For me, it was best to split the travel telescope into two: SkyMax 90/1250 mm and a 80/400 achromat, combined with an EQ1 mount. If only one of the OTAs is used, the equipment almost completely fits into a photographer's backpack, only the tripod has to be attached outside of it. The equipment includes OTA and mount (including custom-made counterweight and accessory tray), the diagonal mirror and two Amici prisms, a red dot finder, a solar finder, four eyepieces, a few filters, motor drive with hand controller and battery pack, a compass, a front solar filter, two books, two flashlights, and various other items. Setting the telescope up for solar observation needs about fifteen minutes, so observing is possible within my one hour lunch break.
@Astrofrank Nice travel setup! Thanks for sharing. My setup designated for travels still needs the option for solar observations, but I I'm planning on adding it soon. Do you also have a version for the travel setup that won't go over the max weight of 8kg imposed by the airlines for handheld cabin luggage (at least that's the value for european flights)?
@@BogdanDamian Difficult, as the entire setup weighs approx. 12 kg. It might help to use an altazimuth mount, no solar finder, only one eyepiece (zoom) and no Amici prism at all, but I am not sure whether that is sufficient to get below 8 kg.
Many people on different forums claim that with a quality diagonal and quality eyepieces these small SW maks can give NEAR apo experience. Except for the contrast of course, that 30 percent central obstruction has its effect anyway.
I am downsizing from my 8inch Orion Dobsonian due to poor health and I had already opted to purchase this scope having had fantastic times with my MAK90 many years ago. Great review, certainly cemented my choice to buy one of these in the New Year. To you, thank you, you're looking out for the small players in astronomy and not all the $$$$ equipment :)
I rebuilt a skywatcher Mak 90 by flocking the primary baffle, secondary baffle and Inside plastic retainer ring of the meniscus. Contrast has been improved 100% No ring reflections when approaching a bright object. Built a custom mount that fits on to the original finder mount for a 6 by 30 orion CIRA finder scope. Using it with virtuoso goto mount and synscan controller. Fantastic travel scope . With a SWA 18mm Meade , 32 mm university Konig, a 12mm Konig I get full degree views at any magnification I want. Needs a Right angle dialectric for superior viewing sharpness. Well worth the time and effort to upgrade this. Almost a Questar .
@Robert Miskey Hi Robert! Great upgrade! I was thinking about flocking my Mak as well. Does yours have an collimation screws for the primary mirror? If no, then how did you realign the optics after flocking?
If you decide to move up to a 5" Mak, consider Explore Scientific's, rather than Skywatcher's. At f/15, the ES 127 pairs superbly with Baader's Hyperion Zoom, showing the full moon @24mm and 79x, and able to zoom to 238x. 5" may be too big for the AZ Pronto though
I travel with a cheap spotting scope. Perfect for terrestrial and astronomy and fits in part of a backpack. Though I do plan to get a 102 Skywatcher next year. Can't get that nice lightweight tripod of yours though from here. Too bad.
I have small apos 73, 80mm among big scopes and my 102mm SW mak is a huge surprise ..Never lets me down a big step up from the 90mm mak on all targets GRS easy with it
Hey Bogdan... Thanks so much for this video.. I just bought one of these second hand having no idea what I was really buying. I got it at just $150 USD with the tripod and WiFi mount. It's my first venture into stargazing and I'm loving it. This video let me know I have something respectable considering it s size and I have ordered a much better right angles mirror and eyepiece as you suggested. Thankyou. 😊
Salut Bogdan! Am observat că telescopul tau nu are șuruburi de colimare. Mă interesează acest model. In magazinele online din Romania sunt doua variante ale acestui mak 102. Unul care se vine cu trepied az pronto sau equatorial, iar unul care se vinde fara montura. Cel fara montura, cel puțin din pozele de prezentare are șuruburi de colimare. Cel care vine la pachet cu trepied se pare că nu are. O alta diferență dintre cele două este legată de căutător...cel cu kit complet are căutător optic , cel fara montura- căutător cu laser, iar diferența de preț dintre cele două variante este aproximativ 600 Ron. Daca le cumperi separat mak102 și trepied azr pronto deja prețul crește fata de varianta cu kit complet. Din ce am analizat se pare că aceste makuri au unele probleme, in sensul că ajung la client cu probleme de colimare și ar trebui realizată colimarea pentru a beneficia de o imagine 100 % clară. Încă nu am găsit nimic de cum ar putea fi realizată colimarea pe acest model fara șuruburi se colimare. Poți să împărtășești experiența ta in acest sens? Mulțumesc anticipat!
