Jump to content


Photo

C6 or 6" Intes MCT or C6-R?

  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#26 orion61

orion61

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4579
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Birthplace James T Kirk

Posted 03 November 2013 - 06:38 PM

in defense of the C6-R use an Orion anti-fringe filter with a light Blue color filter, it gets rid of the false color and sharpens the image without that ghastly pale yellow tint.
As far as Intes scopes I have only had fair luck with their MCT's my first MK 65 had horrible SA 5 rings, the second mk65 was vg, not as good as my Meade 7" tho, my last MK66 was a reg 1/6th and got out performed big time by my C8.
Haven't had the chance to view through one of the "Deluxe" 1/8th wave scopes. Some swear by them so they must be pretty good.

#27 SimonL

SimonL

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2007

Posted 04 November 2013 - 01:09 PM

I think the C6-R is my preference.
It should rival reflective telescopes much larger in size because of less scatter, more contrast.

#28 SimonL

SimonL

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2007

Posted 04 November 2013 - 01:10 PM

Yes I am deciding on an antifringing filter. Someone suggested a simple yellow filter.

#29 Thomas A Davis

Thomas A Davis

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1362
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2005

Posted 04 November 2013 - 01:48 PM

I think the helical focuser and lack of range and small CO is a problem for the Intes MN scopes for wide fields and imaging.



When I was imaging with mine, I had a smaller chip CCD. No
issue then. Now with larger chips and DSLRs, yes the small
CO presents an issue. What you have to understand is that
a good 6" APO is going to cost considerably more. I had
two in that range (TEC160 Fluorite, and TMB152). Both were
fantastic for imaging, and were uncompromising for visual.

Where the MN66 shines is as a lower cost visual alternative
to a high-end APO. Wide field not really that much of a
problem, since you can get a decent wide field at F/6 with
a 1 1/4" eyepiece compared to an SCT and a 2". The smaller
CO secondary is needed to get maximum contrast. It is a
compromise design, but with excellent results in the areas
of intended use. Not a one-size fit-all solution.

The supplied focuser worked, but a Moonlite replacement
definitely works better. Intes-Micro also made a Mak-Newt
called the MN65 that was 6.5" with a larger secondary.
That would be better for imaging.

Tom

#30 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1983
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 05 November 2013 - 11:33 AM

So would you recommend a SCT/MCT/refractor?


The Mak-Newt.

Next question? :imawake:

#31 saemark30

saemark30

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1140
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012

Posted 05 November 2013 - 12:16 PM

A good 8" f/5 Newtonian plus Paracorr is about as good as a MN but cheaper and more aperture.

#32 saemark30

saemark30

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1140
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012

Posted 06 November 2013 - 07:15 PM

The Russian Mak coatings seem a bit warmer and duller than similar size Newtonian mirrors, anyone else want to chime in?

#33 spencerj

spencerj

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1157
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2004
  • Loc: Londonderry, NH

Posted 07 November 2013 - 11:09 AM

The Russian Mak coatings seem a bit warmer and duller than similar size Newtonian mirrors, anyone else want to chime in?


The older Intes MN61 scopes had a warmer tone and the mirror and meniscus coatings were not up to today's standards. The warmer tone was just from he glass used. My old MK-66 had the same warm tone. Some Televue Naglers had a warm tone. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I actually found on some targets like Jupiter and Mars that it was beneficial. On most targets, it was not even noticed.

Early reviews of those scopes commonly stated that the optics were outstanding, but the image was a little dimmer than expected for the aperture. Can't say I recall too many reviews of Intes or IM Mak Newt scopes where the images through the scope were described as "dull".

The IM scopes of the last 10 years have improved coatings and a neutral tone. They are as bright as you would expect for their aperture.

#34 spencerj

spencerj

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1157
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2004
  • Loc: Londonderry, NH

Posted 07 November 2013 - 11:20 AM

A good 8" f/5 Newtonian plus Paracorr is about as good as a MN but cheaper and more aperture.


