Very helpful video, thank you! I wish buy a new telescope (now I have a Skywatcher 60/900 refractor), but the choice is hard. I wish an MC with Goto control. But weight and power consumption are important criteria. But this video will help me make a decision
Thanks Martin! It was one of those videos where i felt i'd never get it finished! Maybe i'll pick up an ADC like yours for the next planetary opportunity, to get some more detail from the 127.
Like your comparison of views split screen, very informative as I currently have a Celestron 102 mm f/ 10 refractor and have always wanted to try a Mac. This has helped a lot. now must wait for Jupiter to rise in the sky. Will be viewing the transient of Mercury on the 11th of November 2019 with the 70 mm refractor Mead. in Arizona US where I will be able to watch the entire transient from sun up to completion. Look forward to more videos, Thanks
Great comparison. I have a Celestron C90 and it's a decent scope for the money. I use a Parks 45 degree diagonal and that works fine. I also got a great picture of the moon with my Nikon D60 and the C90. Even though the Skywatcher 127 came out a little bit better, I still think the C90 is a winner. Great channel.
Thanks Alan. The C90 has been delivering the goods for me for 5 years now, and it hasn't relinquished its crown to the 127 yet! It's a great little scope.
Thanks for the comparison. I have a c90. I got a dielectric diagonal, and will be getting an az mount. I was thinking of upgrading to 127. Maybe i will hold for a bigger one to really make a difference.
Great work you have done in putting the images and videos side by side to compare. I wonder how the SkyWatcher Skymax 150P would have been doing. I looked to see if you had Jupiter videos with it. Couldn't find it. I have moved myself towards the Meade 8 inch SCT telescopes. They show a whole lot more detail on planets and Moon.
Thanks. An 8 inch SCT is a great scope and for me preferable to the 150 Mak, but others may disagree. The Skymax should hold its collimation better than the SCT, in my experience, but the cool down is longer on the Mak. I fitted Bob's Knobs to the 8" i used to own, to get the best detail.
Muchas muchas gracias, por tus consejos me compre el C90 con el tiempo espero mejorar, pero por ahora estoy muy contento con el C90 saludos desde Chile. Thank you very much for your advice, I bought the C90 over time I hope to improve, but for now I am very happy with the C90 greetings from Chile. by the way excellent video, I suscribe
Exellent comparison video, really well put together :) I'm surprised how well the C90 held up, but upon close inspection the 127 did do better revealing ovals in the cloud belts of the first image. The second image was a clearer win for the 127 as you would expect. I think the 127 will pull away when the seeing is better, but I honestly think for 169 pounds the C90 gives some great viewing in a very compact package :) Looking forward to more on this!
Thanks very much. I agree the 127 has more to give. After it didn't initially trounce the C90 i checked the collimation and convinced myself it was slightly off, which was plausible after delivery. I then followed the instructions in one of Martin Pyott's videos and eventually stopped fiddling when it looked OK. Mainly the experience was a "note to self" not to tamper with a Mak's collimation screws unless it is really needed, as the back nearly fell off! All good fun.
Hi. Thanks for a very useful review. I have the HEQ5 Pro running via the ASIAir. I get good 5 minute subs with multi star guiding using a Fuji XT4 mirrorless (great camera for astro). Whilst the 127 is a slow scope at f12, would exposures of that length make this a viable DSO imager too? Lunar and planetary is great, but I'm frustrated by my current lack of reach for DSOs using my Z61 at 360mm. Payload limit for the HEQ5 Pro is 40lbs so I should be fine there, even with extras. I wouldn't expect mirracles but it would be an extra incentive to buy it.
Hi, I assume the 5 mins was with your Z61. I've used my C90 + EOS on bright DSOs with some success and have seen others get good results with the 127, mainly for planetary nebulae and globs, so they are worth a try. For small but dimmer DSOs (that would fit the native FOV) I'm guessing you may be underwhelmed at f12. My EOS is noisy with longer subs and maybe your Fuji is better in that respect. It feels like the slow scope isn't the right fit but I'd be happy to be proved wrong. Reducers are an option though...
Great video - thanks for that! I suppose one other difference is that the skymax may be a bit better for darker subjects, given the bigger aperture. Also, something I'd be really interested in would be a comparison of the C90 to the skymax 102. I know you've done a comparison of the 102 to the 127, but I'd be really keen to find out how the 102 compares to the C90.
In my experience the difference was quite small. The different focal ratios mean that the image scale is very similar, and I think the 102 may operate at a slightly smaller aperture, further eroding any delta between the two. Personally i prefer the C90, but others may disagree!
I enjoyed this. Thanks for this vid. It makes me even happier with my 127 Apex. Any chance you can make a video on tips for Registax and or Autostakkert. Please?
Is there a cheaper alternative to the ridiculously expensive Tripod??? I have a budget of $520, i can afford the Skywatcher Skymax 127 but that leaves me with only a $100 left over. I been looking all over but can't seem to get an answer to this question. Thx to anyone that can answer this for me.
I haven't got a zoom EP at the moment but it should work well for daytime viewing. The C90 is very tolerant of EPs and 8-24 is a sensible range of powers. The cheaper zooms have a fairly limited FOV but that may not be an issue in the day.
