Please excuse the sound issues, I had the settings too high on the camera so the sound is blown out in places. I hope the video is helpful despite this :)
Just got this as a second scope. Massively better than the Skywatcher 1145 I picked up a couple of years ago as a first scope for less than £100 more. So far this addresses the 3 major issues I had with the reflector. No wobbly focusser, a no nonsense mount which opens up a few options for scope upgrades, and no battling with the collimation. Just easy clear views so far. Bonus points as it takes up very little space which I personally think is underestimated as a factor in beginner scopes. Loving it so far and would definitely recommend.
Thanks CSA, unfortunately I star tested this one and it's a bit out of collimation resulting in a slightly softer image and a touch of one sided flaring on stars. I'll focus more on the setups other attributes for any review I do I think. I have had some lovely sharp Mak's in the past. My circe year 2000 Meade ETX90 had razor sharp optics. Thanks for subbing by the way, I'll check out your channel also when I get a bit of time.
I have the older blue model of this scope. I love my Mak. It's a beast for lunar and planetary viewing. For a diminutive looking scope, it packs a mighty big punch. 1300mm focal length at f12.7. I find it superb for lunar imaging. I slap my Canon EOS 600D/Rebel T3i on it and I'm good to go. You're right about needing the finder scope or RDF to locate the Moon. It's a pain in the proverbial finding it without them; weird eh! The Skywatcher Skymax 102 is a cracking good telescope. I'm thinking about getting its big 127 brother. It has more umph for the planets.
Totally agree the smaller Maks are insanely good portable lunar planetary scopes. I've owned Maks from 90mm to 150mm, and the smaller ones are always more joy to use. the larger you go the more you're chasing temperature changes with the increasingly think corrector plate. I didn't keep the Mak150 long for this reason, but I thought the 127 was a really good compromise between aperture and cooling time. Go for it :)
@@Astrolavista Yeah, with the 102 Mak, everything has equalized nicely in about 30 mins. I made a dew shield from a piece of 10mm foam camping mattress and velcro. That works a treat and it was cheap to make. I agree, any Mak above 127mm, starts to become awkward to use. The slab of glass on the front, gets huge and very heavy and as you've mentioned, chasing temperature changes is a pain. A chunky industrial grade mount is an absolute must for them too. When conditions are right, Maks are very hard to beat though.
I am looking forward to purchase a SKYWATCHER 102, and your review has been particularly helpful. I don't like the AZ PRONTO mount, I think the most suitable for me is a DOBSON mount, the one with tracking.Thank you very much.
Glad I could be of help Dragos :) Do you mean something like this? www.firstlightoptics.com/heritage/skywatcher-heritage-90-virtuoso/ref/diyastro/ It's a Mak90 not a 102, but it's on a Dobsonian mount with tracking. Or do you mean something like an AZ goto mount like this? www.firstlightoptics.com/slt-series/celestron-nexstar-102-slt-maksutov/ref/diyastro/ Clear skies!
@@Astrolavistawww.omegon.eu/alt-azimuth-without-goto/omegon-mini-ii-dobsonian-mount/p,53648 , if I am tight with the money , or, if I want to spoil myself, www.omegon.eu/alt-azimuth-without-goto/omegon-mount-push-/p,48277#tab_bar_0_select. I am confident either one can fit a 102. The 90 doesn't satify me, and the 127 is rather big....
Alignment from the factory at the telescope is severely knocked down due to which it is not possible to sharpen the observed object. This is an updated and cheaper version of the Mak102 pipe in which there are simply no adjustment screws, but you can align it. The pipe consists of a rolled sheet of metal (NOT CAST TUBE) and two PLASTIC frames with a main mirror and a lens corrector, they are planted at the ends of the pipe and each is fixed on the sides with three screws, loosening these screws will cause a slight movement of the entire frame, thereby accurately adjusting the telescope However, in my case, one hole in the pipe body did not slightly coincide with the thread on the frame of the main mirror, I had to adjust this hole with a file. Adjustment was carried out as follows, first the main mirror was reflected in the rings (looking at the lens at a certain distance so that all reflections were centered), and after that the corrector brought the star along the lens. As a result, everything turned out well, the telescope was clear
Although possible as you've shown, it does sound a real pain if collimation is required compared to proper collimation screws. I think Skywatcher are going 'factory fixed' for a lot of their entry scopes now days. I've just reviewed the SkyQuest 130p Newtonian with a factory fixed primary mirror cell, and their Heritage range of scopes is the same.
