MAK vs SCT

[malc-c]

Hi,

Looking at getting back into astronomy after a 20 year gap. I last had a Vixen 102mm refractor on a driven German EQ mount, and regret selling it. However I've a limited budget of £375 - £400 cash (possibly £600 if I flexed a bit of plastic, and now looking for a new scope. I'm looking for one of the goto scopes, ideally one that also has the option for remote control from a PC so future proofing the investment.

I'm erring towards a Celestron Nexstar 127 SLT MAK Telescope as this seems to fit the bill, offering 127mm aperture, goto and NSOL control. However for another £300 there is the Celestron NexStar 5 SE. The only difference I can see is that the NexStar SE is a Schmidt-Cassegrain so is this worth the extra £300. I'm not a serious amateur astronomer, and living in Stevenage don't have ready access to really dark skys, so would any performance the SE offers (presuming the optics are better hence the cost) be worth the added invetsment ?

I've done a bit of searching for similar scopes, - (comparing the Nexstar 127 MAK to the Skywatcher version, but ruled that out as it appeared to lack the PC connectivity and people seem to say the cord tangles), but each time come back to the same two scopes.

I would welcome comments, and any suggestions as to where to purchased these from. I've been scouring the net and the prices vary wildly. David Hinds and Green-witch scopes are near to me, but David Hinds site has been off line for days.

Thanks

Malcolm

[brantuk]

David Hinds no longer does retail - they are distibutors only now for Celestron. Green Witch are good but I'd recommend FLO mostly for great advice and excellent service.

Schmitt Cassegraines use a corrector plate at the front whereas Maks us a thin meniscus. Maks cool down a fair bit quicker. The Celstron optics on my Schmitt are really excellent and I find the handset a little more intuitive than the Skywatcher one. The Maks have a slight edge on clarity and focus on solar system objects due to slightly longer focal lengths - but there's not a lot in it really.

For more technical info you can easilly google for reviews and comparisons or just compare the specs in adverts. Hope my comments help

[malc-c]

Thanks for the reply,

Given those comments I don't think there is much to gain by opting for the 5" SCT over the 5" MAK. - Can you provide a link to FLO (guess that's an abbreviation ?)

Malcolm

[Whippy]

There's a link to the left of the forum logo .

Tony..

[John]

Thanks for the reply,

Given those comments I don't think there is much to gain by opting for the 5" SCT over the 5" MAK. - Can you provide a link to FLO (guess that's an abbreviation ?)

Malcolm

FLO = First Light Optics - link at the top of the page !.

I made the same journey that you have around 20 years ago - I sold a lovely Vixen SP102M refractor when my kids were born then, eventually got back into the hobby with a 5" Celestron SCT (a Nexstar 5) on a GOTO mount.

Personally, I think the SCT is a more versatile design than the Mak but there is not much in it. The pain for me was i) getting used to allowing a proper cool down time (the 4" Vixen was almost ready to go straight from the house) and ii) controlling dew formation on the front corrector plate which is an issue for both Mak's and SCT's as they don't come with dew shields as standard.

A good 5" mak or SCT will deliver about the same performance as the 4" Vixen refractor would have.

[malc-c]

John,

Thanks for the reply, an interesting read. Those old Vixen's were good scopes, and as you say, almost ready to go from the off.

I'll look at adding a suitable due shield to the budget, and take a look at the link - sorry should of looked really !

[CGolder]

Hello Malc, I recently had the fortune to compare my Meade etx 5" mak with a C6 sct. i think the mak is the sharper of the 2 and i couldnt really notice the extra 1 inch. I am now looking to change the c6 for a 150Pro skywatcher mak and retain the celestron Nexstar SE mount.

this should leave me with the better mount and better optics. The c6 is a great scope but the biggest let down for me is the lack of a 2" rear port. the mak150 has the 2" and will offer a wider field of view even though it has a longer focal length. this overcomes one of the major drawbacks in the mak/sct range.

If i were buying one of the smaller nexstars, the 4 or 5. the 4 offers better value at nearly half the cost. not sure how the 5se got so expensive tbh the 6se is a huge step with the improved mount.

[GazOC]

Check the 150mm Mak has the 2" rear port before you buy. The 127mm and the 180mm versions don't have a 2" rear opening.

[CGolder]

will do gaz, i did ask Alan as he has one and says it has the 2" rear but might be a few models around. Shocked they didnt put one on the 180pro... seems silly

[GazOC]

A problem is that, without some really fancy baffling, you can't have a rear opening thats larger than the central obstruction or the light will hit the diagonal/ eyepiece before its been reflected off the secondary.

[CGolder]

I see that makes sense to me, i think i read that the 180 has a smaller secondary so it could be the case with the 150 being the "all rounder" (hopefully)

[John]

I see that makes sense to me, i think i read that the 180 has a smaller secondary so it could be the case with the 150 being the "all rounder" (hopefully)

I think it will still be optimised towards planetary / lunar and other higher power observing. It's an F/12 scope with a focal length of 1800mm so achieving wide angle, lower power views won't be it's forte, even with 2" eyepieces.

It's so difficult to find scopes that truly do everything really well.

[CGolder]

Kinda hijacking the thread now but at least its on subject. wide angle for me is relative to what i am used too.

F15 etx 125 gave me a max field of 0.84 degrees and my 36mm hyperion gives me 1.04 in my lx90.

the C6 gives me a max of 1.07 degrees so relatively speaking the 150 mak will give a field of 1.44 with the 36mm hyperion. that's like a wide field scope compared to my current line up while retaining that lunar/planet ability

[nightfisher]

I would stick with the mak

[Macavity]

...the C6 gives me a max of 1.07 degrees so relatively speaking the 150 mak will give a field of 1.44 with the 36mm hyperion. that's like a wide field scope compared to my current line up while retaining that lunar/planet ability

Heheh - In the past, on some forums, mere mention of MAKs, could set off a whole bunch of posts proclaiming, in stentorian tones, they were "planetary only"? <G> In truth, e.g. the Skymax MAK127/150 have somewhat longer focal length, than the average Newtonian (Dob)... and rather less than some SCTs.

Adding 2" diagonals, to Skywatcher MAKs is effective, in practice - With little or no visible vignetting. Getting to a field of 1.2 - 1.4 deg seems to be worthwhile - Certainly *greater* than the diameter of most DSOs. It gives a much more rigid structure to the whole thing, anyway.

The Celestron C8 is a *light* 8" F10 scope? The MAK180 heavier, 7" and F15 (veering towards "planetary only"!). Folks (with outside storage) seem to cope with the MAK "cool-down thing", though...

Maybe my DREAM scope will be a "second-level" STF Russian thingie? Seven inch aperture, F10(!), inherent 2" capability, and with CERTIFIED optical quality. Fear of twiddling a Rumak secondary worries slightly, but...

<wibble>

[John]

The only reason I made my post re: an SCT was because of the number of posts I've seen on here from folks who have bought a mak and then, a few weeks later, are asking how they can get a wide field of view (ie: 2 degrees or more)

The Maks are excellent scopes, no doubt about that

Of course with a mak-newtonian you can have wide field capability AND high contrast apochromat-type planetary performance - but those are not easily found

[nightfisher]

i have viewed the M42 neb in my omc-140 mak, and i was very surprised at the results, for a planet scope lol

[malc-c]

Guys,

Thought I would update you with my intentions having spoken with a really helpful chap at David Hinds this afternoon.

I'm opting to pay the extra and go for the Celestron NexStar 5 SE (XLT) Schmidt-Cassegrain. These are the reasons, in no particular order

1) - The XLT coatings

2) - Comes with a wedge to provide smooth tracking, which is better for astrophotography

3) - Comes with the PC software for remote control of the scope where the 127 MAK has the port but software is an optional cost.

4) - Tube can be adjusted to compensate for weight of a DSLR camera

5) - Build quality - sturdier tripod

6) - Faster scope f10 so has a wider field of view

I feel that this scope will last me a lifetime. With the only outlay for a CCD camera (which I would have regardless of scope I purchased) it will cater for me in later life when I want to do astronomy from the comfort of my armchair rather than freeze my butt off outside. Mind you, that (I hope) will be a long time off as there is nothing more thrilling than seeing Jupiter or Saturn in detail with your own eyes.

My Local (well next county) dealer is Green-Witch Optics, who have agreed to price match a deal for me, and I'm hoping to visit their showroom this coming weekend, and hopefully bring one home with me...

[StevieDvd]

Hi Malcolm,

I too was looking for a dealer near Stevenage, is there any special reason why you selected Green-Witch optics? Half-price for cash maybe!!

Best prices I have found, even though I am probably only going for a 4SE, are at FLO. I'm still dithering though.

Steve

[CGolder]

Hello Malc,

I dont mean this to be disrespectful but...

