Think the reality here is you bought a complete lemon. Mass produced SCTs are variable in quality, but the good ones perform fine for planetary view and deep-sky. I suspect it may have spherical aberration correction error. There is a way you can discover this, by recording star images inside and outside focus when the scope has cooled correctly. You can also do the following - place an eyepiece of say 10mm focal length at a distance of about 100mm from the rear cell. You can do this either by an extender tube out from the visual back, or a 2" star diagonal which will sit the eyepiece at approx. 100mm light travel distance back from the rear cell. When the scope has cooled for an hour, study the star image inside and outside focus. If you notice a marked difference to the expanded star image as it expands from focused star image, either side of focus, that is a sign of spherical aberration error. There are two main types, lower order and higher order spherical aberration. It doesn't matter really which you have, either will cause a loss of resolution and contrast. You can place a planetary camera instead of the eyepiece and record it, just make sure the sensor is about 100mm from the rear cell. Losing collimation in the way you describe should not be as bad as you have experienced. There is a tiny amount of lateral movement of the primary but only small if its lubricated properly. You can get a small amount of movement laterally if the secondary holder is not tight in place with its gaskets. Not too tight, just nipped into place. Also the screws that tilt the secondary should be pinched (not too tight) after collimation, otherwise the secondary can "relax" and change alignment slightly. Another tip is to ensure the contact face of the screws is curved. File them into a curved surface. An uneven end to the screws can cause the secondary to jump a little even if collimated. The mirror shift problem has been an issue for many decades, and is variable. I have a 6" and an 11" SCT, neither have an issue at all. It is not just a problem for SCTs, I have seen it on Chinese built Maks and even on 2 90mm Questars. it can be partially remedied by focusing all the way to the end of travel, then focusing back again all the way to the other end of travel. Do this a few times. It might take you five minutes back and forth, but will cure the problem in many cases. Its just about distribution of lubrication. If you discover you have lower order SA, there is a little trick you can do if its not a gross error. Let me know if you find out.
That’s a lot of really useful information. I believe you’re right. Chucks copy is razor sharp. It’s very likely buying one is rolling dice. Thank you for such detailed information and technical suggestions. I will pin this in the thread for others who may be as unfortunate as myself. Clear skies.
I can attest that the 180 mak is no better and has worse mirror shift (focusing) and flop (when tracking). I have had both C8 and SW 180 mak. I still have my maksutov only because I couldn't sell it. The central obstruction on the mak is 58mm, and it also has the foam glue mirror fixture and the mystery donut on the mirror. I have already added a losmandy plate because the mak is a heavy beast and easily rolls out of the saddle if you're not careful handling. My next mod is to fix the mirror and use a focuser, plus insulate and flock the tube. The main advantage of the SCT are all of the optical accessories available (check Starizona). There is virtually nothing for a Mak on the market. A SCT (for a price!) can be an f2 (Hyperstar), f4 (Nightowl), f6.3 or f7, and native f10. I was equally disappointed when I opened my SW180, so folks need to manage expectations when dealing with Chinese mass production scopes.
@@edwardgill1042 Spot on. The reality is that all assumptions and accepted theories regarding different types of instruments and what they are supposed to be able to do better or worse than other types of instruments needs to be put into context, due to variation in quality from mass production techniques and poor QC. This is true particularly with ALL Chinese mass produced telescopes. it is even true with high end instruments from around the world. you would be surprised what names are on that list! It is true with spotting scopes and binoculars. The simple fact is this - No two optical instruments of the same type are exactly alike. I can tell you from looking at interferograms and knife-edge tests of hundreds of scopes, that this is the case. Optical surfaces are almost infinitely variable. they are like snowflakes, no two are exactly alike. The point where it becomes an issue is where the variation becomes noticeable in normal use. No manufacturer wants their customers to understand this. with optical instruments it often pays to be cynical.
That’s unfortunate and good to know. I guess the new standard is higher prices for mass production mess. That’s a valid point about accessories. There really isn’t much to pick from for the Maksutov. Thermal equilibrium is definitely on my list of priorities. It suffers greatly there. That’s the biggest downside of upgrading to a larger Maksutov. The portability of the Mak means little when it must be left outside for hours to equalize. Above a 150 I feel it should be observatory placed. That or insulate it so it’s more practical.
Unfortunately, poor design assumptions plague both SCTs and Mak-casses. The moving mirror was to accommodate territorial use, which makes sense for a 90mm Mak but for a 150 or 180 Mak or 6" + SCT it's foolishness. The only properly made Mak for astronomy, in my humble opinion, is the iOptron 150mm RUMAK.
Interesting perspective. I've had a NexStar 8SE SCT for years and have never had to collimate. I check it periodically, and it's always spot on. Vingetting is an issue even with a field flattener, but that is expected due to the design. The f/10 is a drag, but like vingetting, I accept it. I strayed away from the MAK based on a number of reviews that taunt the difficulty in aligning the MAK. Most of what I shoot are DSO which my SCT is well suited for. I'm thinking about getting a 127mm MAK. Reviews like yours provide insight, and things to consider. Thanks.
Thank you. Firstly I’m glad yours has stayed true so long. It’s odd but it seems people have either really good experiences or really bad ones. Ollie never has to collimate his. How strange that some models go out so easy and others remain spot on. This seems to be the case 50% of the time. I do love Maksutovs. An SCT is definitely more suitable for dso but it’s not impossible on Maksutov. Even at F15 I was resolving enough light to shoot galaxies at under two minute exposures. I think there’s a lot of skepticism and bad information regarding the speed of scopes. It’s not as big an issue as it’s put out there.
I looked at the Crab Nebula with the 127 Celestron/Sky Watcher Maksutov and was impressed that I could see it as well as my 1/12th wave refigured 6" .98 Strehl reflector could. It is still dim, but it was clearly sharp and a 20 sec. exposure brought it right out.
Awesome Video Garnett!! I like The Potayblity of a 6 inch Mak. I do have An Edge Hd 9.25 is On my List, if not the C8! This was a Brilliant comparison, So well-done. Watched and Enjoyed The Whole Video, keep it up! Ps: merry Christmas! 🎅🎄
I wish you much luck with it. Definitely spend more for Edge. I can easily see the value in locks. Thanks for watching. Merry Christmas to you as well.
I ended up ordering the Lunt 80 modular. They told me I’d have it by winter break. You and I were discussing solar a while back. I didn’t get the pressure tuner yet. You can actually buy it as a doublet and add it later. Very nice of them to offer it parted out although you save right much by buying the set. I may get K-line first as hardly anyone is representing it.
I own a Explorer Scientific 127mm maksutov on a eq3 manual mount and absolutely love it. Its big enough to see what I want to yet small enough to move around my back yard. My brothers both have reflectors and refractors and were thinking of a sct... here's hoping I can get them on team mak. Great video
Thank you Garnett, for calling out the truth!!! Nobody likes bad news, however it needs to said!! Scts are good scopes, but there is too many top Manufacturers cheaping out on their products and yet increasing the prices in the process!! Hence why I got the Mak 180mm
Nice to see two good reviewers exchanging messages, question to both of you, any thoughts on the iOptron 150mm Mak which is of the Rumak type ? Very less coverage or review of this iOptron Mak
Firstly thank you. I’m extremely interested in that scope. I saw Dakota Starry Nights’ review and I was impressed by the images he pulled down. I personally prefer the Rumak design to the Gregory. I had the privilege of borrowing an Intes some years back. In my opinion the image quality is a touch above. I have seen a few modern Gregory Maks with off center secondaries. The quality control of modern mass production is atrocious. That being said the Rumak design is more favorable. In the last year I looked over a couple Skywatcher Maks. One had an off center, poorly glued secondary, and the other an astigmatism in the spherical primary. You could physically see the roll in it. Why I bring that up is that I don’t have much experience with iOptron products. I’ve used their guiding systems and mounts but not their scopes. That 150 in particular is my next scope purchase in fact. I’m considering buying it or upgrading my solar equipment. Dakota Starry Nights is a channel, not unlike Martins, that I put a great deal of faith in. He was impressed so that sparked my curiosity. Hopefully you saw his review. He actually guided it with a smaller Maksutov which to me is simply gangster in nerd world lol. I’m really eager to see additional uploads by him. There’s rarely any buz over Maksutov’s. I know SvBony recently released a 105 Gregory. I’m a little curious about it and wether it’s actually a 90. At a true 105mm it’s unlikely a rebrand of the Synta one everyone else is using. That’s something requiring research on my part. I’m glad you showed interest in it. I’ll direct Martin to this thread because I’d also love his thoughts on it. Clear skies.
@@dgdave2673 I be honest with D G, I have no experience with the new IOptron Rumak design, however IOptron make great mounts, so I think with the high quality, I think you will not have a problem with these IOptron RUMAKs. I agree Skywatcher have slipped so much on their quality control nowadays, luckily I have an older tube Mak 180 design (with the black dovetail) and I have not got a dud scope!!
Thanks for the video. I'm returning to the hobby after a 40 year hiatus; things have changed. What you showed inside that C8 is shockingly shoddy. I used to build my own, but had been thinking to buy this time (as I said, so much has changed). I don't have good air either in KY, looking through soup. At first I thought it was just light pollution, but recently had a dry night and suddenly the milky way was there. Although deep sky was my interest in the past, my current circumstance makes me think that visually I'll probably be limited to brighter targets. Perhaps a mak will get me more contrast. I subscribed, and will look through your videos; this one was very helpful (in steering away from the ubiquitous C8). Thanks.
