Jump to content


Photo

Anyone have the 150mm IOPTRON mak?

  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10276
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 25 September 2011 - 07:59 PM

It got a nice review in sky and tel . I was wondering what some owners oe viewers thought of it. I understand its a heavy ota.

Pete

#2 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 8086
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: La Union, PI

Posted 25 September 2011 - 08:10 PM

Dang, that's not a bad price for a Rumak style. It weights 20lbs.

http://www.optcorp.c...?pid=13870&tb=2

#3 Wes James

Wes James

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5504
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2006

Posted 25 September 2011 - 08:16 PM

It's well made, the views are very nice through it. I will be keeping mine!

#4 biz

biz

    Vendor

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 148
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2009
  • Loc: New Zealand

Posted 25 September 2011 - 08:20 PM

Hi Wes,
I agree with you, mines a keeper.
cheers.
Graham.

#5 letimotif

letimotif

    No Complaints

  • *****
  • Posts: 3225
  • Joined: 19 May 2007
  • Loc: Actually, right here.

Posted 25 September 2011 - 08:46 PM

I have the AstroTech version, and it's keep its collimation perfectly, provides delightful razor sharp views with zero image shift, and it's binoviewer friendly.

While it will do well on a GEM, I've used mine on an Ioptron Mini-Tower to good effect. It's too heavy for mounts like the NexStar SE.

Sturdy, well made, mine weighs in at a bit more than 14 lbs, sans finder, and using an AstroZap dewshield.

My only complaint about the design is that it requires a bit of care mounting and dismounting. There isn't really anything to grab ahold of during the process. At 0300 it requires a bit of thought and care to put away for the night.

#6 stevew

stevew

    Now I've done it

  • -----
  • Posts: 4294
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2006
  • Loc: British Columbia Canada

Posted 25 September 2011 - 08:57 PM

I love the fact that it comes with a dew shield.
What size is the central obstruction?
Any idea who actually manufactures it.

Steve

#7 David B in NM

David B in NM

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 342
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2010

Posted 25 September 2011 - 09:21 PM

SteveW,

It is a clone of the AT6M with an added dew shield.

It is made by Bosma.

38% by diameter, 14.4% by area

David B in NM

#8 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10276
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 25 September 2011 - 09:36 PM

Thirty eight percent diameter????? Yikes i thought it was f/15, i guess thats the f/12 difference. Id prefer the smaller co and longer f ratio.

Pete

#9 biz

biz

    Vendor

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 148
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2009
  • Loc: New Zealand

Posted 25 September 2011 - 09:38 PM

Steve. The ioptron version also comes with a dual focuser which is the only one that does, and is a very good focuser indeed.. ofcourse the alluminuim screw on dew sheild is a plus also. Overall its a fine OTA and when cooled down properly shows more detail than my C8.
cheers.
Graham.

#10 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10276
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 26 September 2011 - 12:15 PM

Thats quite impressive. Id have thought tge CO being that big would hamper contrast. Sometimes i reconsider for a meade etx125 but ive never been a fan of the name. the orion ota seems nice too. Any comparisons between the three?

Pete

#11 stevew

stevew

    Now I've done it

  • -----
  • Posts: 4294
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2006
  • Loc: British Columbia Canada

Posted 27 September 2011 - 08:40 PM

Overall its a fine OTA and when cooled down properly shows more detail than my C8.
cheers.


Wow :bigshock: It must be one of those rare scopes that can go beyond the laws of physics.

#12 Mkofski

Mkofski

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1522
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Greenfield, Indiana, USA

Posted 27 September 2011 - 08:55 PM

Hi Pete, I just picked up a 5" Orion Mak-Cas and my initial impression is that it is better than an older C8 I have and nearly as good as my 6" Intes MK-63. Very nice scope and nice and little!

Mike

#13 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 8086
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: La Union, PI

Posted 27 September 2011 - 09:28 PM

I just picked up a 5" Orion Mak-Cas...nearly as good as my 6" Intes MK-63.


Mike, now you've opened the can-o-worms. LOL

I got my backside chewed for saying a mass produced scope can be as good. But, I suspect it can be as good as the standard Intes models anyway. An MCT deploys a few 'tricks' to correct for SA. If done correctly, it results in smooth optics and better than 1/4 wave correction even without aspheric correction. But, hey, that's me interpreting a star test, again.

When folks claim them to be better than a C8, though, that raises some eyebrows. Resolution should not be better and MTF should be about the same, so maybe folks need to be more specific in what they mean by better. I don't argue the point, I love the MCT design. It does get more use than any of my previous SCT and Dobs and does give very pleasing images. Some of that is the portability, the reminder is the views. I have yet to be left wanting, even at a smaller aperture.

So, the point is, an MCT can /approach/ refractor like performance and definitely inspire refractor like love especially if well corrected with very small aberrations. The Orion, in my view, meets this standard. I am sure the IOptron and others do as well...there is something about the design that allows it.

#14 archer1960

archer1960

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 310
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2011

Posted 28 September 2011 - 06:57 AM

Overall its a fine OTA and when cooled down properly shows more detail than my C8.
cheers.


Wow :bigshock: It must be one of those rare scopes that can go beyond the laws of physics.


Or he's just got a *BLEEP* copy for his C8.

#15 Mkofski

Mkofski

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1522
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Greenfield, Indiana, USA

Posted 29 September 2011 - 05:14 PM

"Mike, now you've opened the can-o-worms. LOL"



Well, not that I mind opening a can of worms, but will say thar I'm very new to observational astronomy and go by how everything looks to me... I only had the Orion out for about an hour and it was not side by side with either the C8 or the MK-63.

I just received another old Intes (MK-65) and as soon as we get a night that is clear I'll get all 4 scopes out and so a head-to-head and try to be more objective. I agree "better" is way to subjective to be vary meaningful.

Mike

#16 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 8086
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: La Union, PI

Posted 29 September 2011 - 07:47 PM

I'd be interested to hear your observations.

#17 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10276
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 05 October 2011 - 05:02 PM

"Mike, now you've opened the can-o-worms. LOL"



Well, not that I mind opening a can of worms, but will say thar I'm very new to observational astronomy and go by how everything looks to me... I only had the Orion out for about an hour and it was not side by side with either the C8 or the MK-63.

I just received another old Intes (MK-65) and as soon as we get a night that is clear I'll get all 4 scopes out and so a head-to-head and try to be more objective. I agree "better" is way to subjective to be vary meaningful.

Mike


Hows that four scope shoot out doing?

Pete

#18 Mkofski

Mkofski

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1522
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Greenfield, Indiana, USA

Posted 06 October 2011 - 05:06 PM

Pete,

SLOW... Just got some clear nights and I'm hoping to get out soon. Biggest problem I have is not knowing how best to compare the 3 or 4 scopes in a way that is not very objective. I guess I'll look at some other reviews to see if I can come up with anything. I also need to pick up a couple of eyepices so I can keep the magnification comparable between the scopes. Since this tread was a question about a 150 iOptron Mak maybe I should start another. Mpre to come!

Mike

#19 Keithdrengen

Keithdrengen

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 808
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2008
  • Loc: Nothern hemisphere

Posted 07 October 2011 - 04:34 AM

Europeans who is interested in a Bosma Mak atleast with similar specs: In France a 6" can be had for 590 euro, sometimes these Maks are one sale for around 350 euro. Bought from them once without problems, I am from Denmark.

http://photoaddict.f...800-x150mm.html

#20 bobhen

bobhen

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 670
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2005

Posted 07 October 2011 - 10:09 AM

Overall its a fine OTA and when cooled down properly shows more detail than my C8.
cheers.


Wow :bigshock: It must be one of those rare scopes that can go beyond the laws of physics.


There’s a shoot-out between a Celestron C8 XLT, an Intes MK67, and a Tak TSA 102 on AM. The review was just written 10.3.11. It’s a well-written and pretty extensive review from an observer’s point of view. The review concentrates on Jupiter and the details seen on that planet. The reviewer appears to be experienced and a dedicated observer living in California.

Bottom line: in average seeing he felt the MK67 was delivering a little more.

In above average seeing, he felt the Tak TSA 102 delivered the most details and could be pushed to (and take advantage of) higher power over the other two when seeing allowed.

Bob

#21 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15457
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 07 October 2011 - 12:28 PM

[In above average seeing, he felt the Tak TSA 102 delivered the most details and could be pushed to (and take advantage of) higher power over the other two when seeing allowed.

Bob


Wow. That 4-incher must have had an objective made of that Unobtainium crystal I've heard tell about. :lol:

The 6-inch MCT? That's getting closer. I've often been surprised at how well my 5-inch does. It produces a lovely image, and even if it can't equal a collimated C8, it's pretty close.

#22 bobhen

bobhen

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 670
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2005

Posted 07 October 2011 - 01:08 PM

[In above average seeing, he felt the Tak TSA 102 delivered the most details and could be pushed to (and take advantage of) higher power over the other two when seeing allowed.

Bob


Wow. That 4-incher must have had an objective made of that Unobtainium crystal I've heard tell about. :lol:

The 6-inch MCT? That's getting closer. I've often been surprised at how well my 5-inch does. It produces a lovely image, and even if it can't equal a collimated C8, it's pretty close.


Why is that?

Right here on CN there is a review (a C14 confronts an AP 180 by Jay Reynolds Freeman) of a C14 compared to an AP 7-inch refractor when comparing details on Jupiter. The reviewer gives the SCT the advantage on some details and the refractor the advantage on other details - with the refractor offering a more consistent view. The 7-inch AP refractor is also half the aperture of the C14 as is the Tak TSA 102 compared to the C8.

Mr. Freeman (as I'm sure you know)has been using his C14 for many decades.

Bob

#23 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15457
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 07 October 2011 - 02:59 PM

Why is that?


Why? The aforementioned laws of physics. Sure, a small refractor can provide an aesthetically pleasing image, but it cannot beat the increase in light gathering and resolution offered by four more inches of aperture. ;)

#24 bobhen

bobhen

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 670
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2005

Posted 07 October 2011 - 03:37 PM


Why is that?


Why? The aforementioned laws of physics. Sure, a small refractor can provide an aesthetically pleasing image, but it cannot beat the increase in light gathering and resolution offered by four more inches of aperture. ;)


When people say “Laws of Physics” I presume they are also considering the physics involved in optical design and manufacturing execution. A mass-produced SCT with SA, a less smooth figure and a large obstruction will negate its aperture advantage to a high-quality, super smooth, custom-crafted, unobstructed scope of slightly lesser aperture where seeing fine planetary detail is concerned – as reported in both head to head reviews previously mentioned.

The optical quality of the scopes in such a comparison has to be part of the equation.

Bob

#25 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15457
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 07 October 2011 - 09:36 PM

The optical quality of the scopes in such a comparison has to be part of the equation.

Bob


To some extent. Will a 4-inch best or even come close to equaling an 8? Unlikely unless the 8 has a shaving mirror for a primary.

I used to think/hope MAYBE...JUST MAYBE...a Unitron 4-inch could beat a Cave 8. Alas, 'twarn't so. :lol:






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics