Your videos have been very helpful in helping me get up to speed. You certainly have some of the most in-depth info on these Maks. You are exactly right that there is a lack of good, reliable info on reducing a Mak correctly. Case in point about the Maks already being corrected at the edges...and how this reducer is mainly just a reducer and not a flattener...yet it's still marked as a 'reducer/corrector'. Very confusing stuff! I picked one up thanks to your video recommendation. I was curious if you happen to know how to collimate one of those SkyMax 102 Maks that didn't come with the external collimation screws. The one I'm referring to usually is sold as a package deal with a Sky-Watcher AZ-GTi mount to us suckers that didn't realize it wasn't like their standalone SkyMax 102's that had the screws on the back. (Why Sky-Watcher did this is just beyond reason). i love the design and the portability of this thing but it's got my OCD in play as it's just a tiny bit out of focus...just enough to be annoying to my pixel peepers.
Thank you. I’ve done my own research from calling around to Cloudy Nights and I’m shocked by the lack of information. It surprises me that they would produce a scope with no collimation adjustments on the back. I thought that was something left behind in the past with ETX’s. They’re pretty confident it won’t need it apparently. I can’t source many photos of the 102 you mention but my immediate thought is they’re behind the rear cover. If I’m wrong it’s a fixed mirror which seems crazy but not outside the realm of possibility. Worse case scenario is you take it apart and it gets worse, even putting it back exactly as it was. If it’s indeed a fixed mirror, and it could be, I’d start at the corrector. The relationship of the corrector to the primary is based on three screws. Loosening them, turning it upright, and shaking it lightly may cause it to reseat properly if it’s slightly out. What can happens is there’s a little wiggle room often in the holes that the bolts thread through. It’s not uncommon for one side to be slightly higher. It doesn’t take much to be off. The nightmare that is collimating a Maksutov is not for the faint hearted. You don’t see many videos about it because it’s extremely hard, akin to an RC. If it were mine I’d take it apart. According to Cloudy Nights, Skywatcher is charging over $200 to service one. That’s outrageous. The only information I could get was to never unthread the dovetail as it has nuts opposite the mounting bolts. I’m intrigued and tempted to buy one and gut it just so there’s information available to the public. The problem with companies these days is ones like Skywatcher offer very little information and service because they simply are a distributor. Hardly anyone builds their own scopes anymore. Let me know if and what you try. I’ll pin this in hopes someone sees it that has information that’s helpful to you. Happy holidays and if I see one I’m on it.
@@GarnettLeary - Yes, Sky-Watcher seems to be out to lower the bar on their reputation with this particular design, and in charging these absurd rates on repairs. It's ironic because I know the scope is capable of very tight stars and a fully flat field. It seems Maks are similar to the Rokinon/Samyang 135mm issue where each copy can be slightly different in optical quality. But, when you get a good copy they can be real lunar monsters. I can get very sharp images of the Moon but when it comes to stars I notice a slight bulge on one side. I may try to do the loosen-upright shake thing as that sounds like a good first place to start instead of opening the back. I really appreciate that info. I'm also curious your experience with using barlows on these Maks. Do they basically just reduce the focal ratio so low as to be useless on anything other than planetary/solar/lunar imaging? I can't say I've seen too many super sharp deep sky images with a barlow in place.
I don’t typically use Barlows with Maksutovs not even for planetary. I’ll typically revert to region of interest for that. For deep sky I personally wouldn’t recommend one. Ioan Nemes of Galaxy Art Media has a lot of excellent deep sky stuff using the Maksutov. He’s easy to find on UA-cam. One time he stacked like three of them. It was absurd but he made it work. Anything he does I can validate. I’ve spent a good amount of time talking with him and experimenting ideas. If you’re getting sharp lunar views but minor star bulge off center it’s likely just an aberration in the secondary. It may be well collimated. The Moon, even crescent, provides a lot of even illuminating whereas a star is a pinpoint. I’ve honestly never seen a Maksutov that displayed what I’d consider a perfectly concentric donut and I’ve owned over 30 of them. I’ve also had a few models that I lacked the skill to collimate. I had an older model ETX that was sharper than a razor and a couple of 180’s, one of which was so soft it was embarrassing. Mounts are the same. I’ve had two EQ6’s. One of them never under 0.5 guiding. Had a weird declination problem I couldn’t resolve. The other one ran perfectly all the time. There is no quality control in this environment unfortunately, just slave labor and imports. You have to find Astrophysics, Lunt, Takahashi, etc. to be assured what you’re getting is something someone is actually proud of. Unfortunately that comes at a price. The absolute best telescopes I’ve ever looked through were all hand ground. Pretty much everything commercially mass produced is garbage. It just matters to what level we can accept of it. One day I’ll sell of all my gear and get a premium Takahashi. I’ll give up all this photography nonsense and go back to enjoying just looking. I’ll leave the imaging to the JWST… it does do far better a job than any of us will ever do after all lol.
I use it also with an OMC140. The interesting thing is at 105mm from the sensor my effective focal length is about 880mm or .44 instead of .63 of the scopes 2000mm FL. I need to experiment lengthening the BF and see where I get 1260mm or .63.
Ioan Nemes from Galaxy Art Media has setup a Maksutov for deep sky as well. He has quite a few interesting videos on the topic employing a 0.5 reducer. Thanks for watching. Clear skies.
3:30 okay you're the first kid on the block, congratulation on this great idea. How about some links in the description where to order instead of us searching online. LOL - Orion brought back the 2" visual back and you did it for less, I find this very helpful for people wanting to reinvest in shooting near 35mm. Nice setup Garnett!
Useful video & yes info on using a reducer with a maksutov cassegrain IS hard to find. I bought this same Antares F6.3 reducer & it came with zero documentation, nor can I find a backfocus specification listed for it anywhere. So it was nice to learn in this video that it has a backfocus spec of 105mm.
I have no idea where the link to the article was where I saw the information listed. It checks out. I found the focal length of 220mm. From there you can check it to equations. Here is something very useful: www.wilmslowastro.com/software/formulae.htm
Thanks Ray. I’ll be using this as a primary rig 2021. I may be shooting myself in the foot. I just made it easier tho. Happy holidays man. Your wide of Orion is amazing.
Hi garnett. You inspired me to get astro Essentials mak to sct adapter and baader 2"visual back from first light optics in UK. No focal reducer yet. Skywatcher 127mak. I can now use my 2" eyepieces. Noticed no vignetting visually. Don't think you could do this on a smaller mak as focuser would get in way. Maybe I will get a reducer later on but happy enough to enjoy using 2"eyepieces for now. Thanks for sharing this knowledge. Clear skies vic
I had to know. I love my Maksutov. Glad you upgraded. I actually engaged in a discussion the other day about the smaller maks. You’re right. The exit hole diameter is too small. My next Mak will be the 150 or 180. They both come with a 2”. Clear skies.
I’ve been toying with this thing for a while now. Cloudy Nights actually offers nothing in the way of information on it. I figured I’d find a home or use for the parts regardless. Now if I could just get my mount from OPT so I can stop propping all my scopes on my table lol. Happy holidays Chuck.
The real setback to my building an imaging rig out of this is the focuser. For narrowband it would be fantastic to incorporate an EAF. So far ZWO has no options. I did the leg work of trying out other bracket adapters etc. The focuser is too close to the light exit of the scope. There’s belt drives available that could be used. I showed the idea to Deep Sky Dad. It’s doubtful many would be interested because it’s a slow scope. The bottom line is very few want to try. At $400 US here’s a scope that outperforms many apochromatics on correction tho. It’s worth the effort. My goal is to concentrate on this scope a while. Show it’s possible. Thanks for tuning in. Happy holidays.
Awesome work Garnett, I've ordered my Reducer for my mighty Mak 180, so far looking at your results they look very promising, Hopefully my 180 should work too, but stocks are so low and unavailable, it maybe sometime I get a chance to use my Mak 180 but I'll keep you posted mate??
Always a pleasure to hear from you. You’ll have no trouble bringing your speed up. You’re far more inventive than I. I absolutely love your approach and dedication to the community. It’s an honor to share ideas with you. Clear skies.
@@GarnettLeary Thanks mate, there are only a few channels like ours which have a real interest, there is so many which are just there for views and subs and self promotion.
I’m not sure. The Celestron is said to have field correction which, if so, would negatively effect the corners. Practically all of the 127 Maks are Synta rebrands. I’d expect identical results regardless of branding. I can only confirm the Antares. No experience with the Celestron one. They are not the same reducer and have different actual focal lengths.
Garnett, time to help a elderly noob in astrophotography? I'm trying to order parts/spacers needed to connect the Antares F6.3 reducer to my Celestron Edge HD 8. Can you help? Ultimately I want to use an ZWO 294 mc pro with this Edge 8.
Cool adapters. Congratulations on the finds. I see in the comments your mount is slow to arrive and you joked about mounting a fence post. If you'll be at your present location long enough to justify it and if you're comfortable with a little construction project a pier might be the ticket for a mount. I've considered a pier for my location IF I can ever find a place where my neightor won't eventually install another yard light. I've moved the location for my ground base 3 times in the last few months to dodge his new lights. lol. A pier is a good starting point for building a permanent observatory. That would encourage us to take advantage of those one and two hour breaks in the rain clouds.
Great video and new sub. Hmm I have a Celestron 127 Mak, superb for planetary imaging and having a blast. Been thinking of getting an F5 refractor for deep sky astrophotography. Do I get a cheap fast scope or do this mod on my 127 mak? Food for thought....
Thank you. I’m putting it through the paces. The reducer is cheaper than any doublet. It’s still a restrictive field of view so it depends on what you need it to do. Having extra option with the Mak is good.
@@GarnettLeary I look forward to any updates with regards to performance. As long as it can become as faster scope I could live with a smaller field if view. Plenty of people on forums saying it was not possible.
OK. Got all 3 parts there. I need a ring/adapter though to get back to 1.25" stargazer-eyepieces for visual. Any suggestion? And where can I purchase from for the best price? Possibly I may get a couple of 2" eyepieces plus a T-2 ring for photography with a DSLR. If a T-2 thread is built in even better.
I source most of my adapters from Amazon and typically SvBony in brand. GSO has a good selection too. I stay away from major astronomy retailers because they’re typically overpriced or out of stock. My favorite configuration for the Maksutov with an SCT adapter is the Baader Click Lock. It’s a little costly but it grabs delicate photography and eyepiece equipment like a champ. It’s seriously the best multi-purpose adapter I’ve used. Very well made with excellent centering and weight allowance. If you go that route it opens up two inch options or adapted M42 nosepiece setups. It can function as a rotator and allow quick changes between visual and photography setups. It’s my preferred method and device.
@@GarnettLeary For using my 1.25" diagonal and eyepieces I assume I need a 2" to 1.25" click lock or other to link to the Astromania M48? Wondering could original Maksutov visual back be connected and used? Another adapter then!? As it doesn't lol
OK, another question, anyone try to do this but using the celestron t-adapter #93633-A to connect the focal reducer to the t-ring of a camera? Does that work?
Can I use a 0.5x Barlow on my Skymax 127 Mak, (with Canon 250D APS-C sensor) for lunar/solar but also full-frame fainter stuff at long exposure without serious vignetting or other issues? Thanks.
I’m not sure about that. Ioan Nemes from Galaxy Art Media has a lot of experience with that setup. Feel free to ask him. I will next time we chat. Meanwhile I’ll pin this in case someone can answer.
Hi Garnett. great video! I noticed you equipped your 127 Mak with clam shell rings. I have the same rings I got off of eBay approx. 142mm inner diameter. I was wondering when removing the vixen plate by unscrewing it from the tube do I have to worry about anything falling out on the inside of the tube? Thank you!!
You’ll have to unscrew one end of the scope. The preferred end would be the back. It’s threaded. Mark the position with tape. There’s nuts on the other sides of the bolts. My 127 is the original Apex version. It had an odd shaped non-vixen 1/4-20 bar under it. Yours is likely a newer version with an actual vixen attached directly to the tube. Mine had bolts so I’d assume yours does too. I say that because the scope tube wall thickness is identical in both and machine screws would be too flimsy. If it were a newer Celestron I’d believe it. Sorry, bad joke. I’m betting 90% it has nuts. In case you’ve never been inside a scope wear gloves. The oil from your skin will ruin the reflection reducing black coating inside the scope.
@@GarnettLeary Thank you for replying so quickly! I think I actually have an older scope - Orion 127mm skyview pro - the tube is black. I was hoping to avoid opening the scope as I've never done it before. it seems my other option is to remove the finder shoe and install the rings on either side of the bar (and keep the bar where it is). There is plenty of space in the front but not in the back therefore I would have to remove the finder shoe. do you know if there are nuts on the other side of the finder shoe screws? Thank again for taking the time to answer my questions.
@eacron I understand you not wanting to open the scope. You could potentially throw off the collimation by doing so thus creating another problem. Your work around seems logical. You can always purchase a longer bar to accommodate different ring spacing also. The finder shoe on my scope uses two small black threaded bolts. There’s no hardware on the opposite side. Consider making the bottom of the scope become the top. There’s a lot of products available that utilize the vixen. Have a look at this for example: www.firstlightoptics.com/dovetails-saddles-clamps/astro-essentials-vixen-style-dovetail-clamp-for-finder-shoes.html
@@GarnettLeary hi Garnett. Thank you for all the info and the link. So a quick update. What I decided to do was remove the finder mount and install the clamp rings on either side of the dovetail bar. I used black electric tape to cover the screw holes from the from the finder mount. I also bought the same Orion saddle plate you have as I felt it was very sturdy and will clamp the evolux 82 really well. But now I’m surprised to find out that the Orion saddle doesn’t take the standard 1/4” screws - is that your experience too? Thanks again!
M6 x 0.75 is what’s typically used. Most dovetail bars use that and/or 1/4-20. The two are very similar but can be damaging to cross over especially in aluminum. It’s unfortunate how many aggravations come with this hobby. You can get them at hardware stores, tractor supply, etc. Make sure they’re not too long. I have a lot of different gear so I went on Amazon and purchased a box of assorted lengths. I feel you made a good decision not opening the scope. There’s a good chance you would have thrown it out of collimation. You can mount another vixen across the top of the rings and there’s a lot of clamps available for top mounting finder brackets etc. It’s easier to get solid DEC balance that way and it’s the preferred method.
Would this set up work with a Meade 6.3 reducer flattener for LX 90, LX 200 ? on a Mak Cass Orion 127. Adapters ok with it too? Visual back on scope definitely something to consider too.
I’m not sure. There’s people who claim they’re identical and those who say otherwise. I specifically purchased the Antares because it’s not a flattener. You don’t want to correct an already corrected design. If they are in fact rebrands it should work the same considering you can get it adapted
Do you by chance know what adapter is needed to transition from SCT adapter back to stock diagonal for observation ? My diagonal is a different size it appears.. I am able to use my dslr as outlined in your video. Thanks !
Are you using a Celestron T-Adapter Model 93635-A? With that you should be able to get sharp focus with any crop sensor or full frame dslr. If you’re trying to photograph through the flip mirror it won’t be as sharp. As far as using the reducer in combination with the 4SE I have not confirmed it.
@@GarnettLeary Yes, I am using that T-ring adapter attached to the flip mirror. That will work with the 90° angle? I never thought of that! I'll try it. Thanx. I'm going to get an EQ mount with GOTO and the 4SE is the only scope I have. The fork mount is good for viewing but poor for imaging. At least in my few years of trying. My 300mm camera lens will work but I want more focal length for DSO's. We shall see. Thanks for replying.
I had the same experience. It’s fantastic for planets etc but you outgrow it. It’s definitely a worthy enough telescope to mount on an eq system. Fantastic optics in my opinion. The XLT coatings really do add to contrast. It’s a huge focal length and I wish I could confirm a working reducer but I can’t. Most people tradeoff Maks for faster optical systems and never explore that. It explains why there’s so little information available. I like being unconventional. You discover things. I know a 1.25” 0.5 TPO works with planetary cameras but obviously will vignette a dslr. That’s about all I can add sorry. Clear skies.
@@GarnettLeary If/when I mount this scope to the EQ mount I'm looking at I'll give you a heads-up on my findings and probably post some stuff on my channel or Instagram. Thank for your input.
Not at all. There’s slight vignetting on APS-C if you’re back focus isn’t spot on. The ASI 1600 was a flawless transition corner to corner. I need to do star tests which atm will require me to mount my scope to a fence post or something as OPT has failed to deliver my mount since August. Day time photos were clean edge to edge. Stars are certainly less forgiving so I expect a degree of distortion if back focus isn’t at the correct 105mm. I’m pretty confident it will be as clean as I suspect but I’ll certainly get back to you the moment I get to star check it. I could get creative and use a bulletin with news print on it at a distance. That will likely happen sooner than a mount arriving from OPT.
Garnett Leary OK I’ll watch this space. Some deliveries held up here too, but in this year it’s not a biggie. Not sure what direction that water tower is but if it’s south then you should get a good view of Jupiter and Saturn later in the month. I’d need to cut down some rather large trees in my neighbours garden which could be an issue for them. Most likely I’ll wait for your or other peoples videos.
That’s S, SW. I pretty much have everything above 8 degrees all the way around. Blessed. I’ve been tempted to go pawn shop hopping to find any kind of alt-az or eq mount. I’ll try the Zenith next opportunity. I should be able to prop the edge on a table or something. Part of my getting an Atlas 2 was selling stuff the Mrs trips over ha ha. I’ll be at work out of state during the conjunction. By chance do you know the exit diameter of the 150 or 180 mak? I believe they would work with full frame sensors if larger.
Garnett, where did you find the 105mm backfocus specification for this Antares F6.3 reducer? I've been looking everywhere and find no specs on this thing anywhere. I've also heard from others that this focal reducer has a backfocus of 82mm, which I certainly doubt based on your findings. I am getting ready to try this reducer with my own Meade Maksutov Cassegrain. If you can confirm the 105mm backfocus spec on the reducer I'd be appreciative.