I definitely do not have first-hand experience with this comparison, but Mak Newts have a tremendous reputation as planetary scopes. I don't recall a lot of (make that any) instances where 8" F5 Newtonians with a Paracorr were given the same high praise. As for the cost savings . . . guess that depends on what you pay for the Paracorr.

P.S. If I were looking for a planetary Newtonian, I think I would lean towards something with an 8" Zambuto mirror at F6 or slower.

#35 saemark30

saemark30

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1140
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012

Posted 07 November 2013 - 06:20 PM

I know a number of Russian MCT owners who all thought the images were dim, and less sharp than a fine Newtonian of same size!
So a MK67 was bested by a RV6 and a 8" MCT had poor thermals that last for hrs and hrs.
ATM's make their own Newtonian mirrors and aim for perfection and considerable savings in money but not time.
There is no meed for a Paracorr at f/6 and some people think the Ethos can deal with f/4.5 cones just fine.
I just do have experience with large MN's mostly because they are rare and expensive.

#36 spencerj

spencerj

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1157
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2004
  • Loc: Londonderry, NH

Posted 08 November 2013 - 08:38 AM

Everyone's experience is different and equally valid. But reading back through old reviews of Russisn MCTs or MNs, dim and less sharp are not terms you will see often. The Intes and IM optics are generally considered very, very good--especially the deluxe models.

If the image is not perfectly sharp, there is an issue somewhere. Whether it is collimation or the scope is not cooled down or the seeing is poor. All of those conditions would effect a Newtonian as well.

#37 brianb11213

brianb11213

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9047
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2009
  • Loc: 55.215N 6.554W

Posted 08 November 2013 - 12:36 PM

Everyone's experience is different and equally valid. But reading back through old reviews of Russisn MCTs or MNs, dim and less sharp are not terms you will see often. The Intes and IM optics are generally considered very, very good--especially the deluxe models.

Yeah. The older Russian scopes are using coated optics but not multicoated like modern Chinese types. Also the mirror coatings would be aluminimum (80%) rather than dielectric (99%). This will have a barely perceptible effect on "dimming" of the images, reducing the limiting magnitude by around 0.4 magnitude.

This "mild filtration" is actually beneficial for bright objects like the moon & major planets.

If the image is not perfectly sharp, there is an issue somewhere. Whether it is collimation or the scope is not cooled down or the seeing is poor. All of those conditions would effect a Newtonian as well.

Indeed. But the sealed tube of a Mak seems to be a lot harder to keep close enough to ambient than the open tube of a Newtonian. IMHO active (fan) ventilation is required in all but the smallest Maks (those under 4" aperture). The Intes & IM tubes don't seem to be as bad at cooling as the Skywatcher / Orion & Meade Maks but they can still struggle if you have rapid temperature changes.

FWIW the C6 tube is horrible for tube currents. It simply won't track rapid temp changes, the Lymax cat cooler is too long to fit & the thin-walled dark coloured metal tube generates its own tube currents as the sky-facing surface cools by radiation faster than the ground-facing surface.

#38 vahe

vahe

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 842
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2005
  • Loc: Houston, Texas

Posted 08 November 2013 - 01:20 PM

Also the mirror coatings would be aluminimum (80%) rather than dielectric (99%). This will have a barely perceptible effect on "dimming" of the images, reducing the limiting magnitude by around 0.4 magnitude.



Dielectric coating are not typically suitable for mirrors, the problem with dialectric is the multiple coatings applied on top of one other, as the result the final surface is generally not as smooth as the mirror substrate.
Dialectrics are offered for diagonals, the surface smoothness is not an issue since in high poser observations only the very center of diagonal mirror is employed.
Enhanced coatings are what one sees in mirrors, they generally have high reflectivity that settles down to 94% - 96% after initial period of aging.

Vahe

#39 saemark30

saemark30

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1140
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012

Posted 09 November 2013 - 05:12 PM

Also if you like observing double stars the refractor will be better with unequal brightness doubles. The colors will be more saturated with the all lens system IMHO.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics