Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Equipment Discussions >> Cats & Casses

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | (show all)
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector
      #5823869 - 04/26/13 09:25 AM

The scopes:

10" f/14.6 Mak 23% co
10" f/5 newt 26% co

Ok, no doubt Roland's Mak is corrected to a higher degree than any 10" f/5, too a paracor would eat up the throughput advantage of the newt s simple design but that still makes it seem like the reflector has a fighting chance to match this $10,000 OTA Mak.

So what's going on here? Is Roland really getting 10" f/5 planetary performance? Or is the ability to perfect a maks optics so much better than a similar parabola that no reflector in that size can realistically hope to compete?

Pete


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dbledsoe
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 06/09/06

Loc: Boise, Idaho USA
Re: Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5823954 - 04/26/13 10:00 AM

Do you own either of those scopes? Not sure what the point of this thread is... No offense intended, just curious.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Darren Drake
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 10/09/02

Loc: Chicagoland
Re: Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector new [Re: dbledsoe]
      #5823991 - 04/26/13 10:16 AM

If you're talking about on axis performance any well made 10 inch f/5 or so newt can absolutely compete with the high end mak as long as the secondary obstruction percentages are similar. Off axis performance would goto the mak but a paracorr would offset that advantage. The light loss from the paracorr is a complete non-factor.

Edited by Darren Drake (04/26/13 10:19 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Asbytec
Guy in a furry hat
*****

Reged: 08/08/07

Loc: La Union, PI
Re: Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5824027 - 04/26/13 10:31 AM

Quote:


So what's going on here? Is Roland really getting 10" f/5 planetary performance? Or is the ability to perfect a maks optics so much better than a similar parabola that no reflector in that size can realistically hope to compete?

Pete




Pete, I love MCTs and whenever the topic of those nice 10" MCTs pops up, I get excited.

Its really interesting how spherical optics make horrible telescopes, but they can do so much with the caustic focus they can be quite good. Smooth and corrected using additional spherical lens while tossing in that troublesome higher order SA. Still, one this size needs some aspheric term to work as advertised and can be corrected quite well.

Still, a Newt uses a parabolic curve which is ideal for forming a spherical wavefront to some level of precision and cost. It'll deal with less surfaces and employ no lens to absorb light.

Which would work best on planets? I love my MCT on planets so I'd tend to want to vote for the 10" MCT...as dream, refractor-like scope when cooled and collimated. But a good 10" Newt is no slouch.

Does the 10" MCT really have better reflected light and contrast control? At least both should be affected by seeing about the same way.

I dunno, Pete, for one of those comparison threads, you picked a doozie. I'd take the 10" MCT though, if the opportunity arose, primarily because I love the design. They are "pleasing" designs.

Edited by Asbytec (04/27/13 10:10 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
bierbelly
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/23/04

Loc: Sterling, VA
Re: Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector new [Re: Asbytec]
      #5824079 - 04/26/13 10:49 AM

IIRC, there's a picture of something through the AP 10" MCT in the current issue of S&T.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector new [Re: dbledsoe]
      #5824108 - 04/26/13 10:58 AM

Quote:

Do you own either of those scopes? Not sure what the point of this thread is... No offense intended, just curious.




I'm not understanding the point of your post to be quite honest. Ownership is not a prerequisite for query. As it is I'm the former owner of a fine 10" f/5 that simply was an unimpressive planetary scope. After several months and not a single wow moment I sold it and was never happier. That said it'd be odd for that beast to be seen as a challenger to a $10000 Mak OTA.

Pete


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
Re: Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector new [Re: Asbytec]
      #5824110 - 04/26/13 10:58 AM

From memory:

It's probably worth noting that Roland's 10 inch MAK is hand figured by Roland and I believe it is somewhat aspheric. The optics were designed by Valery Deryuzhin of Aries Optical. It also has mirrors made from zero expansion materials and it has cooling ports. I also believe it has a removable baffle for Planetary work that allows for a 22% Central Obstruction.

The thing about the A-P Mak is that it was designed as a system, not just high end, near perfect optics but matched optics in structure optimized... I believe they were $10,000 new, the last one I found that sold was $30,0000 in 2009.

I have to believe that the 10 inch A-P mak is about as close to perfection as any 10 inch scope can be. I think the question would be whether Roland could build an 10 inch F/5 Newtonian that equaled it's performance. He would probably build a Mak-Newt...