Hoàn Nguyễn Hi, it is a ZWO ASI 120MC colour camera. It’s an entry level astro camera to record video from a telescope. All good planetary images are made by capturing 1000s of frames of video, and then using software apps to stack the best quality video frames into a small Kyle image.
Great job! I really enjoyed that. What mount and video camera did you use? Can you direct me to a link? I like the idea of taking video and then stacking the images, but didn't realize a video would give you more frames to stack, although more frames aren't always better, correct? Cheers
Hi Lou, I use a ZWO ASI-120MC camera to capture video of the planets and the moon. A UK link is here, but you can buy it anywhere (most kit comes from China): www.firstlightoptics.com/zwo-cameras/zwo-asi120mc-s-usb-3-colour-camera.html It's an entry level camera but still very capable. Video and stacking is the only way to go for these targets, totally different to deep sky imaging. If the camera is capturing, say, 30 frames per second of Jupiter then you can capture a decent 1500 frame video in around a minute. Then the stacking software can be set to stack a % of of the best frames. You are right then when you watch these videos most frames are a wobbly mushy mess, so they can be discarded by the stacking software, but if the conditions are right and the atmosphere is reasonably steady then you can get a decent image using the best 20-30% of the frames. Generally the more frames the better though, yes. The software does all the work and then you can apply filtering (trial and error!) until you like the image.
I think a fairer comparison would be made at equal image scales. Alternatively, compare at equal brightness (same magnification per mm of aperture). In actual use, people will naturally do one of these when choosing their objective. For illustrative purposes, though, you can achieve either by resampling one of the image sets.
Paul Billings Thanks Paul, those are fair points. I tried to keep most of the variables constant, but probably my focusing influenced the outcome as well. I didn’t cover it in the video but I did end up with a lot of images, so I hope the general comparison was meaningful. Graham
Thanks Simon, you may be right. In the end i have ended up with a dozen or so stacked images from each scope, and in some of them the C90 definitely has the edge on the 127. I was expecting a clear win for the 127 but maybe that needs better conditions.
Hi, the videos were 1000 frames long, the same for each scope. Certainly more detail could be extracted with a longer capture but I think it works in order to make a back-to-back comparison. Graham
Nice video... I have the Skymax 127. What, in your opinion, Barlow size does the Skymax literally max out with? 2x? 2.5x? Would a Televue Powermate 5x be a complete waste of time?
Hello Jacques. I use mine mainly for imaging, and recently used the following website to see when I am over or under-sampling, as i couldn't get decent results using my 3x. astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd It led me to ditch the 3x in favour of my trusty TV 2x, and the results were (as predicted by the physics!) just as good, whilst the image was brighter and I could capture a higher frame frame with the 2x. For visual, I suppose it depends what EP focal length you combine the barlow with. The same site as above gives a max magnification of 317x for a 127. I haven't tried a 5x, but i'd say it is a waste of time for imaging, and only of any use visually with an EP of focal length 25mm or above.
Hi, I think the 127 is bigger than you need for daylight viewing, and heavier than you would want as well. A smaller Mak like the C90 seems a better fit, if you want to use an astro scope rather than a traditional nature/birding scope.
Hi, I love your videos. I was just wondering, have you tried out how the eye relief is for spectacle wearers for the eyepieces provided with the Skymax?
Ben Kratz Thanks Ben, I wear glasses and the 25mm EP is OK but not the 10mm. This is to expected from the design of the eyepieces. They are Plossls or similar, and a 10mm EP probably has 6mm eye relief, which doesn’t work for me! The 25mm probably has around 15mm EP, which is enough. I hope this helps. Graham
I am a eyeglass wearer, and I have to remove my glasses in order to use most eyepieces. Only the 2" eyepieces are useful for me while wearing eyeglasses (having myopia *and* presbyopia is not very helpful...) Better to focus and use the scope without eyeglasses, IMHO
The fuzzy images are a live view of the planets through the telescope (with a camera attached I believe) and are more representitive of what you'd see if you were looking with the naked eye. The clear pictures are the result of video been taken of the planets, and then 'stacked' using a program and then cleaned up with some image editing software.
Excellent video, I have some questions. Which diagonal do you recommend to use with C90? What other advice do you recommend to improve viewing with C90? Hi from Mexico City 🇲🇽
Hey, nice comparison. I don't know... I can CLEARLY see differences in those images/ image quality. Of course it's not black and white. - What did you expect?! Two great Telescopes.
Staring At Jupiter and Saturn Now..Im a Huge Fan Of This Scope As Well..and I Have a 6se😂😂..Im Looking To Do Some Upgrading,May I Ask Which Mount and Tracker Your Using..Off To Lake Erie For The Holiday🙏🏼❤️🔭Stay Safe,Clear Skies,and God Bless🙏🏼❤️🔭🌏
Excellent early hours viewing! I'm using an HEQ5 Pro which may be a bit of an old design but does the job well. I've got a Vixen AP as well which suits the C90 but is not that happy with the 127. I guess the 127 works well on the SE's mount?
