A possible change of plan

[Kreggurree]

So I might be able to squeeze some more money to getting myself a portable scope, I have seen some second hand 127 Maks available, so I was wondering how does a 130p (heritage) compare to a 127 SkyMax mak. I am aware that I could get larger aperture for the same price as a skymax but I can't got bigger so I want to compare what can be seen between these similar aperture but different design scopes.

How much is the image improved for planets and the moon with SKYMAX127?

What DSO's are at the edge of and beyond the SKYMAX 127's abilities but not the 130P?

What are peoples thoughts on the limited FOV in the SKYMAX 127?

[malc-c]

I'm no expert, but I think you'll find most people will say that the Skymax 127 is more suited to planetary observing rather than DSO's due to the longer focal length allowing higher magnification than a similar scope in a Newtonian format.

[Kreggurree]

Thanks for the response malc-c, I am aware of the general strengths of the scopes but I am hoping some people can give more specifics of where the boundaries actually lie, such as what can't be viewed by the Mak and how much improved the viewing of planets is.

Because if they are at the least similar then I will just stick with the Heritage 130 p for being so much cheaper.

[Capricorn]

Cannot see there being a great deal in it.

Diameters are almost identical so collect the same amount of light.

At the same magnification both will have the same field of view.

At the same magnification both will be equally as bright.

Both are reflectors so have central obstructions.

The "difference" is which eyepiece is used to get the magnification.

[malc-c]

I don't think you'll get a concise answer as a lot of it depends on having someone in the same observing conditions... a 127 Mak under ideal skies in dark condition could well outperform a 10" mead or Celestron under the light polluted skies of the SE of England regardless of the limited magnitude in the spec sheet