Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_31.thumb.jpg.b7a41d6a0fa4e315f57ea3e240acf140.jpg

Recommended Posts

I have one, it was on the AZ GTI but I have since upgraded to an EQ5 now. The scope certainly needs a dew shield. As for the scope itself, it's light (3kg) and compact so it is quite portable. It is best suited for lunar and planetary viewing with it's long focal length although it can pick out DSOs at around 8 to 9 magnitude and that is under a Bortle 6 sky depending on the conditions. The AZ mount is decent but I prefer a handset controller, my AZ mount is has the WiFi connection to my mobile and is controlled from that. Another plus, it can be easily powered from a small power tank so it's another tick for portability. It is less suited for astrophotography and having a DSLR attached to the scope may be too much payload for the AZ mount. Plus, without a ADC, you will get distortion in the colours. Over the two years that I have had it, I would say it is a good all round scope for starting out. I have managed to get some half decent photos out of it too. Perhaps more experienced members can give more in depth thoughts.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought one second hand a few years back and it became my grab and go scope for opportunistic observing. That was on the SynScan mount which was very good.

It's the one we would take on holiday with us, and meant the 8" SCT was reserved for specific trips for star parties or outings to Dark Skies in North Wales.

Earlier in the year I replaced the mount with the AZ GTi which has an app rather than a handset. They go very well together.

The main downside is the narrow field of view, not only because it means that the accuracy of your go-to and alignment becomes critical, but also because many great targets are just too big to be seen properly.

I've been given the loan of a 72mm Altair Lightwave refractor, and that is really satisfying to use, and it'll take high magnification too, so it's really quite hard to say which is better for planets.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maksutovs, particularly those at f/15, have smaller secondary-obstructions when compared to that of a Schmidt at or near to the same aperture, which results in marginally sharper images... 

I have an Explore Scientific 127mm f/15 Maksutov, same as the Bresser...

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bresser-telescopes/bresser-messier-mc-127-1900-maksutov-cassegrain-ota.html

The secondary-obstruction of a 130mm f/10 Schmidt compared to that of my own...

VFrT0ag.jpg

That of the Schmidt compared to that of a Synta(Orion, Sky-Watcher, et al) 127mm f/12...

kZtWPVo.jpg

That of my own compared to that of the Synta...

z0KvLuu.jpg

Among the mirrored designs of telescopes, the Maksutov comes closest to simulating the optical performance of a long-focus refractor, albeit the latter of somewhat lesser aperture.

Then, the focal-length of the Bresser 127mm f/15, at 1900mm, is 400mm longer than that of a Synta at 1500mm.  But then, the obstruction of the Synta is larger than that of the Bresser; all as shown.

Maksutovs are like microscopes, but for that celestial.  Then, a telescope, in the first place, is for seeing faraway objects up close.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Beardy30 said:

Am I perhaps better getting the Sky-Watcher Skymax 127 (EQ3-2) model 

I almost got the Orion(of California) equivalent to the Sky-Watcher, but then I ran across the ES, and for a sweet, sweet price(US$299).  It must've been during a promotional period.  It came with an alt-azimuth mount even, to get it up off of the ground, at most...

kit3b.jpg.1837b7dd0163d6ae51b952931540b6b7.jpg

I use the mount with my smaller telescopes, but only after I took the mount-head apart and renovated it.

I haven't used the telescope much at all, not yet.  But it's time will come.  I had been wanting a Maksutov for a few years.

But I was also attracted to the ES/Bresser, besides the price, due to the fact that the effective aperture is indeed a full 127mm, and with a smaller secondary-obstruction to boot.  It will be even smaller once I shorten the length of the secondary-mirror's flared baffle.  At its present length, it's configured for daytime/terrestrial use, but I want it shortened for use at night rather...

387796638_secondarybaffle2.jpg.387a3166b6ddcae911c4b705142be5a8.jpg  

The effective apertures of the Orion/Sky-Watcher marques are at 118-120mm.

But if you're looking for a telescope packaged with a mount, the Sky-Watcher should serve you well.  You can motorise the RA-axis of the equatorial for tracking, for visual-use and taking pictures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Beardy30 said:

Am I perhaps better getting the Sky-Watcher Skymax 127 (EQ3-2) model 

EQ mounts take more setting up, so if it'll mean you take it out less often, I'd advise against (at least to start with). If that's not a risk then you could. I'm not sure there are big advantages in an EQ mount though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you may find that it's a moot point at the moment, as no one I could find had any stock of the Skymax (or indeed almost any Skywatcher telescope, on any mount). I was after a 127 Mak for a while and ended up pulling the trigger on an Orion OTA, as they came into stock last friday (costs about £90 more than the Skywatcher) and wanted one for the Mars conjunction. Every other supplier I contacted couldn't supply one before late October, and even then they were not certain of delivery. Of course it's been cloudy here since it arrived (except very very late last night when it was blowing a gale☹️).

David

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Beardy30 said:

Think I’ll opt for the Eq mount 

I have the Mak 127 on an EQ3-2 Mount but upgraded to a stainless steel tripod which is very stable. As observing is my preference the slow motion controls are more than adequate for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, KeithP22 said:

I was thinking of purchasing a skymax 90 as a grab and go (easier than lumping my 8-inch dob). Would anyone recommend mounting this scope on a standard camera tripod  or would it be better to purchase it with a mount. 

Different post that Keith tbh 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, banjaxed said:

I have the Mak 127 on an EQ3-2 Mount but upgraded to a stainless steel tripod which is very stable. As observing is my preference the slow motion controls are more than adequate for me.

Which mount ? 

Link to post
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
  • 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.