@claudiumihoci9725 Salut Claudiu! Eu am avut varianta cu trepied si fara suruburi de colimare. Iti pot spun din experienta ca procesul de colimare in acest caz este extrem de dificil. Trebuie es slabesti umpic suruburile care fixeaza spatele telescopului de tub si in timp ce telescopul este orientat spre o stea sau o gaura de ac intro hartie in fata unui geam, tu v-a trebui sa misti foarte usor componenta si sa incerci sa faci alinerea. Sansele sa strici colimarea mai mult decat a fost sunt foarte mari. Din acest motiv as recomada sa iei varianta cu suruburi de colimare, chiar daca costa mai mult. Mai bine astepti umpic mai mult si strangi diferenta de bani, decat sa te chinui cu colimatul.
Hi, thanks for the review! It is so convincing that I’m interested in buying one now. Unfortunately I still have doubts if I’m not missing something and within this price range I’d be able to get a better telescope. For example I wanted to get Celestron Maksutov 102/1325 AZ GoTo Astro Fi 102 but then I found out, that one can’t really move the telescope manually unless one turns the tripod around. I’m an absolute newbie, quite fixed on buying Maskutov since it’s quite a compromise between reflector&refractor plus it’s handy. I was also thinking about goto/wifi system (here comes that newbie factor again). I’m not that into astrography. Could you recommend me something? Or a tripod for the piece you just reviewed? My budget were ~500 Euro
@ThePichusiek Hi! First of all, getting a compact Mak on a go-to mount is a great starting point. Both the Celestron and the Skywatcher use the same optics, so here I would get the one that has the lower price. Regarding the mount, you could try out the AZ GTi from Skywatcher. That one can be used by manually moving it around. It's not great, but definitely usable this way. Whichever Mak you end up buying, make sure it features collimation screws on the back so you can adjust it later on. If it were me, I would get the SkyMax + GTi from Skywatcher. Hope this helps
@3dfxvoodoocards6 From time to time, yes. But usually not that often as a Newtonian telescope. If you get a Make, then make sure you get one with collimation screws at the back.
@Serdars CH Thank you! I'm very happy with it. The mount is steady, lightweight and smooth to operate. Its steady enough to filter a good amount of vibrations induced by the hand while focusing, but not all of them. Depending on how high the magnification you are observing with is, you will notice some vibrations when focusing or otherwise touching the telescope.
I just ordered one. Thanks for the review. My AZ mount is the Explore Scientific one I use for my 12 lb. 150mm f5 refinished mirrors reflector. This will be perfect for trips where there is no room for the big 150 scope. Plus I have an Astro-Master tripod I bought cheap with no scope. It is a pan handle AZ type mount, but I took it apart and lubricated it and it is pretty smooth now. Was terrible before. I even have a tabletop Dob as well. 🤣
@Mountain Fisher There is no such thing as no many telescopes hehe 😁 The 102 SkyMax is a very nice little telescope. Let me know how you like it and how it compares to your 6" reflector.
@@BogdanDamian I received mine last week, it came with a 10mm and 25mm Kellner EPs I have no use for except to give away. I took it out to the park in Bortle 2 sky and used different ED Starguider and 6mm Takahashi Orthoscopic eyepieces for Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and the Moon and some deep sky. At 216x it was a bit too shimmering as the Jetstream was blowing in the stratosphere even though it was calm at ground level. Still wasn't bad compared to some telescope views I've seen, but at 106x with a 12mm ED it was near perfect on Saturn and Jupiter. I could see Titan out by Saturn and all 4 of Jupiter's moons and that's when I put the 6mm in. The moons were still just star-like, but bigger dots and Jupiter was quite nice, but just shimmering, but I pointed it at the bottom dark part of the Moon as the full was too bright. Had to go back to the 12mm and put on a Moon filter and it was like I could reach out and touch it. Very nice. With my 25mm and Moon filter it was also very nice and I could see it occulting stars. I put my cheap Optolong Broadband UHC filter on and went back to Jupiter and it really showed the bands and even a shadow from one of the moons I didn't see before. The filter is good for the Moon, but not a full Moon, too bright. I put an Orange filter for Mars when it climbed up and used the 12 ED and it was pretty good so I tried an old 8mm Celestron Plossl at 162x and I could see quite a bit of details, but still shimmering, but you can tell Mars is closer than usual to Earth, but with a 102 it is still fuzzy, nothing like my 150mm with a 3.2mm ED eyepiece at 234x. As you can see I'm not big on using Barlows, I'll screw the lens off and put them on my 12mm though sometimes, but only with good seeing conditions do I Barlow my 150mm scope, but really no point with all the eyepieces I have. Like I was looking at the Crab Nebula with my 150mm reflector after I had the mirror recoated and the primary refigured and I could see M1 (before the work on optics I couldn't even see M1 in Bortle 4), but it disappeared with that Optolong filter, but I have an expensive (for me) Lumicon tri-pass filter I can see it with. Difference in cheap versus expensive filters. My planetary filters are all Lumicons except that Optolong, it takes the place for light blue. I use light yellow for Saturn and it is very nice. Compared to my 150mm refigured and recoated to Takahashi quality optics the 102 Skywatcher isn't bad on the planets and Moon. Sadly it was cloudy on Tuesday AM for the total eclipse of the Moon (in the Desert no less) I cannot even express my disappointment. Was clear the next night with near perfect conditions I put the 6mm Ortho with a moon filter and looked at the Moon at 216x as high as this scope should go and it gave great details although I was busy with the hand controls staying on one spot near the edge. I then switched the filters and looked at Jupiter and it was outstanding, saw the bands and red spot quite well. I must have studied Jupiter for 15 mins. and then switch filters again for Saturn, keep in mind that Saturn is almost twice as far away as Jupiter, but though it was relatively small it was very sharp. I was sorry I hadn't set my camera up to zoom in on Saturn, but the rings were divided and there was even a bit of banding on the planet and Titan was there as well, just closer to Saturn on the other side. I took all the filters off and looked at the binary Mizar and it was a good split and I could see both stars. So it is good at splitting binaries. I went to Albireo in Cygnus and 216x is too much power to get the yellow star-blue star affect, but 108x was. I put my 25 ED in and look around at some DSOs. I had to use my UWA 32mm ep at 40x to get all the Pleiades. It wasn't bad for narrow deep sky like Orion, but wide ones isn't why you'd buy a 1300 focal length scope for. I love this scope and it will be in the back seat of my pickup truck for most all my trips.
@Mountain Fisher That sounds like a couple of great observing sessions with the new telescope. The 102 Mak is a nice little travel companion to take with you wherever you go. Glad that you like it! 🙂
Orion skyscanner my first scope I use it for travel with a tripod it's rubish a potential hoby killer it almost put me off the hoby an evostar 90 sounds a much better option
@Fabian Curto Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed my video. Since the aperture is only 4" it really depends on the seeing conditions and the amount of light pollution in your area. Under Bortle 4 skies you can see the brighter DSOs like the Pleiades or M42. Fainter objects are a challenge to spot with this aperture.
@Fabian Curto With the 127mm especially with the 150mm one DSO observations start to make sense. The very good optics will deliver great views on nights with good seeing conditions. One thing to keep in mind though is that because of their long focal length Maks have a narrower field of view compared to newtons for example. This means that depending on the magnification, some large DSOs won't fit completely in the FOV of the telescope and you'll have to move it a bit around to see the whole thing. This isn't anything bad, but rather something to consider before purchasing one. If DSOs are your priority and you have the possibility, then go for the 150mm version.
Hello Bogdan, I've been following your videos for a while. I really learned a lot from you! I would like to buy a telescope with which I can see the moon, planets, nebulae, galaxies and possibly also do astrophotography later. In addition, the telescope should not be too big. I'm often on the road in the Alps with my VW bus and would like to pass the time here in the evenings. Budget is between €500.00 and €1000.00 Do you have a recommendation for me here including accessories and mount? Thanks so much, Roland
@rolandpreissler1861 Hi Roland! I'm glad my videos are helpful to you. Regarding a telescope recommendation I would say to get the biggest evostar refractor telescope from Skywatcher. Try and get one with a longer focal length not the ones with a short optical tube. For example the 100/1000 on the EQ3-2 or even the 120mm version. With the remaining budget you could get a couple of eyepieces from Omegon. Here I'm thinking about the swa series.. Hope this helps.
@AmatureAstronomer As a lightweight travel telescope for planetary observations it's a good choice. Just make sure to get the one with collimation screws at the back.
Hello, good afternoon. I see that the telescope does not have visible collimation screws. Have you had to collimate it, or is it fine from the factory. Thank you so much
@khaliuz9243 Hi! It comes collimated from the factory and I hadn't had any problems with it so far. However, if you are thinking of getting one, then I would recommend getting the 102mm model with accessible collimation screws. Just for future proofing.
@@BogdanDamian Thank you very much for your answer, I understood that if you don't bring the screws they will come well checked from the factory. Thanks , all the best.
@Mario A I haven't measured it yet, but I'll have a look tomorrow or the day after and let you know. I've just checked and by my estimates it's approximatively 10cm. However I'm not entirely sure that this value is correct as I don't have an exact way to measure it.
Thank you for the video. I am in between with the sky max 102 vs Acuter Voyager MAK80 80mm Maksutov. I heard only good stuff regarding the latter but not sure how much upgrade it needs. Also, I was wondering which eyepieces and mirror diagonal are the best budget/quality options for beginners to have a little bit better start with Skymax. I checked the brands you mentioned but they look quite expensive and not sure how compatibility works. Would be super happy if you can provide me with your suggestions. All the best.
@Kk I haven't had the chance to test the Acuter Voyager so I can't comment on the quality of the views it provides, but from a specifications and accessories point of view, it seems pretty good. The diagonal is a prism diagonal and not a basic mirror one like in the case of the SkyMax. Also I like the fact that the telescope has collimation screws at the back. The SkyMax doesn't. The only downside would be the considerably smaller aperture. In terms of eyepieces I would recommend a good zoom eyepiece like Hyperion Mark IV from Baader. It's a bit expensive, but you will get all the focal lengths you will need for the next years in one package. Everything else should be good to go and don't need upgrading right away. This applies for both telescopes. Hope this helps
Hi, nice viode by the way thank you. Btw, I would like to ask since I have the Celestron C90 Maksutov and was thinking to upgrade to this one. I prefer something small rather than the 127. But my question is would the difference be significant from 90mm to 102mm? If not then perhaps its best to stick with the 90mm. Hope to hear from you. Thank you
@JAY RYL Thank you! The difference between the C90 and the SkyMax 102 are really small so that I don't believe an upgrade would be worth it. The bigger aperture on the SkyMax will give brighter images, but not significantly more bright than the C90. The focal length on the SkyMax is only 50mm longer, which will also only have a very small impact on the magnifications you can achieve. I think you would be better off investing the money difference in an eyepiece or accessory.
