Adc should go in first, the barlow is probably 3x with adc in-between the barlow and the camera, but that may not be a bad thing in this application. A
Did you ever try it with 2" eyepieces? They really open up the dso possibilities. A 56mm plossl for brightest image and widest true field. Some 38-42mm superwides also give the widest true field or very close to that (45.7mm field stop for 38mm Q7 and swa/swan types) and the WO 40mm swan is probably in the maximum 46-47mm field stop. Chinese 30mm UW80s are a bit narrower true field, but the 84deg 30mm widescan III, if you can find one, goes all the way to the edge. I miss mine, I had to replace it with a widescan II, which does not go all the way to the edge, but closer than the chinese clones (uw80). I believe the 40mm pentax xw has a 47mm field stop, but it is around $500 and has a bit of field curvature. I wound up selling mine. On the cheaper end, a GSO made 40mm wide field kellner, like what comes in those 2" eyepiece kits, is also a good option for a mak, and celestron has them on clearance for $49 right now, and I think the astromania branded ones are normally $59. Ignore the 56deg specs on those as they are closer to 65ded. I wouldnt suggest the 42mm superview as it is a tad narrower field than the 40mm, despite what the specs say (it is not 68, more like 58), it is also not as nice of a view. Only the 15mm and 30mm superview are decent in my experience, and a 56 plossl is much better, and wider than the 50mm superview. But any of them are better than being limited to 1.25 32mm and 40mm plossls on deep sky
The c5 is a very old one, probably excellent optics, but those were either uncoated, or with "special coatings" which are the most basic single layer coatings on the corrector. So for light transmission the modern multicoatings on the meniscus, and likely slightly enhanced mirror coatings, that havent been aging for 40-50 years. There are a few cherry synta 127s out there, i had an orion one 20 years ago that i regretfully sold about 4 years later. A few years ago i bought a cherry celestron version, but lost that along with my van that had a few more scopes and mounts in it at the time, the gub'ment stole it, so i couldn't do anything about it nor get any compensation for the loss. I would say that a ccd double star test wouldn't be affected by the difference in coatings, but for deep sky visual it would be a huge difference.
I have a 40mm .965 japan made meade MA eyepiece, best way to get a bright low power image out of that scope. It is in NOS condition. It has a very narrow apparent field around 30 deg, but it uses the maximum possible field in .965. There was also a wide angle 18mm .965, i think it was Koenig, it had a dome top, and might have come with later versions in the 80s
It seems as though most amature astronomers are too worried about the "noise" of their mounts disturbing their neighbors. I can tell you for a certainty, that there are no mounts made that are as loud as any vehicles of any neighbor of mine that have sat idling out front of my home at any hour of the night. So unless you're trying to hide what you're doing from some nosy neighbor, you really shouldn't worry at all about that tiny amount of sound coming from your mount. 😁
The images look great, especially taking into consideration it's so cheap! If given the option, would you go for this telescope or for a telephoto lens (something like an old M42 300mm, about same price second hand)?
Hello, it’s a good question. The ST80 is a useful lightweight scope to have in your Astro kit but if you have good “old lens” knowledge I think that a lens is a good option, as the extension tube/ adapter arrangement wasn’t ideal with the scope and brought a few compromises which you might avoid with a lens (even though an M42 lens probably needs an adapter for a modern camera. V- easily sourced). As with all AP, the mount stability is a key factor as well.
I like those cheap red dots. They are very light, and I even use them on non goto scopes, and with 2" low power eyepieces, I have no problems finding objects
Yes they get a bad rep but work pretty well for me as long as they are lined up. The slightly more expensive metal bodied ones keep their alignment better.
@@JenhamsAstro ah yes, but most can't be dialed down quite as dim. I used to use one of those when I had an AT66ED back in the day, which had a little WO stalk available that bolted into a single hole on the focuser
The mak has modern coatings, that old C5 has either uncoated corrector or 'special coatings " which were just basic single layer coatings. The mak will have a brighter image. A better more fair deep sky comparison would be a modern c5 with xlt coatings
Also maks have no coma, and a flatter field out of the box. A good sct f6.3 reducer/corrector solves that issue, and also gives the sct an advantage for deep space use, brighter and wider. I still love those 127 maks, had 2, one way back from orion that I sold, and one a few years ago from celestron that was effectively stolen. I probably won't ever have one again because of the price increases, so I have to settle with my etx90 tube, and my long tube 4" f10 achromat to cover what the 127 did. I do still have an old c8 with starbright and an old meade 10 with either EMC or MCOG coatings. I haven't opened the case in a while on that beast. I also have 6" and 10" dobs, the 6 would also generally beat the mak with an inch more aperture and smaller obstruction at f8. I lost my xt8 and a few more scopes and mounts in the same incident as the 127, as well as all but my 4# counterweights for my lone remaining eq mount, so my 4" refractor is grounded until I get at least one more weight. I can "overmmount" my etx90 or st80 though, next time I so serious planet work and want a smaller setup I will probably use the 90 on the astroview, and next time I go to dark skies it will be the st80 for widefield. If I could go back and avoid that incident I would, and still have my van and more scopes and mounts for various situations. The 127 on the astroview with basic tracking drive was actually getting decent short exposures with my fuji x1. I hadn't had it in dark skies, but m42 was coming through in bortle 8 or 9. Can't do that anymore, best I could try would be on C8 with f6.3 reducer on the dreaded wedge which is harder to polar align than an astroview with polar scope
Many thanks for this review. I found one of the old C90's on Ebay and wanted to know how well these old scopes work. Now I know what to expect from the old C90 when I get it. You review was apples to apples!