Thank you. Awesome that you used to build them. I’m not sure if you know Dakota Starry Nights channel but he’s got the new Ioptron Rumak Maksutov and it looks amazing. I definitely enjoy the contrast visually. The portability of the Maksutov is a plus too. Thank you for the support
Thanks for the video, I really enjoyed it! Looks like you are a gear head like me, I almost enjoy the equipment as much as I like astronomy itself. I own a C90 and a C5, both are good scopes but the C5 is far superior with brightness which I think is because of the bigger aperture. I was considering getting a C8 or even a C8 Edge HD but I really like the Maksutov design, something about it. It's just the focal length is so big that I would have a harder time with bigger DSOs. I have a stacked .67 reducers on my C5 and soon I am going to tackle the big DSOs. That about an F3.4! Maybe I should look at a Mak-Newtonian for my next scope or even a Ritchey-Chretien with some reducing :-)
Thank you. That’s cool. I have a couple friends with RC’s. Both were scared of the inevitable collimation that’s said to be so difficult. Neither of them mind it after having done it. I’m assuming that design has just got a bad wrap. The trouble with reducing these Maks is the exit hole towards the focal plane is undersized. You’re going to run into clipping at a point. I’m currently using a 180 Maksutov as a galaxy hunter. I’m in Bortle 8 and it seems to handle high altitude magnitude 8 targets just fine. The community by large will say it’s not capable. It’s funny how that works. I’ve personally never heard of anyone stacking as many reducers as you have. I’m intrigued. Had anyone asked me if it’s possible I could only answer that I haven’t tried. Right now this 180 is dealing with deep sky just fine. I wouldn’t know unless I gave it a go despite popular consensus.
Interesting video Garnett! I have the EdgeHD8 and don't seem to have the issues you are pointing out with the SE version, but after watching your video, it makes me want to try a Mak out.
Thanks Joe. I love your videos. It seems everyone with an Edge is happy. The internals must be very different. I’d love to try one to see the differences. I have a suspicion there’s more to the Edge than thermal vents, mirror locks, and a corrective lens. You really should have a go at a Maksutov even if it’s just a second hand 90mm. They’re amazingly sharp and well corrected. Merry Christmas to you and yours.
I have a Celestron nexstar 11 GPS. Flock your tube, it increases contrast for the sct by a very noticeable amount. I move my sct all the time and it holds its culmination just fine and I check it every time before use. Surprised to hear you have to culminate the scope so frequently.👍👍
Contrast is a problem with SC's i reduced mine by coating the baffles with flat black paint and flocking the tube, the internal baffle which is the main culprit for the majority of light scatter is important to coat correctly. Good Luck, Clear Skies. edit: i used black 3.0 paint amazing stuff.
Thank you for the very honest review and break down of the mass-produced SCT. I have an 8 inch Edge and have never found a good use for it, as it never produces as sharp images as the smaller MAKs I have previously owned (two 4SEs and a SLT127) . In fact, I regretted selling them on so much that I got a Skymax127 last year.
I feel that. I was close to doing the same until I field tested the 8SE. I’m getting mixed opinions on build quality from Edge owners. I’ve never had one of them apart. I did absolutely love the 4SE I owned. I’m confident in my opinion of the 127 beating the 8SE. I believe that’s true visually also. It’s unfortunate that something of such larger aperture is out performed so easily. Thanks for adding to the thread. Clear skies.
Wow, that is saying something about the Edge! I've only read positive on cloudynights, which made be re-think SCT's but your comments cause me to rethink my rethink! Ha! 😆
Very good video Garnett.. nice views of the guts :) The only SCT I have experience is my 8" Edge. Sounds like the Edge addresses a lot of the C8's short comings. The Headaches you've had with collimation and mirror flop have not been an issue for me. The collimation has held despite many trips in and out of the house. Running an OAG mitigates most of the mirror flop issues. I'm not using the locks since I'm using the native focuser with the focus motor. To add to the critism of the SCT, I have run into issues with bright stars that are off frame causing weird diffraction.. likely from light hitting the edge of the central obstruction (or so Ive been told). It's pretty rare though.. Alnitak caused me issues until I rotated the camera. Maks look cool.. never played with one. I've always been put off a little by the slower optics but they do sound like an excellent tool for planets and the moon.
Seems everyone that has or had an Edge is happy with it. That’s been the consensus. That corrector lens does wonders that’s in the baffle tube. I’d love to see inside one. I’m willing to bet the center column, by which the mirror racks, is way different. I guess it would have to be as there’s no seat for a corrective lens inside this one. Access to the .7 reducer would be great too. I’d say I was a little hard on this particular telescope but it’s simply not up to par with its price. I need to get my hands on an Edge before I completely rule them out altogether. I often consider this huge influx of astronomy gear purchasing will reverse. Eventually a large number of these folks buying large amounts of equipment will sell it back into the used market. We should all see things like Facebook Marketplace get flooded with used gear and likely retail price drops to counter it. At that time I will amass quite a collection. I’ll look for an Edge at that time. Regarding the Maksutov being slow, that’s typically the deal breaker. People see the F number and unfortunately never give it a chance. It’s truly a hidden gem. It’s easily passed up for more expensive telescopes. As people develop their gear to where they have decent apo’s etc.. it’s often that scope that got left in the dark. It’s unfortunately also at that very time that it could be extremely productive. I mean to say nothing stops an individual from DSO with it minus longer integration times. On the flip side of that is an extremely near perfect corrected telescope with razor sharp optics. I’m going to try to pull down some hydrogen data off the Horsehead with mine as soon as possible.
@@GarnettLeary You, Martyn and Jenham are the maksutov league, lol. I always follow your content with great interest. I also have a mak127, and I like it as well. Now, regarding the poor C8, don't you think maybe it's poor performance might be due to it being a bad sample? you know, the quality lottery in action? Regards. Merry Christmas
Very good point. I’ve had this same discussion with my friend Ioan Nemes. I can’t rule out that possibility. As a scientist I must accept that. My argument against it as a possibility is the mass production method. I do believe in the quality of a finely ground handmade mirror. I also know that a machine has extreme accuracy especially with spherical mirrors. That’s not to say a computer goes without mistakes but the probability of it missing one is very low. Then again Synta Optical will not return my inquiries. I have beat their email inbox to death with very technical questions ranging from belt tension settings to this very scopes production method. I have some friends in China that I am working with to try and get an inside look. I seriously nerd out with this stuff so much so I lose imaging time. The Horsehead image I took gives me a lot of data. It’s unexpectedly unsharp in its raw form even with perfectly exact star shapes. I’d expect to see various off axis aberrations if it was not aligned properly. My conclusion SHOULD have been that this particular one is a bad apple because there are in fact decent images available online. The real problem I face when comparing is that I don’t know how the individual arrived at the destination. It’s very easy to rip Hubble luminance data, correct issues in Photoshop, and even sharpen to the point of totally remapping an image. Some people build entire channels around their ability to fake excellence. Then there’s the probability that Google got it wrong. Combine that with all the click bait and you’re floating in a sea of uncertainty. This is particularly why I refer to Chuck. I have watched his methods in great depth and know that he is working with solid data. I’d love to have a go at his pc lol. You’re definitely right in pointing that out as a potential possibility. It’s unlikely I’ll get a second copy tho. I consider just how poorly made it is and refuse to pay the asking price. It’s truly not worth it. Unfortunately it’s far more sensical for me to invest money elsewhere. That brings up a valuable lesson about the industry. With huge, or what I consider huge, investment comes an even bigger risk. This mirror blank had an inspection signature. Was the individual qualified to place it there? I’ll never know. It’s a used system, out of warranty, and useless to me. I can’t with any self respect do anything with it other than sell it for parts. Recently I read an article about people receiving optical tubes with broken mirrors. That’s with the packaging blemish free. Nothing surprises me anymore. These things used to be made well when they were in the states. It’s unfortunate that cheap, cost effective, methods are being used in scientific equipment. It’s truly sad. Perhaps I will get another shot at a Nexstar 8SE OTA. Hopefully a club member will have one I can test. I’d be glad to give it another go with another unit. This one in particular has been stripped of all add-ons and repackaged as a loss. It would be an ok visual scope. I can’t, based on what I see, recommend this telescope to anyone tho. It’s outside of my ability and integrity to do so.
The image shift is why I bought a classical Cassegrain, it is as easy to collimate as anything and it focuses just like a refractor moving the dual speed focuser. Know they are not for everyone but for me that was the main reason.
I fully agree with your opinion. I recently gave up my Edge HD800 due to disappointment with its poor resolution. It clearly loses out to the MAK127 in capturing the planets, moon, galaxies and nebulae.
Hi Garnett, Love your vids and this one in particular. Having owned an 8SE ( now gone) and a 127 Mak - my experience completely corroborates yours. I found the 8SE hard to use and the images disappointing. The 127 Apex has been an absolute pleasure. I will never sell it or be without one. My SCT had typical thermal and collimation issues and i rarely got a sharp image out of it - i felt like i was always fighting something - dew, collimation, thermals, mechanical, electrical (mount related of course not OTA). The Mak is a bit of cool down and then starts splitting open the sky! For the Mak, any collimation test i have done is spot on - and i gave it a hard whack by accident and was furious with myself, but after re-testing multiple times there was Zero error that i could detect and it still puts up RAZOR sharp images effortlessly. The comment by Offraed is very useful and informative, however - I think it only illustrates my experience. With the Mak i don't need to tweak a screw here, file a screw there - just give it a bit of cooling and go! I gave a shoutout to your video on cloudynights, and couldn't resist pulling the pin and tossing it in an SCT thread. 🤣But your points have merit and are worthy of some attention. www.cloudynights.com/topic/784187-scts-are-underrated/?p=11995684 Below you asked for comments from those who've owned both. I have and my vote goes to the little Mak!
