure what to think - the TV-85 was really humming!

I'd like for that to have been the case; makes sense.

Oh yes, but it never really got close enough to count wrinkles or dots. The Mak just wasn't as crisp - like it couldn't quite be focused. I was expecting the views to be equally sharp, with more dots and wrinkles showing up in the Mak. Surely that can't be right?

That's as it should be.

That's interesting.

Larger aperture frac may be what you are secretly longing for.

[iPeace]

20 minutes ago, 25585 said:

Larger aperture frac may be what you are secretly longing for.

Apart from the longer tube, perhaps. And there are no secrets here...

[iPeace]

33 minutes ago, Stu said:

How did it look through the scope? I found that I was just seeing gentle ripples across the moon even at high power, whereas often it is wobbling like a jelly!

Much the same in the TV-85. Just very sharp, with some intermittent wash at high mags. With even the 1.6mm HR enjoyable (not talking miracles here, just a good fun look at silly power), surely the conditions couldn't have been that bad? Yet through the Mak it may as well have been another night.

[Chris]

Very comprehensive third instalment, I do like your write ups as I've said before. I'm a little bit surprised by the result as the scope must have been well cooled and you have all the right gadgets to make the Mak sing. The more aperture the better the seeing needs to be, and this could certainly be the case. As Stu said, the seeing was great in the UK last night, I was frankly spoilt for first light with my little 5" SCT which really delivered for it's dimensions. I'll keep my fingers crossed that you have similar fortune next time out and I look forward to the 4th instalment!

[GavStar]

 Very interesting write up Mike. I did think about a Mak as a travel scope a few weeks back since although I like my TV85, I do think it lacks just a bit in aperture. My 100mm frac seems to show planets and DSOs in a materially more pleasing way.

So I’m very surprised the tv85 was even close to the 150 Mak, let alone best it.

Fracs are just so hassle free to observe with, no collimation issues, quick cool down etc. 

A few months ago I went to a dark site with some members of my local Astro club. I was set up and observing within 5 minutes. A hour later a couple of members were still struggling with their scts and newtonians.

I know what you mean about refractors getting long as they get bigger, but the biggest issue I have with larger refractors is mounting them properly. As soon as you go over 100mm you need a pretty substantial mount imo to avoid annoying vibrations and settling times.  I think this explains why there is such excitement about the 4 inch Tak in another thread - that scope just hits a perfect sweet spot in terms of decent aperture but still easy to mount.

My 130mm refractor is the same length as the 4 inch Tak but is a completely different animal to mount.

So after consideration I’m not getting a Mak for my travels for the mars opposition later this year and am sticking with taking a refractor on the aeroplane - hopefully a 100mm or something very close to that size.

[Ags]

Just wondering, how do you feel the Skymax 150 compares to the Skymax 102 you sold on? Do you feel the extra aperture adds anything compared to a smaller scope of the same design?

[iPeace]

3 minutes ago, Ags said:

Just wondering, how do you feel the Skymax 150 compares to the Skymax 102 you sold on? Do you feel the extra aperture adds anything compared to a smaller scope of the same design?

Definitely a brighter image and more impressive on DSOs. Would have to compare them directly to be more specific.

[scarp15]

A thorough third review Mike, interesting read. Perhaps it is a bit subjective, yet I have increasingly discovered that certain scopes are a good match to the characteristics or a particular trait for a specific line of eyepieces. With regard to my TV85 and I'd probably mentioned before, it is DeLite eyepieces that create particularly engaging presentation, composition, for which I currently use 7mm and 4mm. An ideal scenario of course, where it would be great to be able to use extensively the DeLite range of e.p's comparatively between each scope. 

[Ags]

57 minutes ago, iPeace said:

Definitely a brighter image and more impressive on DSOs. Would have to compare them directly to be more specific.

Having used a 102 mak for many years, I would expect it to be sharp up to 150x and still give a bit more at 200x and higher on special targets like Mars or tight doubles. So I would personally hope for a bit more from a 150 mak.

[25585]

3 hours ago, scarp15 said:

A thorough third review Mike, interesting read. Perhaps it is a bit subjective, yet I have increasingly discovered that certain scopes are a good match to the characteristics or a particular trait for a specific line of eyepieces. With regard to my TV85 and I'd probably mentioned before, it is DeLite eyepieces that create particularly engaging presentation, composition, for which I currently use 7mm and 4mm. An ideal scenario of course, where it would be great to be able to use extensively the DeLite range of e.p's comparatively between each scope. 

And vice versa. Certain eps are, and like TV, designed to be especially compatible with their target market.

I have read Pentax XW eps vary between the range as suitable for different scopes, as an example, while others remain consistent but are intended for particular scope types.

[nightfisher]

Mike, excellent 3rd light report but sadly not as good as hoped, lets hope it was a case of smaller aperture cutting through the seeing

[25585]

Those vented fan cooled Celestrons might be a match for the Mak. 

[iPeace]

3 hours ago, nightfisher said:

Mike, excellent 3rd light report but sadly not as good as hoped, lets hope it was a case of smaller aperture cutting through the seeing

Thanks. That would be a satisfactory explanation. I'm not used to aperture, much less to it being at a disadvantage. It's an odd feeling to be there with one scope working great and the other one less so, wondering whether I'm overlooking something.

It would certainly make things more interesting. With my smallish fracs, one look out the window tells me whether it's worth going out. It may become more like a lottery...

I just need to have one really good session with the Mak in order to know what I've got. As I really like using it, it's no burden at all to stick with it until it happens.

It's a good learning experience, very worthwhile.

[nightfisher]

I still wonder if the GSO 150 F6 newt is the perfect Luna scope, would love to get one and try it........

[iPeace]

4 minutes ago, nightfisher said:

I still wonder if the GSO 150 F6 newt is the perfect Luna scope, would love to get one and try it........

Is this the one you mean?

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p2679_GSO-150mm-f6-Newtonian-Telescope-with-2--Crayford---optical-tube.html

 

[Macavity]

Subjective or no, I always felt my MAK150 didn't *snap* into focus as easily
as my 'Fracs? The image was a "different colour"! lol. FWIW, I did compare 
a MAK127 with my ST102, using the same eyepiece type and magnification.
"Obviously" a fast, budget frac would be... (and also was!) inferior optically.
But the *contrast* and ease of Focus deceptively "favoured" the refractor!

I can imagine the competition between MAKs and *high quality* 'Fracs, 
of roughly similar ilk, would be rather more EVEN though...
But then, I suppose it is down to "cost per inch"! 

[25585]

27 minutes ago, iPeace said:

Is this the one you mean?

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p2679_GSO-150mm-f6-Newtonian-Telescope-with-2--Crayford---optical-tube.html

 

OO VX6L is F8. 

[iPeace]

8 minutes ago, Macavity said:

Subjective or no, I always felt my MAK150 didn't *snap* into focus as easily
as my 'Fracs? The image was a "different colour"! lol. FWIW, I did compare 
a MAK127 with my ST102, using the same eyepiece type and magnification.
"Obviously" a fast, budget frac would be... (and also was!) inferior optically.
But the *contrast* and ease of Focus deceptively "favoured" the refractor!

I can imagine the competition between MAKs and *high quality* 'Fracs, 
of roughly similar ilk, would be rather more EVEN though...
But then, I suppose it is down to "cost per inch"! 

With the price of a new TV-85, one would hope it would be this good; it's the performance of the Mak that has me puzzled for the moment.

I'm convinced I haven't yet seen all this Mak has got to give, for whatever reason. Time's on our side, though; we'll see.

[25585]

Have you tried swapping diagonals, and with none? 

Also different eps.