Reviews required on OMC 140 mak

[Rob]

Do you have one, ever owned one?. Whats it like?.

Thanks

Rob

[GazOC]

CC has one. When I was looking for a Mak around that size I was told by more than one person who had owned an OMC 140 to get an Intes....I've no idea whether this advice was correct though...

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

Well, as I have one I'll chip in.

The OMC 140 is the slowest f ratio 'scope that I have which means that it is useful for imaging only bright objects. For the moon it is very good as exposure times aren't an issue. Same goes for the sun with the Orion supplied screw on Baader solar film filter.

Planets are visually stunning but the images I get are too wobbly. This I think is down to seeing, but could be because the cooldown time is quite long. The 'scope lives in a van outside to keep my gorgeaous chick happy so I generally don't leave it more than 30 minutes to cool. I expect that that is long enough but I could be wrong.

My big problem with the OMC is the small field of view which makes alignment difficult and the small finder doesn't help either. On top of that all the stars look big and bright through it, so choosing the correct one is tricky. The stars are real pinpoints and bright too.

I've recently seen it described as a one trick pony, well it is limited because its f/14 but the 2000mm focal length makes it very good at high magnifications, in fact it doesn't really do low Mag. stuff.

Focussing is by a micrometer (just like the ones in metalwork class) sticking out of the back so fine tuning is quite easy by virtue of the small adjustments available, but an electric focuser would be difficult to fit without drilling into the tube. This means that you get to focus whilst shacking the thing but it's not difficult.

There is enough travel on the focuser that I can use the FR on the webcam, which I can't do with the Skywatcher Newt. This brings the focal length down to 1000mm at f/7 (if the 0.5X is accurate) so I'm getting the same FOV as the Skywatcher but its still slower so exposures need to be longer. Visually you need a diagonal unless you are really good at Yoga. Image shift is minimal, I can keep a planet on the webcam within a quarter of the frame whilst changing from screwing in to screwing out.

Collimation is not an issue once you get it set as it doesn't seem to change over time. There is very little on collimation on the web and a laser is of no use at all.

The other place where the OMC140 scores is in it's compact size, it could easily be fitted into a car boot for travelling to a dark site and mine has a foam lined box with nice cutouts for all the bits and pieces.

WRT the Intes, I've never even seen one so can't compare.

In summary it does high Mag. very well indeed so would be good for spotting double stars. The contrast is very good which also helps.

Any more questions - just shout.

Captain Chaos

[GazOC]

WRT the Intes, I've never even seen one so can't compare.

I'm in the same boat CC, I've owned one not t'other

[Rob]

Thanks CC, nice write up there..

Rob

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

Well if the Intes is 150mm f/12 its going to be less extreme at only 1800mm focal length and shorter exposures as its faster.

Looking for info, I came across the 150 f/10 Mak. Did they change them recently?

Captain Chaos

[GordonCopestake]

I know Russ has the M603 and rates it very highly. At the end of the day though the OMC140 is a less-than-6" mak, and a slow one at that. The optics though are superb, have to give Barry that one, Orion make good optics.

[GazOC]

Well if the Intes is 150mm f/12 its going to be less extreme at only 1800mm focal length and shorter exposures as its faster.

Looking for info, I came across the 150 f/10 Mak. Did they change them recently?

Captain Chaos

They made both the MK67 and 66 were both f12, I think Russ's was f10.

TBH they are pretty specialized scopes (planets/moon/DS), if you want to do DSO photography there are much better options.

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

Very true, you can do the Rhode Island part of NGC7000 or the e in the veil nebula.

M51 or M27 fills the frame of the SC3 (now there's an idea).

Close up stuff though, its spectacular. The Mak is better (theoretically) than the Schmidt for contrast as the central obstruction is smaller on the Mak. design.

Captain Chaos

[FLO]

I've recently seen it described as a one trick pony...

The same can be said for pretty much any telescope...

Most excel in one area or another; few are 'general purpose'.

[Rob]

This is a no go now chaps, thanks for your input though. I had some pictures through and did not like the look of the scope at all... I know I look after my stuff!!!, this was another story. One massive deep scratch on one side, and real tatty all round.

Lets say it had been through the mill!!!.

Rob

[russ]

I think that was for the best Rob. Not sure an OMC140 met your criteria anyway. Even more focused than the scope (Mak 127) you sold and probably wouldn't offer much more. Even longer cool down and an even higher focal ratio. :nono:

What happened to the XT6 OTA? 150mm aperture, f8, 18% CO, 6Kgs and only £99 delivered.....can't see why it's not a winner? Money left for a non-goto HEQ5. Flog the EQ3 for extra cash!

Russ

[mike bacanin]

Just a quick post! i have owned an OMC 140 and it was a very good lunar planetary scope, only issue was a cooldown of at least 1 hour from a warm room to cold outside.

i must say though that for sheer stunning contrast and sharpness, the TAK FS 102 i owned recently with a 6mm ortho was in a league of its own. sometimes the quality of the image can offset greater aperture.

regards

mike

[GordonCopestake]

I agree, i prefered the ED100 to the C8, and thats TWICE as much aperture

[DaveGibbons]

Hi all. Bit late on this as just back from holiday. I purchased a brand new OMC 140 Deluxe from OO a few years back . It cost nearly £1200 for OTA alone - had all the upgrades and Zygo reports etc. To be honest I found it rather a let down. The mirrors had crud on them the cooldown was 2-3 hours and the images just seemed dull . At the time I was in contact with a couple of OMC140 owners and none of us were really happy with the product.I sold mine at a huge loss in the end.I owned a skymax pro 6" mak for a while , it cost alot less and blows the omc140 away optically ,although Image shift on the SKymax was an issue if you are purely a visual observer it's acceptable. By the way I think OO newtonian optics are suberb and have had several OTA's from them and would do so again.

Cheers

Dave

Scope Junkie

[mike bacanin]

HAVING OWNED DAVE'S 6 INCH SKYMAX MAKSUTOV, YES IT WAS A GREAT SCOPE , WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE VERY KEEN NEW PRICE OF THE OTA. THE NEW 180MM SHOULD BE A FINE SCOPE IF IT IS IDENTICAL TO THE 150 IN OPTICAL QUALITY.

MIKE

[GazOC]

The 150mm is f12, the new 180mm is f15. Which is either a good thing or a ad thing depending on how you look at it. It def. takes the 180mm further into planetary/lunar double star use and away from a general purpose scope.