Thank you. Very insightful. I will give it another go one day. SCT that is. Likely a Meade. I’m totally sold on Maksutov. I’m also not intimidated by its slow f-ratio. Recently having shot galaxies at less than 0.8 and under two minute subs I’d say the push for faster scopes is unnecessary. I believe people put too much emphasis on speed. I’ve owned more scopes than I can count and honestly I prefer them F7 or slower. Thanks for sharing the video. When I made it I knew I would be debating. What I won’t ever do is sell out my honest opinion. Integrity is of highest priority. That copy of the NexStar8 really sucked for lack of better words. I tried really hard to like it. I wouldn’t even donate one if that’s the standard. Happy 4th
Good review Garrett ! Very informative. This video can help people avoiding risks on spending much money and after not being happy with the performance of the telescope. An 180 maksutov is on my wishlist also, but what do you think about a larger maksutov newtonian, 8 inch or more?
what a shame that you had a bad experience with that 8 inch SCT. my Sct is good. it resolves the detail, but due to the obstruction it has very low Contrast at 250x. have a 180mm mak and it winns at visual applications. the Sct winns at photographic applictions an versatility. the mak is also more forgiving in collimation.
Good to know. I’ve seen SCT’s flocked with improved contrast. The subject is highly debated but I have to lean towards it. I’m optimistic about SCT’s should I come across an older one. Thank you sharing. Clear skies.
I really liked your Mods. Some good work Garnett. Sorry the SCT did not come up better. maybe that ring you mentioned on the Primary was out of tolerance. Space looked too much. Thanks.
Thank you. I’m definitely looking out for another. There’s way too many success stories with these kits to count them out entirely. I specifically want an older model.
I have the 127 Sky Watcher Maksutov, but I bought my son the Celestron Nextstar 127SLT 5" Maksutov and it was _EXACTLY_ the same as my 127 Mak except the paint job. Both made by Synta of Taiwan. I could put a 2" diagonal on it except the Nextstar mount can't handle the weight, scope already is max weight with a decent eyepiece.
@@GarnettLeary When you think about it, you don't really need a 2" diagonal as mine with it isn't a big improvement because of that 1500mm focal length and if I'm going to start buying reducers it will be for my 102mm refractor. I have the carbon fiber 102mm Explore Scientific triplet at f-7 so I have as big a field of view as I want. Not to mention my refigured primary mirror f-5 6" reflector at .98 Strehl and 1/12th wave. Started off buying a C6-N scope in a pawn shop the owner scratched up the mirror by cleaning it with Windex and a paper towel. lol I wouldn't have bought it, but it came with a 1.25" 2x Tele Vue Barlow. So $125 wasn't a bad deal, sent the mirrors in to be re-aluminized on sale and they offered me a good price to refigure my mirror. Ended up putting a 2" JMI Crayford on it too. Been offered $1000 for it, shoot, I have near $800 into it. That focuser wasn't cheap.
I love salvage jobs. I have a little more love for the scopes I personally breathed life back into. Right now my personal favorite scope is the Lunt80 MT. I have an Explore Scientific 127 Triplet apo but getting it going I feel I need a different camera for it. I’m limited to narrowband where I’m at and I want to speed up that F7 myself. I’m torn between a reducer or a Calcium K-Line filter.
@@GarnettLeary I can see visual with the Lunt Calcium-K diagonal as I have an infinite focus lens in my left eye which is my viewing eye. Best operation I ever had doing that cataract surgery, was like getting a brand new eye. But otherwise it is pretty much a camera only filter. It certainly costs more than a reducer for that 127 refractor though. I'd get the reducer since you already have the Lunt-80, although I can see the attraction of putting the Calcium-K on the 127 APO. I have one big advantage, I'm 15 mins from Bortle 4, 30 mins to Bortle 2 next to Bortle one to the East at White Sands. 90 mins to Bortle one, but I cannot really tell the difference from my #2 to One Bortle except Bortle one is far enough North the Las Cruces light dome isn't visible to the South. It isn't an issue until C80 drops to less than 5 degrees above the southern horizon. Ever view the Omega Centauri globular cluster? Fills your whole fov.
Hi Garnett, Many thanks for the mention! Wow you really don't like that C8! My experience of SCTs has been quite variable. My 1980s C5 Astro is a good performer but in the past I've felt that a C6 and a Celestar C8 were soft and definitely prone to losing collimation. Maybe the quality control has let you down but there should be no excuse for it, even in the "cheaper" of their 8" SCTs. I've often wondered if an 8SE could replace a few of my scopes but after your review I'll pass (and at £1400 in the UK it can't be considered a bargain. The Evolution is £2600 BTW). As for Bob's Knobs, they are essential kit that should be standard whenever a corrector plate is nearby (I can cope with a Philips on a Dob, just). Your review was excellent and I really liked your root cause analysis of the focuser issues and the price check of cork vs cardboard for the spacers. I hope to return with new content before long, after a motivation-hiatus, but in the meanwhile have a Merry Christmas and good New Year. Graham
Absolutely. I constantly direct viewers and questions to your channel. There’s no need in me touching a topic you’ve already covered well. I’ve seen inside the older scopes. They were made with a bit more interest in quality. I truly hope the Edge is an exception. It appears to be. Multiple, very good imagers, have responded to this thread saying they love theirs. I’m real curious but not $2000+ curious. This particular instrument, and it’s poor design, truly disappointed me. This video rant started off a lot more angry. Lol. It’s not their flagship SCT but I do know all their corrector plates come off a single mold. Maybe QC missed something on this one. It’s unfortunate it has to be anyones first telescope if so. I’m glad I got it if so. That translates into one less person discouraged from the hobby. In that sense it’s a win. You’ll like the Frankenstein setup I’m building around the 127. A lot of people will have the “why?!” Reaction.
@@GarnettLeary Looking forward to more 127 vids! Celestron should up the quality of their basic offering because, as you say, people only need to be put off once, and if we get real the price of an 8SE in $ (or £) is a lot of money to most people. It isn't like they are trying out astro by picking up a 130 Astromaster at the mall. I'll take your lead and end my rant now as it's Christmas!
Hey Garnett! - This was a real deep dive! I owned a C8 EdgeHD which naturally skips a lot of the problems thrown up by the normal C8, I was really happy with that scope! 🙂 Looking at what you've shown with the mak 127 vs c8 here though, I'm left wanting a little mak now haha - talk about punching well above it's weight! Thanks for taking the time to share your honest thoughts in this video mate 🙂 All the best, Luke
Thanks for watching. You should get one. They’re seriously amazing optical designs. You won’t regret it. They are super fun telescopes and provide excellent planetary views. Merry Christmas man. I hope you and your family have a great holiday.
I’m across the border in VA Beach and know the struggle. It’s a difficult area for astronomy. Perfect nights are really rare. Decent nights are rare too haha.
@@GarnettLeary For sure! This week I actually just decided that I will sell off my astrophotography gear and go for night vision astronomy instead. To do astrophotography, I drive 45 minutes south to an area off Back Bay to shoot. With night vision, even on nights when I can't make the drive, and even in my light polluted area, I can pop on an IR pass filter and do some observing. I just have too much money (for me) tied up in my astrophotography gear for the little use I get our of it.
That happens to a lot of people. I pretty much gave up LRGB for SHO because of the amount of people putting lights up. Even with narrowband it’s basically only three nights a month.
Thanks for sharing your experience. I have several refractors and one mak, a Skywatcher 90. And when I see you holding the C8 I realise that would be a struggle to set up and down every time. So clumsy and without handle it seems that you should need assistance for that. I think catadioptrics look so cool with the mirror, and have been considering to get a SC. But I will pass and get a Maksutov or Newton if I later will get a larger telescope.
It seems the community is definitely divided on this topic. More people prefer the flexibility of SCT’s. I’d love to get more responses from people that have owned both. I think the fact that most haven’t is why so many people defend one side. The 8” SCT was rather clumsy to mount especially with the stock vixen rail. I can’t imagine having to lug something like a C11 around. The older I get the less I feel like fumbling around with unnecessary steps. Collimation is one of those things. For the price it costs to speed up an SCT one could easily just buy another scope. I recently upgraded to a 180 Maksutov and absolutely love the decision. I wont be shooting any wide field targets with it anytime soon but that’s what refactors and Newts are built for. I hope whatever you choose is perfect and you enjoy it. Clear skies.
My neighbor always talks that he wants a SCT when he gets a scope. He does little research, so i can give him a heads up about the Celestron. Sorry it doesn't fit your moisture zone efter making the improvements on the focuser. Clear Skies.
