I had this model that I bought from cn. It's a decent scope but I have enough maks already. So I gave it along with a couple of plossl eyepieces and a nexstar mount to my neighbor so they could include some astronomy into their little girl's home school curriculum. They're having fun with it!
I bought this telescope a few months back. I love it. It's a little wobbly with my Orion EQ-13 mount, but is very solid with my Celestron CG-4 mount. A Panoptic 24mm and Nagler 13mm are my main eyepieces I use for this scope.
Nice review. It was good that you mentioned this is not a toy. The comment on controlling it with the manual Vixen mount and controls helped me alot. Keeping the object in view with a small feild of view would be a constant task. I learned that overmounting is a good thing. Yep I ignored the sales guys. Keep repeating that mounts are more important. Maybe others will learn better than me.
thanks Ed. I'm a happy user of Skymax 150, for visual puprose mostly. Awesome on planets and the Moon, performs really well on stars clusters and DSO that are not too big. With its 2" focuser, I'm able to get a 1,5° FOV on the sky. Not too bad ! The sharpness of the optic is really good, I love it.
@@oninoyakamo Yes it is, but in fact you really can't see any vignetting even with a 38mm 70° eyepiece for exemple. You can fit the double cluster in the field of view easily.
😁Awesome sir! I also live in NH, have my own observatory near Keene and have a nice collection of Takahashi refractors and a CGE 14. Thanks for the reviews. I’ve learned a lot from you. JS
I have one of these built 12 years ago on a medium GEM mount - its truly an excellent planetary and bright deep-sky scope. With a stepper motor drive, it does a great job for webcam astrophotography. It remains crisp and of high contrast - one of the first scopes I've ever owned that 'snapped' into focus for objects.
Great review, thank you! I have seen amazing detail on the Moon with a Sky-Watcher 150mm Mak paired with a binoviewer and two quality eyepieces. I would argue that a binoviewer is maybe the best accessory for these Maks - once you use it, you wouldn't want to look again with just one eyepiece, at least at the Moon. Clear skies to all.
Hi Ed, thanks for the video. I use the 102 with the SW AZ-Go2 WiFi GoTo mount for grab and go. It's light and easy to use. So I'm always in the mood when grandson says:,,Hey grandad, let's take a look at the moon"😊
Have owned one in the past, but sold it and upgraded to 127mm... I think the 102mm has noticeable sharper optics but both are amazing for the price. All the best!
Living in NYC, one of the most light polluted places you can imagine, I agree 100% that a Mak is a the way to go for urban astronomers. I get great views of the moon and planets with my Orion Starseeker 150 mm Mak.
Agree, these small Mighty Maks are great little telescopes on Jupiter, Saturn and most specially the Moon. I own the smaller sister (90mm) and have really enjoyed using it on a heavy duty Manfrotto tripod I use with Medium Format cameras, both with manual AZ heads (TS Optics and Omegon) and Skywatcher's AZ-GTI unit. I also own the venerable Short Tube 80 and found the combination to be quite a good match. Always a pleasure to discover there's a new video from Ed out there.
I just bought this 3 days ago and I'm loving it! I'm primarily a DSO Astrphotographer, but my refractors are pretty poor at capturing the planets. I can see why the skymax gets so much praise. I actually like that this unit is front heavy: by the time I plug everything into the back, the weight actually seems easier on my mount (SWSA GTI EQ). I can get perfect balance with only 1 weight.
Great presentation Ed. I have the 5inch version, bought second-hand. Partner it with a couple of low power eyepieces and put it on a half-decent EQ mount and it's a decent scope. I live in a light polluted site so it's a decent compromise. The build quality is very solid and yes, you need a DIY dewshield for any Mak. They are very prone to collecting dew. Some black card and self-adhesive VELCRO works a treat. Agreed the dovetail bar is really too short.
I received one of these for a birthday when I turned 35, I’m now 65. My unit is a light blue sky-watcher and to this day it’s brilliantly clear with pin point stars. I’ve never collimated it, ever, never needed to. The only problem is you can’t attach a dedicated astronomy camera to it. My telescopes take turns on my EQ6R pro and your right, the mount is actually more important then the scope. Cheers Ed.
Jus use a regular eye piece tube with out the lens. ZWO cameras come with a 1.25 adapter that will just go in place of the eyepiece. And you can use a eye piece tube with out lens to use as an extender.
@@revenger681you are right. I will make a try with 5x live view recording first, but finally I will get an astrocam as I already had to buy a notebook for the live view recording.
Collimation screws have been on the synta maks for a long time, at least 20 years. Originally available as Orion apex and svp versions, then Celestron had them as slt go-to packages and also under the sky watcher name which is basically the synta home brand. They are usually sleepers with excellent performance, but a few years ago I bought an Orion 90 mini dob mak that had all sorts of abberations and I sent it back. My back in the day svp 127 and Apex 90 were excellent and I also re bought a 127 a few years ago with Celestron branding from an slt. Adapters are available to take an SCT diagonal or visual back and I had great results with 2" eyepieces for deep space viewing
It fun to watch a review on a scope you own. If I may make a suggestion I do use it on a Porta mount for a fast setup for the backyard. What very handy for a small scope on that mount is a accessory from Agena called Kokuai Kohki Part number pama-kk-ngh at this time it is listed for $85.00 For all small scope it comes in very handy. I enjoyed the review
I’m lucky enough to own an ETX 90 and a 7” Meade Mak. Both fantastic scopes in their own way. I own several Maks from different manufacturers. The 7” Meade is my favourite for Luna/Planetary. On nights of good seeing, the view through binoviewers never fails to amaze me.
I got the Skywatcher SkyMax 127 when I got back into the hobby many years ago. Nice scope, mine had good optics, and was great value. Similar to the ETX, there are adapters for the rear cell that allow you to use SCT accessories. I think I got my adapter from ScopeStuff. I eventually "replaced" it with a C8, quickly got fed up with that, then got a Lomo Astele 5" Mak, but then ultimately went with a 4" refractor as I was mainly observing doubles visually.