Skymax 127 is really nice (my first scope). It was so good that I went ahead and bought the Skymax 180, too (that's a bit of a handful, to tell the truth, on my HEQ5 mount)
Nick Fotis You can’t have too many scopes! I had a 150 for a while which was perhaps the ideal Mak for the HEQ5. What’s the cooldown like with the 180?
@@JenhamsAstro I haven't noticed any problem in June here in Athens (I spend almost a hour setting up the equipment on the rooftop - I have to move the scope, the the HEQ5, counterweights, etc, do a rough polar alignment, then star alignment etc)
@@JenhamsAstro note that the Skymax 180 is 7 inches diameter, while the C9.25 has 2.25 more inches of glass in diameter, so more glass and mirror to carry (more mass).
Jenham's Astro Thank you for your answer! I wasn’t aware of the exact name of the software either. I am willing to go for a 127 but on equatorial mount. Your reviews are excellent!
Hi. I am going to buy my first scope. Would 150 mm mak cass be good for me? Or 127 mm mak cass? I am preferring mak cass for portability. I think I will continue for long period.
Hi. Both 127 and 150 are "portable" but of course the 127 is more so. To me it is considerably more so than the 150, and can manage on a lighter mount. Depending on your need for portability there are other options like small apo refractors (portable, high quality image but small aperture) or Dobs (much less portable, simple, lots of aperture for the money). Maks are great scopes for visual on planets, the moon and brighter deep sky objects, but they aren't the easiest scopes to use when you start out, as their high magnification comes with a small field of view. If you get into the hobby it's likely you'll end up with more than one scope type!
Hello, the Newtonian will be best for many deep sky objects, as it will operate at lower magnifications and have a wide field of view, whereas the Maksutov will be better for high magnification view of small objects like planets. No scope does it all! Clear skies to you. Graham
A relation has the C90, but he did not get it for astronomy, not at all; only for daytime/terrestrial use, and for a highly-specialised purpose; a pity, that. I'm the only one who has used it at night. The Moon looks wonderful through it, but it's a bit on the dim side for the majority of objects. I gave up on it after a short while, and consequently with very little use. In May I finally got my own, an Explore Scientific 127mm(full aperture), identical to the Bresser 127mm sold there in Europe, at f/15, and with a smaller secondary-obstruction. It's made by JOC, not by Synta as the others, however both factories are located in China. At f/15 the focal-length is extraordinary, 1900mm, and not far removed from that of a Celestron C8. I almost chose an Orion(of California, and also a Synta), or a Sky-Watcher, but this one was seemingly at a promotional price-point at the time, £237, and came with a mount to boot, albeit only enough to get the telescope up off of the ground. Then, I was simply tired of waiting on Synta to "pony up" as to the apertural discrepancy. Synta needs to place oversized primaries within said models, as that is what is required in order to meet the aperture stated within its and its vendors' advertisements. Incidentally, a dew-shield is an absolute must, yet the manufacturers and their vendors fail to make merry mention of that dire need within their advertisements, none whatsoever; mustn't detract from the attractiveness of the short, compact optical-tubes, lest sales of same falter in the very least. Aside from that, a 4.7" or 5" Maksutov-Cassegrain, regardless of marque, is the "sweet spot" among the varying apertures of the design; not too small, not too large, just right rather... i.imgur.com/0ODpsRP.jpg i.imgur.com/zhuPmN3.jpg i.imgur.com/BbcxjYI.jpg
Hello. Have you tried using the C90 and az-gti for astrophotography at all??? It's one of the few scopes in my budget and can't find anyone that has experimented. Galaxy shots etc
Hi Michael, I made a video about deep sky object astrophotography using my C90 and a DSLR mount, using an eq5 sized mount. It works ok for small bright DSOs like globular clusters and planetary nebulae but that’s about it. Large faint objects like galaxies need a lot more aperture and probably a faster scope than a Mak. The C90 is great for planetary and lunar AP. No scope does it all! I hope this helps, Graham
@@JenhamsAstro yes, I saw that video. As far as I could see, it didn't show capture details so I couldn't tell if they were 30min or 5 hrs etc! I'm looking to get a 102 and have been looking for someone stupid enough to have do e the same and poured time and effort into galaxy shots!
The neighbours house and tree got in the way? I'm shocked, this never happens😏 ******sarcasm alert********sarcasm alert********* Nice comparison, I'm surprised the 127 isnt better but perhaps the focal length, I wonder if you stopped it down a bit if the detail would improve.
Astro Shlibber Yes that tree and house remain determined to thwart me. The 127 hasn’t shown its best, I’m fairly sure it will trump the C90 in the end. But so far the jury remains out. Clear skies!
That would be an interesting test. It feels like the retractor should come out on top for larger, fainter objects where the CA isn’t an issue. The current C90’s focal ratio seems to favour it for high powers like planetary and doubles? What do you predict?
Hi Jenham's Astro, it is me again. :) Can You show me where to buy Skywatcher Skymax 127 for 250 pounds. I'm located in Austria, so preferably the EU page. I am completely new to this so I can not tell whether a certain page is a scum or not. I only need the tube and possibly to buy a 45 degree diagonal for terrestrial observation. Thank You!
Hello I buy most of my kit in the UK from First Light Optics. I know they ship but you would have to check the cost. I know Astroshop is a reputable EU shop, but a quick look just now shows a higher price for the 127 vs my UK supplier. Also if you google the Skywatcher Dealer list it shows dealers per country so you could find the official supplier/distributor that way.
Hi Graham, just searching through your vid history and can't see , maybe I'm blinded by the light , any tips and guidance on light pollution filters . Any advice or suggestions ? A subject for a future vid perhaps ! I have all my cameras set with step ups/downs for 67mm dia. all the best. S. Sorry it's off topic .
Hi, yes probably a future video idea! I have used an Astronomik CLS clip-in filter with my EOS cameras for a few years, and have been generally happy with the results. But i would say there are newer filters on the market which i'd have to take a look out before reaching a more up-to-date conclusion.
Whatever you do, don't cheap out on filters. You only get what you pay for is a good approach to them. IR cut filters are very useful for visual and camera work at steadying an image and blocking atmospheric moisture. For light pollution, a UHC filter is worthwhile. But, you will need to increase exposure times for DSO. Regarding brand, most of my filters are from Baader. Pretty expensive compared to others, but at the same time producing better results.
@@bazpearce9993 Thanks Baz, Baader are already in my ticked list. I have for a long time been of the "buy cheap buy 2 or 3 or 4 times" considering the goal is the best possible image you can get, filters should be classed as important as lenses .
Good video, but it was a bad idea to put the microphone directly on the bench, although i appreciate you were probably trying to shelter it from the worst of the wind. Honestly though, a lapel mic under your t-shirt would probably be better!? Or buy a wind muffler! ;-)
Hi, the company that owns Celestron (Synta) also owns the Skywatcher and Orion brands, so Maks of a given aperture that are currently available from any of these 3 brands are basically the same optically.
I think there will be more difference on better seeing conditions. This is Jupiter on the best seeing i have had so far with the 127 version from Orion and the same camera (and 3x on software) ua-cam.com/video/k7xNugFrTqs/v-deo.html
Youre cheating. You should've used the 127 first because then the atmosphere was thicker. If Mak is good enough for Von Braun its good enough for me. Its also less bulkier and more rugged. I took mine to 500 magnification and it doubles as a terrestrial. And it costs less.
Really appreciate the effort put into this review, great advice and information for beginners.
Great comparison of the scopes! Gives the right idea on what to expect.
Just ordered a Skymax 127 on an AZ GTI mount - can’t wait for it to arrive and some clear skies ahead.
Great video just picked up an 80’s C90 can’t wait to see Jupiter for myself.
Thanks for the comparison!
Great Comparison video! Thank you.
Very helpful video, thank you! I wish buy a new telescope (now I have a Skywatcher 60/900 refractor), but the choice is hard. I wish an MC with Goto control. But weight and power consumption are important criteria. But this video will help me make a decision
Cracking video review Jenham I've smashed the like button lad!!
Thanks Martin! It was one of those videos where i felt i'd never get it finished! Maybe i'll pick up an ADC like yours for the next planetary opportunity, to get some more detail from the 127.
Thanks for this as i already own the 127 and iam thinking about the 90 as a travel scope for holidays.
Hi, nice video. I have a C90 and I'm thinking about imaging so it was interesting to see the camera and Barlow set up you use.
Cheers
Like your comparison of views split screen, very informative as I currently have a Celestron 102 mm f/ 10 refractor and have always wanted to try a Mac. This has helped a lot. now must wait for Jupiter to rise in the sky. Will be viewing the transient of Mercury on the 11th of November 2019 with the 70 mm refractor Mead. in Arizona US where I will be able to watch the entire transient from sun up to completion. Look forward to more videos, Thanks
Thanks. I hope you saw the transit! I was busy with work so missed it unfortunately. Maybe next time!
That was very helpful, thanks
Great comparison. I have a Celestron C90 and it's a decent scope for the money. I use a Parks 45 degree diagonal and that works fine. I also got a great picture of the moon with my Nikon D60 and the C90. Even though the Skywatcher 127 came out a little bit better, I still think the C90 is a winner. Great channel.
Thanks Alan. The C90 has been delivering the goods for me for 5 years now, and it hasn't relinquished its crown to the 127 yet! It's a great little scope.
Real good job... Thank you...
Thanks for the comparison. I have a c90. I got a dielectric diagonal, and will be getting an az mount. I was thinking of upgrading to 127. Maybe i will hold for a bigger one to really make a difference.
Muchas gracias por la comparación. Me servirá para comprar su primer telescopio para mi hijo.
Very good comparison. I have the Skymax 127 and I would be interested in a comparison between it and the 150
bigger is always better when looking at the stars!.
Thank you. This video helped me to save money. For amateur use, I think C127 doesn't worth the price.
What do galaxies look like through these?
does anyone know of a video showing how to correctly tear down the c90 for cleaning?
Great work you have done in putting the images and videos side by side to compare. I wonder how the SkyWatcher Skymax 150P would have been doing. I looked to see if you had Jupiter videos with it. Couldn't find it. I have moved myself towards the Meade 8 inch SCT telescopes. They show a whole lot more detail on planets and Moon.
Thanks. An 8 inch SCT is a great scope and for me preferable to the 150 Mak, but others may disagree. The Skymax should hold its collimation better than the SCT, in my experience, but the cool down is longer on the Mak. I fitted Bob's Knobs to the 8" i used to own, to get the best detail.
Muchas muchas gracias, por tus consejos me compre el C90 con el tiempo espero mejorar, pero por ahora estoy muy contento con el C90 saludos desde Chile. Thank you very much for your advice, I bought the C90 over time I hope to improve, but for now I am very happy with the C90 greetings from Chile. by the way excellent video, I suscribe
Thank you.
Excellent work! New subscriber here, looking forward to working through your video library. Cheers!
Thanks!
Exellent comparison video, really well put together :) I'm surprised how well the C90 held up, but upon close inspection the 127 did do better revealing ovals in the cloud belts of the first image. The second image was a clearer win for the 127 as you would expect. I think the 127 will pull away when the seeing is better, but I honestly think for 169 pounds the C90 gives some great viewing in a very compact package :) Looking forward to more on this!
Thanks very much. I agree the 127 has more to give. After it didn't initially trounce the C90 i checked the collimation and convinced myself it was slightly off, which was plausible after delivery. I then followed the instructions in one of Martin Pyott's videos and eventually stopped fiddling when it looked OK. Mainly the experience was a "note to self" not to tamper with a Mak's collimation screws unless it is really needed, as the back nearly fell off! All good fun.
@@JenhamsAstro woah! Yeah I must admit it's one type of scope I haven't tried to collimate. Hopefully all is well now.
Hi. Thanks for a very useful review. I have the HEQ5 Pro running via the ASIAir. I get good 5 minute subs with multi star guiding using a Fuji XT4 mirrorless (great camera for astro). Whilst the 127 is a slow scope at f12, would exposures of that length make this a viable DSO imager too? Lunar and planetary is great, but I'm frustrated by my current lack of reach for DSOs using my Z61 at 360mm. Payload limit for the HEQ5 Pro is 40lbs so I should be fine there, even with extras. I wouldn't expect mirracles but it would be an extra incentive to buy it.
Hi, I assume the 5 mins was with your Z61. I've used my C90 + EOS on bright DSOs with some success and have seen others get good results with the 127, mainly for planetary nebulae and globs, so they are worth a try. For small but dimmer DSOs (that would fit the native FOV) I'm guessing you may be underwhelmed at f12. My EOS is noisy with longer subs and maybe your Fuji is better in that respect. It feels like the slow scope isn't the right fit but I'd be happy to be proved wrong. Reducers are an option though...
Great video - thanks for that! I suppose one other difference is that the skymax may be a bit better for darker subjects, given the bigger aperture. Also, something I'd be really interested in would be a comparison of the C90 to the skymax 102. I know you've done a comparison of the 102 to the 127, but I'd be really keen to find out how the 102 compares to the C90.
In my experience the difference was quite small. The different focal ratios mean that the image scale is very similar, and I think the 102 may operate at a slightly smaller aperture, further eroding any delta between the two. Personally i prefer the C90, but others may disagree!
@@JenhamsAstro ok great - that's valuable input. Thanks!
@@JenhamsAstro What 102?
I enjoyed this. Thanks for this vid. It makes me even happier with my 127 Apex. Any chance you can make a video on tips for Registax and or Autostakkert. Please?
I am not an expert and use mainly a "trial and error" approach. If I get to the stage where I think my process is solid I'll make a video.
Might not a comparison between the SkyMax 127 ad a Celestron 5SE or the Celestron 127 SLT be fairer? Good video, though.
Is there a cheaper alternative to the ridiculously expensive Tripod??? I have a budget of $520, i can afford the Skywatcher Skymax 127 but that leaves me with only a $100 left over. I been looking all over but can't seem to get an answer to this question. Thx to anyone that can answer this for me.
I was thinking of using the C90 as a spotting scope at the coast in the day time. Do you think it will work well with a 24-8mm zoom eyepiece. ta
I haven't got a zoom EP at the moment but it should work well for daytime viewing. The C90 is very tolerant of EPs and 8-24 is a sensible range of powers. The cheaper zooms have a fairly limited FOV but that may not be an issue in the day.
@@JenhamsAstro Thanks.
Tks for video. What is device/eyepiece you use to capture those video of Jupiter?
Hoàn Nguyễn Hi, it is a ZWO ASI 120MC colour camera. It’s an entry level astro camera to record video from a telescope. All good planetary images are made by capturing 1000s of frames of video, and then using software apps to stack the best quality video frames into a small Kyle image.
Great job! I really enjoyed that. What mount and video camera did you use? Can you direct me to a link? I like the idea of taking video and then stacking the images, but didn't realize a video would give you more frames to stack, although more frames aren't always better, correct? Cheers
Hi Lou, I use a ZWO ASI-120MC camera to capture video of the planets and the moon. A UK link is here, but you can buy it anywhere (most kit comes from China): www.firstlightoptics.com/zwo-cameras/zwo-asi120mc-s-usb-3-colour-camera.html It's an entry level camera but still very capable. Video and stacking is the only way to go for these targets, totally different to deep sky imaging. If the camera is capturing, say, 30 frames per second of Jupiter then you can capture a decent 1500 frame video in around a minute. Then the stacking software can be set to stack a % of of the best frames. You are right then when you watch these videos most frames are a wobbly mushy mess, so they can be discarded by the stacking software, but if the conditions are right and the atmosphere is reasonably steady then you can get a decent image using the best 20-30% of the frames. Generally the more frames the better though, yes. The software does all the work and then you can apply filtering (trial and error!) until you like the image.