Absolutely increases contrast. I do it on every scope I have except for my Lunt Solar scope. I have yet to find out if that’s a good idea or not. Probably no
Thanks for this super detailed overview Garnett. I feel that at least in the C series I will be skipping the SCT. It does seem like the Edge are a much better unit. For planetary it seems like the Matsukov is a great option. Not sure where I'll end up in terms of extra focal length but thanks for putting this video together very informative. Good to see Renzo ( I think that's what you said his name was) getting on camera. Cheers
The Edge would be very much better. I’m not sure how good mirror locks are with auto-focusers tho. I guess lock it close to focus then use an external focuser with a motor? Not sure. A lot of people love them. I’m just not one of them. I have enough headaches to deal with. Merry Christmas Ollie if I don’t see you up here soon. I hope you have a great Christmas.
I would say the scts are more for people doing visual astronomy. I would try to get a fast star lens there's not a lot of videos on them but it makes them extremely fast.
@@GarnettLeary ive been busy i don't do much astrophotography any more but thinking about getting back into it again. thank you and i hope you have a Merry Christmas aswell
His work is absolutely breathtaking. Probably the best in the world. Been following him for years. I have no doubt my area is horrid. It’s similar to London. The take away is that a 5” Maksutov will outperform this 8” SCT here. Every SCT? Don’t know. This one is definitely a dud. Merry Christmas and clear skies.
Thanks for this video Garnett. I own a Skywatcher 127 Go to Maksutov and a 8” Dobsonian. I love my Maksutov and was thinking about buying a larger aperture scope for the planets etc. I was considering the C8 SCT however on reflection I will now be looking at the Skywatcher 180 Maksutov. Why does the Maksutov take longer to reach ambient temperature over the SCT when both are closed units 🤔
The corrector is thicker glass on the Maksutov. Additionally the SCT isn’t fully closed off. There’s small air gaps around the retaining ring. Have you seen the Celestron 180 Maksutov? It comes with a Losmandy plate. I’m not sure of quality over all but it advertises having Starbright coatings also. That would be two perks over the other brands. Most 180 users report the vixen supplied as unstable or questionable. Martin put tube rings on his. Without testing the larger instruments I still feel I can make an accurate assessment of usability. For most locations the very large SCT’s are useless. Considering that it only makes sense to go 180 for the image quality and ease of use. My next clear night I plan to go after the Horse again but with the 127 this time. I already know it will be a better image.
@@GarnettLeary I didn’t even know that Celestron made a 180 Maksutov. The starbright coatings and losmandy are good perks but it all depends on how much it cost over the others. Good luck on the H/Head . Clear skies 👍
I modded my 180 to accept a Losmandy. Had to drill and tap new holes. It's very rigid now. After all that hard work it rolled off my bed due to the weight change as I was preparing to set up so I had to collimate it. Not too easy but it's fine now. I had a Meade Mak 7 that was heaven but it was stolen. It was nicer than the Skywatcher for sure with a built in fan for cooling. I also have a C8 classic which is quite nice. Great work my friend.
@@GarnettLeary hand made here in Los Angeles. It was very expensive at over 2000 in 2003 but with GPS and goto it was very impressive. I actually still have the fork mount and wedge as I deforked it before it was stolen. It did have cooling problems with a 25 pound slug of an internal counterweight to make it work with the standard fork mount. So it needed a really beefy mount.
I wouldn’t know honestly. What I can say is all the feedback from Edge owners is good. I haven’t seen the internals to confirm wether they’re made differently. The series does address some of the common problems. If I ever get one I’ll gut it.
i brought a 10inch dob after my mak127. the scts are just too expensive for me. the contrast is not as good as the mak,but i can accept that. and the newt is much faster and cheaper scope i am definitely considering a mak180 after this video.
So far the 180 exceeds my expectations. It’s only downside is lengthy thermal equilibrium. I haven’t had much time with it due to travel and weather but I’ll be posting much more examples as soon as possible. I’m eagerly anticipating planets. I was real impressed with its ability to capture the Black Eye Galaxy especially in such modest exposure times. I would definitely encourage not letting it’s slow F15 rating discourage anyone. 2700mm is a really good focal length with an APS-C sensor.
@@GarnettLeary in astrophotography,i think people just have somekind of misconception in thinking that focal ratio is a main factor. Yes it might be ture, but you are just losing "magnification" for lower f ratio telescope with the same aperture telescope . say two scope , 180mmf15=fl2700mm 180mmf5=fl900mm. more focal length means more "zoomed in". Crop sensor may help but smaller sensor means less sensitivity in every pixel to reach the same resolution. Really aperture is more important than focal ratio.
Well said. Aperture is king. From my personal experience I prefer scopes slower than F7. There’s a pristine sharpness character inherent in longer focal ratios from my experience. There’s a lot of UA-camrs that push the idea that fast scopes are necessary. I think that’s largely why Maksutovs aren’t so popular. It’s a shame because they’re amazing scopes and very reasonably compact to accommodate modest mounts.
Nice video, i actually own a 6" sct but dont not relate to your issue og having to collimate it every time you move it, that certainly seems like something else is going on there, it shouldnt do that at all
It’s pretty clear to me the internals are poorly machined. The tolerances are way too loose. It’s probably way more noticeable as you go up in aperture. Your C6 may be one of the older, better made copies too. I’m glad yours isn’t so fickle. This one bad lemon, if that’s what it is, is the only reason I need to stay away from SCT’s. It’s unfortunate but that’s my response to it. In fact I doubt I’ll ever buy another Celestron product.
@@GarnettLeary yea, maybe I am lucky. Mines the same as yours, the evolution tube, just the 6inch version, but I have been wondering about getting a Mak next
I Have 1 Of Each😂6se,and My Grab and Go Is A Mak90,3 Years And Neither Have Never Needed Collimated,They Dont Get Moved Around Much,and No Kids Around,Their Solely Mine,and We Havent Had A Sky For A Year Or Better
It’s a shame that the quality of SCT’s still seems to vary. There is nothing wrong with the design, modern production techniques should have done away with poor quality decades ago. Obviously, the main reason for the poor quality lies with the manufacturers but for some unknown reason, the astro community seems to accept that buying an SCT is still a bit of a ‘hit or miss’ affair. I’m fortunate enough to own an older (I think from the 90’s) Celestron C8 and it’s a fine scope. I’ve got an aftermarket focuser fitted and I’ve insulated the OTA. These two modifications alone have made a big difference to the performance. I also checked that the meniscus retaining ring wasn’t too tight and like yourself, fitted some Bobs Knobs.
ive brought the 8 hd. and i didnt like it. the mak 127 has much more constrast. the focusing is not good. i seems like celestron didnt me to use it. if the mak 180 is as good as the mak127,then i think the mak is better.
Sorry to hear you didn’t enjoy it. Maksutovs are known for their apo-like contrast. So far I absolutely love the 180. I need another month with it and I plan to review it. I have to this day never enjoyed a scope more than my 127. It’s phenomenal. I can assure you there’s things about a 127 that are better than its larger counterparts. The main two being portability and thermal equilibrium.
Totally disagree with all you said. I have had no problems with my 8 SCT. If u are Mak thats fine dont discourage others. You are the only basher I've ever heard.
I’m glad you have a different experience altogether. The greater majority of people love the ones they have. There are folks who don’t like them. I prefer the older ones that are out of production now. Thank you for taking the time to comment and I hope you continue to enjoy the one you have. Clear skies.
Sorry Gamers and you’re right. That’s abusive. I was real tempted to climb a ladder with it like Chuck did. I honestly wouldn’t even donate the thing. I’m being a little hard on it I’m sure but I seriously have never been so disappointed in anything that promised so much.
Think the reality here is you bought a complete lemon. Mass produced SCTs are variable in quality, but the good ones perform fine for planetary view and deep-sky. I suspect it may have spherical aberration correction error. There is a way you can discover this, by recording star images inside and outside focus when the scope has cooled correctly. You can also do the following - place an eyepiece of say 10mm focal length at a distance of about 100mm from the rear cell. You can do this either by an extender tube out from the visual back, or a 2" star diagonal which will sit the eyepiece at approx. 100mm light travel distance back from the rear cell. When the scope has cooled for an hour, study the star image inside and outside focus. If you notice a marked difference to the expanded star image as it expands from focused star image, either side of focus, that is a sign of spherical aberration error. There are two main types, lower order and higher order spherical aberration. It doesn't matter really which you have, either will cause a loss of resolution and contrast. You can place a planetary camera instead of the eyepiece and record it, just make sure the sensor is about 100mm from the rear cell. Losing collimation in the way you describe should not be as bad as you have experienced. There is a tiny amount of lateral movement of the primary but only small if its lubricated properly. You can get a small amount of movement laterally if the secondary holder is not tight in place with its gaskets. Not too tight, just nipped into place. Also the screws that tilt the secondary should be pinched (not too tight) after collimation, otherwise the secondary can "relax" and change alignment slightly. Another tip is to ensure the contact face of the screws is curved. File them into a curved surface. An uneven end to the screws can cause the secondary to jump a little even if collimated. The mirror shift problem has been an issue for many decades, and is variable. I have a 6" and an 11" SCT, neither have an issue at all. It is not just a problem for SCTs, I have seen it on Chinese built Maks and even on 2 90mm Questars. it can be partially remedied by focusing all the way to the end of travel, then focusing back again all the way to the other end of travel. Do this a few times. It might take you five minutes back and forth, but will cure the problem in many cases. Its just about distribution of lubrication. If you discover you have lower order SA, there is a little trick you can do if its not a gross error. Let me know if you find out.