I guess that scope is not for me. I have that exact scope ( the 102mm) and compared to a 90mm achromatic refractor I found the achro to have a better image other than the CA. I did check the collimation and it seems fine assuming I know what I am doing. Also, another RUclipsr pointed out that this scope is actually 97mm in aperture and not 102mm. Being curious I checked mine and discovered that there was an inner ring or flange on the inner side of the meniscus corrector which obstructed a portion of the light entering the scope. This flange seems to be part of what holds the corrector in place. I measured that obstruction and found the aperture to be 97mm. I think the original person used the exit pupil to determine this and suspected that it was the result of some sort of internal vignetting. Anyway I did enjoy the vid and I don't hate the scope. I just tend to pull out the refractor instead.
Yes. Sadly there is a lot of that going around lately. The sellers here in the US don't have a lot of control over what comes out of China that day. I've seen some weird QC issues lately.
The 127mm is 119mm as well. I have both scopes. I guess that's just how Synta builds them. I have the 102 Explore Scientific triplet carbon fiber refractor, I love that thing. Try a #11 yellow-green filter for a cheap fringe killer or a Baader Apo filter for a little more $.
@@MountainFisher I have heard the same about the 127 as you mentioned and that the 150 is the same way as well. Not sure about the 180. I have the Skymax 102. Maybe one day Skywatcher will correct this.
I agree. My 80 mm apo refractor was better than the 127 mm Mak I borrowed. There was a significant price difference, so it may not have been a fair comparison.
@@lornaz1975The 150 and 180 NOW operate at full aperture and better ootically .Need to be Wrapped on REFLECTIX or similar so NO thermal plumes then can use them straight away..I find the 150mm as good as my 102ED esp with a 38mm 2 inch ep for deep sky and only jyst behind my TS 130 triplet on Mars.
Wow, that's the first time I've had someone comment on the lighting! I use a Godox SL60 as my key light aimed at me from a 45 degree angle, and a generic soft box right behind the camera.
Back in the late '90s I had the Orion version of this scope (Starmax 102 I believe it was called) which came with a eq3 mount, optical finder, 90 degree diagonal, and Sirius 25mm eyepiece. It was a great planetary scope and the mount was pretty good. At that time the Starmax was the astronomical scope while the Apex was the terrestrial/spotting version (45 degree diagonal and no mount). Unfortunately I had it and my C8 optical tube stolen from my car's trunk. Someone had actually removed the back seat seatback to gain access to the trunk. Man, I miss both of those scopes! Had the best view I've ever had (even better than the C8) of Mars.
Ref: Standard SCT visual back. Some astronomy manufacturers and dealers do sell threaded adapter rings so that SCT accessories can be used. Also worth noting that the rear port thread and pitch of the SkyWatcher Skymax series is different to the one on the Meade ETX series😉
My Skymax 90 mm is a fine telescope for quick observations of sun and moon, but also works great on mars and double stars. The EQ1 mount is too flimsy for windy conditions or when trying to use a camera, but sufficient for visual observations whenever there is no wind. One hour of lunch break is sufficient for solar observation with everything stored disassembled in a photographer's backpack in my car before and afterwards.
Recently aquired the 127mm version. Through my window on an AZ Pronto mount i see a decent wobbly Jupiter and Saturn. Makes me hopeful to get better views sometime under better conditions.
I love your videos! Super informative and I like your style. I have a 127 Mak, too. I want to start astrophotography (the Moon, planets) with a Canon 750D DSLR first, later with dedicated astrocamera. What is the maximal recommended focal extender x for this scope? My vendor said 1,5x only.
In the similar but a bit larger category, I bought a 127mm Mak-Cas from Orion some years ago. I put it on a very good tripod that I bought from some company that has since gone out of business. The tripod fluid head had some issues that were solved by some special glue in the right places. Worked great on the tripod then. Moon, Jupiter, and Saturn showed up very nicely. Can't recall if I ever tried the Mak on deep-sky objects. In the meantime, the telescope, two twin tripods, and loads of astronomy gear were stolen out of my house by someone who either shared a deep interest in astronomy or needed to find something to hock to get some drug money. Guess I should have invested some of the money I put into astronomy into making my home more burglar proof! Am much tempted to get another Mak, perhaps even bigger on the second pass, if I can find an adequate altazimuth-style tripod to hold it, since I do not like equatorial mounts and am not al all interested in astrophotography.
I own a Skymax Pro 150. It's a great little scope and my EQ 3 Pro can just carry it visually (I still haven't used it for photos because my 8inch SCT lives on my EXOS2-GT). It's very easy to lift and maneuver the combination as a one piece lift out of my garage. I own quite a few telescopes and it is the only one my wife comments on every time I set it up. The finish is very nice.
I think it worth mentioning that the F/13 to F/15 ratio of the the Mak are very forgiving of low cost eyepieces. A good Plossl eyepieces do great at longer F ratios. A good ortho or Edmund RKE also work great. Thanks Ed Great review as always
got this exact model some months ago and have been really happy using it for lunar and planetary imaging and also got m15 with it. the only problems with the images is still me
Hi Ed, I have SkyWatcher 127mm Maksutov which I attach onto a Star Adventurer gti mount and it's wonderful. It's such a small, functional package. My only issue is the perpetual clouds. :(
It can't be overstated how important flocking the baffle tube is for contrast. The skywatcher maks have very strong reflections, which become obvious with a simple look inside the the tube while pointing at the daytime sky, or the moon with no eyepiece inserted.
I got one for the moon and major planets- for public star parties. Sometimes Amazon has these for 272.00 free shipping, then they’ll raise the price for another month/ weird
I had this and this is a very portable little telescope for high magnification. I have done planetary photography with it too, of course the small aperture is an issue , so don't expect to match the guys with the 12" Dobsonian or the 8" SCT, but it's very possible to get your images of Jupiter or Saturn or even Mars! For deep sky, it's lacking the one thing matters the most, that is speed. At F13, it's just not gonna cut it, not to mention the aperture inside is a thickness of a pencil, so extreme vignetting will happen, just like for Ed. But for visual, Lunar or planetary AND on the go, you can't beat the size vs performance.