@@BogdanDamian appreciate the response! Not all content creators and youtubers usually respond to comments. Thank you I appreciate it. Keep posting more videos and good luck! Subscribed!
salut Bogdan! Vreau sa te intreb care ar fi cea mai buna alegere pentru planete,nebula si galaxi skywatcher skymax 102 sau celestron skymaster 20x80 (binoclu)?multumesc
@arpadjakab-peter5431 Salut! Din păcate nici una dintre cele două variante sunt potrivite pentru planete și dso in același timp. Telescopul e perfect pentru planete unde ai nevoie de magnificare mai puternică (>140x). In același timp SkyMax-u 102 este prea mic și datorită lungimii focale mari, nu este așa de potrivit pentru DSO. Alea mai mari precum m42, m45 etc. merg, însă altele mai mici și mai întunecate nu se vor vedea așa de bine. Pe de altă parte, binoclul es bun pentru DSO mai luminoase însă alea mai întunecate nu se vor vedea. Lipsa de magnificare face că skymaster-u sa nu fie potrivit pentru planete.
@@BogdanDamian in cateva zile o sa am un goto mount scientific explore iexos 100 pmc8, si ma gandeam sa incerc sa fac cateva DSO si planetary nu neaparat vizual doar...din cate am inteles ar fi mai ok telescopul pentru mine.multumesc!
Question about the 90°, is it meant to show everything upside down? Because if i have it to the side it will be ok but its impossible to view while standing, im 6 foot tall and like to stand any way around this
@Slipperyducker Depending on the diagonal, you can get up-down reversal, mirroring (left-right reversal) or correct image. A mirror diagonal will usually flip the image on both axis.
@@BogdanDamian Thank you for the reply. I ended up getting a SVbony sv188p, it's not a bad diagonal it now only flips it left and right opposite and I can live with that.
@GIEDRIUS SABASAUSKAS Hi! Because of the long focal length, the telescope is very good for planetary observations. Depending on your budget, you could look at a 7mm DeLite from Tele Vue. A bit cheaper is the 6.7mm or 8.8mm 82° Explore Scientific. You could also get a Hyperion Mark IV Zoom from Baader or the cheaper 8-24mm zoom from Svbony. Hope this helps.
@ashkanrmp7442 I would say that the Startravel 102 is capable of a higher resolution simply because it doesn't feature a central obstruction like the SkyMax. The SkyMax will however be capable of a better corrected image with almost no optical aberrations. The Startravel will most likely suffer from chromatic aberrations thanks to the short focal length. The Skymax will also feature a much smaller field of view comparred to the Startravel, which makes the SkyMax a telescope suited for planetary observations. The Startravel will be better at observing the Moon and DSOs.
@@BogdanDamian thanks for thr detailed reply! Would love to know which one is handier for an absolutely a beginner who wants to view a clear image of moon and couple for planets with an easy use?
@ashkanrmp7442 Between the two telescopes I would definitely recommend the SkyMax. It's better in almost every way and it's compact and easy to use. Just be careful and get the version of the Skymax with collimation screws at the back so you can adjust it yourself should this be necessary in time.
Raja Manohar Well, if you are comparing them based on a fixed budget, say $500, then you can get a 10" Dob or a 5" Mak for that money. In this case the Dob wins the comparison. Provided the weight isn't an issue. The aperture difference is just huge. If money isn't a problem and you are comparing them based on aperture alone, then I would get a Mak. For example a 6" Mak would give a better image and it would be more manageable than a 6" Dob.
@@BogdanDamian I am about to purchase 10 inch dob. But focal length of maksutov is more, more magnification and it is portable than dob. Hence I requested you. thank you very much sir.
Raja Manohar You are welcome. It's true that in my example a Mak has a much longer focal length the a Dob, but is also limited by it's aperture size. With the 10" Dob you can theoretically go all the way up to 500x. With the Mak it's only 250x. Also please keep in mind that most of the time the seeing conditions will limit you to 200x - 300x. Rarely will you be able to to 400x or even 500x, but when you can go as high as 500x, man it's really awesome. A 10" Dob will serve you well.
@@rajamanohar8004 from my experience, large magnification is pointless anyway. when i observe DSO i use only like 25x magnification, its really enough. when observing planets and moon, 100x - 150x magnification is very nice... 200x is overkill but still watchable... nice 300x magnification is almost impossible because atmosphere turbulences and seeing usually does not allow that. my advice is: dont aim for large magnification, aim for more light = you dont need long telescope, you need a thick one :)
Thanks for your video which is indeed very useful. In fact, I have been very considering and struggling whether Skymax 102 or 127 will be more suitable to me, since I need to strike the balance between the portability and performance. Will 102 still be able to see some brighter cluster or nebula by eyes? That seems to be my concern at this moment. I think most of the time the telescope will be used in my balcony but not very likely in the mountain. By the way, photoing is not the main purpose.
@Michael R. S. Huang I'm glad you find my video useful. If you have the financial possibility and if observing some detail in brighter DSOs like the Orion Nebula or the Pleiades is important to you, then get the 127mm version. It will gather more light than the 102 whilst not being much bigger or heavier. If potability and costs are however more important, then go with the 102mm. But it won't show you much detail in DSOs. The aperture is simply to small for this. I hope this helps you with your decision.
@@BogdanDamian Is there any way to collimate this telescope? I can see no collimation screws on it. Believe it or not, mine got badly decollimated, to the point where what I see through the eyepiece slot looks like an eye rather than a pair of concentric circles, and a 10mm high magnification eyepiece can't reach proper focus. I have to do something about this.
@Catty Walrus Unfortunately our version of the 102 Mak doesn't come with collimation screws. But this doesn't mean that all hope is lost. I read about a few instances where loosening up (very little) the 3 screws holding the front corrector plate and then gently tapping it into the "correct" position helped with alignment. All this needs to be done while looking at a bright light point with the scope+eyepiece completely defocused. After alignment the screws should be tightened without moving the telescope. www.cloudynights.com/topic/747885-skywatcher-skymax-102-mak-collimation/ (Cathal's answer) www.cloudynights.com/topic/732639-no-collimation-screws-on-skywatcher-102-mak/ If your telescope is still in warranty, then maybe try sending it in for repairs before you give it a go yourself. I hope you can solve the collimation issue.
@@BogdanDamian Finally an answer! Thank you! I don't know whether the delivery firm I've made the purchase through provides any maintenance service; I've inquired about this, so I'll see what customer support replies. I don't know about options for using the warranty, since the scope is most likely produced abroad and I didn't buy it directly from the manufacturer. Yap, I'm your common garden-variety bored lockdown couch potato turned astrowatcher. This scope is quite a bit above my skills for using it, but I'd like to see it get back into perfect focus before the next Jupiter and Saturn oppositions. I guess I'll gather the courage to try the slight loosening of the back screws and shaking or tapping maneuver. Do you happen to know how exactly is the primary mirror held into place inside this scope?
I have a MAK 105/1350 telescope. I found that the focuser is course ; meaning that above 150X is veeeery difficult to get a sharp image. Can a helical microfocuser be the solution ? Have you heard of such devices used on Maksutovs ?
@Dragos Marinescu Replacing the internal focuser with a different type might be problematic to pull off for a Mak or SCT. This is due to the way the focusing is done on these telescopes. But, in theory you could simply add a focuser to the visual back of the telescope. You only need to find one that has a threaded back end and also find the right adapters that will let you screw it to the visual back of your telescope. It's tricky, but it might be possible. Here is an interesting thread on a similar matter: www.cloudynights.com/topic/694901-helical-focuser-direct-to-sct-threads/ You also need to keep in mind, that mounting a focuser this way, will also act like an extension tube which might cause problems for some eyepieces and accessories.