Thanks. Odd that you had to go to celestron to get the specs. I suppose it could be that the celestron 6.3 reducer is really the Antares brand labeled, but I’ve been operating on the idea that they are different because the celestron SCT reducer also flats, while the Antares does not. I don’t want flattening/correcting
They’re different. There’s also a Meade in two versions. The older Meade is the good one. The F6.3 were designed to take a 10” SCT to an F6.3 optical system. They were specifically designed for that purpose. Where the Antares came in? Who knows. It’s a da%% shame this is all so cryptic. I agree with the corrective part. That’s adverse on Maks as you obviously know. I’ve seen mixed opinions on the Antares version but from what I can see it has no adverse corrective properties. I’m real tempted to get a Celestron one also and do an extensive field test. Regardless I’ll get detailed data up on this one on the Mak asap. I could use a brick wall etc but I’d rather do a more practical star field test as soon as I get the mount.
@@GarnettLeary I have used this Antares reducer to image this week & it worked well. I am quite new to astrophotography. I did get significant vignetting but that may be due to using a 1.25” baader moon & sky glow filter. It was easily removed with calibration frames in stacking thought. I’m unclear if vignetting was result of reducer or not at this point. Not enough experience yet.
Thank you for the feedback. These conversations will be very useful to others. A 1.25 filter will cause vignettes on sensors above micro 4:3. I’m dying to test mine out on stars. I might just mount the thing on a camera tripod for the time being. OPT is telling me mid April for my mount. It’s just such a hard focal length to fully test on a static tripod. With a DSLR I’m looking at less than 1/3 a second lol. ISO 12000 and I’m separating hot pixels from stars. I’m glad there’s folks like yourself out there doing practical star tests. I’m dying to get out there.
No but I will asap. That’s my next adventure as soon as OPT finally delivers my mount. I sold everything I had to upgrade. Been without a mount since September. Real bummer because I’m dying to get exactly those results out there.
@@GarnettLeary I have a 102mm mak and I used your video to order the other parts to install along with the Antares focal reducer. Thanks again for your work and I am excited to see results after the modification.
Thanks for watching. I’m certain with good quality flats it will work on the 127. I need OPT to hurry up so I can get some good data on DSO for solid proof. I’m curious what the exit diameter of the 102 is. It looks the same from photos but I have never measured it.
@@GarnettLeary my mak is a discontinued model by the company Levenhuk... it is the 1000 pro model. The f ratio before adding the reducer is 12.8 I believe and I primarily use a 32mm eye piece.. the mak>SCT adapter fit perfectly
I'm curious... the measurement of the train shows 100mm but you are not counting the camera's flange distance which should be 45mm, so total back focus goes well beyond the 105mm requirement here, yet it doesn't seem to affect the image. So my question is with regards to back focus; Does it not matter if you go over the requirement?
That number assumes the ZWO is connected. I’ve heard and read mixed opinions on distance. 105 overall is what you’ll see commonly but you also see that assigned to the Celestron reducer. Sometimes you’ll find a number between 80-85mm. It’s really aggravating. I didn’t reduce my train for the Canon. It’s absolutely critical to get exact distance on most optical systems but what I’m seeing so far is that Maksutov’s are figured differently because the primary mirror moves. I realize that doesn’t change the distance between the reducer and the sensor but it definitely changes things. I was going to immediately follow up this video with a star test but am waiting on OPT to get my mount here since September. These parameters work fine for daylight tests but I truly need to run it through full field star tests to look at edge. Sorry I can’t be definitive. I’m certain based on daylight tests that the reduction is possible. Might there be an exact spot? My guess is no. I say that considering the logic of it. The actual usable opening of the inside of the scopes light path is much smaller in diameter than the reducer. What I think is happening is that it’s only using a very small portion of the center of the reducer. That would explain why my edges aren’t getting rolled up or pushed in. Just as soon as OPT delivers I plan to jump on star testing. I’ll definitely publish what I get. Placing this Mak on a stationery tripod just isn’t conclusive enough or even realistic. I’ll put up flat frame data too but I’m pretty certain the key lies in the light path only using the center of the reducer and the Maks ability to move the primary.
You need 30mm distance from sensor to 0.5x reducer (with 2" diameter, the small one needs 20mm), and a small sensor - not bigger than the one on a ASI533 (vignetting).
Yeah that puzzles me. A 0.5 1.25” works directly threaded into a nose piece, but only for the smallest planetary style cameras. I’ve found even they have a use for Lunar and Solar framing. Ultimately I don’t believe the scopes are as popular as they should be.
Your videos have been very helpful in helping me get up to speed. You certainly have some of the most in-depth info on these Maks. You are exactly right that there is a lack of good, reliable info on reducing a Mak correctly. Case in point about the Maks already being corrected at the edges...and how this reducer is mainly just a reducer and not a flattener...yet it's still marked as a 'reducer/corrector'. Very confusing stuff! I picked one up thanks to your video recommendation.
I was curious if you happen to know how to collimate one of those SkyMax 102 Maks that didn't come with the external collimation screws. The one I'm referring to usually is sold as a package deal with a Sky-Watcher AZ-GTi mount to us suckers that didn't realize it wasn't like their standalone SkyMax 102's that had the screws on the back. (Why Sky-Watcher did this is just beyond reason). i love the design and the portability of this thing but it's got my OCD in play as it's just a tiny bit out of focus...just enough to be annoying to my pixel peepers.
Thank you. I’ve done my own research from calling around to Cloudy Nights and I’m shocked by the lack of information. It surprises me that they would produce a scope with no collimation adjustments on the back. I thought that was something left behind in the past with ETX’s. They’re pretty confident it won’t need it apparently. I can’t source many photos of the 102 you mention but my immediate thought is they’re behind the rear cover. If I’m wrong it’s a fixed mirror which seems crazy but not outside the realm of possibility. Worse case scenario is you take it apart and it gets worse, even putting it back exactly as it was. If it’s indeed a fixed mirror, and it could be, I’d start at the corrector. The relationship of the corrector to the primary is based on three screws. Loosening them, turning it upright, and shaking it lightly may cause it to reseat properly if it’s slightly out. What can happens is there’s a little wiggle room often in the holes that the bolts thread through. It’s not uncommon for one side to be slightly higher. It doesn’t take much to be off. The nightmare that is collimating a Maksutov is not for the faint hearted. You don’t see many videos about it because it’s extremely hard, akin to an RC. If it were mine I’d take it apart. According to Cloudy Nights, Skywatcher is charging over $200 to service one. That’s outrageous. The only information I could get was to never unthread the dovetail as it has nuts opposite the mounting bolts. I’m intrigued and tempted to buy one and gut it just so there’s information available to the public. The problem with companies these days is ones like Skywatcher offer very little information and service because they simply are a distributor. Hardly anyone builds their own scopes anymore. Let me know if and what you try. I’ll pin this in hopes someone sees it that has information that’s helpful to you. Happy holidays and if I see one I’m on it.
@@GarnettLeary - Yes, Sky-Watcher seems to be out to lower the bar on their reputation with this particular design, and in charging these absurd rates on repairs. It's ironic because I know the scope is capable of very tight stars and a fully flat field. It seems Maks are similar to the Rokinon/Samyang 135mm issue where each copy can be slightly different in optical quality. But, when you get a good copy they can be real lunar monsters. I can get very sharp images of the Moon but when it comes to stars I notice a slight bulge on one side. I may try to do the loosen-upright shake thing as that sounds like a good first place to start instead of opening the back. I really appreciate that info.
I'm also curious your experience with using barlows on these Maks. Do they basically just reduce the focal ratio so low as to be useless on anything other than planetary/solar/lunar imaging? I can't say I've seen too many super sharp deep sky images with a barlow in place.
I don’t typically use Barlows with Maksutovs not even for planetary. I’ll typically revert to region of interest for that. For deep sky I personally wouldn’t recommend one. Ioan Nemes of Galaxy Art Media has a lot of excellent deep sky stuff using the Maksutov. He’s easy to find on UA-cam. One time he stacked like three of them. It was absurd but he made it work. Anything he does I can validate. I’ve spent a good amount of time talking with him and experimenting ideas. If you’re getting sharp lunar views but minor star bulge off center it’s likely just an aberration in the secondary. It may be well collimated. The Moon, even crescent, provides a lot of even illuminating whereas a star is a pinpoint. I’ve honestly never seen a Maksutov that displayed what I’d consider a perfectly concentric donut and I’ve owned over 30 of them. I’ve also had a few models that I lacked the skill to collimate. I had an older model ETX that was sharper than a razor and a couple of 180’s, one of which was so soft it was embarrassing. Mounts are the same. I’ve had two EQ6’s. One of them never under 0.5 guiding. Had a weird declination problem I couldn’t resolve. The other one ran perfectly all the time. There is no quality control in this environment unfortunately, just slave labor and imports. You have to find Astrophysics, Lunt, Takahashi, etc. to be assured what you’re getting is something someone is actually proud of. Unfortunately that comes at a price. The absolute best telescopes I’ve ever looked through were all hand ground. Pretty much everything commercially mass produced is garbage. It just matters to what level we can accept of it. One day I’ll sell of all my gear and get a premium Takahashi. I’ll give up all this photography nonsense and go back to enjoying just looking. I’ll leave the imaging to the JWST… it does do far better a job than any of us will ever do after all lol.
I've been using a Meade 0.63 sct reducer with my OMC140 & Skymax 180, works a treat
How large is the diameter of the exit of the 180? Likely a full frame will work without vignetting
I use it also with an OMC140. The interesting thing is at 105mm from the sensor my effective focal length is about 880mm or .44 instead of .63 of the scopes 2000mm FL. I need to experiment lengthening the BF and see where I get 1260mm or .63.
Thanks Garnett, I might try this on my Skywatcher 127 Mak
Ioan Nemes from Galaxy Art Media has setup a Maksutov for deep sky as well. He has quite a few interesting videos on the topic employing a 0.5 reducer. Thanks for watching. Clear skies.
3:30 okay you're the first kid on the block, congratulation on this great idea. How about some links in the description where to order instead of us searching online. LOL - Orion brought back the 2" visual back and you did it for less, I find this very helpful for people wanting to reinvest in shooting near 35mm. Nice setup Garnett!
Useful video & yes info on using a reducer with a maksutov cassegrain IS hard to find.
I bought this same Antares F6.3 reducer & it came with zero documentation, nor can I find a backfocus specification listed for it anywhere. So it was nice to learn in this video that it has a backfocus spec of 105mm.
I have no idea where the link to the article was where I saw the information listed. It checks out. I found the focal length of 220mm. From there you can check it to equations. Here is something very useful:
www.wilmslowastro.com/software/formulae.htm
Just love your videos Garnett,this one was great with headphones on
Ty. Sometimes it’s easier to communicate with writing. I like the music I choose. Many don’t but to each their own. Happy holidays. Clear skies.
Cool Garnett! Nice FOV!
Thanks Ray. I’ll be using this as a primary rig 2021. I may be shooting myself in the foot. I just made it easier tho. Happy holidays man. Your wide of Orion is amazing.
Hi garnett. You inspired me to get astro Essentials mak to sct adapter and baader 2"visual back from first light optics in UK. No focal reducer yet. Skywatcher 127mak. I can now use my 2" eyepieces. Noticed no vignetting visually. Don't think you could do this on a smaller mak as focuser would get in way. Maybe I will get a reducer later on but happy enough to enjoy using 2"eyepieces for now. Thanks for sharing this knowledge. Clear skies vic
I had to know. I love my Maksutov. Glad you upgraded. I actually engaged in a discussion the other day about the smaller maks. You’re right. The exit hole diameter is too small. My next Mak will be the 150 or 180. They both come with a 2”. Clear skies.
@@GarnettLeary just in from testing mak on moon. Lunar x and v beautiful with swa70 32mm 2".have 1.5degrees fov now guesstimate
Adds new dimension to it
Very helpful video! Answered a lot of my questions.
Thanks!
Thanks for watching. Clear skies
Cool vid. That looks exactly like my 8SE f6.3 reducer.
Cough, and my 8SE f6.3 lol.
I’ve been toying with this thing for a while now. Cloudy Nights actually offers nothing in the way of information on it. I figured I’d find a home or use for the parts regardless. Now if I could just get my mount from OPT so I can stop propping all my scopes on my table lol. Happy holidays Chuck.
Great video Garrett! If i will buy a Maksutov i will have in mind this reducer from Antares! I see you uploaded in 7 December. It was my birthday !
Yes, that information is definitely useful to someone: me. Thanks a lot.
The real setback to my building an imaging rig out of this is the focuser. For narrowband it would be fantastic to incorporate an EAF. So far ZWO has no options. I did the leg work of trying out other bracket adapters etc. The focuser is too close to the light exit of the scope. There’s belt drives available that could be used. I showed the idea to Deep Sky Dad. It’s doubtful many would be interested because it’s a slow scope. The bottom line is very few want to try. At $400 US here’s a scope that outperforms many apochromatics on correction tho. It’s worth the effort. My goal is to concentrate on this scope a while. Show it’s possible. Thanks for tuning in. Happy holidays.
Awesome work Garnett, I've ordered my Reducer for my mighty Mak 180, so far looking at your results they look very promising, Hopefully my 180 should work too, but stocks are so low and unavailable, it maybe sometime I get a chance to use my Mak 180 but I'll keep you posted mate??
Always a pleasure to hear from you. You’ll have no trouble bringing your speed up. You’re far more inventive than I. I absolutely love your approach and dedication to the community. It’s an honor to share ideas with you. Clear skies.
@@GarnettLeary Thanks mate, there are only a few channels like ours which have a real interest, there is so many which are just there for views and subs and self promotion.
@@MPAstro Hi Martin ! I am thinking to buy also a Maksutov
@@GalaxyArtMedia Watch this space!!! Video coming soon!!
Very cool!
I have a celestron 127slt (127mm mak), will the celestron f6.3 reducer work with it? or do I have to get the antares one?
I’m not sure. The Celestron is said to have field correction which, if so, would negatively effect the corners. Practically all of the 127 Maks are Synta rebrands. I’d expect identical results regardless of branding. I can only confirm the Antares. No experience with the Celestron one. They are not the same reducer and have different actual focal lengths.
Garnett, time to help a elderly noob in astrophotography? I'm trying to order parts/spacers needed to connect the Antares F6.3 reducer to my Celestron Edge HD 8. Can you help? Ultimately I want to use an ZWO 294 mc pro with this Edge 8.
The 2” Antares F6.3 reducer, Celestron T-adapter with SC threads part # (93633-A) and the adapters included with the 294MC will be sufficient.
@@GarnettLeary Thank you very much for the information.
You’re absolutely welcome. Happy new year
Cool adapters. Congratulations on the finds.
I see in the comments your mount is slow to arrive and you joked about mounting a fence post. If you'll be at your present location long enough to justify it and if you're comfortable with a little construction project a pier might be the ticket for a mount.
I've considered a pier for my location IF I can ever find a place where my neightor won't eventually install another yard light. I've moved the location for my ground base 3 times in the last few months to dodge his new lights. lol.
A pier is a good starting point for building a permanent observatory. That would encourage us to take advantage of those one and two hour breaks in the rain clouds.
Absolutely. My honey-do list is growing. It’s on my list. Not sure when I can start it but that’s definitely coming.
Great video and new sub. Hmm I have a Celestron 127 Mak, superb for planetary imaging and having a blast. Been thinking of getting an F5 refractor for deep sky astrophotography. Do I get a cheap fast scope or do this mod on my 127 mak? Food for thought....
Thank you. I’m putting it through the paces. The reducer is cheaper than any doublet. It’s still a restrictive field of view so it depends on what you need it to do. Having extra option with the Mak is good.
@@GarnettLeary I look forward to any updates with regards to performance. As long as it can become as faster scope I could live with a smaller field if view. Plenty of people on forums saying it was not possible.
Excellent and informative. I have a 127mak and was wondering how to use a reducer on it
Thank you. Give it a try. Ioan Nemes of Galaxy Art Media is putting up galaxies with a reduced 127. Quite impressive.
OK. Got all 3 parts there. I need a ring/adapter though to get back to 1.25" stargazer-eyepieces for visual. Any suggestion? And where can I purchase from for the best price? Possibly I may get a couple of 2" eyepieces plus a T-2 ring for photography with a DSLR.
If a T-2 thread is built in even better.
I source most of my adapters from Amazon and typically SvBony in brand. GSO has a good selection too. I stay away from major astronomy retailers because they’re typically overpriced or out of stock. My favorite configuration for the Maksutov with an SCT adapter is the Baader Click Lock. It’s a little costly but it grabs delicate photography and eyepiece equipment like a champ. It’s seriously the best multi-purpose adapter I’ve used. Very well made with excellent centering and weight allowance. If you go that route it opens up two inch options or adapted M42 nosepiece setups. It can function as a rotator and allow quick changes between visual and photography setups. It’s my preferred method and device.
@@GarnettLeary For using my 1.25" diagonal and eyepieces I assume I need a 2" to 1.25" click lock or other to link to the Astromania M48? Wondering could original Maksutov visual back be connected and used? Another adapter then!? As it doesn't lol
Are you trying to use a diagonal? If so the 2” Click lock will support one. If it’s a 1.25” diagonal you only need a 2” to 1.25” adapter.
OK, another question, anyone try to do this but using the celestron t-adapter #93633-A to connect the focal reducer to the t-ring of a camera? Does that work?
You bet your info is helpful to me!
Thanks! Very useful information!!
Thanks for watching.
Can I use a 0.5x Barlow on my Skymax 127 Mak, (with Canon 250D APS-C sensor) for lunar/solar but also full-frame fainter stuff at long exposure without serious vignetting or other issues? Thanks.
I’m not sure about that. Ioan Nemes from Galaxy Art Media has a lot of experience with that setup. Feel free to ask him. I will next time we chat. Meanwhile I’ll pin this in case someone can answer.
Hi Garnett. great video! I noticed you equipped your 127 Mak with clam shell rings. I have the same rings I got off of eBay approx. 142mm inner diameter. I was wondering when removing the vixen plate by unscrewing it from the tube do I have to worry about anything falling out on the inside of the tube? Thank you!!
You’ll have to unscrew one end of the scope. The preferred end would be the back. It’s threaded. Mark the position with tape. There’s nuts on the other sides of the bolts. My 127 is the original Apex version. It had an odd shaped non-vixen 1/4-20 bar under it. Yours is likely a newer version with an actual vixen attached directly to the tube. Mine had bolts so I’d assume yours does too. I say that because the scope tube wall thickness is identical in both and machine screws would be too flimsy. If it were a newer Celestron I’d believe it. Sorry, bad joke. I’m betting 90% it has nuts. In case you’ve never been inside a scope wear gloves. The oil from your skin will ruin the reflection reducing black coating inside the scope.
