Orion optics?

[Spier24]

Currently torn between a Celestron 6SE and an Orion starseeker IV 150 mak. I know a decent amount about celestron but would appreciate some feedback about how good Orion scopes are? Build quality etc.

 

Also which scope you'd recommend for someone who wants something that can be pretty versatile in looking at both the planets and DSO's.

[Louis D]

Well, they're both made by Synta and both are considered good performers.  Orion USA doesn't make anything, they are strictly a reseller.

Hopefully, others will chime in on the relative merits of each scope and mount.

[johninderby]

The Celestron 6” SCT would be better for DSOs than the mak but still not ideal. They are both more planetary scopes really.

[John]

The Orion that you are looking at is a Synta product as Louis says, nothing to do with Orion Optics of the UK.

I think the Orion USA 150mm mak-cassegrains are the same as the Skywatcher Skymax mak-cassegrains so comments on the 150mm Skymax should apply.

Orion Optics UK do make cassegrains but theirs are 140mm and 200mm in aperture.

[Spier24]

5 minutes ago, johninderby said:

The Celestron 6” SCT would be better for DSOs than the mak but still not ideal. They are both more planetary scopes really.

I know that for good DSO viewing you should really get an 8 inch + reflector. Although I'm going with a Mak so im just trying to narrow it down to which one is better at DSO's.

[johninderby]

The 6SE is an SCT.

[mikeDnight]

Synta/Orion/ Skywatcher Mak's are excellent. Personally i wouldn't hesitate to to choose anything from their range. I would hesitate when it comes to Orion Opics UK though, but that's just a personal view. Again, another personal view, is that although Schmidt's can gather a great deal of light, they never produce piercingly sharp star images which is something that's always troubled me about the design. As if the stars aren't truly sharp, then nothing is truly sharp and so definition suffers, even when it comes to things like nebulae. Mak's by contrast give text book, virtually refractor sharp star images.

[Piero]

I would recommend a 8" f6 Dobson as an all-around telescope.

The skywatcher version is good and rather cheap, but if you can stretch it a bit, the Bresser version is mechanically much better.

 

Orion optics UK... I would only consider it in the second hand market. Even then, I would probably go for something else.

[Louis D]

1 hour ago, Spier24 said:

Although I'm going with a Mak so im just trying to narrow it down to which one is better at DSO's.

The only one that's a Mak is the Orion Starseeker IV 150.  The Celestron 6SE is an SCT.  I guess your decision is made if you want a Mak over an SCT or Newt.

[Spier24]

4 hours ago, johninderby said:

The 6SE is an SCT.

 

2 hours ago, Louis D said:

The only one that's a Mak is the Orion Starseeker IV 150.  The Celestron 6SE is an SCT.  I guess your decision is made if you want a Mak over an SCT or Newt.

 

 

Woops. That's why I shouldn't multitask too much! I meant a cassegrain not a Mak.

[Louis D]

1 hour ago, Spier24 said:

Woops. That's why I shouldn't multitask too much! I meant a cassegrain not a Mak.

In that case, rather than rehash SCT vs Mak here, read through this very recent thread:

 

[Spier24]

1 hour ago, Louis D said:

In that case, rather than rehash SCT vs Mak here, read through this very recent thread:

 

SCT's seem like better general purpose scopes to me which fits what I want nicely. The only issue I picked up on that thread is that SCT's are more likely to arrive out of collimation and are tricker to collimate. They also seem less durable in general.

 

Maks are more specialised for planetary and lunar observation as well as double star splitting. Also seem more durable and don't need as much maintenance.

Edited January 13, 2021 by Spier24

[John]

3 minutes ago, Spier24 said:

SCT's seem like better general purpose scopes to me which fits what I want nicely. The only issue I picked up on that thread is that SCT's are more likely to arrive out of collimation and are tricker to collimate.

Mak-cassegrains can need collimation tweaks as well and are also challenging.

There is probably more stuff written about SCT collimation.

Refractors as well, I've found, sometimes need some collimation adjustments.

150mm F/8 dobs also benefit from collimation tweaks but are a lot less expensive than either the SCT or the mak-cassegrain of the same aperture. If DSO's are the primary interest, aperture makes such a lot of difference so the 200mm f/6 dobs, or even larger, do make a lot of sense.

 

[Spier24]

18 minutes ago, John said:

Mak-cassegrains can need collimation tweaks as well and are also challenging.

There is probably more stuff written about SCT collimation.

Refractors as well, I've found, sometimes need some collimation adjustments.

150mm F/8 dobs also benefit from collimation tweaks but are a lot less expensive than either the SCT or the mak-cassegrain of the same aperture. If DSO's are the primary interest, aperture makes such a lot of difference so the 200mm f/6 dobs, or even larger, do make a lot of sense.

 

 

Someone on the other thread mentioned that they've heard a lot more reports about SCT's been damaged during shipping due to their mirror design where as this doesn't happen to Maks as much. They just sound more durable in general.