For a beginner, would a 40mm or longer eyepiece work to make it a wider field so it's easier to find objects? Is that how it works? I understand scope focal length divided by eyepiece focal length = power, and I definitely want lower power with a first scope, though I want it to grow with me. Any thoughts?
@@3dfxvoodoocards6 Maks have razor sharp image, but I'm not advocating for one against the other, chose whichever you like more. Maybe try them at a club if you have the chance.
Perfect timing Ed. I own an 8 inch dobsonian, and a Celestron 127mm SLT mak which I love. I bought an AVX this fall, because the tripod that came with the mak is too flimsy. Now I want to move up, and I'm trying to decide between the Sky Watcher 180 Mak or the Celestron 9.25 cassegrain. I only do visual observation right now, but may get into astrophotography later on. I don't know if the AVX is big enough for a 9.25. Any thoughts or comments really would be appreciated. Thank you so much for making your videos, I have watched everyone of them, you have helped me so much in this hobby.
The AVX is not strong enough for either the 9.25 or the 7" Mak. It will do in a pinch but you will eventually get tired of the jiggling and wobbling. I prefer to see those on an EQ6/Atlas/G11 class mount. Between the two optical tubes, the 9.25 is more versatile. Not everyone can make use of a 2670mm focal length and if that's you, you're stuck with a specialty scope that may not get used very often.
@@edting Thank you Ed, I appreciate your expertise. One more question, would the AVX hold a Celestron 8" SCT? Or would my 8" dob and the 8" SCT be about the same scope? The reason I ask is I'm selling the 127 mak to get something larger. Again thank you. You have helped me so much with your videos . Pat
@@edting Well, I have M81 imaged with this scope, but it took forever, I mean 15hrs to get a result I'd get in about 3hrs with a refractor. If someone wants to deep sky image with this Mak, it's really 3 steps foward 2 steps back. A cheap 6" reflector will run circles around it at F5 or F4, so anyone considering buying this little Mak should consider it for other purpose than imaging. Not to mention it requires a precisely tracking mount at this focal length as well as a camera with big pixels to match the focal length, otherwise they will be severely over sampling with tennis ball sized stars. I won't even mention the calibration frames, nearly impossible to make them good enough, so it's a lot of cropping and editing.
They say that Dmitriy Maksutov invented his telescope back in 1940s with an idea to make a compact telescope easy to use for schools and astronomy classes. It had a small tube 10cm diamete and 18 cm length, x70 and a short az mount.
That should work. Just FYI, and this could just be me, but I have had very poor luck with the "5" series mounts from Sky-Watcher. The "6" series is fine.
9:55 i mean you did stick q full frame on it, this thing may be much better with a APSC or micro 4/3 other than that its not bad looking. Although i dont know what beginner would have the money to soend on a mount over 1k but then proceed to buy such a affordable telescope.
But if not to consider portability, perhaps some long folal length refractor like a Skywatcher 102/1000 can be sharper/brighter (simple design, no central obstruction) for half the price of this Mak, what you think?
@@edting sure, but at f9.8 it's not that bad for visual, I suppose, and for astrophoto - mono camera & single narrowband filters eliminate the issue (but better to replace the focuser, as it's far from ideal)
I'm wanting to get back into some casual observing after about 8yrs away. I used to do alot of observing, and some planetary imaging. I have always loved short tube refractors, and (being on a tight budget) I've been considering getting the Skywatcher Travel 102 or 120. Is there any chance you could do a review on one of these models?
"Here are some pictures of DSO by the Mak" Shows very nice, contrasty pics. "They are okay, I guess, unless you're an AP perfectionist in which case they are awful." 😂
Nice review! I’ve been playing with the thought of getting a second telescope along with my 8 inch dob. EQ mounts look very fun and nice so I definitely want to get a 5 inch mak or 4 inch refractor one day to look at non-deep sky objects. Writing this out I’m thinking this way of thinking is dangerous for my wallet…
If you're looking for a manual mount. The Explore Scientific Twilight One Alt-Az mount is good for my 127s and it is solid. Definitely more heavy duty than the SW AZ mount. It is $350, but if you get one that is shaky there is a video here on YT that shows you how to fix what should have been a factory adjustment before they put the mount together.
I have used the Meade 127 mm Mak a little and I own a premium 80 mm refractor. I would say, go for a refractor instead! They are more versatile. Either way, you need a similar mount/tripod.
I know you’re busy and probably got better things to do but I really would appreciate your opinion on a small smart telescope called the ZWO Seestar S50. I live in a townhouse so using the backyard could be a problem due to people. I need something mobile with a fast setup.
I haven't liked any of the electronic telescopes I've seen so far. I'm trying to get my hands on the ZWO for further testing. Keep in mind, even if you get one of these, there is still no substitute for clear skies and open horizons.
I have a 102 SW Mak, then bought a SW 127 OTA on sale. After that I bought a Celestron Nexstar SLT 127 Maksutov go-to mount for my son. The Celestron 127 was exactly the same as the Sky Watcher except the paint job and the Celestron has the same 1.25" diagonal as my 102 SW Mak. All made by Synta. To be honest there isn't much of an advantage to having a 2" eyepiece even on the 127 Mak other than you can get an eyepiece larger than 40mm for lower magnification with that 1500mm focal length, but 37.5x is fine if you want to use a 40mm. I didn't buy a Mak for 22x views at 80° fov which it will not show. I figure my 127's afov is 70° max, I just don't use eyepieces over 62° because that isn't what Maksutovs are about anyway. With an 18mm Baader Orthoscopic eyepiece I got a remarkable view of M1, the Crab Nebula. It was dark, but I could see it quite well for a 5" aperture and even the 4" I could see its outline well. Right now Jupiter is coming in really well, but I do live in a desert and my viewing spot is 5200 feet. Plus it rained recently knocking the dust down. I might add I read that there isn't a ton of difference between the 102 and 127 because the mirror on the 127mm is about 119mm, I forget what magazine I read it at, so sorry. Found one though not the one I read. telescopicwatch.com/sky-watcher-skymax-127-review/ 1300mm focal length vs. 1500 is helpful on planetary, but otherwise I don't see much difference when I put the 102 on the Nexstar mount. It operates with less strain because the 127mm is max weight for the mount so you shouldn't put a 2" diagonal on it. I use the Nexstar for double stars quite a bit and it is okay, but I have to often put in the coordinates from my double star atlas. I put my 127 on an Explore Scientific Twilight One AZ Mount and it is very stable. I noticed the SW AZ mount isn't quite as heavy duty as the Twilight, but expect to take the Twilight apart while watching a YT video on how to adjust the shakiness out. I bought some shorter handles for the slo-mo controls was helpful too.