@@GarnettLeary Thank you for replying so quickly! I think I actually have an older scope - Orion 127mm skyview pro - the tube is black. I was hoping to avoid opening the scope as I've never done it before. it seems my other option is to remove the finder shoe and install the rings on either side of the bar (and keep the bar where it is). There is plenty of space in the front but not in the back therefore I would have to remove the finder shoe. do you know if there are nuts on the other side of the finder shoe screws? Thank again for taking the time to answer my questions.
@eacron I understand you not wanting to open the scope. You could potentially throw off the collimation by doing so thus creating another problem. Your work around seems logical. You can always purchase a longer bar to accommodate different ring spacing also. The finder shoe on my scope uses two small black threaded bolts. There’s no hardware on the opposite side. Consider making the bottom of the scope become the top. There’s a lot of products available that utilize the vixen. Have a look at this for example:
www.firstlightoptics.com/dovetails-saddles-clamps/astro-essentials-vixen-style-dovetail-clamp-for-finder-shoes.html
@@GarnettLeary hi Garnett. Thank you for all the info and the link. So a quick update. What I decided to do was remove the finder mount and install the clamp rings on either side of the dovetail bar. I used black electric tape to cover the screw holes from the from the finder mount. I also bought the same Orion saddle plate you have as I felt it was very sturdy and will clamp the evolux 82 really well. But now I’m surprised to find out that the Orion saddle doesn’t take the standard 1/4” screws - is that your experience too? Thanks again!
M6 x 0.75 is what’s typically used. Most dovetail bars use that and/or 1/4-20. The two are very similar but can be damaging to cross over especially in aluminum. It’s unfortunate how many aggravations come with this hobby. You can get them at hardware stores, tractor supply, etc. Make sure they’re not too long. I have a lot of different gear so I went on Amazon and purchased a box of assorted lengths. I feel you made a good decision not opening the scope. There’s a good chance you would have thrown it out of collimation. You can mount another vixen across the top of the rings and there’s a lot of clamps available for top mounting finder brackets etc. It’s easier to get solid DEC balance that way and it’s the preferred method.
Would this set up work with a Meade 6.3 reducer flattener for LX 90, LX 200 ? on a Mak Cass Orion 127. Adapters ok with it too? Visual back on scope definitely something to consider too.
I’m not sure. There’s people who claim they’re identical and those who say otherwise. I specifically purchased the Antares because it’s not a flattener. You don’t want to correct an already corrected design. If they are in fact rebrands it should work the same considering you can get it adapted
Great video. Works on Meade ETX 90??
I’m not sure. I’m going to pin this in case someone knows. Meanwhile I’ll try to find out.
What is the reduction factor.? In other words, what focal length was it reduced to?
F7.3 924mm.
What is the diameter of the tube rings for your 127mm mak?
Orion brand 144mm
Great tip and comparison of the views Garnett 👌
Do you by chance know what adapter is needed to transition from SCT adapter back to stock diagonal for observation ? My diagonal is a different size it appears.. I am able to use my dslr as outlined in your video. Thanks !
It depends on the diagonal. Is it 1.25” or 2”? I can refer you to products for both.
@@GarnettLeary it is a 1.25”.
This will work for you:
www.highpointscientific.com/meade-1-25-quot-eyepiece-holder-for-sct-telescopes-07182
@@GarnettLeary thanks Garnett !
Anytime
Would your adapter mod work with a Celestron 4SE? I want this scope to work with my DSLR but I can't get sharp focus.
Are you using a Celestron T-Adapter Model 93635-A? With that you should be able to get sharp focus with any crop sensor or full frame dslr. If you’re trying to photograph through the flip mirror it won’t be as sharp. As far as using the reducer in combination with the 4SE I have not confirmed it.
@@GarnettLeary
Yes, I am using that T-ring adapter attached to the flip mirror. That will work with the 90° angle? I never thought of that! I'll try it. Thanx.
I'm going to get an EQ mount with GOTO and the 4SE is the only scope I have. The fork mount is good for viewing but poor for imaging. At least in my few years of trying. My 300mm camera lens will work but I want more focal length for DSO's.
We shall see.
Thanks for replying.
I had the same experience. It’s fantastic for planets etc but you outgrow it. It’s definitely a worthy enough telescope to mount on an eq system. Fantastic optics in my opinion. The XLT coatings really do add to contrast. It’s a huge focal length and I wish I could confirm a working reducer but I can’t. Most people tradeoff Maks for faster optical systems and never explore that. It explains why there’s so little information available. I like being unconventional. You discover things. I know a 1.25” 0.5 TPO works with planetary cameras but obviously will vignette a dslr. That’s about all I can add sorry. Clear skies.
@@GarnettLeary
If/when I mount this scope to the EQ mount I'm looking at I'll give you a heads-up on my findings and probably post some stuff on my channel or Instagram.
Thank for your input.
Stay safe out there burning up the asphalt.
Thanks Garnett,
As you might guess the video is useful to me! Did you notice any vignetting or distortion? If not it looks tempting.
Not at all. There’s slight vignetting on APS-C if you’re back focus isn’t spot on. The ASI 1600 was a flawless transition corner to corner. I need to do star tests which atm will require me to mount my scope to a fence post or something as OPT has failed to deliver my mount since August. Day time photos were clean edge to edge. Stars are certainly less forgiving so I expect a degree of distortion if back focus isn’t at the correct 105mm. I’m pretty confident it will be as clean as I suspect but I’ll certainly get back to you the moment I get to star check it. I could get creative and use a bulletin with news print on it at a distance. That will likely happen sooner than a mount arriving from OPT.
Garnett Leary OK I’ll watch this space. Some deliveries held up here too, but in this year it’s not a biggie. Not sure what direction that water tower is but if it’s south then you should get a good view of Jupiter and Saturn later in the month. I’d need to cut down some rather large trees in my neighbours garden which could be an issue for them. Most likely I’ll wait for your or other peoples videos.