Thanks. I was about to buy this when I saw your comment. I will buy the OTA separately, even if it ends up being quite a bit more expensive after I add a separate stand.
Maybe this is a dumb question but seen at 16:44, they don't come with the telescope (bc i have the 102 with GoTo mounting), do they give more stability?
Hi Olivia, are we talking about the slow motion controls? (the long black things I'm twisting). If so they come with most manual mounts and enable you to turn the gears of the mount in order to track objects smoothly. If you have the Goto version there are motors that do this job for you, so goto mounts don't come with manual slow motion controls. They do add to stability in a way. They allow for smooth and fine adjustments as apposed to moving the mount by hand which would be quite jerky.
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👋👋
Yes, absolutely. I mean it does depend on how much light pollution you have, but even from the outskirts of town I can see objects like the Orion Nebula, Ring nebula, Hercules cluster, and a fair few other bright deep sky objects with a 4" scope.
On paper it should work because the SAM payload is 3kg and the bare Skymax 102 OTA is around 2kg, but I would be doubtful whether it could handle the 1300mm focal length i.e. I think there would be lots of vibration at the eyepiece or on the camera sensor from even the slightest breeze. I guess it depends on what you want to achieve?
Great review. I am torn between this telescope and Dorr Danubia Atlas 2000 Newton Reflector. I am taking my daughter into Astronomy and we are both keen to explore moon, planets and possibly nebulas/galaxies. Would the skywatcher be suitable for that? I travel quite a lot and I am concern that Dorr is to big but seems to have better optics. Any advice welcome. Cheers and keep going with these great reviews.
Hi thanks, the specs for the Dorr Danubia's optical tube seem identical to this one: www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/skywatcher-explorer-130.html in which case it will only have a spherical mirror instead of a parabolic mirror. Parabolic mirrors are sharper because they bring all the light from the mirror to the same focus. The spherical mirror will be fine at low magnification though. The Skymax 102 Maksutov will be quite a bit lighter and more compact, and Maksutov optics are very sharp. Maksutov's have tons of focal length, I think this one has around 1300mm! so they are great for the Moon, planets and double stars. Because of the very long focal length the field of view tends to me a bit narrow for some deep sky objects like Andromeda and open clusters, but great for smaller objects like globular clusters and planetary nebula if your skies are dark enough. I have some videos on table top Dobsonian telescopes which might be good if you want something with good optics and compact for travel. Cheers!
@@Astrolavista Thanks a lot for your advice. I did look into explorer 130 bit it is non existent for sale any shop. My alternative for the explorer would be this: www.harrisoncameras.co.uk/pd/danubia-delta-30-catadioptric-reflector-astro-telescope_566034. it seems a compromise between the two and doesn't break the bank. Would you recommend such telescope for its portability and potential compared to that explorer 130 or it would perform poorly? Cheers. Vini
I have this particular scope. I don't understand why this model doesn't have any collimating screws. How would you correct if the optics are out of alignment?
@@Astrolavista : I have the StarQuest 102 Mak which is very similar to this one. I read that they SHOULD never need collimating ( unless you hit it with a hammer or throw it downstairs 🙂).
Please excuse the sound issues, I had the settings too high on the camera so the sound is blown out in places. I hope the video is helpful despite this :)
Just got this as a second scope. Massively better than the Skywatcher 1145 I picked up a couple of years ago as a first scope for less than £100 more. So far this addresses the 3 major issues I had with the reflector. No wobbly focusser, a no nonsense mount which opens up a few options for scope upgrades, and no battling with the collimation. Just easy clear views so far. Bonus points as it takes up very little space which I personally think is underestimated as a factor in beginner scopes. Loving it so far and would definitely recommend.