Very nice telescope. I have one of the first Nexstars made in the year 2000. It is the same color as that one. I got over 20 years of use from it until I left it in a cold storage building to long and it quit working. The Evolution mount is nice. Thanks for the video. I would like to have a mount like that for my Nexstar 5.
Hi Graham, Just wanted to say that I really enjoy your video’s and find them very useful. I particularly enjoyed your video flocking the C90’s center baffle. I took it a step further by flocking both the tube and the baffle, plus added a dew/light shield. Solved all my internal reflection issues and turned the my Orion 90mm Mak into a champ performer. Keep these video’s coming.
Hi John, unfortunately I sold my focuser with the 150 model so I can’t check for you, but I think the issue is that the focuser snags the original focus knob on the 127 model. Most people have adopted alternatives like a bolt-on electric focuser with a drive belt, a larger 3D printed focuser knob or a clothes peg (yes, really!) So I think the answer is no.
Hello Graham. Have you used this scope for lunar and/or planetary imaging? I would like to know your thoughts on this scope/mount vs using an equatorial mount. Thanks.
Hello David, so far I’ve used the scope mainly for visual observation rather than imaging. As for equatorial vs alt az, the stacking software like AutoStakkert allows for field rotation so I don’t see any issue with using an alt az mount when each video frame is of very short duration.
I just purchased the C90 and waiting for delivery. I prefer the smaller scope considering performance to dollar value. I’m only using it for planetary and some bright sky objects. Not a total astronomy geek, just an occasional hobby for retirement. Thanks for the video. It convinced me that I made the best choice.
Hi, thank you for taking the time to make this video, it is the most clearly presented one I have seen and fitted my equipment perfectly so I am now ready to have another go at shooting the moon - deep sky images will have to wait until I am more confident.
Hey, all I have got is a GTo Eq mount (skywatecher GTi) and a full frame Mirrorless camera (Sony A7C), and a stable tripod. Unfortunately I have no autoguiding camera and scope as of now. I aim to shoot some DSOs like M81, M51, rosette nebula etc. Do you think i will manage with this scope? ( I live in Bortle 5-6 skies)
Hello, you don’t need to auto guide as long as you can track on an Equatorial. I think you can set long exposures with that camera, and if so an experiment would be worthwhile. Of course you need yo point to the target with the camera attached to the mount (can you attach it - you may need an adapter to connect to a dovetail bar). And you need to make sure that the lens is well focussed - again this sounds obvious but many lenses aren’t at infinity when exactly set at that focus position. So check focus when pointing to a bright target at high ISO, adjust til it’s right and then carefully move up the target without touching the lens.
Pretty impressive for a cheap bridge camera though.. I was under the impression I could only use this during the day.. I will be experimenting once I get a tripod.
Kind of. Objects like planetary nebulae or globular clusters are well suited to this sort of scope, as they are small (suited to the scope’s long focal focal length and hence high magnification) and relatively bright (as the scope has a smallish aperture). But for DSOs like emission nebulae and most galaxies then it is not ideal. These fainter objects are best observed with more aperture and lower power. No scope does it all!
Thank you! This was so helpful. I spent 2 hours last night with my first scope trying to follow the moon and it was a total nightmare, but now I see these simple things I need to do first to have a better second go. I’m so glad I found your videos :)
That’s great I’m glad it helped. Equatorials are not at all obvious at first use so it’s sort of ironic that many scopes aimed at new astronomers are supplied with them. Clear skies!
The kit lens is pretty good! I like having the IS feature for normal night photos. I've been able to get super-sharp images at 1/8 second, which is insane. For normal use, it easily makes up for the extra aperture of the 50/1.8. But IS really stinks for astro photos. As for the 50mm lens, the older versions have a focusing scale and a hard stop, which I really prefer for manual focus work.
Yes the kit lens is surprisingly capable. I really like the 50 but mine lacks the focusing scale, so every time I use it I need to feed the live view to my laptop to get the focus spot on. Great results though for little outlay. Like with a lot of setups I am the weak point not the equipment!
Good evening! Wouldn't it be easier to buy a full-fledged and full-size Newton 130 650 pipe on an equatorial mount and fully observe what to do with unnecessary unnecessary problems!?
I'm excited: I just got the Orion version of this. Looking forward to creating a photo map of the moon. Should be able to get some good detail with a 2x teleconverter on my camera.
Mine Mak 127 bought from FLO came with 45.4 mm thread. Got EYSDON SCT Male to Mak Female Threads T-Ring Adapter 2"-24TPI M45.4*1mm from Aliexpress and it fits.
The problem is that any kind of reflector can not handle big eye pieces , i noticed it on 4inch Newtonian and 30mm eye piece , and there was no improvement over 25mm , i got 5mm of tube visible, this is due to the light path , secondary mirror being a problem narrowing the field of view where on Refractors i could put in 50mm EP on a classic 80mm scope . So when we fit a reducer in we get like larger field of view and Macs are known to be sharper because they have smaller central obstruction but this is where the problem is , now it has larger then designed FOV and somewhere in there there is a problem , its not the faulty reducer , its not a faulty scope , its the design it self . If you have put the Full Frame on there i guess something strange would happpen . Even more drastic then this . Because its limited field of view , most limited FOV of all scopes is the MAC. So smith cassegrain barely escapes , Newtonian escapes but not from the EPs larger then Full frame sensors , but refractor , you can put a medium format camera on it , all you will get is vignetting , its just the light path and the optical design . Field of view obstructions . You can see this if you put no EP , and let it twist the image and reflect it on the wall . There you would see the light cone , or illuminated space being different in different designs .
