To Schmidt or Mak- that is the question?

[Swoop1]

My intentions are Lunar, Planetary and a bit of light deep sky (doubles, globulars and opens).

Outside of Maks looking to be a bit more wallet friendly, what are the pros and cons of either?

Thanks all,

Matt

[MattJenko]

how about longer focal length/smaller aperture newtonians for a real wallet saver?

[Peter_D]

Just now, MattJenko said:

how about longer focal length/smaller aperture newtonians for a real wallet saver?

I agree with MattJenko if money is very tight and you are willing to sacrifice apperature - I have  a used Vixen 114/900 (f7.9) Newtonian from the early 2000s that gives very nice lunar and planetary views. It is mounted on a GPE mount which provides a really stable platform.

If you are wary about collimation, the longer focus Newtonians tend to keep their collimation well and are more forgiving if they are slightly out than their shorter fl counterparts.

Sorry for not really answering your question btw

Edited July 25, 2019 by Peter_D

[Cosmic Geoff]

It's really a personal choice.  I have seen all sorts of scopes (asides from short focus achromats) recommended for planetary viewing.

The Mak and SCT offerings only overlap in the 5" to 8" sizes.  Maks have long focal ratios and smaller central obstructions.  SCTs have less extreme focal ratios (f10), are lighter size for size and perhaps more suited to doubling as a general purpose scope.

Do you have planetary imaging aspirations? If so, sooner or later you will become fed up with struggling with a flimsy visual mount and aspire to something solid, powered and expensive.

[dweller25]

Your current 150mm Newtonian is a very capable scope.

What are you looking for in a Mak or SCT over the Newt ?

[Swoop1]

12 hours ago, dweller25 said:

Your current 150mm Newtonian is a very capable scope.

What are you looking for in a Mak or SCT over the Newt ?

My Newt doesn't give good magnification for imaging (or as good as I would want). Looking at some recent images from the Lunar and Planetary imaging boards, the more close up lunar is what I would like to emulate.

[dweller25]

10 hours ago, Swoop1 said:

My Newt doesn't give good magnification for imaging (or as good as I would want). Looking at some recent images from the Lunar and Planetary imaging boards, the more close up lunar is what I would like to emulate.

Aaah - didn’t realise you wanted to image.

I’m surprised your 150mm Newt is not performing as you would like - if fully cooled and well collimated they are usually quite good.

I am no imaging expert but I think someone will come along who is ......

Edited July 26, 2019 by dweller25

[andrew s]

This specifically may give you some perspective on your choice http://www.astrophoto.fr/which.html along with the rest of this http://www.astrophoto.fr/technique.html

Worth checking out his images as well as they are stunning.

Regards Andrew

[Cosmic Geoff]

11 hours ago, Swoop1 said:

My Newt doesn't give good magnification for imaging (or as good as I would want). Looking at some recent images from the Lunar and Planetary imaging boards, the more close up lunar is what I would like to emulate.

Tell us what exactly you used, and how you processed the images, and we can advise further.

[Swoop1]

I'm prime focus with a Sony a6300 sometimes assisted by a X2 Barlow. I don't start my imaging until at least 45 minutes after I have set the scope up.

I do limited post processing as I am not yet competent in using the software- a bit of stitching and exposure compensation. My stacking attempts have been pitiful.

I would like to get in closer and tighter to some of the features hence looking for something a bit 'bigger' than my 150.

It won't just be imaging however. I still love sticking in a eyepiece and getting some actual photons onto my retina!

 

[Swoop1]

13 hours ago, andrew s said:

This specifically may give you some perspective on your choice http://www.astrophoto.fr/which.html along with the rest of this http://www.astrophoto.fr/technique.html

Worth checking out his images as well as they are stunning.

Regards Andrew

Thanks Andrew- quite thought provoking!

[jetstream]

@Kokatha man ,Mr Malika offers great information and his images speak for themselves.

http://www.momilika.net/WebPages/AstroIntro.htm

[Swoop1]

Well, I've just pulled the trigger with FLO on a Celestron C6 XLT OTA, a Skywatcher HEQ5 PRO, a Baeder power supply and a dew shield.

I chose the C6 as it will give me an SCT to learn on and an HEQ5 PRO as it will work with both the SCT and the SW Explorer 150P.

Can't wait.

[MarsG76]

Congrats on the scope... I was going to suggest a 8" SCT... basically from experience I find that the 8" is a great general purpose scope... its small enough and powerful enough to keep owners happy for a long time if not for ever.

[MattJenko]

Good choices. My HEQ5 is still turning slowly and accurately after years of excellent service.

[RT65CB-SWL]

Bigger Maks are going to be heavy and very expensive. The largest one for sale for personal use of I have seen is/was a Questar 7”. 

On 28/07/2019 at 22:02, Swoop1 said:

Well, I've just pulled the trigger with FLO on a Celestron C6 XLT OTA, a Skywatcher HEQ5 PRO, a Baeder power supply and a dew shield.

I chose the C6 as it will give me an SCT to learn on and an HEQ5 PRO as it will work with both the SCT and the SW Explorer 150P.

Can't wait.

I have had my C6 for a few years and it does me alongside my ‘re-modded’ ETX105...

...(pun not intended), and a TeleVue Ranger.

I think in £’s per aperture, the SCT is going to be the cheaper option. Both are almost identical in terms of focal length... ETX105 = 1470mm / C6 XLT = 1500mm.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Philip R