@@BogdanDamian Thank you for your advices. The focuser will be instaled on the outside (T2) ; so no need to replace anything. The SVBONY model is cheap enough to try.
@Marc Benier I believe that the difference between the two ranges is that the StarQuest series includes refractors and reflectors as well. The SkyMax only has Mak's. Also the SkyMax telescopes don't come with a mount. You need to purchase it separately. Additionally the telescopes in the StarQuest series all seem to come with the same EQ mount out of the box. The telescope series from Skywatcher can sometimes be a bit confusing.
Can someone recommend a portable setup with tracking for which you can bring on your bike (for darker sky’s) and that you can use for photography but mostly visual? I have a lot of 2 inch eyepieces for my 8 inch dobsonian. I want to see planets and the moon but maybe Orion’s nebula too… I am thinking Skymax-102 AZ-GTi WiFi telescope but I am unsure it would be usable for 2 inch eyepieces and be usable for tracking. I am in the northern skies and quite far up.
@linou1968 Hi! If your priority is planetary observations combined with low weight for easy transportation, then yes, absolutely! It's a great little telescope that is very good for observing planets.
@linou1986 For terrestrial observations it is a bit limiting. That is because of the long focal length that produces a narrow field of view. So if you want to observe wider/bigger targets then it could very well be that you won't be able to fit them in the field of view whole. You will need to pan around. The same thing applies to bigger objects in the sky like DSOs. You can see the Orion Nebula and the Pleiades, but depending on the eyepiece you won't see the whole thing at once and you need to pan the telescope around. A faster refractor (f5 - f7) are better suited for terrestrial observations.
Ha, me again, I've just bought one of these after watching this, second hand eBay, it's got a RA motor with it, I haven't got a clue how that works, it should be here on sat. I will blame you when I'm begging in the streets. 😁😁👍👍
hello thanks for your video. in a few days I will get the Skywatcher maksutov 102 / 1300. With a bit of experience will I can see any object in the deep sky?thanks👋👋
@Diego ! Hello and congrats on the new telescope! You will be able to see a lot of objects in the night sky, but not all of them. Because of the relative small aperture you won't be able to see very dim objects. Planets and bright dso's shouldn't be a problem though 🙂
@Iawxr6 I'm glad you liked my review. I believe your zoom eyepiece will work very well with this 4" SkyMax. The combination of the two will also give you great flexibility and portability.
I too have a zoom lens, especially so when I have Parkinsons Disease, trying to swap over lenses when tremoring is just annoying, compared to a light twist of the zoom, not a 100% solution but it is the best for me :)
@David Anthony With the right adapter it might be possible, but it's not recommend since the opening at the back of the OTA is so small that 2" eyepieces would show severe vignetting. This telescope is only made for 1.25" eyepieces.
@lemures87 The model I had is tricky to collimate because it didn't beature any collimation screws. I had to do it by loosening the mirror assembly a tiny bit up and make slight adjustments until everything was aligned. But the current model comes with three collimation screws at the back, which makes everything much easier. You can collimate the Mak using the star method. Here you aim the telescope at a bright star and de-focus the view until it becomes very big and you can see a black disk in the middle of the star. Now adjust the collimation screws until the black disk is perfectly centered inside the de-focused image of the star.
@King If we are only comparing the performance of the OTA, then the C5 with the bigger aperture looks promising. Although for astronomy you will need to invest in a 90° diagonal and a mount. If you factor in the costs then the 4" Skymax is in my opinion the better choice. You get the OTA, mount and accessories for half of the C5 OTA price. For that kind of money you can get the 6" Skymax OTA, which is better in every way. Hope this helps.