 

Another thing that sticks out is that quite a few people have said that Maks will give you a sharper image and that it is noticeable if you get a Mak and an SCT side by side.

[nfotis]

26 minutes ago, Spier24 said:

 

Someone on the other thread mentioned that they've heard a lot more reports about SCT's been damaged during shipping due to their mirror design where as this doesn't happen to Maks as much. They just sound more durable in general.

 

Another thing that sticks out is that quite a few people have said that Maks will give you a sharper image and that it is noticeable if you get a Mak and an SCT side by side.

In general, Maksutov scopes are tougher, but not bulletproof. These can need collimation if shaken too much. On the other hand, these tend to offer more contrasty views to visual observers.

SCT tend to be less contrasty for visual observation, but for imaging "aperture is king". These are also more flexible, because you can run these with a Hyperstar or a reducer-corrector, getting three scopes for the price of 1.5. Getting a 8-plus inches Maksutov is almost impossible these days.

N.F.

Edited January 13, 2021 by nfotis

[Spier24]

1 minute ago, nfotis said:

In general, Maksutov scopes are tougher, but not bulletproof. These can need collimation if shaken too much. On the other hand, these tend to offer more contrasty views to visual observers.

SCT tend to be less contrasty for visual observation, but for imaging "aperture is king". These are also more flexible, because you can run these with a Hyperstar or a reducer-corrector, getting three scopes for the price of 1.5

N.F.

 

Obviously no scope is rock solid. However I am starting to notice a bit of a trend with issues related to SCT's. Visual contrast is more important to me.

[nfotis]

Note that we are discussing mass production scopes, which have some variation in quality. A good SCT may be better than a mediocre Maksutov in the same class. Or the reverse may happen.

 

That said, a Skymax 127 or 150 is a fine scope, if you prefer planetary and lunar targets. A Skymax 180 is called "planet killer" due to the very long focal distance, but you have to take care of the temperature equilibrium due to thick glass, or insulate the OTA in order to avoid air currents inside the closed tube.

N.F.

 

Edited January 13, 2021 by nfotis

[Spier24]

41 minutes ago, nfotis said:

Note that we are discussing mass production scopes, which have some variation in quality. A good SCT may be better than a mediocre Maksutov in the same class. Or the reverse may happen.

 

That said, a Skymax 127 or 150 is a fine scope, if you prefer planetary and lunar targets. A Skymax 180 is called "planet killer" due to the very long focal distance, but you have to take care of the temperature equilibrium due to thick glass, or insulate the OTA in order to avoid air currents inside the closed tube.

N.F.

 

 

 

Now this is going to sound silly, but what's the difference between the original skywatcher GoTo scopes from years back and the new Skymax models?

 

I've only heard good things about the skymax models. They are supposed to be the best built scopes of that category.

Edited January 13, 2021 by Spier24

[John]

7 hours ago, Spier24 said:

 

Someone on the other thread mentioned that they've heard a lot more reports about SCT's been damaged during shipping due to their mirror design where as this doesn't happen to Maks as much. They just sound more durable in general.

 

Another thing that sticks out is that quite a few people have said that Maks will give you a sharper image and that it is noticeable if you get a Mak and an SCT side by side.

I agree that maks are can be sharper than SCT's. I've owned several of both types and the build seemed solid on all of them.

The Skywatcher, Celestron and Orion (USA) maks are all made by Synta as are the Celestron SCT's now, at least the ones under 11 inches in aperture. Possibly those as well now. Even Meade seem to be selling a Synta made mak now:

https://www.meade.com/telescopes/maksutov-cassegrain/lx65-mak-6.html

 

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2021 by John

[johninderby]

One problem with comparing maks and SCTs is that most maks are well collimated as they hold collimation so well whereas many SCTs need collimating or are a bit off so don't perform at thier best. 

[haitch]

SCTs aren't really flimsy though... 

 

[Ian McCallum]

3 hours ago, haitch said:

SCTs aren't really flimsy though... 

 

I read the description below the video and the SCT used was a duffer, thankfully! 😱

[Louis D]

Sure, but how well do SCT corrector plates stand up to common carrier shipping?

This is but a small sampling of images I found online (mostly on CN).  Most were damaged in shipping.

I couldn't locate a single image of a broken Mak meniscus corrector.  I rest my case.

[johninderby]

Or just do away with the corrector all together. 👍🏻

My StellaLyra CC6”

[Spier24]

39 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Sure, but how well do SCT corrector plates stand up to common carrier shipping?

This is but a small sampling of images I found online (mostly on CN).  Most were damaged in shipping.

I couldn't locate a single image of a broken Mak meniscus corrector.  I rest my case.

 

Yeh this is what I was referring to. Certainly made me think twice about getting an SCT. After a bit of research they just seem like more of a hassle than Maks.