Nice👍👍👍
These are similar to the scopes I've settled on, except I'm using a Meade and Questar
I think a fairer comparison would be made at equal image scales. Alternatively, compare at equal brightness (same magnification per mm of aperture). In actual use, people will naturally do one of these when choosing their objective. For illustrative purposes, though, you can achieve either by resampling one of the image sets.
Paul Billings Thanks Paul, those are fair points. I tried to keep most of the variables constant, but probably my focusing influenced the outcome as well. I didn’t cover it in the video but I did end up with a lot of images, so I hope the general comparison was meaningful. Graham
I had a Mak 127 skywatcher loved it. would like to try the 180mm Mak
i had a 2'' view and 1.25 eye peices.
Nice review, I think the C90's first image actually looked cleaner than the 127 but the second one the 127 was noticeably better.
Thanks Simon, you may be right. In the end i have ended up with a dozen or so stacked images from each scope, and in some of them the C90 definitely has the edge on the 127. I was expecting a clear win for the 127 but maybe that needs better conditions.
Thanks for the interesting comparison.
Just one question - how many frames did you capture in the Jupiter video to allow you to get the images shown?
Hi, the videos were 1000 frames long, the same for each scope. Certainly more detail could be extracted with a longer capture but I think it works in order to make a back-to-back comparison. Graham
@@JenhamsAstro Thanks for the response Graham!
Nice video... I have the Skymax 127. What, in your opinion, Barlow size does the Skymax literally max out with? 2x? 2.5x? Would a Televue Powermate 5x be a complete waste of time?
Hello Jacques. I use mine mainly for imaging, and recently used the following website to see when I am over or under-sampling, as i couldn't get decent results using my 3x. astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd It led me to ditch the 3x in favour of my trusty TV 2x, and the results were (as predicted by the physics!) just as good, whilst the image was brighter and I could capture a higher frame frame with the 2x. For visual, I suppose it depends what EP focal length you combine the barlow with. The same site as above gives a max magnification of 317x for a 127. I haven't tried a 5x, but i'd say it is a waste of time for imaging, and only of any use visually with an EP of focal length 25mm or above.
Nice video Jeham! Do you think a Skymax127 can be used as a spotting scope?
Hi, I think the 127 is bigger than you need for daylight viewing, and heavier than you would want as well. A smaller Mak like the C90 seems a better fit, if you want to use an astro scope rather than a traditional nature/birding scope.
Have you flocked the scopes? Have not done it yet myself but you can apparently get much better contrast by just flocking the main baffle.
Hi I have a video on my channel for flocking the C90 baffle - it works well. I haven't tried it on the 127.
Nice comparison. I assume with a tracker and astro mod dslr would be ok for astrophotography of nebulae and starclusters etc?
Yes, perfect for larger objects, and simpler than astrophotography with a scope.
@@JenhamsAstro Awesome! ;).
Hi, I love your videos. I was just wondering, have you tried out how the eye relief is for spectacle wearers for the eyepieces provided with the Skymax?
Ben Kratz Thanks Ben, I wear glasses and the 25mm EP is OK but not the 10mm. This is to expected from the design of the eyepieces. They are Plossls or similar, and a 10mm EP probably has 6mm eye relief, which doesn’t work for me! The 25mm probably has around 15mm EP, which is enough. I hope this helps. Graham
@@JenhamsAstro Thanks very much indeed!
I am a eyeglass wearer, and I have to remove my glasses in order to use most eyepieces.
Only the 2" eyepieces are useful for me while wearing eyeglasses (having myopia *and* presbyopia is not very helpful...)
Better to focus and use the scope without eyeglasses, IMHO
Daft question, but why are the images fuzzy at first and then really crisp and clear?
The fuzzy images are a live view of the planets through the telescope (with a camera attached I believe) and are more representitive of what you'd see if you were looking with the naked eye.
The clear pictures are the result of video been taken of the planets, and then 'stacked' using a program and then cleaned up with some image editing software.
Excellent video, I have some questions. Which diagonal do you recommend to use with C90? What other advice do you recommend to improve viewing with C90?
Hi from Mexico City 🇲🇽
You will need a 90 degree diagonal like the 127 type. I've tried prism diagonals and they make things look hexagonal, instead of round.
Hey, nice comparison. I don't know... I can CLEARLY see differences in those images/ image quality. Of course it's not black and white. - What did you expect?! Two great Telescopes.
Thanks. Like you say, no bad choice from these two. With more use the 127 has pulled clear of the C90. Both of them are keepers.
I would just love to see a 180 version with same testing
Yes the 180 is a bit of a beast, but I think it would be quite heavy with slow cool-down - i found the 150 to be bulkier than i expected.
I bought the 127 as a more portable option than the Newtonian 150/750.