Congratulations on the job with FLO!
You will love the views you get from a Mak, I have a 127mm Mak and love the views I get with it
Thanks CSA, unfortunately I star tested this one and it's a bit out of collimation resulting in a slightly softer image and a touch of one sided flaring on stars. I'll focus more on the setups other attributes for any review I do I think. I have had some lovely sharp Mak's in the past. My circe year 2000 Meade ETX90 had razor sharp optics. Thanks for subbing by the way, I'll check out your channel also when I get a bit of time.
I’m looking at the 127mm of the is model. Can’t find any review of it. This is the only video I could get close to it.
Try Jenhams Astro ;) th-cam.com/video/PprvqT9uM3g/w-d-xo.html
I have the older blue model of this scope. I love my Mak. It's a beast for lunar and planetary viewing. For a diminutive looking scope, it packs a mighty big punch. 1300mm focal length at f12.7. I find it superb for lunar imaging. I slap my Canon EOS 600D/Rebel T3i on it and I'm good to go. You're right about needing the finder scope or RDF to locate the Moon. It's a pain in the proverbial finding it without them; weird eh! The Skywatcher Skymax 102 is a cracking good telescope. I'm thinking about getting its big 127 brother. It has more umph for the planets.
Totally agree the smaller Maks are insanely good portable lunar planetary scopes. I've owned Maks from 90mm to 150mm, and the smaller ones are always more joy to use. the larger you go the more you're chasing temperature changes with the increasingly think corrector plate. I didn't keep the Mak150 long for this reason, but I thought the 127 was a really good compromise between aperture and cooling time. Go for it :)
@@Astrolavista Yeah, with the 102 Mak, everything has equalized nicely in about 30 mins. I made a dew shield from a piece of 10mm foam camping mattress and velcro. That works a treat and it was cheap to make.
I agree, any Mak above 127mm, starts to become awkward to use. The slab of glass on the front, gets huge and very heavy and as you've mentioned, chasing temperature changes is a pain. A chunky industrial grade mount is an absolute must for them too. When conditions are right, Maks are very hard to beat though.
I am looking forward to purchase a SKYWATCHER 102, and your review has been particularly helpful. I don't like the AZ PRONTO mount, I think the most suitable for me is a DOBSON mount, the one with tracking.Thank you very much.
Glad I could be of help Dragos :) Do you mean something like this? www.firstlightoptics.com/heritage/skywatcher-heritage-90-virtuoso/ref/diyastro/ It's a Mak90 not a 102, but it's on a Dobsonian mount with tracking. Or do you mean something like an AZ goto mount like this? www.firstlightoptics.com/slt-series/celestron-nexstar-102-slt-maksutov/ref/diyastro/ Clear skies!
@@Astrolavistawww.omegon.eu/alt-azimuth-without-goto/omegon-mini-ii-dobsonian-mount/p,53648 , if I am tight with the money , or, if I want to spoil myself, www.omegon.eu/alt-azimuth-without-goto/omegon-mount-push-/p,48277#tab_bar_0_select. I am confident either one can fit a 102. The 90 doesn't satify me, and the 127 is rather big....
@@dragosmarinescu5520 Ah that's interesting, I didn't know about these, cheers!
That tray looks like a Celestron Nexstar(sorry if someone has already said this)
Could well be as they are made in the same factory
Fantastic video 👍👍👍👍
Thank you 👍
Alignment from the factory at the telescope is severely knocked down due to which it is not possible to sharpen the observed object. This is an updated and cheaper version of the Mak102 pipe in which there are simply no adjustment screws, but you can align it. The pipe consists of a rolled sheet of metal (NOT CAST TUBE) and two PLASTIC frames with a main mirror and a lens corrector, they are planted at the ends of the pipe and each is fixed on the sides with three screws, loosening these screws will cause a slight movement of the entire frame, thereby accurately adjusting the telescope However, in my case, one hole in the pipe body did not slightly coincide with the thread on the frame of the main mirror, I had to adjust this hole with a file. Adjustment was carried out as follows, first the main mirror was reflected in the rings (looking at the lens at a certain distance so that all reflections were centered), and after that the corrector brought the star along the lens. As a result, everything turned out well, the telescope was clear
Although possible as you've shown, it does sound a real pain if collimation is required compared to proper collimation screws. I think Skywatcher are going 'factory fixed' for a lot of their entry scopes now days. I've just reviewed the SkyQuest 130p Newtonian with a factory fixed primary mirror cell, and their Heritage range of scopes is the same.
@@Astrolavista did your skyman 102 out of collimation?
Thanks. I was about to buy this when I saw your comment. I will buy the OTA separately, even if it ends up being quite a bit more expensive after I add a separate stand.
Maybe this is a dumb question but seen at 16:44, they don't come with the telescope (bc i have the 102 with GoTo mounting), do they give more stability?
Hi Olivia, are we talking about the slow motion controls? (the long black things I'm twisting). If so they come with most manual mounts and enable you to turn the gears of the mount in order to track objects smoothly. If you have the Goto version there are motors that do this job for you, so goto mounts don't come with manual slow motion controls. They do add to stability in a way. They allow for smooth and fine adjustments as apposed to moving the mount by hand which would be quite jerky.
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👋👋
Yes, absolutely. I mean it does depend on how much light pollution you have, but even from the outskirts of town I can see objects like the Orion Nebula, Ring nebula, Hercules cluster, and a fair few other bright deep sky objects with a 4" scope.
I wonder how this telescope would do on the Star Adventurer Mini WiFi mount.
On paper it should work because the SAM payload is 3kg and the bare Skymax 102 OTA is around 2kg, but I would be doubtful whether it could handle the 1300mm focal length i.e. I think there would be lots of vibration at the eyepiece or on the camera sensor from even the slightest breeze. I guess it depends on what you want to achieve?
Great review. I am torn between this telescope and Dorr Danubia Atlas 2000 Newton Reflector. I am taking my daughter into Astronomy and we are both keen to explore moon, planets and possibly nebulas/galaxies. Would the skywatcher be suitable for that? I travel quite a lot and I am concern that Dorr is to big but seems to have better optics. Any advice welcome. Cheers and keep going with these great reviews.
Hi thanks, the specs for the Dorr Danubia's optical tube seem identical to this one: www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/skywatcher-explorer-130.html in which case it will only have a spherical mirror instead of a parabolic mirror. Parabolic mirrors are sharper because they bring all the light from the mirror to the same focus. The spherical mirror will be fine at low magnification though. The Skymax 102 Maksutov will be quite a bit lighter and more compact, and Maksutov optics are very sharp. Maksutov's have tons of focal length, I think this one has around 1300mm! so they are great for the Moon, planets and double stars. Because of the very long focal length the field of view tends to me a bit narrow for some deep sky objects like Andromeda and open clusters, but great for smaller objects like globular clusters and planetary nebula if your skies are dark enough. I have some videos on table top Dobsonian telescopes which might be good if you want something with good optics and compact for travel. Cheers!
@@Astrolavista Thanks a lot for your advice. I did look into explorer 130 bit it is non existent for sale any shop. My alternative for the explorer would be this: www.harrisoncameras.co.uk/pd/danubia-delta-30-catadioptric-reflector-astro-telescope_566034. it seems a compromise between the two and doesn't break the bank. Would you recommend such telescope for its portability and potential compared to that explorer 130 or it would perform poorly? Cheers. Vini
I have this particular scope. I don't understand why this model doesn't have any collimating screws. How would you correct if the optics are out of alignment?
I thought the same, I have no idea?
@@Astrolavista : I have the StarQuest 102 Mak which is very similar to this one. I read that they SHOULD never need collimating ( unless you hit it with a hammer or throw it downstairs 🙂).
This scope here it's not colimable