1) - The XLT coatings

2) - Comes with a wedge to provide smooth tracking, which is better for astrophotography - The 4se has this and neither will provide smooth tracking for astro photography, you will need a eq mount for this or pier mounted heavy duty wedge

3) - Comes with the PC software for remote control of the scope where the 127 MAK has the port but software is an optional cost. i am sure you can download something for this

4) - Tube can be adjusted to compensate for weight of a DSLR camera all scopes with a dovetail can do this

5) - Build quality - sturdier tripod - This is true but not over the 4se (same tripod)

6) - Faster scope f10 so has a wider field of view

The 5" mak is a f11.8 1500 1.11 FOV vs a 5" SCT of F10 1300mm 1.28 FOV so its right... but its marginal

If you really want to do astro photography then you are looking in the wrong place in my opinion, this is the wrong mount with the wrong scope.

Its a good scope but will be a nightmare for photography for anything but planets/moon.

I hate to see you waste money on this and not get what you want from the scope but if a dealer has advised you that you can do all this then perhaps they are not so helpful

[Watcher]

I'm not far from Stevenage and I work near to where Green Witch used to have their shop in Dry Drayton. I went there the other day as I was passing and found that they have moved. I called to be told that they have gone to one of the director's homes but you can still visit by appointment. The good news is they are now only about 5 miles from where I live.

[brantuk]

Just to add a bit more value to the response and imho:

1) - The XLT coatings

: the XLT coatings are superb - really happy with mine but bear in mind I haven't compared with other coatings,

2) - Comes with a wedge to provide smooth tracking, which is better for astrophotography

: The wedge is used to enable polar alignment and reduce the tweaking in dec to a minimum so it only has to track in RA. Accurate setup is achievable on a fixed pier but on the move it's a lot of work to get something accurate enough for good imaging. EQ would be preferable. This is an inherent weakness of fork arms.

3) - Comes with the PC software for remote control of the scope where the 127 MAK has the port but software is an optional cost.

: don't know about the Mak but the Celestron CPC tracking is spot on in alt/az mode. I tried EQ mode on a wedge and the object was still dead center after 3hrs. Easilly controlled from a PC with supplied software.

4) - Tube can be adjusted to compensate for weight of a DSLR camera

: Reasonable counterbalance kits start from £100 and upwards (new) - not particularly cheap s/h either. If you load it up with guide scope and imaging gear on a wedge, you'll need to replace nylon bearings with steel.

5) - Build quality - sturdier tripod

: The CPC tripods are heavy duty and rock solid on concrete. But if you're stomping round it whilst imaging, vibrations will sneak in. The vibratration pads are very good - they ought to be at £50 for three.

6) - Faster scope f10 so has a wider field of view

: f10 scopes benefit from superior sharpness on planets but for imaging dso's I'd prefer a wide field appo of f6 or less. Which is why I got the Meg - the CPC will be the guide scope when I get round to mounting them. lol

Notwithstanding what I've said above - Maks and SCT's can both be used for observing and imaging pretty much anything. But it's horses for courses if you want to take it seriously. No one scope will do everything and there's usually a better one for another aspect of the hobby.

It's like the difference between using a Mini to go shopping and a Formula-1 car for racing

[malc-c]

Hi Malcolm,

I too was looking for a dealer near Stevenage, is there any special reason why you selected Green-Witch optics? Half-price for cash maybe!!

Best prices I have found, even though I am probably only going for a 4SE, are at FLO. I'm still dithering though.

Steve

Steve,

I chose them for several reasons, mainly because I'm old school and feel you get better service from a shop / dealer when you visit in person. They can demo the item and answer any questions, and I can compare my intended purchase with other models.

They are approx 24 mile away, so if I have any problems and need to return the scope within its warranty period I can do so simply without incurring expensive couriers. They also price matched very close to that of FLO (and others) price, so buying local didn't mean paying hugely over that of retailers who are purely web based (not saying FLO are - I don't know).

Steve, after some of the comments here I too am still dithering...some say the scope is fine for my level of use, others say it's not the best scope... at the end of the day you could spend all your time comparing, confusing yourself and then not actually getting anything, but keep waiting for the next series to be released...

Malcolm

[brantuk]

Sometimes it like choosing a computer, or swimming - you have to jump in the deep end sooner or later or you never get anywhere lol

Qudos to ya Malc

[rowan46]

malcom I think the consenus is that its not the best scope but with snoe effort it can do most things. you are never going to get pow but it is possible to get some nice images google some and have a look there is certainly some there which I would be proud to call my own. I am sorry If we are confusing you the question was mak or nexstar I would choose a nexstar over a skywatcher mak and mount. I think some people have been answering a slightly different question. they are valid answers to the question" is the nexstar good for imaging" but its not quite the question you asked is it. I do apologise If I have been hindering rather than helping