Staring At Jupiter and Saturn Now..Im a Huge Fan Of This Scope As Well..and I Have a 6se😂😂..Im Looking To Do Some Upgrading,May I Ask Which Mount and Tracker Your Using..Off To Lake Erie For The Holiday🙏🏼❤️🔭Stay Safe,Clear Skies,and God Bless🙏🏼❤️🔭🌏
Excellent early hours viewing! I'm using an HEQ5 Pro which may be a bit of an old design but does the job well. I've got a Vixen AP as well which suits the C90 but is not that happy with the 127. I guess the 127 works well on the SE's mount?
The 127 is substantially bigger than the 90... thanks for the video
Skymax 127 is really nice (my first scope). It was so good that I went ahead and bought the Skymax 180, too (that's a bit of a handful, to tell the truth, on my HEQ5 mount)
The 180 is a bit of a beast! I thought a Mak would weigh about the same as an equivalent SCT. I was wrong!
@@JenhamsAstro the C9.25 is larger and heavier than the Skymax 180 (I know, since I have both :-) )
The Skymax 180 is easier to handle, in my opinion.
Nick Fotis You can’t have too many scopes! I had a 150 for a while which was perhaps the ideal Mak for the HEQ5. What’s the cooldown like with the 180?
@@JenhamsAstro I haven't noticed any problem in June here in Athens
(I spend almost a hour setting up the equipment on the rooftop - I have to move the scope, the the HEQ5, counterweights, etc, do a rough polar alignment, then star alignment etc)
@@JenhamsAstro note that the Skymax 180 is 7 inches diameter, while the C9.25 has 2.25 more inches of glass in diameter, so more glass and mirror to carry (more mass).
Interesting video! Do you need only the camera and the 3x barlow?
Yes, along with a mount for the scope. The processing of the video from the camera is done using the Registax tool.
Jenham's Astro Thank you for your answer! I wasn’t aware of the exact name of the software either. I am willing to go for a 127 but on equatorial mount. Your reviews are excellent!
Thanks very much. Clear skies to you!
Hi. I am going to buy my first scope. Would 150 mm mak cass be good for me? Or 127 mm mak cass? I am preferring mak cass for portability. I think I will continue for long period.
Hi. Both 127 and 150 are "portable" but of course the 127 is more so. To me it is considerably more so than the 150, and can manage on a lighter mount. Depending on your need for portability there are other options like small apo refractors (portable, high quality image but small aperture) or Dobs (much less portable, simple, lots of aperture for the money). Maks are great scopes for visual on planets, the moon and brighter deep sky objects, but they aren't the easiest scopes to use when you start out, as their high magnification comes with a small field of view. If you get into the hobby it's likely you'll end up with more than one scope type!
@@JenhamsAstro 🙏🙏 thank you very much for your support.
Hello ,
150/750 newton vs 127/1500
for the planetary and deepsky
Who is the best for visuel 👁
Sorry i’m French
Thank you
Hello, the Newtonian will be best for many deep sky objects, as it will operate at lower magnifications and have a wide field of view, whereas the Maksutov will be better for high magnification view of small objects like planets. No scope does it all! Clear skies to you. Graham
Jenham's Astro
thank you so much 😃
A relation has the C90, but he did not get it for astronomy, not at all; only for daytime/terrestrial use, and for a highly-specialised purpose; a pity, that. I'm the only one who has used it at night. The Moon looks wonderful through it, but it's a bit on the dim side for the majority of objects. I gave up on it after a short while, and consequently with very little use. In May I finally got my own, an Explore Scientific 127mm(full aperture), identical to the Bresser 127mm sold there in Europe, at f/15, and with a smaller secondary-obstruction. It's made by JOC, not by Synta as the others, however both factories are located in China. At f/15 the focal-length is extraordinary, 1900mm, and not far removed from that of a Celestron C8. I almost chose an Orion(of California, and also a Synta), or a Sky-Watcher, but this one was seemingly at a promotional price-point at the time, £237, and came with a mount to boot, albeit only enough to get the telescope up off of the ground. Then, I was simply tired of waiting on Synta to "pony up" as to the apertural discrepancy. Synta needs to place oversized primaries within said models, as that is what is required in order to meet the aperture stated within its and its vendors' advertisements. Incidentally, a dew-shield is an absolute must, yet the manufacturers and their vendors fail to make merry mention of that dire need within their advertisements, none whatsoever; mustn't detract from the attractiveness of the short, compact optical-tubes, lest sales of same falter in the very least.
Aside from that, a 4.7" or 5" Maksutov-Cassegrain, regardless of marque, is the "sweet spot" among the varying apertures of the design; not too small, not too large, just right rather...
i.imgur.com/0ODpsRP.jpg
i.imgur.com/zhuPmN3.jpg
i.imgur.com/BbcxjYI.jpg
C90 vs skywatcher heritage maksutov 90 pls
Hello. Have you tried using the C90 and az-gti for astrophotography at all??? It's one of the few scopes in my budget and can't find anyone that has experimented. Galaxy shots etc
Hi Michael, I made a video about deep sky object astrophotography using my C90 and a DSLR mount, using an eq5 sized mount. It works ok for small bright DSOs like globular clusters and planetary nebulae but that’s about it. Large faint objects like galaxies need a lot more aperture and probably a faster scope than a Mak. The C90 is great for planetary and lunar AP. No scope does it all! I hope this helps, Graham
@@JenhamsAstro yes, I saw that video. As far as I could see, it didn't show capture details so I couldn't tell if they were 30min or 5 hrs etc! I'm looking to get a 102 and have been looking for someone stupid enough to have do e the same and poured time and effort into galaxy shots!
michael todd those videos were stacks of small numbers (
@@JenhamsAstro I was thinking more along the lines of 2mins and a couple of hundred!
michael todd No substitute for time on target for sure, just not the easiest way to grab a galaxy shot. Good luck & Clear skies.
