C9.25 vs Skymax180

[retroformat]

On 29/05/2020 at 05:37, Stardust said:

As an update on the 180 MAK I'm quite pleased with this 200 frame stack 

This image from your 7"

 

On 29/05/2020 at 05:37, Stardust said:

As an update on the 180 MAK I'm quite pleased with this 200 frame stack 

 

 

This image from your "new" 7 inch Maksutov looks nicer than the one posted earlier from your C9.25.  But to my eye the earlier image looks over-sharpened; either that, or your seeing was terrible.  Could you give us comparison images that are not so heavily (or not at all) post-processed or digitally modified?  I hope that is not too much of an ask.  I notice also no further reports on your Mak, though you've had it now for a couple months.   I have an old 10"  SCT that I like, but I want something lighter weight and am considering a 7" Mak that has become available near me.  Many thanks!

[ecuador]

Just my 2 cents, I've had the Mak 127, C8 and C9.25. From comparing the Mak 127 & C8, the Mak seemed quite impressive for its size. When I first got the C9.25, I did the same collimation process I did for my C8 and it gave me views a tad better than the C8. Then, I read about the difference in the design, so I made a very precise high magnification collimation on the C9.25, and it performed like a different scope, completely blew away the C8.

The reason I am saying this is that people comparing the C9.25 to other scopes need to take extra care collimating it. If you had a C6/C8 etc, the same level of collimation won't be enough to make it shine, but when it does shine, it is so good! Best planetary scope I can comfortably carry.

[nfotis]

It'll be quite interesting to compare both (just received my Skymax 180, and I have a C9.25 XLT bought from another member).

Now, we'll have to wait a bit until the gas giants raise over the horizon in a less ungodly hour...

N.F.

 

[ecuador]

On 19/05/2021 at 17:23, nfotis said:

It'll be quite interesting to compare both (just received my Skymax 180, and I have a C9.25 XLT bought from another member).

Now, we'll have to wait a bit until the gas giants raise over the horizon in a less ungodly hour...

N.F.

 

Just make sure you do your best when collimating the C9.25 and pick a steady night

Hope you enjoy the Skymax too ( καλορίζικο!  )

[neil phillips]

I am with Craig. The Celestron SCT if anything is slightly better. Whats the point. I think you should be concentrating on trying to get images by being patient and maximizing those times the moon is well placed and under good seeing. going down to a 7" is not the answer i dont believe. Yes i use 120mm refractor sometimes rather than my 10 Newt. But thats because some conditions are better for the smaller refractor. In your case your not gaining anything. Mostly losing i reckon. As a quick grab and go a smaller scope can do good under poorer conditions. But this is a bit close to have that benefit in my opinion.

Still its your money. Your choice

[Earl]

I have owned both and found it down to seeing rather than much else.

Edited June 30, 2021 by Earl

[nfotis]

3 hours ago, ecuador said:

Just make sure you do your best when collimating the C9.25 and pick a steady night

Hope you enjoy the Skymax too ( καλορίζικο!  )

 

Thanks, with temperatures reaching forty Celsius in midday it takes some effort to carry the whole equipment two floors above to the rooftop (and I think that I'll wait a few days to let the heat wave pass)

EDIT. Forgot to add, the C9.25 is thicker and heavier than the Skymax 180, so it's a bit more of a handful if you carry the OTA alone. The Skymax is more easy to handle, I think (slimmer and a little lighter). Usually, this Maksutov is better than the C8 for lunar/planetary and quite consistent in quality (it's very rare to hear complaints about bad optical quality, probably the optical design is quite easy to manufacture consistently in a high enough quality). The C9.25 usually offers  a bit less contrasty views, but for imaging (usually) "aperture is king" (if we take into account manufacturing variations, which may throw the final score towards the one or the other side)

N.F.

 

Edited June 30, 2021 by nfotis

[Matthew Star]

And than the story ends? - Nooooooooooooooo!!!

What's the verdict?

How did the comparison go Stardust?

Also Nfotis, you  just added a Skymax 180 to your C925 as well, so how did your comparison go?

Edited February 4, 2023 by Matthew Star

[nfotis]

I have to say that the Skymax 180 is more pleasant to use, due to less weight and bulk.

I have noticed also that the C9.25 is painfully bright when using for visual observation with the Moon (and I get some floaters which make the visual observation rather unpleasant if I don't use a filter). On the other hand, the f/10 is nice for imaging, if you can do a careful collimation.

So, for visual observation I prefer the Skymax, for photography the C9.25

 

Hope this helps,

N.F.

 

[Matthew Star]

Interessting.

For Lunar I use 2 polar filters, 1 at the end of my diagonal and 1 on the EP, just with one or two turns, so not screwing it on completely for every EP by switching..

I leave the EP unlocked, so by turning the EP I can determine the brightness.

That really helps for me

Edited February 7, 2023 by Matthew Star

[Ratlet]

29 minutes ago, Matthew Star said:

Interessting.

For Lunar I use 2 polar filters, 1 at the end of my diagonal and 1 on the EP, just with one or two turns, so not screwing it on completely for every EP by switching..

I leave the EP unlocked, so by turning the EP I can determine the brightness.

That really helps for me

That's a great idea.