That’s S, SW. I pretty much have everything above 8 degrees all the way around. Blessed. I’ve been tempted to go pawn shop hopping to find any kind of alt-az or eq mount. I’ll try the Zenith next opportunity. I should be able to prop the edge on a table or something. Part of my getting an Atlas 2 was selling stuff the Mrs trips over ha ha. I’ll be at work out of state during the conjunction. By chance do you know the exit diameter of the 150 or 180 mak? I believe they would work with full frame sensors if larger.
Garnett Leary No I’d have to look it up. It must be on CN or SGL somewhere.
Garnett, where did you find the 105mm backfocus specification for this Antares F6.3 reducer? I've been looking everywhere and find no specs on this thing anywhere. I've also heard from others that this focal reducer has a backfocus of 82mm, which I certainly doubt based on your findings. I am getting ready to try this reducer with my own Meade Maksutov Cassegrain. If you can confirm the 105mm backfocus spec on the reducer I'd be appreciative.
I got the focal length from Celestron actually. It’s 220mm. When you calculate you arrive at 105mm.
www.wilmslowastro.com/software/formulae.htm
Thanks. Odd that you had to go to celestron to get the specs. I suppose it could be that the celestron 6.3 reducer is really the Antares brand labeled, but I’ve been operating on the idea that they are different because the celestron SCT reducer also flats, while the Antares does not. I don’t want flattening/correcting
They’re different. There’s also a Meade in two versions. The older Meade is the good one. The F6.3 were designed to take a 10” SCT to an F6.3 optical system. They were specifically designed for that purpose. Where the Antares came in? Who knows. It’s a da%% shame this is all so cryptic. I agree with the corrective part. That’s adverse on Maks as you obviously know. I’ve seen mixed opinions on the Antares version but from what I can see it has no adverse corrective properties. I’m real tempted to get a Celestron one also and do an extensive field test. Regardless I’ll get detailed data up on this one on the Mak asap. I could use a brick wall etc but I’d rather do a more practical star field test as soon as I get the mount.
@@GarnettLeary I have used this Antares reducer to image this week & it worked well. I am quite new to astrophotography. I did get significant vignetting but that may be due to using a 1.25” baader moon & sky glow filter. It was easily removed with calibration frames in stacking thought. I’m unclear if vignetting was result of reducer or not at this point. Not enough experience yet.
Thank you for the feedback. These conversations will be very useful to others. A 1.25 filter will cause vignettes on sensors above micro 4:3. I’m dying to test mine out on stars. I might just mount the thing on a camera tripod for the time being. OPT is telling me mid April for my mount. It’s just such a hard focal length to fully test on a static tripod. With a DSLR I’m looking at less than 1/3 a second lol. ISO 12000 and I’m separating hot pixels from stars. I’m glad there’s folks like yourself out there doing practical star tests. I’m dying to get out there.
Have you tried photographing DSO yet with focal reducer ?
No but I will asap. That’s my next adventure as soon as OPT finally delivers my mount. I sold everything I had to upgrade. Been without a mount since September. Real bummer because I’m dying to get exactly those results out there.
@@GarnettLeary I have a 102mm mak and I used your video to order the other parts to install along with the Antares focal reducer. Thanks again for your work and I am excited to see results after the modification.
Thanks for watching. I’m certain with good quality flats it will work on the 127. I need OPT to hurry up so I can get some good data on DSO for solid proof. I’m curious what the exit diameter of the 102 is. It looks the same from photos but I have never measured it.
@@GarnettLeary my mak is a discontinued model by the company Levenhuk... it is the 1000 pro model. The f ratio before adding the reducer is 12.8 I believe and I primarily use a 32mm eye piece.. the mak>SCT adapter fit perfectly
Great! That’s awesome. I’m seriously considering a 180 depending on my results with the 127.
I'm curious... the measurement of the train shows 100mm but you are not counting the camera's flange distance which should be 45mm, so total back focus goes well beyond the 105mm requirement here, yet it doesn't seem to affect the image. So my question is with regards to back focus; Does it not matter if you go over the requirement?
That number assumes the ZWO is connected. I’ve heard and read mixed opinions on distance. 105 overall is what you’ll see commonly but you also see that assigned to the Celestron reducer. Sometimes you’ll find a number between 80-85mm. It’s really aggravating. I didn’t reduce my train for the Canon. It’s absolutely critical to get exact distance on most optical systems but what I’m seeing so far is that Maksutov’s are figured differently because the primary mirror moves. I realize that doesn’t change the distance between the reducer and the sensor but it definitely changes things. I was going to immediately follow up this video with a star test but am waiting on OPT to get my mount here since September. These parameters work fine for daylight tests but I truly need to run it through full field star tests to look at edge. Sorry I can’t be definitive. I’m certain based on daylight tests that the reduction is possible. Might there be an exact spot? My guess is no. I say that considering the logic of it. The actual usable opening of the inside of the scopes light path is much smaller in diameter than the reducer. What I think is happening is that it’s only using a very small portion of the center of the reducer. That would explain why my edges aren’t getting rolled up or pushed in. Just as soon as OPT delivers I plan to jump on star testing. I’ll definitely publish what I get. Placing this Mak on a stationery tripod just isn’t conclusive enough or even realistic. I’ll put up flat frame data too but I’m pretty certain the key lies in the light path only using the center of the reducer and the Maks ability to move the primary.
Has anyone tried this with an f12 6" Mak and 0.5 focal reducer? Would be awesome if f6 were possible!
My friend Ioan Nemes has. Check out Galaxy Art Media.
You need 30mm distance from sensor to 0.5x reducer (with 2" diameter, the small one needs 20mm), and a small sensor - not bigger than the one on a ASI533 (vignetting).
Very cool man
it's shame that these maks don't have it's own reducer and have to use the sct reducer.
Yeah that puzzles me. A 0.5 1.25” works directly threaded into a nose piece, but only for the smallest planetary style cameras. I’ve found even they have a use for Lunar and Solar framing. Ultimately I don’t believe the scopes are as popular as they should be.
You’re first view and you’re first like👍
Hey man ty! Hope you’re well. Happy holidays man.
@@GarnettLeary And Happy holidays to you and your family as well.👍