90 or 114

[Alfian]

8 hours ago, Alan64 said:

The 114mm Newtonian of the other kit, at f/4.4, would be difficult to collimate, if required. 

I'd had a couple of f5 reflectors some time  before I bought the 114p and even though collimating them was no big deal I never  really got on with them. I bought the 114p mainly as I was interested with Avant mount that it came with and had no expectation that the scope would be anything more than so so. Collimation wise  I was also a little dubious as its one of the new generation of reflectors with fixed primaries. How wrong could I be. On arrival the collimation was spot on and even when I flocked the top part of the ota, which meant removing the spider and secondary, it was still easy to just tweak the secondary back that smidge just to get it bang on. For low to medium power use it works pretty well and so compact for the money its nor a bad little scope. However all that said, just to repeat my earlier comments given the choice, and acknowledging the basic differences, I would still choose the 90 Mak.

[Alan64]

4 hours ago, Alfian said:

I'd had a couple of f5 reflectors some time  before I bought the 114p and even though collimating them was no big deal I never  really got on with them. I bought the 114p mainly as I was interested with Avant mount that it came with and had no expectation that the scope would be anything more than so so. Collimation wise  I was also a little dubious as its one of the new generation of reflectors with fixed primaries. How wrong could I be. On arrival the collimation was spot on and even when I flocked the top part of the ota, which meant removing the spider and secondary, it was still easy to just tweak the secondary back that smidge just to get it bang on. For low to medium power use it works pretty well and so compact for the money its nor a bad little scope. However all that said, just to repeat my earlier comments given the choice, and acknowledging the basic differences, I would still choose the 90 Mak.

My 100mm f/4, same as the "Heritage" 100P, arrived with its collimation nigh spot-on...

It, too, has a fixed primary-mirror.

Truth be told, the primary-mirror assembly of the "Heritage" 90mm Maksutov cannot be adjusted, either, and therefore cannot be collimated at all, as a whole, it would seem.

Of course, this is all done to keep the weight down, particularly when combined with the smaller Synta go-to alt-azimuth mounts, so as not to strain the motors and gearing.

[Alfian]

Yep, the Maks dont lend themselves so well to being recollimated but I've had/got a total of four 90 -127 all of which have been fine out of the box. They are sturdy scopes and unless they are treat badly or dropped its unlikely they will lose alignment. Reflectors tend not to be quite so bullet proof  but both my 130 and 150 f5s once collimatecd only needed the barest tweak of the primary to stay sweet. 

I suspect having a non collimatable primary is more a cost saving exercise than one to do with weight. On a scope as small as the 114p the weight increase with a (preferable imo) proper collimatable cell shouldn't make any difference mount wise. 

Edited December 24, 2019 by Alfian

[Alan64]

8 hours ago, Alfian said:

Yep, the Maks dont lend themselves so well to being recollimated but I've had/got a total of four 90 -127 all of which have been fine out of the box. They are sturdy scopes and unless they are treat badly or dropped its unlikely they will lose alignment. Reflectors tend not to be quite so bullet proof  but both my 130 and 150 f5s once collimatecd only needed the barest tweak of the primary to stay sweet. 

I suspect having a non collimatable primary is more a cost saving exercise than one to do with weight. On a scope as small as the 114p the weight increase with a (preferable imo) proper collimatable cell shouldn't make any difference mount wise. 

Yes, it's cost-cutting, too, I expect.  

This one is lighter as well, and by "virtue" of its fixed-primary and plastic construction in general; beginning at 7:10...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhhs65AWdCk

The author does do their level-best to convince otherwise.  Now, if you were to place a conventional 150P, fully-collimatable, onto that mount, I might just hear the motors whine and the gears crack asunder.

[Alfian]

On 25/12/2019 at 02:35, Alan64 said:

Yes, it's cost-cutting, too, I expect.  

This one is lighter as well, and by "virtue" of its fixed-primary and plastic construction in general; beginning at 7:10...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhhs65AWdCk

The author does do their level-best to convince otherwise.  Now, if you were to place a conventional 150P, fully-collimatable, onto that mount, I might just hear the motors whine and the gears crack asunder.

I suspect you might be right with respect to the 150p. It seems to go that where a range of scopes are offered on a particular mount, by the time you get to the largest/heaviest scope in the range it is under mounted. That was certainly the case on my 130EQ  on the CG3 (EQ2) which is better mounted on an EQ3/2.

[Alan64]

23 minutes ago, Alfian said:

I suspect you might be right with respect to the 150p. It seems to go that where a range of scopes are offered on a particular mount, by the time you get to the largest/heaviest scope in the range it is under mounted. That was certainly the case on my 130EQ  on the CG3 (EQ2) which is better mounted on an EQ3/2.

A 130mm f/5 on an EQ-2 is not that bad, not at all.  Rather, this is worse, a 127/1000 on an EQ-1...

Although, if wanting to image with your kit, an EQ-3 would be better.  I have an EQ-2 for that 127mm, and a couple of alt-azimuths.  The EQ-1 will not be used with it, but for my smaller telescopes instead.

[Alfian]

33 minutes ago, Alan64 said:

A 130mm f/5 on an EQ-2 is not that bad, not at all.  Rather, this is worse, a 127/1000 on an EQ-1...

Although, if wanting to image with your kit, an EQ-3 would be better.  I have an EQ-2 for that 127mm, and a couple of alt-azimuths.  The EQ-1 will not be used with it, but for my smaller telescopes instead.

Perhaps its personal preference. I'm not very tolerant of vibes that take more than a smidge to settle.

[Alan64]

7 minutes ago, Alfian said:

Perhaps its personal preference. I'm not very tolerant of vibes that take more than a smidge to settle.

It's a bane of my existence as well, although the eye and brain are able to compensate.  However, I do like to take afocal-shots now and again, through the eyepieces, on the fly.  I just got a new camera; a bit better than the point-and-shoots that I've had in the past, but not quite a DSLR.  It has a larger sensor, manual shutter settings, and an ISO up to 6400, which should help immensely with the shakes, although I haven't tried it out yet.  

This 114/900 could definitely use an EQ3-class...

  

I've had it on this larger alt-azimuth, which is better...

That's not to say that I've used that particular telescope regularly; only once.  It simulates my 102mm f/8 refractor, which I don't use often, either.  I prefer longer focal-lengths, but in shorter tubes, yet with the secondary-obstructions kept to a minimum.  The 127mm/1000(my "C5") and 127mm/1900 Maksutov are my telescopes of choice nowadays.  Then, another short-tube, a 100/400 Newtonian, is slated for experimentation once it's completed.  I will be expecting it, albeit hopefully, to reach 200x, and with little image-breakdown.  I'm not expecting a miracle, but I do want to be pleasantly surprised.  Whether that happens or not is up to the astronomy-gods.