@aggressivelychad: I would recommend a "heavy duty" wooden tripod. They can be expensive but wooden tripods don't vibrate / shake as much as the aluminium ones that usually come with your telescope.
If you have the 45 degree diagonal, replace it. Any ~$100 diagonal should be fine. If there's nothing wrong with the one you have, I'd just stay with it. If you want the best, get the TeleVue EverBrite (don't look at the price).
@@edting Thank you do now another question or at least an impression I have. If you are going to upgrade an eyepiece, I would think (using the weakest link in the chain logic) you would want to upgrade the diagonal. Your reply makes me think that may not be the case?
@@edting Thanks for your reply! The Sky Watcher Classic 200p appears to be the alternate 8” dob you link, but its Amazon reviews look rather poor compared to the Orion.
I guess it is dirty pool to ask the following, but how does this model compare to a Questar? I know the question is unfair because the Questar is about ten times more expensive, but I’m still curious.
I knew a guy who bought a C6 thinking he was going to hand hold it! When I tried to explain it to him, he replied, "well obviously you don't know how steady my hands are."
There's a rule of thumb for viewing that says 50X is about the highest useful magnification. Beyond that, you get distortion, mainly loss of definition, in the image. At 13000 mm focal length, a 25mm eyepiece will give you 52x (1300/25=52). A 35 or 40 mm should give nice, low magnification, wider field views with this scope.
BS. Observing the planets at 50x is sacrilege. I generally use 150x on Jupiter and up to 250x on Saturn. With good seeing the images are detailed and crisp.
Interesting. You are the second person to say their scopes do not have collimation screws. Does anyone know if there was a variant that lacked the screws?
@@edtingI had that particular variant a few years ago. It is much lighter and there are indeed no collimation screws. But you can adjust the corrector plate using the screws at the front of the scope. However, this can be very fiddly and it's easy to wear out the screws, causing the front of the scope to rattle. I did manage to fix this by using bigger screws, but eventually sold it on.
DO NOT BUY WITH MOUNT, there is a skymax 102 that is much lower quality then the one in this video, unable to collimate, sadly i got one of these with an az-gti mount combo and not happy with it
I had this model that I bought from cn. It's a decent scope but I have enough maks already. So I gave it along with a couple of plossl eyepieces and a nexstar mount to my neighbor so they could include some astronomy into their little girl's home school curriculum. They're having fun with it!
I bought this telescope a few months back. I love it. It's a little wobbly with my Orion EQ-13 mount, but is very solid with my Celestron CG-4 mount. A Panoptic 24mm and Nagler 13mm are my main eyepieces I use for this scope.
Nice review. It was good that you mentioned this is not a toy.
The comment on controlling it with the manual Vixen mount and controls helped me alot.
Keeping the object in view with a small feild of view would be a constant task.
I learned that overmounting is a good thing. Yep I ignored the sales guys.
Keep repeating that mounts are more important. Maybe others will learn better than me.
I'd always argue the mount is more important than the scope, although of course you need both.
There is no such thing as "too heavy" mount for telescope. Bigger the mount (more mass) more stable it is under current weight.
thanks Ed. I'm a happy user of Skymax 150, for visual puprose mostly. Awesome on planets and the Moon, performs really well on stars clusters and DSO that are not too big. With its 2" focuser, I'm able to get a 1,5° FOV on the sky. Not too bad !
The sharpness of the optic is really good, I love it.
Isn’t the baffle tube on the SkyMax 150 30mm? That should restrict FoV to 1-degree
@@oninoyakamo Yes it is, but in fact you really can't see any vignetting even with a 38mm 70° eyepiece for exemple. You can fit the double cluster in the field of view easily.
Wow! Was unaware u had a RUclips channel. Your reviews were always outstanding.
I'm surprised I have a RUclips channel too! Who knew??
😁Awesome sir! I also live in NH, have my own observatory near Keene and have a nice collection of Takahashi refractors and a CGE 14. Thanks for the reviews. I’ve learned a lot from you. JS
I have one of these built 12 years ago on a medium GEM mount - its truly an excellent planetary and bright deep-sky scope. With a stepper motor drive, it does a great job for webcam astrophotography. It remains crisp and of high contrast - one of the first scopes I've ever owned that 'snapped' into focus for objects.
Great review, thank you! I have seen amazing detail on the Moon with a Sky-Watcher 150mm Mak paired with a binoviewer and two quality eyepieces. I would argue that a binoviewer is maybe the best accessory for these Maks - once you use it, you wouldn't want to look again with just one eyepiece, at least at the Moon. Clear skies to all.
Hi Ed, thanks for the video. I use the 102 with the SW AZ-Go2 WiFi GoTo mount for grab and go. It's light and easy to use. So I'm always in the mood when grandson says:,,Hey grandad, let's take a look at the moon"😊
Would love to see a maksutov newtownian one day. The focus at the faster focal ratio is so satsfying
Have owned one in the past, but sold it and upgraded to 127mm... I think the 102mm has noticeable sharper optics but both are amazing for the price. All the best!
Living in NYC, one of the most light polluted places you can imagine, I agree 100% that a Mak is a the way to go for urban astronomers. I get great views of the moon and planets with my Orion Starseeker 150 mm Mak.
Agree, these small Mighty Maks are great little telescopes on Jupiter, Saturn and most specially the Moon. I own the smaller sister (90mm) and have really enjoyed using it on a heavy duty Manfrotto tripod I use with Medium Format cameras, both with manual AZ heads (TS Optics and Omegon) and Skywatcher's AZ-GTI unit. I also own the venerable Short Tube 80 and found the combination to be quite a good match. Always a pleasure to discover there's a new video from Ed out there.