Hi, which Barlow did you use? Was it APO?
Hi I use a Televue 2x barlow. Quite old now but I like it.
@@JenhamsAstro thanks
The neighbours house and tree got in the way?
I'm shocked, this never happens😏
******sarcasm alert********sarcasm alert*********
Nice comparison, I'm surprised the 127 isnt better but perhaps the focal length, I wonder if you stopped it down a bit if the detail would improve.
Astro Shlibber Yes that tree and house remain determined to thwart me. The 127 hasn’t shown its best, I’m fairly sure it will trump the C90 in the end. But so far the jury remains out. Clear skies!
How would a C90 compare to an achromatic 90mm F10 refractor? On one hand you have a secondary blockage and the other you have chromatic aberration.
That would be an interesting test. It feels like the retractor should come out on top for larger, fainter objects where the CA isn’t an issue. The current C90’s focal ratio seems to favour it for high powers like planetary and doubles? What do you predict?
@@JenhamsAstro I agree with you
Hi Jenham's Astro, it is me again. :) Can You show me where to buy Skywatcher Skymax 127 for 250 pounds. I'm located in Austria, so preferably the EU page. I am completely new to this so I can not tell whether a certain page is a scum or not. I only need the tube and possibly to buy a 45 degree diagonal for terrestrial observation. Thank You!
Hello I buy most of my kit in the UK from First Light Optics. I know they ship but you would have to check the cost. I know Astroshop is a reputable EU shop, but a quick look just now shows a higher price for the 127 vs my UK supplier. Also if you google the Skywatcher Dealer list it shows dealers per country so you could find the official supplier/distributor that way.
Hi Graham, just searching through your vid history and can't see , maybe I'm blinded by the light , any tips and guidance on light pollution filters . Any advice or suggestions ? A subject for a future vid perhaps ! I have all my cameras set with step ups/downs for 67mm dia. all the best. S. Sorry it's off topic .
Hi, yes probably a future video idea! I have used an Astronomik CLS clip-in filter with my EOS cameras for a few years, and have been generally happy with the results. But i would say there are newer filters on the market which i'd have to take a look out before reaching a more up-to-date conclusion.
Whatever you do, don't cheap out on filters. You only get what you pay for is a good approach to them. IR cut filters are very useful for visual and camera work at steadying an image and blocking atmospheric moisture. For light pollution, a UHC filter is worthwhile. But, you will need to increase exposure times for DSO.
Regarding brand, most of my filters are from Baader. Pretty expensive compared to others, but at the same time producing better results.
@@bazpearce9993 thanks, yes and also there are a new generation of lipo filters that are suited to the newer led Street and city light spill.
@@bazpearce9993 Thanks Baz, Baader are already in my ticked list. I have for a long time been of the "buy cheap buy 2 or 3 or 4 times" considering the goal is the best possible image you can get, filters should be classed as important as lenses .
Good video, but it was a bad idea to put the microphone directly on the bench, although i appreciate you were probably trying to shelter it from the worst of the wind. Honestly though, a lapel mic under your t-shirt would probably be better!? Or buy a wind muffler! ;-)
Fair point. Will try harder! Clear skies.
Big mak and skies please
make comparison with the same aperture
celestron vs skymax
Hi, the company that owns Celestron (Synta) also owns the Skywatcher and Orion brands, so Maks of a given aperture that are currently available from any of these 3 brands are basically the same optically.
I think there will be more difference on better seeing conditions. This is Jupiter on the best seeing i have had so far with the 127 version from Orion and the same camera (and 3x on software) ua-cam.com/video/k7xNugFrTqs/v-deo.html
Visually theres no comparision.. I have both skymax 90 and 127.. the later much brigther the first much portable.
More light = better images.... the 127 is much better.
127mm is about 5 inch. A better comparison will be the Celestron C5.
I wanted to compare 2 Maks in the video but I've got a C5 so may compare it with the 127 another time. Clear skies, Graham
Shame about the price increases over the last few years!
Agreed!
wanted you to know i got mad , about how skymax has no case in us
Fair enough. I'd don't understand why it would be any different in the UK. Maybe the distributor here had some spares and put them in the boxes.
127 wins but trhe C90 is OK.
Very good but too much umming no need Bruh
Youre cheating. You should've used the 127 first because then the atmosphere was thicker. If Mak is good enough for Von Braun its good enough for me. Its also less bulkier and more rugged. I took mine to 500 magnification and it doubles as a terrestrial. And it costs less.
Maks are great scopes capable of high powers in the right conditions, we can agree on that. Clear skies.