That’s a lot of really useful information. I believe you’re right. Chucks copy is razor sharp. It’s very likely buying one is rolling dice. Thank you for such detailed information and technical suggestions. I will pin this in the thread for others who may be as unfortunate as myself. Clear skies.
I can attest that the 180 mak is no better and has worse mirror shift (focusing) and flop (when tracking). I have had both C8 and SW 180 mak. I still have my maksutov only because I couldn't sell it. The central obstruction on the mak is 58mm, and it also has the foam glue mirror fixture and the mystery donut on the mirror. I have already added a losmandy plate because the mak is a heavy beast and easily rolls out of the saddle if you're not careful handling. My next mod is to fix the mirror and use a focuser, plus insulate and flock the tube. The main advantage of the SCT are all of the optical accessories available (check Starizona). There is virtually nothing for a Mak on the market. A SCT (for a price!) can be an f2 (Hyperstar), f4 (Nightowl), f6.3 or f7, and native f10. I was equally disappointed when I opened my SW180, so folks need to manage expectations when dealing with Chinese mass production scopes.
@@edwardgill1042 Spot on. The reality is that all assumptions and accepted theories regarding different types of instruments and what they are supposed to be able to do better or worse than other types of instruments needs to be put into context, due to variation in quality from mass production techniques and poor QC. This is true particularly with ALL Chinese mass produced telescopes. it is even true with high end instruments from around the world. you would be surprised what names are on that list! It is true with spotting scopes and binoculars. The simple fact is this - No two optical instruments of the same type are exactly alike. I can tell you from looking at interferograms and knife-edge tests of hundreds of scopes, that this is the case. Optical surfaces are almost infinitely variable. they are like snowflakes, no two are exactly alike. The point where it becomes an issue is where the variation becomes noticeable in normal use. No manufacturer wants their customers to understand this. with optical instruments it often pays to be cynical.
That’s unfortunate and good to know. I guess the new standard is higher prices for mass production mess. That’s a valid point about accessories. There really isn’t much to pick from for the Maksutov. Thermal equilibrium is definitely on my list of priorities. It suffers greatly there. That’s the biggest downside of upgrading to a larger Maksutov. The portability of the Mak means little when it must be left outside for hours to equalize. Above a 150 I feel it should be observatory placed. That or insulate it so it’s more practical.
Unfortunately, poor design assumptions plague both SCTs and Mak-casses. The moving mirror was to accommodate territorial use, which makes sense for a 90mm Mak but for a 150 or 180 Mak or 6" + SCT it's foolishness. The only properly made Mak for astronomy, in my humble opinion, is the iOptron 150mm RUMAK.
Another nail in the coffin for my idea about getting a larger aperture SCT to go with my Mak180. Thanks.
Thanks for watching
I love my SCT. I don't have any issues you mention. Not once have I needed to collimate. Mine is a 6 inch. Simple and light.
Cuiv also loves his. I think the size of the mirror greatly contributes to the ease of use. I’m glad you enjoy yours. Clear skies.
Interesting perspective. I've had a NexStar 8SE SCT for years and have never had to collimate. I check it periodically, and it's always spot on. Vingetting is an issue even with a field flattener, but that is expected due to the design. The f/10 is a drag, but like vingetting, I accept it. I strayed away from the MAK based on a number of reviews that taunt the difficulty in aligning the MAK. Most of what I shoot are DSO which my SCT is well suited for. I'm thinking about getting a 127mm MAK. Reviews like yours provide insight, and things to consider. Thanks.
Thank you. Firstly I’m glad yours has stayed true so long. It’s odd but it seems people have either really good experiences or really bad ones. Ollie never has to collimate his. How strange that some models go out so easy and others remain spot on. This seems to be the case 50% of the time. I do love Maksutovs. An SCT is definitely more suitable for dso but it’s not impossible on Maksutov. Even at F15 I was resolving enough light to shoot galaxies at under two minute exposures. I think there’s a lot of skepticism and bad information regarding the speed of scopes. It’s not as big an issue as it’s put out there.
I looked at the Crab Nebula with the 127 Celestron/Sky Watcher Maksutov and was impressed that I could see it as well as my 1/12th wave refigured 6" .98 Strehl reflector could. It is still dim, but it was clearly sharp and a 20 sec. exposure brought it right out.
Awesome Video Garnett!! I like The Potayblity of a 6 inch Mak. I do have An Edge Hd 9.25 is On my List, if not the C8! This was a Brilliant comparison, So well-done. Watched and Enjoyed The Whole Video, keep it up!
Ps: merry Christmas! 🎅🎄
I wish you much luck with it. Definitely spend more for Edge. I can easily see the value in locks. Thanks for watching. Merry Christmas to you as well.
@@GarnettLeary thanks Man!! It might take a While ( you see its a Big Investment). First Need to choose my Eq Mount :)!
I ended up ordering the Lunt 80 modular. They told me I’d have it by winter break. You and I were discussing solar a while back. I didn’t get the pressure tuner yet. You can actually buy it as a doublet and add it later. Very nice of them to offer it parted out although you save right much by buying the set. I may get K-line first as hardly anyone is representing it.
Very thorough review, Garnett!
I own a Explorer Scientific 127mm maksutov on a eq3 manual mount and absolutely love it. Its big enough to see what I want to yet small enough to move around my back yard. My brothers both have reflectors and refractors and were thinking of a sct... here's hoping I can get them on team mak. Great video
I believe personally that it’s superior in that aspect.
Interesting comparison. And the dog clearly doesn't like the C8...
I trust my dog lol
Thank you Garnett, for calling out the truth!!! Nobody likes bad news, however it needs to said!! Scts are good scopes, but there is too many top Manufacturers cheaping out on their products and yet increasing the prices in the process!! Hence why I got the Mak 180mm
Your video really was a major part in my decision thank you
@@GarnettLeary Not a problem mate!! I talk complete common sense and the truth!!!!
Nice to see two good reviewers exchanging messages, question to both of you, any thoughts on the iOptron 150mm Mak which is of the Rumak type ? Very less coverage or review of this iOptron Mak
Firstly thank you. I’m extremely interested in that scope. I saw Dakota Starry Nights’ review and I was impressed by the images he pulled down. I personally prefer the Rumak design to the Gregory. I had the privilege of borrowing an Intes some years back. In my opinion the image quality is a touch above. I have seen a few modern Gregory Maks with off center secondaries. The quality control of modern mass production is atrocious. That being said the Rumak design is more favorable. In the last year I looked over a couple Skywatcher Maks. One had an off center, poorly glued secondary, and the other an astigmatism in the spherical primary. You could physically see the roll in it. Why I bring that up is that I don’t have much experience with iOptron products. I’ve used their guiding systems and mounts but not their scopes. That 150 in particular is my next scope purchase in fact. I’m considering buying it or upgrading my solar equipment. Dakota Starry Nights is a channel, not unlike Martins, that I put a great deal of faith in. He was impressed so that sparked my curiosity. Hopefully you saw his review. He actually guided it with a smaller Maksutov which to me is simply gangster in nerd world lol. I’m really eager to see additional uploads by him. There’s rarely any buz over Maksutov’s. I know SvBony recently released a 105 Gregory. I’m a little curious about it and wether it’s actually a 90. At a true 105mm it’s unlikely a rebrand of the Synta one everyone else is using. That’s something requiring research on my part. I’m glad you showed interest in it. I’ll direct Martin to this thread because I’d also love his thoughts on it. Clear skies.
@@dgdave2673 I be honest with D G, I have no experience with the new IOptron Rumak design, however IOptron make great mounts, so I think with the high quality, I think you will not have a problem with these IOptron RUMAKs. I agree Skywatcher have slipped so much on their quality control nowadays, luckily I have an older tube Mak 180 design (with the black dovetail) and I have not got a dud scope!!
Thanks for the video. I'm returning to the hobby after a 40 year hiatus; things have changed. What you showed inside that C8 is shockingly shoddy. I used to build my own, but had been thinking to buy this time (as I said, so much has changed). I don't have good air either in KY, looking through soup. At first I thought it was just light pollution, but recently had a dry night and suddenly the milky way was there. Although deep sky was my interest in the past, my current circumstance makes me think that visually I'll probably be limited to brighter targets. Perhaps a mak will get me more contrast. I subscribed, and will look through your videos; this one was very helpful (in steering away from the ubiquitous C8). Thanks.
Thank you. Awesome that you used to build them. I’m not sure if you know Dakota Starry Nights channel but he’s got the new Ioptron Rumak Maksutov and it looks amazing. I definitely enjoy the contrast visually. The portability of the Maksutov is a plus too. Thank you for the support
Great video and info - made my mind up to go with the skymax 150 Pro. Cheers
Thank you. It will definitely be a lot more enjoyable to use.
Thanks for the video, I really enjoyed it! Looks like you are a gear head like me, I almost enjoy the equipment as much as I like astronomy itself. I own a C90 and a C5, both are good scopes but the C5 is far superior with brightness which I think is because of the bigger aperture. I was considering getting a C8 or even a C8 Edge HD but I really like the Maksutov design, something about it. It's just the focal length is so big that I would have a harder time with bigger DSOs. I have a stacked .67 reducers on my C5 and soon I am going to tackle the big DSOs. That about an F3.4! Maybe I should look at a Mak-Newtonian for my next scope or even a Ritchey-Chretien with some reducing :-)
Thank you. That’s cool. I have a couple friends with RC’s. Both were scared of the inevitable collimation that’s said to be so difficult. Neither of them mind it after having done it. I’m assuming that design has just got a bad wrap. The trouble with reducing these Maks is the exit hole towards the focal plane is undersized. You’re going to run into clipping at a point. I’m currently using a 180 Maksutov as a galaxy hunter. I’m in Bortle 8 and it seems to handle high altitude magnitude 8 targets just fine. The community by large will say it’s not capable. It’s funny how that works. I’ve personally never heard of anyone stacking as many reducers as you have. I’m intrigued. Had anyone asked me if it’s possible I could only answer that I haven’t tried. Right now this 180 is dealing with deep sky just fine. I wouldn’t know unless I gave it a go despite popular consensus.