I just bought this 3 days ago and I'm loving it! I'm primarily a DSO Astrphotographer, but my refractors are pretty poor at capturing the planets. I can see why the skymax gets so much praise. I actually like that this unit is front heavy: by the time I plug everything into the back, the weight actually seems easier on my mount (SWSA GTI EQ). I can get perfect balance with only 1 weight.
The 102 Mak is considerably improved by replacing the supplied diagonal with an Antares mirror diagonal.
@studentjohn35: I replaced my original diagonal with a Baader Dielectric one and its much better (99% reflectivity according to the specifications).
Great presentation Ed. I have the 5inch version, bought second-hand. Partner it with a couple of low power eyepieces and put it on a half-decent EQ mount and it's a decent scope. I live in a light polluted site so it's a decent compromise. The build quality is very solid and yes, you need a DIY dewshield for any Mak. They are very prone to collecting dew. Some black card and self-adhesive VELCRO works a treat. Agreed the dovetail bar is really too short.
I received one of these for a birthday when I turned 35, I’m now 65. My unit is a light blue sky-watcher and to this day it’s brilliantly clear with pin point stars. I’ve never collimated it, ever, never needed to. The only problem is you can’t attach a dedicated astronomy camera to it. My telescopes take turns on my EQ6R pro and your right, the mount is actually more important then the scope. Cheers Ed.
Jus use a regular eye piece tube with out the lens. ZWO cameras come with a 1.25 adapter that will just go in place of the eyepiece. And you can use a eye piece tube with out lens to use as an extender.
@@ohwell2790 don't forget to mention plus laptop, softwares. :)
Why can't you use a dedicated astro cam with this? I'm confused. They have the same 1.25" adapter as eyepieces.
@@revenger681you are right. I will make a try with 5x live view recording first, but finally I will get an astrocam as I already had to buy a notebook for the live view recording.
Collimation screws have been on the synta maks for a long time, at least 20 years. Originally available as Orion apex and svp versions, then Celestron had them as slt go-to packages and also under the sky watcher name which is basically the synta home brand. They are usually sleepers with excellent performance, but a few years ago I bought an Orion 90 mini dob mak that had all sorts of abberations and I sent it back. My back in the day svp 127 and Apex 90 were excellent and I also re bought a 127 a few years ago with Celestron branding from an slt.
Adapters are available to take an SCT diagonal or visual back and I had great results with 2" eyepieces for deep space viewing
Thanks for the clarification on the collimation screws. I have been playing with too many ETXs lately...
It fun to watch a review on a scope you own. If I may make a suggestion I do use it on a Porta mount for a fast setup for the backyard. What very handy for a small scope on that mount is a accessory from Agena called Kokuai Kohki Part number pama-kk-ngh at this time it is listed for $85.00 For all small scope it comes in very handy. I enjoyed the review
Very good job on the deep space shots with that small Mak!
I’m lucky enough to own an ETX 90 and a 7” Meade Mak. Both fantastic scopes in their own way. I own several Maks from different manufacturers. The 7” Meade is my favourite for Luna/Planetary. On nights of good seeing, the view through binoviewers never fails to amaze me.
I got the Skywatcher SkyMax 127 when I got back into the hobby many years ago. Nice scope, mine had good optics, and was great value. Similar to the ETX, there are adapters for the rear cell that allow you to use SCT accessories. I think I got my adapter from ScopeStuff. I eventually "replaced" it with a C8, quickly got fed up with that, then got a Lomo Astele 5" Mak, but then ultimately went with a 4" refractor as I was mainly observing doubles visually.
I replaced the stock visual back with a Baader clicklock. It requires an adapter ring to get it to fit, but it's my favorite modification.
I guess that scope is not for me. I have that exact scope ( the 102mm) and compared to a 90mm achromatic refractor I found the achro to have a better image other than the CA. I did check the collimation and it seems fine assuming I know what I am doing. Also, another RUclipsr pointed out that this scope is actually 97mm in aperture and not 102mm. Being curious I checked mine and discovered that there was an inner ring or flange on the inner side of the meniscus corrector which obstructed a portion of the light entering the scope. This flange seems to be part of what holds the corrector in place. I measured that obstruction and found the aperture to be 97mm. I think the original person used the exit pupil to determine this and suspected that it was the result of some sort of internal vignetting. Anyway I did enjoy the vid and I don't hate the scope. I just tend to pull out the refractor instead.
Yes. Sadly there is a lot of that going around lately. The sellers here in the US don't have a lot of control over what comes out of China that day. I've seen some weird QC issues lately.
The 127mm is 119mm as well. I have both scopes. I guess that's just how Synta builds them. I have the 102 Explore Scientific triplet carbon fiber refractor, I love that thing. Try a #11 yellow-green filter for a cheap fringe killer or a Baader Apo filter for a little more $.
@@MountainFisher I have heard the same about the 127 as you mentioned and that the 150 is the same way as well. Not sure about the 180. I have the Skymax 102. Maybe one day Skywatcher will correct this.
I agree. My 80 mm apo refractor was better than the 127 mm Mak I borrowed. There was a significant price difference, so it may not have been a fair comparison.
@@lornaz1975The 150 and 180 NOW operate at full aperture and better ootically .Need to be Wrapped on REFLECTIX or similar so NO thermal plumes then can use them straight away..I find the 150mm as good as my 102ED esp with a 38mm 2 inch ep for deep sky and only jyst behind my TS 130 triplet on Mars.
Thanks for your time preparing and presenting videos. Enjoy your channel.
Lighting in the video was spot on Ed! Well done!
Wow, that's the first time I've had someone comment on the lighting! I use a Godox SL60 as my key light aimed at me from a 45 degree angle, and a generic soft box right behind the camera.
Back in the late '90s I had the Orion version of this scope (Starmax 102 I believe it was called) which came with a eq3 mount, optical finder, 90 degree diagonal, and Sirius 25mm eyepiece. It was a great planetary scope and the mount was pretty good. At that time the Starmax was the astronomical scope while the Apex was the terrestrial/spotting version (45 degree diagonal and no mount). Unfortunately I had it and my C8 optical tube stolen from my car's trunk. Someone had actually removed the back seat seatback to gain access to the trunk. Man, I miss both of those scopes! Had the best view I've ever had (even better than the C8) of Mars.
