Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

Which one is better ?

gilesco
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

John
John

Last week this thread was mixed up - by me when I tried to merge two threads and actually merged three ! I spent some time yesterday sorting it out back into two, unrelated threads. On the t

dweller25
dweller25

My first scope : 8.5” Astro Systems Newtonian : 1986 Altaz first.... Then the same scope but changed to an equatorial mount.....

dweller25
dweller25

Are you sure it’s difficult ?? I have manually tracked whilst drawing planets with a dob at x200 - it was not hard, I just used a wide angle eyepiece. If you are looking for the best view

Posted Images

johninderby

johninderby

Posted
Posted (edited)

The 127 does gather about 55% more light than the 102 so better on brighter objects however doesn’t make a huge difference on bright things like the moon and planets. The bigger aperture gives a bit more resolution though.

The 102 is a lot smaller and lighter than the 127 which makes it more portable.

I had a 127 but now replaced by a Bresser 100 f/15 mak that gets used a lot more as it's so small and portable and cools down faster.

Both sizes are very good and can be a difficult decision to choose which one.

The Bresser mak seems to be out of stock everywhere.though.

https://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/bresser-messier-mc-100-1400-optical-tube-assembly.html

 

 

Edited by johninderby
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alfian

Alfian

Posted
Posted

A tricky choice between the 127 and the 102 makes. There is no doubting the increased light gathering of the 127 and it is noticeable but although the 127 is not heavy heavy and quite manageable the 102 is, as John has commented, distinctly smaller. I store mine together with its dew shield and finder in a cheap tool box picked up at a local household store. The 102 will, at a pinch, mount on a ball head/photo tripod making  for a very lightweight (but limited) grab n go set up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Nair al Saif said:

The star quest 102mc is not collimatable should I be worried?

Has anyone used this telescope?

Thats odd. I have a Celestron branded 90mm mak-cassegrain and that does have collimation screws :icon_scratch:

Some versions of the Skywatcher 102mm mak-cassegrain do have collimation facilities for the primary mirror. This is the rear end of a Skymax 102:

http://www.waloszek.de/Mak102/R1014794_600.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vlaiv

vlaiv

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, John said:

Thats odd. I have a Celestron branded 90mm mak-cassegrain and that does have collimation screws :icon_scratch:

Some versions of the Skywatcher 102mm mak-cassegrain do have collimation facilities for the primary mirror. This is the rear end of a Skymax 102:

Not add at all - there has been much talk about it and while some have had experience with such scopes and found them without much of a fault (hint @Lockie) I personally went for Mak102 with collimation screws - OTA version is regular and only bundled versions - star quest, one with AZ-EQ avant and AzGti come without collimation screws.

I think it is weight saving back cell redesign and personally don't really like it, but like I said, people that actually had experience with said scopes found that they work quite well and are in good collimation when received and don't go out of collimation in use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Not add at all - there has been much talk about it and while some have had experience with such scopes and found them without much of a fault (hint @Lockie) I personally went for Mak102 with collimation screws - OTA version is regular and only bundled versions - star quest, one with AZ-EQ avant and AzGti come without collimation screws.

I think it is weight saving back cell redesign and personally don't really like it, but like I said, people that actually had experience with said scopes found that they work quite well and are in good collimation when received and don't go out of collimation in use.

I had to collimate my 90mm mak-cassegrain  when I got it so I would have been frustrated if I had not had them.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vlaiv

vlaiv

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Nair al Saif said:

I know. This is a big problem.

Should I jump ship and get a 90mm refractor?

Why?

Just get regular OTA version of this scope and mount separately if it bothers you that there are no collimation screws.

Mak102 will be better for planets than 90mm refractor.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/skywatcher-skymax-102-ota.html

+

what ever mount you want to put it on. I know this is more expensive option than bundled version, but if you want option to collimate the scope - it's worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vlaiv

vlaiv

Posted
Posted
Just now, Nair al Saif said:

Can the ota go on a photo tripod? I have an alt az

you can, but it is better to have Eq type mount with some sort of motor drive to track the target - much better observing that way as you don't have to constantly nudge the scope to stay on target and you can concentrate on observing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.