I Have A c90 As Well,and Really Like It,Its A Well Built Robust Little Scope
Interesting video Garnett! I have the EdgeHD8 and don't seem to have the issues you are pointing out with the SE version, but after watching your video, it makes me want to try a Mak out.
Thanks Joe. I love your videos. It seems everyone with an Edge is happy. The internals must be very different. I’d love to try one to see the differences. I have a suspicion there’s more to the Edge than thermal vents, mirror locks, and a corrective lens. You really should have a go at a Maksutov even if it’s just a second hand 90mm. They’re amazingly sharp and well corrected. Merry Christmas to you and yours.
I have a Celestron nexstar 11 GPS. Flock your tube, it increases contrast for the sct by a very noticeable amount. I move my sct all the time and it holds its culmination just fine and I check it every time before use. Surprised to hear you have to culminate the scope so frequently.👍👍
Thanks for the comparison/review! My C8 doesn't show that many problems...
Is it the older classic orange tube?
@@GarnettLeary It is a newer C8 orange tube (SE) with starbright XLT coatings..
Awesome. Perhaps they just come as duds on occasion. I’m glad you have a good one. Mine is unfortunately trash.
@@GarnettLeary Yeah, sorry to see that... I guess non premium astro gear is a lottery...
Contrast is a problem with SC's i reduced mine by coating the baffles with flat black paint and flocking the tube, the internal baffle which is the main culprit for the majority of light scatter is important to coat correctly. Good Luck, Clear Skies. edit: i used black 3.0 paint amazing stuff.
I may try that. Thank you for the tip. If I ever use it again it will be with an external focuser for sure.
Thank you for the very honest review and break down of the mass-produced SCT. I have an 8 inch Edge and have never found a good use for it, as it never produces as sharp images as the smaller MAKs I have previously owned (two 4SEs and a SLT127) . In fact, I regretted selling them on so much that I got a Skymax127 last year.
I feel that. I was close to doing the same until I field tested the 8SE. I’m getting mixed opinions on build quality from Edge owners. I’ve never had one of them apart. I did absolutely love the 4SE I owned. I’m confident in my opinion of the 127 beating the 8SE. I believe that’s true visually also. It’s unfortunate that something of such larger aperture is out performed so easily. Thanks for adding to the thread. Clear skies.
Wow, that is saying something about the Edge! I've only read positive on cloudynights, which made be re-think SCT's but your comments cause me to rethink my rethink! Ha! 😆
Hope I had a dud. Fingers crossed
any thoughts on the iOptron 150mm Mak which is of the Rumak type ? Very less coverage or review of this iOptron Mak.
Very good video Garnett.. nice views of the guts :)
The only SCT I have experience is my 8" Edge. Sounds like the Edge addresses a lot of the C8's short comings. The Headaches you've had with collimation and mirror flop have not been an issue for me. The collimation has held despite many trips in and out of the house. Running an OAG mitigates most of the mirror flop issues. I'm not using the locks since I'm using the native focuser with the focus motor.
To add to the critism of the SCT, I have run into issues with bright stars that are off frame causing weird diffraction.. likely from light hitting the edge of the central obstruction (or so Ive been told). It's pretty rare though.. Alnitak caused me issues until I rotated the camera.
Maks look cool.. never played with one. I've always been put off a little by the slower optics but they do sound like an excellent tool for planets and the moon.
Seems everyone that has or had an Edge is happy with it. That’s been the consensus. That corrector lens does wonders that’s in the baffle tube. I’d love to see inside one. I’m willing to bet the center column, by which the mirror racks, is way different. I guess it would have to be as there’s no seat for a corrective lens inside this one. Access to the .7 reducer would be great too. I’d say I was a little hard on this particular telescope but it’s simply not up to par with its price. I need to get my hands on an Edge before I completely rule them out altogether. I often consider this huge influx of astronomy gear purchasing will reverse. Eventually a large number of these folks buying large amounts of equipment will sell it back into the used market. We should all see things like Facebook Marketplace get flooded with used gear and likely retail price drops to counter it. At that time I will amass quite a collection. I’ll look for an Edge at that time. Regarding the Maksutov being slow, that’s typically the deal breaker. People see the F number and unfortunately never give it a chance. It’s truly a hidden gem. It’s easily passed up for more expensive telescopes. As people develop their gear to where they have decent apo’s etc.. it’s often that scope that got left in the dark. It’s unfortunately also at that very time that it could be extremely productive. I mean to say nothing stops an individual from DSO with it minus longer integration times. On the flip side of that is an extremely near perfect corrected telescope with razor sharp optics. I’m going to try to pull down some hydrogen data off the Horsehead with mine as soon as possible.
@@GarnettLeary You, Martyn and Jenham are the maksutov league, lol. I always follow your content with great interest. I also have a mak127, and I like it as well. Now, regarding the poor C8, don't you think maybe it's poor performance might be due to it being a bad sample? you know, the quality lottery in action? Regards. Merry Christmas
Very good point. I’ve had this same discussion with my friend Ioan Nemes. I can’t rule out that possibility. As a scientist I must accept that. My argument against it as a possibility is the mass production method. I do believe in the quality of a finely ground handmade mirror. I also know that a machine has extreme accuracy especially with spherical mirrors. That’s not to say a computer goes without mistakes but the probability of it missing one is very low. Then again Synta Optical will not return my inquiries. I have beat their email inbox to death with very technical questions ranging from belt tension settings to this very scopes production method. I have some friends in China that I am working with to try and get an inside look. I seriously nerd out with this stuff so much so I lose imaging time. The Horsehead image I took gives me a lot of data. It’s unexpectedly unsharp in its raw form even with perfectly exact star shapes. I’d expect to see various off axis aberrations if it was not aligned properly. My conclusion SHOULD have been that this particular one is a bad apple because there are in fact decent images available online. The real problem I face when comparing is that I don’t know how the individual arrived at the destination. It’s very easy to rip Hubble luminance data, correct issues in Photoshop, and even sharpen to the point of totally remapping an image. Some people build entire channels around their ability to fake excellence. Then there’s the probability that Google got it wrong. Combine that with all the click bait and you’re floating in a sea of uncertainty. This is particularly why I refer to Chuck. I have watched his methods in great depth and know that he is working with solid data. I’d love to have a go at his pc lol. You’re definitely right in pointing that out as a potential possibility. It’s unlikely I’ll get a second copy tho. I consider just how poorly made it is and refuse to pay the asking price. It’s truly not worth it. Unfortunately it’s far more sensical for me to invest money elsewhere. That brings up a valuable lesson about the industry. With huge, or what I consider huge, investment comes an even bigger risk. This mirror blank had an inspection signature. Was the individual qualified to place it there? I’ll never know. It’s a used system, out of warranty, and useless to me. I can’t with any self respect do anything with it other than sell it for parts. Recently I read an article about people receiving optical tubes with broken mirrors. That’s with the packaging blemish free. Nothing surprises me anymore. These things used to be made well when they were in the states. It’s unfortunate that cheap, cost effective, methods are being used in scientific equipment. It’s truly sad. Perhaps I will get another shot at a Nexstar 8SE OTA. Hopefully a club member will have one I can test. I’d be glad to give it another go with another unit. This one in particular has been stripped of all add-ons and repackaged as a loss. It would be an ok visual scope. I can’t, based on what I see, recommend this telescope to anyone tho. It’s outside of my ability and integrity to do so.
The image shift is why I bought a classical Cassegrain, it is as easy to collimate as anything and it focuses just like a refractor moving the dual speed focuser. Know they are not for everyone but for me that was the main reason.
Anything annoying you can avoid that makes it more enjoyable is worth replacing.
I fully agree with your opinion. I recently gave up my Edge HD800 due to disappointment with its poor resolution. It clearly loses out to the MAK127 in capturing the planets, moon, galaxies and nebulae.
Hi Garnett, Love your vids and this one in particular. Having owned an 8SE ( now gone) and a 127 Mak - my experience completely corroborates yours.
I found the 8SE hard to use and the images disappointing. The 127 Apex has been an absolute pleasure. I will never sell it or be without one.
My SCT had typical thermal and collimation issues and i rarely got a sharp image out of it - i felt like i was always fighting something - dew, collimation, thermals, mechanical, electrical (mount related of course not OTA). The Mak is a bit of cool down and then starts splitting open the sky!
For the Mak, any collimation test i have done is spot on - and i gave it a hard whack by accident and was furious with myself, but after re-testing multiple times there was Zero error that i could detect and it still puts up RAZOR sharp images effortlessly.
The comment by Offraed is very useful and informative, however - I think it only illustrates my experience. With the Mak i don't need to tweak a screw here, file a screw there - just give it a bit of cooling and go!
I gave a shoutout to your video on cloudynights, and couldn't resist pulling the pin and tossing it in an SCT thread. 🤣But your points have merit and are worthy of some attention.
www.cloudynights.com/topic/784187-scts-are-underrated/?p=11995684
Below you asked for comments from those who've owned both. I have and my vote goes to the little Mak!
Thank you. Very insightful. I will give it another go one day. SCT that is. Likely a Meade. I’m totally sold on Maksutov. I’m also not intimidated by its slow f-ratio. Recently having shot galaxies at less than 0.8 and under two minute subs I’d say the push for faster scopes is unnecessary. I believe people put too much emphasis on speed. I’ve owned more scopes than I can count and honestly I prefer them F7 or slower. Thanks for sharing the video. When I made it I knew I would be debating. What I won’t ever do is sell out my honest opinion. Integrity is of highest priority. That copy of the NexStar8 really sucked for lack of better words. I tried really hard to like it. I wouldn’t even donate one if that’s the standard. Happy 4th
Good review Garrett ! Very informative. This video can help people avoiding risks on spending much money and after not being happy with the performance of the telescope. An 180 maksutov is on my wishlist also, but what do you think about a larger maksutov newtonian, 8 inch or more?
I think they’re awesome. I don’t have much experience with them tho.
@@GarnettLeary i think it can be a nice solution for a larger aperture
what a shame that you had a bad experience with that 8 inch SCT. my Sct is good. it resolves the detail, but due to the obstruction it has very low Contrast at 250x. have a 180mm mak and it winns at visual applications. the Sct winns at photographic applictions an versatility. the mak is also more forgiving in collimation.
Good to know. I’ve seen SCT’s flocked with improved contrast. The subject is highly debated but I have to lean towards it. I’m optimistic about SCT’s should I come across an older one. Thank you sharing. Clear skies.
I really liked your Mods. Some good work Garnett. Sorry the SCT did not come up better. maybe that ring you mentioned on the Primary was out of tolerance. Space looked too much. Thanks.
Thank you. I’m definitely looking out for another. There’s way too many success stories with these kits to count them out entirely. I specifically want an older model.
I have the 127 Sky Watcher Maksutov, but I bought my son the Celestron Nextstar 127SLT 5" Maksutov and it was _EXACTLY_ the same as my 127 Mak except the paint job. Both made by Synta of Taiwan. I could put a 2" diagonal on it except the Nextstar mount can't handle the weight, scope already is max weight with a decent eyepiece.
Absolutely love mine. Totally rebrand. The latest Skywatcher model includes SCT threads at the back tho.
@@GarnettLeary When you think about it, you don't really need a 2" diagonal as mine with it isn't a big improvement because of that 1500mm focal length and if I'm going to start buying reducers it will be for my 102mm refractor. I have the carbon fiber 102mm Explore Scientific triplet at f-7 so I have as big a field of view as I want.
Not to mention my refigured primary mirror f-5 6" reflector at .98 Strehl and 1/12th wave.
Started off buying a C6-N scope in a pawn shop the owner scratched up the mirror by cleaning it with Windex and a paper towel. lol I wouldn't have bought it, but it came with a 1.25" 2x Tele Vue Barlow. So $125 wasn't a bad deal, sent the mirrors in to be re-aluminized on sale and they offered me a good price to refigure my mirror. Ended up putting a 2" JMI Crayford on it too. Been offered $1000 for it, shoot, I have near $800 into it. That focuser wasn't cheap.
I love salvage jobs. I have a little more love for the scopes I personally breathed life back into. Right now my personal favorite scope is the Lunt80 MT. I have an Explore Scientific 127 Triplet apo but getting it going I feel I need a different camera for it. I’m limited to narrowband where I’m at and I want to speed up that F7 myself. I’m torn between a reducer or a Calcium K-Line filter.
@@GarnettLeary I can see visual with the Lunt Calcium-K diagonal as I have an infinite focus lens in my left eye which is my viewing eye. Best operation I ever had doing that cataract surgery, was like getting a brand new eye. But otherwise it is pretty much a camera only filter. It certainly costs more than a reducer for that 127 refractor though. I'd get the reducer since you already have the Lunt-80, although I can see the attraction of putting the Calcium-K on the 127 APO.
I have one big advantage, I'm 15 mins from Bortle 4, 30 mins to Bortle 2 next to Bortle one to the East at White Sands. 90 mins to Bortle one, but I cannot really tell the difference from my #2 to One Bortle except Bortle one is far enough North the Las Cruces light dome isn't visible to the South. It isn't an issue until C80 drops to less than 5 degrees above the southern horizon.
Ever view the Omega Centauri globular cluster? Fills your whole fov.
Lovely dog 🐶 I've been trying to decide between 8inch SCT or skymack 180 currently got a120 evostar just the accro version
Thank you. That’s a tough decision. Depends entirely on what objects you’re after. Lots people happy with it.
Hi Garnett, Many thanks for the mention! Wow you really don't like that C8! My experience of SCTs has been quite variable. My 1980s C5 Astro is a good performer but in the past I've felt that a C6 and a Celestar C8 were soft and definitely prone to losing collimation. Maybe the quality control has let you down but there should be no excuse for it, even in the "cheaper" of their 8" SCTs. I've often wondered if an 8SE could replace a few of my scopes but after your review I'll pass (and at £1400 in the UK it can't be considered a bargain. The Evolution is £2600 BTW). As for Bob's Knobs, they are essential kit that should be standard whenever a corrector plate is nearby (I can cope with a Philips on a Dob, just). Your review was excellent and I really liked your root cause analysis of the focuser issues and the price check of cork vs cardboard for the spacers. I hope to return with new content before long, after a motivation-hiatus, but in the meanwhile have a Merry Christmas and good New Year. Graham
Absolutely. I constantly direct viewers and questions to your channel. There’s no need in me touching a topic you’ve already covered well. I’ve seen inside the older scopes. They were made with a bit more interest in quality. I truly hope the Edge is an exception. It appears to be. Multiple, very good imagers, have responded to this thread saying they love theirs. I’m real curious but not $2000+ curious. This particular instrument, and it’s poor design, truly disappointed me. This video rant started off a lot more angry. Lol. It’s not their flagship SCT but I do know all their corrector plates come off a single mold. Maybe QC missed something on this one. It’s unfortunate it has to be anyones first telescope if so. I’m glad I got it if so. That translates into one less person discouraged from the hobby. In that sense it’s a win. You’ll like the Frankenstein setup I’m building around the 127. A lot of people will have the “why?!” Reaction.
@@GarnettLeary Looking forward to more 127 vids! Celestron should up the quality of their basic offering because, as you say, people only need to be put off once, and if we get real the price of an 8SE in $ (or £) is a lot of money to most people. It isn't like they are trying out astro by picking up a 130 Astromaster at the mall. I'll take your lead and end my rant now as it's Christmas!
Can’t agree more and have a very merry one sir.
Love your channel also Graham. Another fan of your Mak videos! Inspirational for using and keeping mine.
He’s awesome and to the point. Thank you. Folks like you are who inspire us to create. I’m sure I speak for both of us. Clear skies.
Hey Garnett! - This was a real deep dive! I owned a C8 EdgeHD which naturally skips a lot of the problems thrown up by the normal C8, I was really happy with that scope! 🙂
Looking at what you've shown with the mak 127 vs c8 here though, I'm left wanting a little mak now haha - talk about punching well above it's weight!
Thanks for taking the time to share your honest thoughts in this video mate 🙂
All the best,
Luke
Thanks for watching. You should get one. They’re seriously amazing optical designs. You won’t regret it. They are super fun telescopes and provide excellent planetary views. Merry Christmas man. I hope you and your family have a great holiday.
@@GarnettLeary Thank you Garnett! I really do wish the same for you and yours too my friend! Merry Christmas 🙂
I’m across the border in VA Beach and know the struggle. It’s a difficult area for astronomy. Perfect nights are really rare. Decent nights are rare too haha.
That’s the truth. I used to live down Lynnhaven Parkway. Just out by the mall. I loved the area but definitely not for astronomy.
@@GarnettLeary For sure! This week I actually just decided that I will sell off my astrophotography gear and go for night vision astronomy instead. To do astrophotography, I drive 45 minutes south to an area off Back Bay to shoot. With night vision, even on nights when I can't make the drive, and even in my light polluted area, I can pop on an IR pass filter and do some observing. I just have too much money (for me) tied up in my astrophotography gear for the little use I get our of it.
That happens to a lot of people. I pretty much gave up LRGB for SHO because of the amount of people putting lights up. Even with narrowband it’s basically only three nights a month.
Thanks for sharing your experience. I have several refractors and one mak, a Skywatcher 90. And when I see you holding the C8 I realise that would be a struggle to set up and down every time. So clumsy and without handle it seems that you should need assistance for that. I think catadioptrics look so cool with the mirror, and have been considering to get a SC. But I will pass and get a Maksutov or Newton if I later will get a larger telescope.
It seems the community is definitely divided on this topic. More people prefer the flexibility of SCT’s. I’d love to get more responses from people that have owned both. I think the fact that most haven’t is why so many people defend one side. The 8” SCT was rather clumsy to mount especially with the stock vixen rail. I can’t imagine having to lug something like a C11 around. The older I get the less I feel like fumbling around with unnecessary steps. Collimation is one of those things. For the price it costs to speed up an SCT one could easily just buy another scope. I recently upgraded to a 180 Maksutov and absolutely love the decision. I wont be shooting any wide field targets with it anytime soon but that’s what refactors and Newts are built for. I hope whatever you choose is perfect and you enjoy it. Clear skies.
