Jump to content

30sec_exposures_2021.jpg.48851b1871a4bf9500ebd53c3e790d81.jpg

 

 

MARS and the 127 SKYMAX


OXO
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

Just got in after an half n hour stint in the garden under partly cloudy skies and 5/10 seeing condition's with the skymax 127 Mak.

WOW! i have never seen such detail on mars at the eyepiece it was simply stunning almost like looking at an image on the Net amazing in fact! The image size was huge with a 18mm and 2xbarlow colours were amazing with detail's showing amazing features and the tiny polar cap now was to be seen in nice crisp detail. I cant imagine what its gonna be like later tonight when seeing improves i just cant get over this. Compared to the 8" scope well it blew it away with a bang something i wasn't expecting at all.

Roll on clear skies i am gonna watch Mars!

James :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be careful James! You may fall into the same trap I did. I found the 127 so good that i lost all enthusiasm for the Explorer 200 and banished it to the garage. Final nail in the coffin for the Explorer was the surprising DSO performance of the 127, especially with the Celestron f6.3 (brings the 127 down to f8) focal reducer. Also imaged M13 and M57 with the 127 and it destroyed the Explorer 200. And I mean it crushed it!

I also think it would take apart my C8 on Mars.

The main thing is, really pleased you're so pleased!!!!

Russ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive yet to test it on DSO's but if Mars is anything to go by then i can see the poor Helios/Skywatcher 8" being a reject like you did Russ. A focal reducer has to be on my wanted list now that will be in a months time. Just cant get over it i feel like i have gained a 12" scope not gone down 3 inchs :shock: :)

Rob you will get sorted soon matey and when you point ya scope at mars and take in the wonder...

Thanks

James :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That'll be the increased contrast and purity of image gained from the Mak's tiny central obstruction.  That and the ability to use a longer focal length eyepiece to achieve the same magnification.  

I can see you heading down the same road I did before I settled on a mak for planetary and a large aperture Newtonian for deep-sky...  At least I think I am settled....  :roll:

Steve :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I

can see you heading down the same road I did before I settled on a mak for planetary and a large aperture Newtonian for deep-sky... At least I think I am settled....
LOL yeah you maybe right there Steve.

Come Clouds [removed word] off! :)

James :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That'll be the increased contrast and purity of image gained from the Mak's tiny central obstruction. That and the ability to use a longer focal length eyepiece to achieve the same magnification.

I can see you heading down the same road I did before I settled on a mak for planetary and a large aperture Newtonian for deep-sky... At least I think I am settled.... :roll:

Steve :)

I'm in the same boat. 10" Newt for DSOs and a 6"Mak for planets (soon).

Who needs to drop £2k+ on a 4" Apo when you can pay £400 for a 6"Mak?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think it would take apart my C8 on Mars.

I've had it side by side with my LX90 and it beats that! Not by much, but still beats it.

I remember looking at the two scopes and thinking "this can't be right". The LX90 looked massive next to the Mak, but still got beaten...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't take this the wrong way anyone but, can we please be more specific when assessing optical quality.  For example: Comments on brightness, contrast, resolution, hue and the presence or lack of abberations would all be helpful and better enable the reader to understand an optics strengths, weaknesses and suitability. 

In particular, lets be careful not to confuse contrast with resolution; for example, a scope can be high contrast but have low resolution. 

Thanks,

Steve :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, unfortunately that often comes down to personal taste. Not sure how accurate assessments would be. Especially for those who may have only owned one scope & have nothing to compare it to. Sky conditions can also make something of a difference.

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

  • 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.