One other note: Pete mentions a 10 inch F/5 with a 26% CO. A 10 inch F/5 Planetary Newtonian would have a much smaller CO, a standard configuration with a low profile focuser allows for a 19% CO with a fully illuminated field of view of 19%.

Jon

Edited by Jon Isaacs (04/26/13 11:04 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Eddgie
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 02/01/06

Re: Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #5824227 - 04/26/13 11:51 AM

Yes, I agree that if the CO is kept about the same and the quality (Zambuto, Royce, etc) is about the same, the scopes should perform to about the same level on axis.

The MCT may have better off axis performance, but then again, it is limited to a much narrower true field. If the 10" f/5 scope were limited to the same size true field the coma would not be all that serious an issue.

The AP could give a pinpoint field with a 41mm Panoptic, but the power would be .72 degrees.

If I used a 27mm Panoptic in the 10" reflector, I would limit the field size to .76 degrees (slightly larger than the AP, but because I am not looking as far off of center as I could get with something like a 35mm Pan, the coma would be far less of a factor.

And I could use a Paracorr is I wanted to, and still have a scope that is only 1500mm in focal length vs 3000 for the 10" AP.

There was a thread a while back that pitted a 250 Mewlon against the 10" AP and I picked the 10" AP on that one.

For that one, the Mewlon had a meaningfully bigger CO, but more importantly, the bench tests I have seen on Mewlons have led me to believe that they are not made to the same high level of perfection that you would get from either the AP or a custom mirror Dob.

And as to the relevance of the OPS post... Just about anyone that can afford moderately high end 4" APO (Televue or Stellarvue for example) can afford to buy a 10" Go-To Newtonion ($1300) and have the mirror custom refinished (maybe $800 for re-finishing and re-coating)!

For someone wanting a telescope that would go head to head with the AP 10" for less than the price of a little expensive toy telescope, they could have a fantastic planetary scope.

And that includes the tracking mount!!!!!

Yes, I am mocking the refractor community by calling their telescopes little expensive toys.

Don't hate me because physics is beautiful.

Oh, and I think that the reason the AP has aspherized optics is that it is difficult to make a 10" MCT faster than about f/22 that doesn't suffer from some higher order spherical aberration.

The way to manage that is to aspherize one element, most likely the curve of the meniscus on one side. OMG, that has to be hard.

And Mr. Christen even said so as I recall. It seems to me that many years ago he commented that the hand figuring was far more difficult than he would have thought, and did not know if he would ever build another one...

Edited by Eddgie (04/26/13 12:03 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Paul G
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 05/08/03

Loc: Freedonia
Re: Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #5824405 - 04/26/13 01:18 PM

Quote:

From memory:

It's probably worth noting that Roland's 10 inch MAK is hand figured by Roland and I believe it is somewhat aspheric. The optics were designed by Valery Deryuzhin of Aries Optical. It also has mirrors made from zero expansion materials and it has cooling ports. I also believe it has a removable baffle for Planetary work that allows for a 22% Central Obstruction.

The thing about the A-P Mak is that it was designed as a system, not just high end, near perfect optics but matched optics in structure optimized... I believe they were $10,000 new, the last one I found that sold was $30,0000 in 2009.

I have to believe that the 10 inch A-P mak is about as close to perfection as any 10 inch scope can be. I think the question would be whether Roland could build an 10 inch F/5 Newtonian that equaled it's performance. He would probably build a Mak-Newt...

One other note: Pete mentions a 10 inch F/5 with a 26% CO. A 10 inch F/5 Planetary Newtonian would have a much smaller CO, a standard configuration with a low profile focuser allows for a 19% CO with a fully illuminated field of view of 19%.

Jon




The AP Mak has a heavily aspherized primary, very smooth, with at minimum 1/10 wave optics (system), zero coma, and is permanently collimated. A long focal length 10" Newt with excellent optics could come close on axis, except for the effects of the spider vanes and any dust on the mirror in the open system on contrast. Excelsior optics used to make a 10" f8 newt for planetary imaging, it produced some superb images. Roland was asked to compare his 10" Mak with Excelsior's 10" f8 newt and he said:

Link


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Paul G
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 05/08/03

Loc: Freedonia
Re: Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector new [Re: Eddgie]
      #5824448 - 04/26/13 01:36 PM

Quote:

Oh, and I think that the reason the AP has aspherized optics is that it is difficult to make a 10" MCT faster than about f/22 that doesn't suffer from some higher order spherical aberration.