Ref: Standard SCT visual back. Some astronomy manufacturers and dealers do sell threaded adapter rings so that SCT accessories can be used. Also worth noting that the rear port thread and pitch of the SkyWatcher Skymax series is different to the one on the Meade ETX series😉
My Skymax 90 mm is a fine telescope for quick observations of sun and moon, but also works great on mars and double stars. The EQ1 mount is too flimsy for windy conditions or when trying to use a camera, but sufficient for visual observations whenever there is no wind. One hour of lunch break is sufficient for solar observation with everything stored disassembled in a photographer's backpack in my car before and afterwards.
Always a pleasure to watch your posts , thanks .
Recently aquired the 127mm version. Through my window on an AZ Pronto mount i see a decent wobbly Jupiter and Saturn. Makes me hopeful to get better views sometime under better conditions.
I use a MAK because Im a city dweller...a drew shield also help with street and homes lights. Is easy to store but you need a good mount.
Review the 180 skymax please.
I have a review on Scopereviews. I review the Orion-branded version. A 7" Mak is a specialty scope or a 2nd scope more than a daily driver.
I love your videos! Super informative and I like your style. I have a 127 Mak, too. I want to start astrophotography (the Moon, planets) with a Canon 750D DSLR first, later with dedicated astrocamera. What is the maximal recommended focal extender x for this scope? My vendor said 1,5x only.
In the similar but a bit larger category, I bought a 127mm Mak-Cas from Orion some years ago. I put it on a very good tripod that I bought from some company that has since gone out of business. The tripod fluid head had some issues that were solved by some special glue in the right places. Worked great on the tripod then. Moon, Jupiter, and Saturn showed up very nicely. Can't recall if I ever tried the Mak on deep-sky objects. In the meantime, the telescope, two twin tripods, and loads of astronomy gear were stolen out of my house by someone who either shared a deep interest in astronomy or needed to find something to hock to get some drug money. Guess I should have invested some of the money I put into astronomy into making my home more burglar proof! Am much tempted to get another Mak, perhaps even bigger on the second pass, if I can find an adequate altazimuth-style tripod to hold it, since I do not like equatorial mounts and am not al all interested in astrophotography.
I own a Skymax Pro 150. It's a great little scope and my EQ 3 Pro can just carry it visually (I still haven't used it for photos because my 8inch SCT lives on my EXOS2-GT). It's very easy to lift and maneuver the combination as a one piece lift out of my garage. I own quite a few telescopes and it is the only one my wife comments on every time I set it up. The finish is very nice.
The sweet spot, in my humble opinion, is the Mak 150
There are SCT Male to Male Thread T-Ring adapters available that allow a dedicated SC visual back to be fitted onto the Skymax 102.
I think it worth mentioning that the F/13 to F/15 ratio of the the Mak are very forgiving of low cost eyepieces. A good Plossl eyepieces do great at longer F ratios.
A good ortho or Edmund RKE also work great.
Thanks Ed
Great review as always
Yes, you are correct!
got this exact model some months ago and have been really happy using it for lunar and planetary imaging and also got m15 with it. the only problems with the images is still me
Ed, would nice to hear price of the 'scope (and/or clones) and whether you think its a good "value" or not
Hi Ed, I have SkyWatcher 127mm Maksutov which I attach onto a Star Adventurer gti mount and it's wonderful. It's such a small, functional package.
My only issue is the perpetual clouds. :(
It can't be overstated how important flocking the baffle tube is for contrast. The skywatcher maks have very strong reflections, which become obvious with a simple look inside the the tube while pointing at the daytime sky, or the moon with no eyepiece inserted.
I flock all my draw tubes...it does help 👍
I got one for the moon and major planets- for public star parties. Sometimes Amazon has these for 272.00 free shipping, then they’ll raise the price for another month/ weird
I had this and this is a very portable little telescope for high magnification. I have done planetary photography with it too, of course the small aperture is an issue , so don't expect to match the guys with the 12" Dobsonian or the 8" SCT, but it's very possible to get your images of Jupiter or Saturn or even Mars! For deep sky, it's lacking the one thing matters the most, that is speed. At F13, it's just not gonna cut it, not to mention the aperture inside is a thickness of a pencil, so extreme vignetting will happen, just like for Ed. But for visual, Lunar or planetary AND on the go, you can't beat the size vs performance.
What are your thoughts on a Mak vs a SCT? Is a SCT a little more of a general purpose scope?
The faster focal length makes the SCT more general even for visual use, as you will get larger exit pupils.
No matter the Mak, you can’t go wrong with a 32mm plossl.
I love a 32mm plossl. One of my favourite eyepieces in my F5 130pds.
For a beginner, would a 40mm or longer eyepiece work to make it a wider field so it's easier to find objects? Is that how it works? I understand scope focal length divided by eyepiece focal length = power, and I definitely want lower power with a first scope, though I want it to grow with me. Any thoughts?
A friend of mine giftes a 127mm Mak(Synta-Orion), and I got Svbony 40mm eyepiece, a 25mm, a 10mm and 4mm. The 40mm is my fave.
40 mm plossel is even better.
This 102 mm Maksutov has an almost identical price as a ES 102/1000 mm achromat, but which one has a better image quality and resolution ?
Maks have corrector plates, and are catadioptric, they do not suffer from chromatic aberration like achromats do, no matter the brand.
@@peterfalvay yes but doesn't the refractor have a sharper image ?
Both scopes have pros, and cons, so why not to go for a bigger Mak 127? It's still relatively portable, and not very expensive.
@@3dfxvoodoocards6 Maks have razor sharp image, but I'm not advocating for one against the other, chose whichever you like more. Maybe try them at a club if you have the chance.
Perfect timing Ed. I own an 8 inch dobsonian, and a Celestron 127mm SLT mak which I love. I bought an AVX this fall, because the tripod that came with the mak is too flimsy. Now I want to move up, and I'm trying to decide between the Sky Watcher 180 Mak or the Celestron 9.25 cassegrain. I only do visual observation right now, but may get into astrophotography later on. I don't know if the AVX is big enough for a 9.25. Any thoughts or comments really would be appreciated. Thank you so much for making your videos, I have watched everyone of them, you have helped me so much in this hobby.
The AVX is not strong enough for either the 9.25 or the 7" Mak. It will do in a pinch but you will eventually get tired of the jiggling and wobbling. I prefer to see those on an EQ6/Atlas/G11 class mount. Between the two optical tubes, the 9.25 is more versatile. Not everyone can make use of a 2670mm focal length and if that's you, you're stuck with a specialty scope that may not get used very often.
@@edting Thank you Ed, I appreciate your expertise. One more question, would the AVX hold a Celestron 8" SCT? Or would my 8" dob and the 8" SCT be about the same scope? The reason I ask is I'm selling the 127 mak to get something larger. Again thank you. You have helped me so much with your videos . Pat
The AVX was designed to hold an 8" SCT. Go for it.
Ive seen the 102Mak paired with a 585 sensor based astro cam for some pretty fun results on m33. Either way, its a nice little unit.
Fascinating! You'd think a low contrast object like M33 coupled with a glacially slow f/15 ratio is a recipe for disaster.
@@edting Well, I have M81 imaged with this scope, but it took forever, I mean 15hrs to get a result I'd get in about 3hrs with a refractor. If someone wants to deep sky image with this Mak, it's really 3 steps foward 2 steps back. A cheap 6" reflector will run circles around it at F5 or F4, so anyone considering buying this little Mak should consider it for other purpose than imaging. Not to mention it requires a precisely tracking mount at this focal length as well as a camera with big pixels to match the focal length, otherwise they will be severely over sampling with tennis ball sized stars. I won't even mention the calibration frames, nearly impossible to make them good enough, so it's a lot of cropping and editing.
Hi Ed!
How "serious" would you consider the EQ3 that usually comes bundled with the 127mm mak?
Thanks for the video, great and informative as usual!!
The EQ3 is a little light for that OTA. Remember, the focal length of that Mak is equivalent to a C6. Treat it like a C6.
@@edting Thanks for the prompt response!!
I wonder if part of an MCT’s perceived sharpness comes from the fact that max field in a 3.5-6” Mak creates the magic 2-3mm Exit Pupil @~50x
how does it compare to a celestron c90
I have the same telescope. I mostly use it for moon and planets.
What info can you give regarding the SVbony MK105?
They say that Dmitriy Maksutov invented his telescope back in 1940s with an idea to make a compact telescope easy to use for schools and astronomy classes. It had a small tube 10cm diamete and 18 cm length, x70 and a short az mount.
Would love to see a review of Celestron's 7" Mak.
It's the same as the Orion and Sky-Watcher. There's a review of the Orion on Scopereviews.
I’m considering the 127mm. I’ll mount it on a Sky Watcher HEQ 5 Pro Mount.
That should work. Just FYI, and this could just be me, but I have had very poor luck with the "5" series mounts from Sky-Watcher. The "6" series is fine.
Cheers Ed!
Hi Ed, I have looked everywhere for the back focus of my Skymax 150 Pro. Do you have any idea what the back focus is?
Thanks for the video! Which vixen dovetail would you recommend for bolting onto the short one ? Length? Thanks.
Any plate 6" - 7" or longer should be fine. Start with Scopestuff.
9:55 i mean you did stick q full frame on it, this thing may be much better with a APSC or micro 4/3 other than that its not bad looking.
Although i dont know what beginner would have the money to soend on a mount over 1k but then proceed to buy such a affordable telescope.
But if not to consider portability, perhaps some long folal length refractor like a Skywatcher 102/1000 can be sharper/brighter (simple design, no central obstruction) for half the price of this Mak, what you think?
That thing is an achromat...
@@edting sure, but at f9.8 it's not that bad for visual, I suppose, and for astrophoto - mono camera & single narrowband filters eliminate the issue (but better to replace the focuser, as it's far from ideal)
I'm wanting to get back into some casual observing after about 8yrs away. I used to do alot of observing, and some planetary imaging. I have always loved short tube refractors, and (being on a tight budget) I've been considering getting the Skywatcher Travel 102 or 120. Is there any chance you could do a review on one of these models?
The 120 is the same as the Orion Short Tube 120 reviewed on this channel. It's an old review but most of it still applies.
@@edting I will check it out. Thanks!
"Here are some pictures of DSO by the Mak"
Shows very nice, contrasty pics.
"They are okay, I guess, unless you're an AP perfectionist in which case they are awful." 😂
I like channel and you provide great information. Can you please tell me what planetary imager you use or recommend for the NexStar SE 6? Thanks!
I use the ZWO120MM (mono) and the ZWO120MC (color). They're cheap. $149 each. Get them both.
Thanks for replying so quickly! @@edting
Nice review! I’ve been playing with the thought of getting a second telescope along with my 8 inch dob. EQ mounts look very fun and nice so I definitely want to get a 5 inch mak or 4 inch refractor one day to look at non-deep sky objects.
Writing this out I’m thinking this way of thinking is dangerous for my wallet…
Dangerous for your wallet, but good for the soul!
If you're looking for a manual mount.
The Explore Scientific Twilight One Alt-Az mount is good for my 127s and it is solid. Definitely more heavy duty than the SW AZ mount. It is $350, but if you get one that is shaky there is a video here on YT that shows you how to fix what should have been a factory adjustment before they put the mount together.
I have used the Meade 127 mm Mak a little and I own a premium 80 mm refractor. I would say, go for a refractor instead! They are more versatile. Either way, you need a similar mount/tripod.
Is there a focuser for the MK105mm?
I know you’re busy and probably got better things to do but I really would appreciate your opinion on a small smart telescope called the ZWO Seestar S50. I live in a townhouse so using the backyard could be a problem due to people. I need something mobile with a fast setup.
I haven't liked any of the electronic telescopes I've seen so far. I'm trying to get my hands on the ZWO for further testing. Keep in mind, even if you get one of these, there is still no substitute for clear skies and open horizons.
Fast setup - Yes, but you probably have to keep it running for a few hours to get a decent picture.
I have a 102 SW Mak, then bought a SW 127 OTA on sale. After that I bought a Celestron Nexstar SLT 127 Maksutov go-to mount for my son. The Celestron 127 was exactly the same as the Sky Watcher except the paint job and the Celestron has the same 1.25" diagonal as my 102 SW Mak. All made by Synta. To be honest there isn't much of an advantage to having a 2" eyepiece even on the 127 Mak other than you can get an eyepiece larger than 40mm for lower magnification with that 1500mm focal length, but 37.5x is fine if you want to use a 40mm. I didn't buy a Mak for 22x views at 80° fov which it will not show. I figure my 127's afov is 70° max, I just don't use eyepieces over 62° because that isn't what Maksutovs are about anyway.
With an 18mm Baader Orthoscopic eyepiece I got a remarkable view of M1, the Crab Nebula. It was dark, but I could see it quite well for a 5" aperture and even the 4" I could see its outline well.
Right now Jupiter is coming in really well, but I do live in a desert and my viewing spot is 5200 feet. Plus it rained recently knocking the dust down.
I might add I read that there isn't a ton of difference between the 102 and 127 because the mirror on the 127mm is about 119mm, I forget what magazine I read it at, so sorry. Found one though not the one I read.
telescopicwatch.com/sky-watcher-skymax-127-review/
1300mm focal length vs. 1500 is helpful on planetary, but otherwise I don't see much difference when I put the 102 on the Nexstar mount. It operates with less strain because the 127mm is max weight for the mount so you shouldn't put a 2" diagonal on it. I use the Nexstar for double stars quite a bit and it is okay, but I have to often put in the coordinates from my double star atlas.
I put my 127 on an Explore Scientific Twilight One AZ Mount and it is very stable. I noticed the SW AZ mount isn't quite as heavy duty as the Twilight, but expect to take the Twilight apart while watching a YT video on how to adjust the shakiness out. I bought some shorter handles for the slo-mo controls was helpful too.
What's a reasonable tripod to get for this telescope, for a beginner?
@aggressivelychad: I would recommend a "heavy duty" wooden tripod. They can be expensive but wooden tripods don't vibrate / shake as much as the aluminium ones that usually come with your telescope.
I have have the Orion version and was wondering if you have a diagonal upgrade recommendation for these? Thanks John
If you have the 45 degree diagonal, replace it. Any ~$100 diagonal should be fine. If there's nothing wrong with the one you have, I'd just stay with it. If you want the best, get the TeleVue EverBrite (don't look at the price).
@@edting Thank you do now another question or at least an impression I have. If you are going to upgrade an eyepiece, I would think (using the weakest link in the chain logic) you would want to upgrade the diagonal. Your reply makes me think that may not be the case?
The optics on this thing, nothing to report that is good news. Ummm might wanna edit that out of the video.
"Nothing to report. That, is good news" but yeah, the cadence he spoke it with could make you wonder if it's the other way, ha ha.
I have the Orion version. I occassionally attach my DSLR to it. I could photograph the moon OK.
What mm rail can i use to mount the red dot
Is the Orion XT8 canceled? I can’t find it for sale anywhere, not from Amazon, Best Buy, B&H, New Egg, nor even directly from Orion.
Get any 8" Dob. All that stuff comes from the same place, just pick one. A lot of scopes are out of stock right now, keep looking.
@@edting Thanks for your reply! The Sky Watcher Classic 200p appears to be the alternate 8” dob you link, but its Amazon reviews look rather poor compared to the Orion.
I guess it is dirty pool to ask the following, but how does this model compare to a Questar? I know the question is unfair because the Questar is about ten times more expensive, but I’m still curious.
They compare VERY well. Especially if you flock it.
I was seeing my RC6 and a guy tried to buy it to use on a photography tripod... I managed to persuade him to not buy it.
I knew a guy who bought a C6 thinking he was going to hand hold it! When I tried to explain it to him, he replied, "well obviously you don't know how steady my hands are."
Would this be stable on a bresser eq3 mount?
That should be OK. If you're new at this, be patient while you learn how to use the mount. A CG-4 class mount would be even better.
Can someone help me and tell me which would be the cheapest mount that will function with my maksutov? Thank you so much!
There's a rule of thumb for viewing that says 50X is about the highest useful magnification. Beyond that, you get distortion, mainly loss of definition, in the image. At 13000 mm focal length, a 25mm eyepiece will give you 52x (1300/25=52). A 35 or 40 mm should give nice, low magnification, wider field views with this scope.
BS. Observing the planets at 50x is sacrilege. I generally use 150x on Jupiter and up to 250x on Saturn. With good seeing the images are detailed and crisp.
I use a Panoptic 24mm for 54x and a Nagler 13mm for 100x in my 102 mak. The 24 mm Panoptic gives you a similar TFOV as a 32mm or 40mm plossl.
The rule of thumb is 50x per inch of aperture.
@@sidpackard8613Or twice the aperture in mm.
CAN I TRUST OFFICIAL WEB FOR PURCHASING ACTUALLY I AM FROM INDIA SO WILL THEY DILIVER SAME SERVICE AS U.S.
I own this telescope and I hate it.
Its not aligned and I cant collimate it.
Because there is no screws.
Interesting. You are the second person to say their scopes do not have collimation screws. Does anyone know if there was a variant that lacked the screws?
Thanks for that. You'd think it would cost them more to make two different versions.
@@edtingI had that particular variant a few years ago. It is much lighter and there are indeed no collimation screws. But you can adjust the corrector plate using the screws at the front of the scope. However, this can be very fiddly and it's easy to wear out the screws, causing the front of the scope to rattle. I did manage to fix this by using bigger screws, but eventually sold it on.
DO NOT BUY WITH MOUNT, there is a skymax 102 that is much lower quality then the one in this video, unable to collimate, sadly i got one of these with an az-gti mount combo and not happy with it
I had one of these and I couldn't get rid of it fast enough😂. I now have the black diamond version OTA and it's so much better.