@Julius Mason Hi! There are two different versions of the 102 Skymax. The one that I reviewed in this video, which doesn't come with collimation screws for the mirror and there is a white version with collimation screws at the back. If your telescope the former, then depending on how bad the misalignments is, you could simply unscrew the back plate of the telescope just a tiny bit and then try to adjust it by hand while using a Cheshire eyepiece or a decent laser collimator. I hope this helps.
@@BogdanDamian thanks for this! Last night I accidentally knocked it and then everything seemed out of alignment so I was looking for a way to change it. Turned out it was just the eyepiece mirror which I then fixed so it’s back to normal. 😅. Thanks for the reply!
Your comments regarding the diagonal weren’t very helpful. I bought the same telescope and find the diagonal showing sharp stars. You say it’s the weak link in the optical train with no explanation why.
@Michael Sutherland Hi! You are right, I could have offer a better explanation regarding why the diagonal is the weakest link. Sorry for that. For me it was mainly brightness and light scattering that were only average. Both of these aspects boil down to the reflective coating used on the surface of the diagonal. Don't the get me wrong, the diagonal is good and doesn't suffer from any major shortcomings. We are only talking about small differences here, but the moment you use a more premium diagonal you immediately start to notice improvements in image quality. The dimmer the objects (or details on object) you are observing are, the greater the impact of a quality reflective coating is going to be. Roughly speaking, if a top tier diagonal offers a 99% image quality, then the stock Skywatcher would only reach 85% of what's possible, which is totally fine. But this also means that there is room for improvements. I hope this makes thing clearer.
Why do you always have simulated views instead of actual views which us astronomers are starting out. Im sure we all would like to see the actual real views so we can make a more informed decision when we buy a scope.
@jamieboehm3076 Hi! That's a great question! While I completely agree with you that simulated views based on software aren't ideal to convey a real sense of what the eyepiece/telescope can do, its unfortunately the only practicable way. Putting the camera lens up against the eyepiece and taking photos will results in very inconsistent images that are far inferior in terms of sharpness, contrast and brightness compared to what the eye sees when actually looking through the eyepiece. This is due to the less than ideal position of the camera which in most cases isn't capable of focusing and adjusting other parameters when receiving light information through an extra optical system, (telescope+eyepiece). The end result simply doesn't represent the actual optical quality of the eyepiece. There is also the possibility of bypassing the eyepiece and camera lens entirely and simply attach the camera to the telescope and start taking pictures. In this case the images produced would be much better with more information than what the eye alone can see. This is because the camera sensor is much more sensitive to light. This process is also known as astrophotography and can produce some amazing photos of the night sky. Unfortunately live views with your eye don't even come close to these. The only real way to get an exact understanding of what different objects in the night sky look like is to actually try out the equipment yourself before you buy it.
@jamieboehm3076 For planetary observations a 5" Mak is perfectly sufficient because planets are very bright and you don't need a lot of aperture to get some great views. DSOs on the other hand are very faint objects, which is why you need much more aperture. Here 6" or even better 8" is recommended. There is, however, one aspect you need to be aware off when thinking of using a Mak for DSO observations. Because the focal length of the Mak is so long, it's field of view is small when compared to a Dob for example. Since DSOs can be appear large in the night sky, a Mak will not always be able to show you everything in one view. In some cases you will need to pan around to see the whole object. That is why for DSOs a reflector telescope is a better choice.
@@BogdanDamian thanks for the information. For my self i have a svbony 90mm refractor, on a go to mount and using a 3x barlow lens ( celestron) ; diagonal is a orion twistlock dielectric , my collection is baader eye pieces. I do seem to get sole slight abberation around bright objects i dont think im able to stop this effect. This scope wont view DSO due to being a 500mm focal range.
@jamieboehm3076 That is a decent setup. What type of aberrations are you seeing? Chromatic? If so than the Barlow might be contributing to this. It could also be the telescope itself. I haven't had the chance to test Svbony refractors yet.