The way to manage that is to aspherize one element, most likely the curve of the meniscus on one side. OMG, that has to be hard.

And Mr. Christen even said so as I recall. It seems to me that many years ago he commented that the hand figuring was far more difficult than he would have thought, and did not know if he would ever build another one...




It took Roland nearly one year to complete the optics on about two dozen 10" Maks. He said it was a real "hair puller" and that Valery's design was "very elegant but a b***h to make." He has posted that any Maks he makes now will be all spherical and that he will never make such a complex design again.

Initially he was hoping he could import the optics, manufacture the ota, assemble them and have a large aperture lunar/planetary scope that would be easy to make and would satisfy those on his large refractor list. However, once he started it became an exercise in making the most perfect optimized lunar/planetary scope possible, and he did. The coatings alone cost AP nearly $2000 per scope. He even did extra aspherizing of the already heavily aspherized primary to give the scope identical inside and outside star test patterns. Sweet, but the net result was that it was not practical to manufacture long term.

The AP 10" Mak with a MkV binoviewer and ZAO's absolutely screams on the planets. When experienced observers look through it for the first time their unsolicited initial comment is almost always about its superb contrast.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
saemark30
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 02/21/12

Re: Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector new [Re: Paul G]
      #5824701 - 04/26/13 03:37 PM

Looking through a couple of custom 10" F/6 Newtonians with low expansion material, Antares or Prototype secondaries and fans I have seen more detail on Jupiter, Saturn and Mars through that than any MCT or 6" refractor. That is, if the conditions are right.
I have never looked through the AP MCT, but a custom 10" Newtonian only fault is a slight vane effect, otherwise it can be refractor-like in the good sense.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DJCalma
member


Reged: 01/17/13

Loc: Northern California
Re: Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector new [Re: saemark30]
      #5824726 - 04/26/13 03:45 PM

A 2.6" secondary has no business being in a 10" F/5 system. Even if it could be replaced by a 1.83" with full illumination, I'd take the Mak on all days that end in Y.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector new [Re: DJCalma]
      #5824773 - 04/26/13 04:10 PM

Lol, Ed you never disappoint. The physics/beautiful line ought to be your signature.

Pete


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #5824804 - 04/26/13 04:29 PM

Quote:

From memory:

It's probably worth noting that Roland's 10 inch MAK is hand figured by Roland and I believe it is somewhat aspheric. The optics were designed by Valery Deryuzhin of Aries Optical. It also has mirrors made from zero expansion materials and it has cooling ports. I also believe it has a removable baffle for Planetary work that allows for a 22% Central Obstruction.

The thing about the A-P Mak is that it was designed as a system, not just high end, near perfect optics but matched optics in structure optimized... I believe they were $10,000 new, the last one I found that sold was $30,0000 in 2009.

I have to believe that the 10 inch A-P mak is about as close to perfection as any 10 inch scope can be. I think the question would be whether Roland could build an 10 inch F/5 Newtonian that equaled it's performance. He would probably build a Mak-Newt...

One other note: Pete mentions a 10 inch F/5 with a 26% CO. A 10 inch F/5 Planetary Newtonian would have a much smaller CO, a standard configuration with a low profile focuser allows for a 19% CO with a fully illuminated field of view of 19%.

Jon




The 2.6" secondary is a Parks spec and Im almost positive the same size I had with my Parks 10" F/5 . There's no way in heaven at least my secondary was anything close to 1.8" in that f/5. It was this FAT thing and if it wasn't 3" it was certainly 2.6". I believe the 2.6" besides the 10" f/5 Parks is also the same size for the Orion XT10. Moreover GSO also goes with a similar sized secondary for its 10" f/5 optical set. We can all shave our secondaries down Jon but the fact is three things begin to rear their head:

1. Collimation becomes more critical in centering the primaries reflection
2. Some oculars may show vignetting
3. The edges of flats are often prone to error if there are errors to be had.

I could arguably make my 8" reflectors secondary the size of my thumbnail but to no gainful benefit.

DJ: its actually good business if you look at the reflectors sold over the last couple decades anyway.
Pete

I can fish out links if its required.