My neighbor always talks that he wants a SCT when he gets a scope. He does little research, so i can give him a heads up about the Celestron. Sorry it doesn't fit your moisture zone efter making the improvements on the focuser. Clear Skies.
Everyone on this thread loves their Edge series. It must be worth the price difference. Merry Christmas
What do you think about flocking? I have a ES 127 Mak and I flocked it with black velvet, come to think about it, I flock all my scopes... 👍
Absolutely increases contrast. I do it on every scope I have except for my Lunt Solar scope. I have yet to find out if that’s a good idea or not. Probably no
I would like to know more about this.
Thanks for this super detailed overview Garnett. I feel that at least in the C series I will be skipping the SCT. It does seem like the Edge are a much better unit. For planetary it seems like the Matsukov is a great option. Not sure where I'll end up in terms of extra focal length but thanks for putting this video together very informative. Good to see Renzo ( I think that's what you said his name was) getting on camera.
Cheers
The Edge would be very much better. I’m not sure how good mirror locks are with auto-focusers tho. I guess lock it close to focus then use an external focuser with a motor? Not sure. A lot of people love them. I’m just not one of them. I have enough headaches to deal with. Merry Christmas Ollie if I don’t see you up here soon. I hope you have a great Christmas.
@@GarnettLeary Thanks pal Merry Xmas to you too.
I would say the scts are more for people doing visual astronomy. I would try to get a fast star lens there's not a lot of videos on them but it makes them extremely fast.
How you been? I hope you have a Merry Christmas
@@GarnettLeary ive been busy i don't do much astrophotography any more but thinking about getting back into it again. thank you and i hope you have a Merry Christmas aswell
Check out Damian Peach's planets and the Moon photos taken by Celestron SCt's. It may be very poor seeing you have.
His work is absolutely breathtaking. Probably the best in the world. Been following him for years. I have no doubt my area is horrid. It’s similar to London. The take away is that a 5” Maksutov will outperform this 8” SCT here. Every SCT? Don’t know. This one is definitely a dud. Merry Christmas and clear skies.
What manufacture date is that scope?? None of my C8s show any of the problems yours does.
I’m not sure. It’s from a Nexstar 8SE system. It’s the first run of that unit.
Great review, I'll stick with my MAK.
Thank you and hopefully it will bring you the joy mine has. Clear skies.
Thanks for this video Garnett. I own a Skywatcher 127 Go to Maksutov and a 8” Dobsonian. I love my Maksutov and was thinking about buying a larger aperture scope for the planets etc. I was considering the C8 SCT however on reflection I will now be looking at the Skywatcher 180 Maksutov. Why does the Maksutov take longer to reach ambient temperature over the SCT when both are closed units 🤔
The corrector is thicker glass on the Maksutov. Additionally the SCT isn’t fully closed off. There’s small air gaps around the retaining ring. Have you seen the Celestron 180 Maksutov? It comes with a Losmandy plate. I’m not sure of quality over all but it advertises having Starbright coatings also. That would be two perks over the other brands. Most 180 users report the vixen supplied as unstable or questionable. Martin put tube rings on his. Without testing the larger instruments I still feel I can make an accurate assessment of usability. For most locations the very large SCT’s are useless. Considering that it only makes sense to go 180 for the image quality and ease of use. My next clear night I plan to go after the Horse again but with the 127 this time. I already know it will be a better image.
@@GarnettLeary I didn’t even know that Celestron made a 180 Maksutov. The starbright coatings and losmandy are good perks but it all depends on how much it cost over the others. Good luck on the H/Head . Clear skies 👍
I modded my 180 to accept a Losmandy. Had to drill and tap new holes. It's very rigid now. After all that hard work it rolled off my bed due to the weight change as I was preparing to set up so I had to collimate it. Not too easy but it's fine now. I had a Meade Mak 7 that was heaven but it was stolen. It was nicer than the Skywatcher for sure with a built in fan for cooling. I also have a C8 classic which is quite nice. Great work my friend.
That’s a great idea. I may do that. Sorry for the loss. I bet that Meade was beast. The older ones have high reviews
@@GarnettLeary hand made here in Los Angeles. It was very expensive at over 2000 in 2003 but with GPS and goto it was very impressive. I actually still have the fork mount and wedge as I deforked it before it was stolen. It did have cooling problems with a 25 pound slug of an internal counterweight to make it work with the standard fork mount. So it needed a really beefy mount.
Standard SCT or Edge HD ? The same conclusion ?
I wouldn’t know honestly. What I can say is all the feedback from Edge owners is good. I haven’t seen the internals to confirm wether they’re made differently. The series does address some of the common problems. If I ever get one I’ll gut it.
i brought a 10inch dob after my mak127. the scts are just too expensive for me. the contrast is not as good as the mak,but i can accept that. and the newt is much faster and cheaper scope
i am definitely considering a mak180 after this video.
So far the 180 exceeds my expectations. It’s only downside is lengthy thermal equilibrium. I haven’t had much time with it due to travel and weather but I’ll be posting much more examples as soon as possible. I’m eagerly anticipating planets. I was real impressed with its ability to capture the Black Eye Galaxy especially in such modest exposure times. I would definitely encourage not letting it’s slow F15 rating discourage anyone. 2700mm is a really good focal length with an APS-C sensor.
@@GarnettLeary in astrophotography,i think people just have somekind of misconception in thinking that focal ratio is a main factor.
Yes it might be ture, but you are just losing "magnification" for lower f ratio telescope with the same aperture telescope .
say two scope ,
180mmf15=fl2700mm
180mmf5=fl900mm. more focal length means more "zoomed in". Crop sensor may help but smaller sensor means less sensitivity in every pixel to reach the same resolution.
Really aperture is more important than focal ratio.
Well said. Aperture is king. From my personal experience I prefer scopes slower than F7. There’s a pristine sharpness character inherent in longer focal ratios from my experience. There’s a lot of UA-camrs that push the idea that fast scopes are necessary. I think that’s largely why Maksutovs aren’t so popular. It’s a shame because they’re amazing scopes and very reasonably compact to accommodate modest mounts.
Nice video, i actually own a 6" sct but dont not relate to your issue og having to collimate it every time you move it, that certainly seems like something else is going on there, it shouldnt do that at all
It’s pretty clear to me the internals are poorly machined. The tolerances are way too loose. It’s probably way more noticeable as you go up in aperture. Your C6 may be one of the older, better made copies too. I’m glad yours isn’t so fickle. This one bad lemon, if that’s what it is, is the only reason I need to stay away from SCT’s. It’s unfortunate but that’s my response to it. In fact I doubt I’ll ever buy another Celestron product.
@@GarnettLeary yea, maybe I am lucky. Mines the same as yours, the evolution tube, just the 6inch version, but I have been wondering about getting a Mak next
Thank you!!
I Have 1 Of Each😂6se,and My Grab and Go Is A Mak90,3 Years And Neither Have Never Needed Collimated,They Dont Get Moved Around Much,and No Kids Around,Their Solely Mine,and We Havent Had A Sky For A Year Or Better
Fantastic scopes. Like tanks truly. I love mine.
@@GarnettLeary ,I Feel You There,As Well I Do Mine❤️🔭❤️
It’s a shame that the quality of SCT’s still seems to vary. There is nothing wrong with the design, modern production techniques should have done away with poor quality decades ago. Obviously, the main reason for the poor quality lies with the manufacturers but for some unknown reason, the astro community seems to accept that buying an SCT is still a bit of a ‘hit or miss’ affair. I’m fortunate enough to own an older (I think from the 90’s) Celestron C8 and it’s a fine scope. I’ve got an aftermarket focuser fitted and I’ve insulated the OTA. These two modifications alone have made a big difference to the performance. I also checked that the meniscus retaining ring wasn’t too tight and like yourself, fitted some Bobs Knobs.
Thanks for sharing your experience. Wishing many clear skies
ive brought the 8 hd. and i didnt like it. the mak 127 has much more constrast.
the focusing is not good. i seems like celestron didnt me to use it. if the mak 180 is as good as the mak127,then i think the mak is better.
Sorry to hear you didn’t enjoy it. Maksutovs are known for their apo-like contrast. So far I absolutely love the 180. I need another month with it and I plan to review it. I have to this day never enjoyed a scope more than my 127. It’s phenomenal. I can assure you there’s things about a 127 that are better than its larger counterparts. The main two being portability and thermal equilibrium.
Totally disagree with all you said. I have had no problems with my 8 SCT. If u are Mak thats fine dont discourage others. You are the only basher I've ever heard.
I’m glad you have a different experience altogether. The greater majority of people love the ones they have. There are folks who don’t like them. I prefer the older ones that are out of production now. Thank you for taking the time to comment and I hope you continue to enjoy the one you have. Clear skies.
You have the back cap off and you touched the front lens, double cringe 😬😬. My OCD is now off the chart!
Sorry Gamers and you’re right. That’s abusive. I was real tempted to climb a ladder with it like Chuck did. I honestly wouldn’t even donate the thing. I’m being a little hard on it I’m sure but I seriously have never been so disappointed in anything that promised so much.
@@GarnettLeary No sweat, I enjoy the honest opinion on these expensive toys!
😅😅😅