Classical cassegrain 10th July Jupiter

[neil phillips]

3 hours ago, chiltonstar said:

Only some Maks - the 150 and 180 are full aperture with o/s mirrors I believe. My 180 returns a clear aperture of 179mm on a test bench.

Chris

Didn't know that Chris. Odd though in this article here Astrobaby says her mak was 170mm 

Skymax 180 PRO Review (astro-baby.com)

[CraigT82]

Magnus wrote an excellent tear down thread not long ago, I can’t find it now. IIRC he found his Skymax 180 mirror was indeed oversized at 200mm but it was the baffle design that clipped the light cone. 

 

[chiltonstar]

6 hours ago, neil phillips said:

Didn't know that Chris. Odd though in this article here Astrobaby says her mak was 170mm 

Skymax 180 PRO Review (astro-baby.com)

I believe they changed the design at some point (after the astrobaby version), but not for the 127 Mak which is still about 119mm. There is quite a bit on CN about this

Chris

Edited July 23, 2022 by chiltonstar

[neil phillips]

3 hours ago, chiltonstar said:

I believe they changed the design at some point (after the astrobaby version), but not for the 127 Mak which is still about 119mm. There is quite a bit on CN about this

Chris

Ah ok the plot thickens. Again  didnt know that. Explains the discrepancy 

[morimarty]

They are superb images of Jupiter Neil top draw stuff. Having seen your recently posted Saturn image captured with the CC. That proved what I already new was the best bang per buck planetary telescopes out there. I wouldn't hesitate in buying one of these classic cassagrains if I was in the market for a new scope. Your's is definitely a keeper.

[neil phillips]

4 hours ago, morimarty said:

They are superb images of Jupiter Neil top draw stuff. Having seen your recently posted Saturn image captured with the CC. That proved what I already new was the best bang per buck planetary telescopes out there. I wouldn't hesitate in buying one of these classic cassagrains if I was in the market for a new scope. Your's is definitely a keeper.

That.s been my thoughts too. I was always a Mak lover. After having two ( different times of course) Meade true 7" (8/3.4" ) over sized primary F15 Maks. Thought they was Meades best scope from yester year. But from memory ( always a dangerous thing ) I just feel the CC Gives that little bit extra sharpness. But of course the mirror at some point will need cleaning. Not a simple task as with Newtonians. That has been my only reservation so far. I do believe the models deserve to succeed. A lot of negative stuff is often thrown around about them. But in the hands of a imager who has been through a few scopes. Proof is in the pudding as they say. And i haven't seen better at this size or price point. Possibly even beyond. So I agree a keeper indeed

Cheers Martyn. 

Edited July 24, 2022 by neil phillips

[Pete Presland]

Excellent images Neil, Some very nice detail visible. 

I often wonder about how my images look, when viewed on other peoples devices. Especially the difference between mobiles, tablets and laptops. Then also whether i have a correctly calibrated screen, or have the viewers got correctly calibrated screens.  Especially when i am looking for advice/critical opinion of final images.  

I am also nearly always oversampled, mostly because it feels right to my eyes when capturing 🙂 

 

[neil phillips]

55 minutes ago, Pete Presland said:

Excellent images Neil, Some very nice detail visible. 

I often wonder about how my images look, when viewed on other peoples devices. Especially the difference between mobiles, tablets and laptops. Then also whether i have a correctly calibrated screen, or have the viewers got correctly calibrated screens.  Especially when i am looking for advice/critical opinion of final images.  

I am also nearly always oversampled, mostly because it feels right to my eyes when capturing 🙂 

 

Yeah its a weird one oversampling. As theory dictates it should always worsen the outcome. Yet that doesn't always seem to be the case in the field. It was the same here it seemed right to my eyes. Probably because it was easier to focus. As i could see two close points easier ? zooming in with capture. Doesnt always seem to be as easy.