Edited by azure1961p (04/26/13 05:10 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DJCalma
member


Reged: 01/17/13

Loc: Northern California
Re: Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5824912 - 04/26/13 05:10 PM

My 10" F/4.5" has a 2.14" secondary and so do several other 10 inchers in my club. One member's scope is a 10" F/7 and has a 1.83".
The only 2.6 incher I've seen is the stock secondary in my lowly Coulter. A newt these days with a 26% obstruction is absurd unless it comes in around F/2.8 or so.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
gnowellsct
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/24/09

Re: Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5824915 - 04/26/13 05:11 PM

I think the ten inch Mak went for $10 or $12 k, and on the used market will be bid up to $35 or $40 k. Mainly a prestige item. The question then is what could you do for that kind of money that would out perform it. And there the answer is a 14 or 16 or 18 inch just-about-anything. As with all AP products the ten inch Mak is an ultra precision optical work of art where all elements of design have been thought through. Greg N

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
amicus sidera
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/14/11

Loc: East of the Sun, West of the M...
Re: Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector new [Re: Eddgie]
      #5825007 - 04/26/13 06:17 PM

Quote:

Just about anyone that can afford moderately high end 4" APO (Televue or Stellarvue for example) can afford to buy a 10" Go-To Newtonion ($1300) and have the mirror custom refinished (maybe $800 for re-finishing and re-coating)!
For someone wanting a telescope that would go head to head with the AP 10" for less than the price of a little expensive toy telescope, they could have a fantastic planetary scope.

And that includes the tracking mount!!!!!

Yes, I am mocking the refractor community by calling their telescopes little expensive toys.

Don't hate me because physics is beautiful.








Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
Re: Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5825194 - 04/26/13 07:34 PM

Quote:

The 2.6" secondary is a Parks spec and Im almost positive the same size I had with my Parks 10" F/5 . There's no way in heaven at least my secondary was anything close to 1.8" in that f/5. It was this FAT thing and if it wasn't 3" it was certainly 2.6". I believe the 2.6" besides the 10" f/5 Parks is also the same size for the Orion XT10. Moreover GSO also goes with a similar sized secondary for its 10" f/5 optical set. We can all shave our secondaries down Jon but the fact is three things begin to rear their head:

1. Collimation becomes more critical in centering the primaries reflection
2. Some oculars may show vignetting
3. The edges of flats are often prone to error if there are errors to be had.

I could arguably make my 8" reflectors secondary the size of my thumbnail but to no gainful benefit.

DJ: its actually good business if you look at the reflectors sold over the last couple decades anyway.
Pete

I can fish out links if its required.




Pete:

I am not sure what your goal is. If you are trying to compare a Parks 10 inch F/5 Newtonian to Roland Christen's legendary 10 inch Mak, I think everyone agrees that the Parks scope would not be up to the task. It's not an optimized design and many aspects of it are crude, Parks scopes haven't changed much in the past 35 years or so.

This is the question you ask:

"Or is the ability to perfect a maks optics so much better than a similar parabola that no reflector in that size can realistically hope to compete?"

The Parks is not relevant to this question. People do build 10 inch reflectors with small central obstructions by using low profile focusers. They do use mirrors that are tested and figured using interferometers, just as Roland does, they use zero expansion substrates just as Roland does... Consider that Roland removes the baffle to reduce the central obstruction because the light leak is not relevant when viewing the planets...

Jon


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
*skyguy*
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 12/31/08

Loc: Western New York
Re: Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #5825850 - 04/27/13 08:24 AM

A 10" ... is a 10" ... and always will be a 10". The ultimate end performance is all about design, execution and attention to detail ... and money spent!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
amicus sidera
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/14/11

Loc: East of the Sun, West of the M...
Re: Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector new [Re: *skyguy*]
      #5825909 - 04/27/13 09:12 AM

Quote:

A 10" ... is a 10" ... and always will be a 10". The ultimate end performance is all about design, execution and attention to detail ... and money spent!




Precisely.

My question is: which 10" f/5 reflector, made with what level of optical quality, versus this vaunted 10" Mak?


Fred (who, after almost fifty years at this, remains unimpressed by "legendary telescopes", having actually had the opportunity to observe through many so designated)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | (show all)


Extra information
11 registered and 14 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  cbwerner, Starman27, kkokkolis 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 3176

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics