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 >> Refractors

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | (show all)
JimP
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 04/22/03

Loc: South Carolina
AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo
      #5297712 - 07/01/12 11:21 AM

Assuming they both cost the exact same thing, which would you choose and why?

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

Reged: 12/30/06

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: JimP]
      #5297833 - 07/01/12 12:42 PM

The TEC 200 APO because refractors look soooooooo cool.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott BeithAdministrator
SRF
*****

Reged: 11/26/03

Loc: Frederick, MD
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Jeff B]
      #5297839 - 07/01/12 12:45 PM

Quote:

The TEC 200 APO because refractors look soooooooo cool.




yep


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

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: JimP]
      #5297846 - 07/01/12 12:47 PM

Quote:

Assuming they both cost the exact same thing, which would you choose and why?




Can you actually buy a 10 AP Mak? Last time I looked on Astromart, it had been a few years since one was offered.

Jon


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


Reged: 04/22/03

Loc: South Carolina
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #5297858 - 07/01/12 12:56 PM

Buying is not the question. Let's say neither would sell for more than the other. You walk into a store and can walk out with one, no charge. Which would it be?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rfic1
sage
*****

Reged: 10/25/05

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #5297879 - 07/01/12 01:05 PM

Jim,
What would the main use of the telescope be used for. I think if the telescope was used primarily for visual planetary and planetary photography I would choose the Mak. If into wider field AP the the obvious choice would be the TEC 200fl with a FF. In regards to planetary viewing have you ever compared a 8" TEC Mak to your TEC 200FL just to get a idea how closely or far apart the views are?


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


Reged: 04/22/03

Loc: South Carolina
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: rfic1]
      #5297903 - 07/01/12 01:20 PM

Visual and planetary imaging. I have never compared the scope to any other.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
John Boudreau
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 04/06/08

Loc: Saugus, MA
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: JimP]
      #5297949 - 07/01/12 01:50 PM

Quote:

Visual and planetary imaging. I have never compared the scope to any other.




Then I'd go with the AP Mak. It would be corrected for a wider range of wavelength, in fact virtually perfect across the board in what's required for planetary imaging. And since it's native f-ratio f14.6 vs. the f8 of the TEC200FL, it would have a greater CFZ (focus sweet-spot). Throw in the fact that you'd have a slight resolution advantage along with a slightly brighter image with the AP, it would beat the 200FL in planetary imaging.

Now for my own choice of the two, I'd take the TEC200FL. I love refractors, and I've looked through one of these beasts a few times as a friend of mine has owned one for a few years. But for planetary imaging, I'm currently working on the mechanicals of a 14.5" f18 D-K.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
vahe
professor emeritus


Reged: 08/27/05

Loc: Houston, Texas
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: John Boudreau]
      #5297956 - 07/01/12 01:58 PM

Visual or imaging?

I am visual only with prime interest in lunar planetary, with that in mind I would go for TEC200FL.

If imaging was my main interest I would consider TEC200FL for widefield DSO imaging, for planetary imaging neither choices makes sense, the good old C14 would outperform both of these jewels hands down, no contest here.

Vahe


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Max Lattanzi
professor emeritus


Reged: 06/27/07

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: JimP]
      #5297960 - 07/01/12 02:00 PM

Jim,

While asking this, you are certainly aware that Roland keeps in his own observatory a 10” Mak and a 180EDT side by side. I recall him stating more than once that, only when seeing is approaching Pik 9, thus *very seldom*, his Mak delivers slightly better planetary performances than the nearby Apo. As soon as the air starts moving a bit, the Mak lies behind (his words). That’s the reason why he has been always keeping the 180EDT.

This is also the reason for him to plan a 7” or 8” refractor for planetary use in his forthcoming Astronomical Resort in Hawaii, as you certainly know. And he has certainly no problems whatsoever in buying/making for himself a Mak as big as he likes.

Incidentally -- and here I am making reference to a parallel thread -- he is not planing to use any C-14 either; although I am very confident he would have zero problems in refiguring one so as to reach a lambda/10-12 correction at the eyepiece.

So, if I were to enter into that shop, I would do exactly as Roland, and walk away with the 200 apo. Even if the price was X times as much.

As I tried to share a few months ago, in my post of the C-11 vs 6” apo, my life and my nights, if not priceless, are certainly worth more than that. And they never come back.

But you’ve experienced that in your own flesh already...

Cheers,
-- Max


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jmiele
Patron Saint?
*****

Reged: 12/04/10

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Max Lattanzi]
      #5297966 - 07/01/12 02:08 PM

The refractor will present better more often than the Mak. I could come up with other questions given my knowledge of your other instruments, however, you are asking the choice between these two only. No further context supplied, the TEC200FL will give you better views based on environmental affects, more than the few times the Mak will beat it. So the TEC is the better option.

Not a bad problem to have Jim. Given that you have (potentially) this choice to make I would be glad to take the other (either) if you have a seller. Please PM me if such is possible.

Joe


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rfic1
sage
*****

Reged: 10/25/05

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: JimP]
      #5297970 - 07/01/12 02:10 PM

Well as much as I would like to walk out of that store with the TEC 200 FL I think the smart choice would be the AP 10" Mak given the intended purpose. I personally like to use longer focal length eyepieces to achieve desired magnification for planetary viewing. Yes there are barlows but I am a purist and do not like them much. In IDEAL conditions I would expect the 10" Mak to outperform the 8". As far as astrophotography I think planetary images using 10" instruments have been more impressive than those I have seen using 8" refractors. I would also think the longer focal length would be more favorable for planetary astrophotography. Not to mention 2" more aperture. I'm no expect by any means. Just my thoughts.

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


Reged: 04/22/03

Loc: South Carolina
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: vahe]
      #5297974 - 07/01/12 02:12 PM

Quote:

Visual or imaging?

I am visual only with prime interest in lunar planetary, with that in mind I would go for TEC200FL.

If imaging was my main interest I would consider TEC200FL for widefield DSO imaging, for planetary imaging neither choices makes sense, the good old C14 would outperform both of these jewels hands down, no contest here.

Vahe




Well, I would have to image with what I have, and since I would never let either a TEC200 fl or an AP 10" Mak sit while I dithered with a C14, my planetary imaging would be with one of these two. Period. So, these are the two choices and only these are in consideration here.

Jim

Edited by JimP (07/01/12 02:21 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aquatone
sage


Reged: 03/23/06

Loc: Moraga, CA (Bay Area)
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: vahe]
      #5297998 - 07/01/12 02:30 PM Attachment (172 downloads)

Quote:

Visual or imaging?

I am visual only with prime interest in lunar planetary, with that in mind I would go for TEC200FL. If imaging was my main interest I would consider TEC200FL for widefield DSO imaging, for planetary imaging neither choices makes sense, the good old C14 would outperform both of these jewels hands down, no contest here.

Vahe




I would somewhat disagree. As a current owner of an AP 10" Maksutov that replaced an AP180 F/9 refractor this is a decision I have already made. For planetary imaging the 10" is superb on planets both visually and for imaging, and I have not observed any significant out performance compared with any C14 that I am familiar with.

For its size, the AP 10" Maksutov's very small central obstruction in 10" of aperture delivers refractor-like images. However due to its very long focal length it is a specialized telescope best suited for compact objects at very high magnification. (My most commonly used eyepieces are in the 21mm to 31 mm range and I often go out to 48mm) Widefield is not its forte.

Another important factor for me is that the 10" Maksutov is extremely compact and more easily portable in the field whereas a 200mm refractor is an unwieldy canon. (And a C14 is not that portable either) Here is my standard portable rig:

Chris


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
idealistic
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 12/31/10

Loc: massachusetts
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Aquatone]
      #5298048 - 07/01/12 03:01 PM

Theres a reason D. Peach lugs those heavy C14s all the way to Barbados during opposition. For imaging the extra 4" will win.

As to the op, its a tough one. For imaging Id go with the AP, for visual, the TEC. Letting go of that TEC is dicey, 8" chunks of fluorite are going the way of the dodo.


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

Reged: 11/12/06

Loc: Sherman Oaks, CA
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: idealistic]
      #5298068 - 07/01/12 03:13 PM

Do you want to look through a perfect mirror with a tiny obstruction, or through unobstructed, perfect crystal? I know what I would walk out with in a heartbeat - TEC200FL.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rfic1
sage
*****

Reged: 10/25/05

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: idealistic]
      #5298069 - 07/01/12 03:13 PM

I would agree that chances of a high quality 10" MAK being introduced are more likely than a 8" fluorite.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: JimP]
      #5298100 - 07/01/12 03:39 PM

Quote:

Assuming they both cost the exact same thing, which would you choose and why?




Jim, I've had an AP 10" f/14.6 Mak-Cass for nearly a decade. It is the most refractor-like compound telescope I've ever looked through, and it's going to the grave with me. Although I haven't tested them side-by-side, the Mak-Cass appears to outperform my AP180 f/9 EDT, which is a superb planetary/lunar telescope. I can't comment on the TEC 200, because I've never used one.

In its first light on a cold January 5 night here in MD (about 22 miles NW of the White House), it performed very well. I observed a Greek letter "tau"-shaped albedo feature on Ganymede.

I've observed the central star in M57 from here (and at the BFSP), but that required the DSO to be nearly overhead and about 1000x, which the scope can handle because of its smooth optics.

I've also observed the _entire_ length of Rima Marius. I had roughly sketched the feature, but was perplexed because Rukl's atlas suggested it was shorter than I had indicated. However, at the rear of that book, Rukl mentions that Rima Marius is indeed longer, and the extended section is sufficiently narrow that I was quite surprised I could even see it.

Jupiter and Saturn look quite impressive through this scope. The detail and color saturation are superb. I haven't yet caught a glimpse of Mimas because I haven't added an occulting bar to an EP and was too busy during Saturn's on-plane ring period to bag that moon. Binoviewing these planets and the Moon is a real pleasure.

The thermal performance of the scope is impressive. Thus, if the seeing appears to be bad, I am reasonably confident that's due to atmospheric effects. The scope is also well baffled.

You obviously understand that the AP Mak-Cass won't provide very wide fields, but you likely have or can purchase other instruments that fit that niche. The Mak-Cass is also is "only" 10" of aperture, and big light buckets will outperform it visually on real faint fuzzies (I also have an Obsession 25" Newt).

My favorite view of M42 has been with the AP Mak-Cass and a Leitz 30 mm 88* AFOV EP. This showcase object looks like a stunning piece of art. The gossamer wings are thundercloud purple, the heart of the nebula has thin threads in it and has a lovely range of colors (the obvious green and blue plus pastel orange, rose and yellow), and the E & F stars are easily separated from their companions with lots of dark space. In addition, the other stars (nearly a dozen) in the heart of the nebula look like tiny rubies (I can only see about three of those stars with my AP155 f/7). I would love to see how much deeper M42 will look at a dark site.

In addition to visual work, I hope to use the scope for imaging globs, etc.

Edited by JJK (07/01/12 03:47 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: idealistic]
      #5298108 - 07/01/12 03:44 PM

Quote:

Theres a reason D. Peach lugs those heavy C14s all the way to Barbados during opposition. For imaging the extra 4" will win.

As to the op, its a tough one. For imaging Id go with the AP, for visual, the TEC. Letting go of that TEC is dicey, 8" chunks of fluorite are going the way of the dodo.




He also doesn't have an AP Mak-Cass.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
vahe
professor emeritus


Reged: 08/27/05

Loc: Houston, Texas
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Aquatone]
      #5298127 - 07/01/12 04:01 PM

Chris,

Looking at the photo of your toys I see that you have a Rob Miller Tripod, which model is yours?
Last month I ordered a Tri36M, expecting it sometimes in mid July, is yours M or H?

Vahe


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: johnnyha]
      #5298129 - 07/01/12 04:02 PM

Quote:

Do you want to look through a perfect mirror with a tiny obstruction, or through unobstructed, perfect crystal? I know what I would walk out with in a heartbeat - TEC200FL.




Have you ever looked through an AP Mak-Cass? I have one and decided to get it after looking through Roland's 8" and 10" prototypes. I have absolutely no regrets. The AP Mak-Cass is a superb lunar/planetary/globular instrument.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David PavlichAdministrator
Transmographied
*****

Reged: 05/18/05

Loc: Mandeville, LA USA
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: JimP]
      #5298242 - 07/01/12 05:08 PM

You need to toss in the mount for this exercise. I would think a 10" AP Mak would work visually on an Atlas. I wouldn't even consider putting a 200mm TEC on anything less than a G11 and even that is pushing it.

David


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ValeryD
Vendor (Aries)
*****

Reged: 11/26/05

Loc: Kherson, Ukraine.
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: David Pavlich]
      #5298307 - 07/01/12 06:00 PM

All is depends of your seeing and your patience in hunting for the best seeing moments during average nights. If your seeing conditions are mostly good (6 and above, out of 10) and you are patient enough waiting moments of image steadiness, then go with 10" AP MCT. It will show you more details on planets during excellent seeing and during moments of excellent seeing in average nights. It also will show you more colorful planets.

In a past I frequently have compared my 10" Mak with the very same optics and very similar mechanics (and cooling system) as the AP's one and my 7" Fluorite triplet and 7" Fluorite doublet. There were no any case when I saw less details in 10" Mak than in 7" APO. But during very good and excellent seeing, the 10" outperformed the 7" hands down in wealth of small delicate details. The gap was so wide, that 8" APO also will sink in it.


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

Reged: 12/17/05

Loc: Under the southern horn of the...
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: ValeryD]
      #5298353 - 07/01/12 06:34 PM

Did Aries make the optics for the AP mak?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aquatone
sage


Reged: 03/23/06

Loc: Moraga, CA (Bay Area)
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: vahe]
      #5298420 - 07/01/12 07:29 PM

Quote:

Chris,

Looking at the photo of your toys I see that you have a Rob Miller Tripod, which model is yours? Last month I ordered a Tri36M, expecting it sometimes in mid July, is yours M or H?

Vahe




Yes the tripod is a Rob Miller Tri36M which is compatible with my AP1200 that you can see in the picture. (I think the Tri36H is optimized for a Paramount) I can't praise this tripod highly enough in the way it combines rigidity and light weight portability - I can literally lift it with one finger. For the long focal length AP 10" Maksutov, the Tri36L tripod and AP1200 makes a portable and yet extremely rigid assembly that I can assemble/disassemble in 5-10 minutes maximum. Even if I whack the telescope hard, the motion dampens instantly. To address an earlier point raised about mounting these instruments, another advantage of the 10" Maksutov is that it does not have the very long movement arm of a 200mm refractor. Unless you have looked through this mounting configuration visually it is hard to convey how rock solid rigid it is especially at extremely high magnifications.

Chris


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aquatone
sage


Reged: 03/23/06

Loc: Moraga, CA (Bay Area)
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: JJK]
      #5298439 - 07/01/12 07:45 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Assuming they both cost the exact same thing, which would you choose and why?




I've observed the central star in M57 from here (and at the BFSP), but that required the DSO to be nearly overhead and about 1000x, which the scope can handle because of its smooth optics.

In addition to visual work, I hope to use the scope for imaging globs, etc.




I can confirm that I (and 10 others) also observed the central star of M57 through the 10" AP Maksutov at the Oregon Star Party a few years ago. Seeing is obviously important with this object, but this is a good example of how the superb quality of the 10" optics appears to defy the established rules of what is required to see objects like this. This is an instrument, that albeit specialized for certain types of observing, deserves every bit of its reputation. I will also say that through extensive use in my part of the world, (California) I have rarely if ever had cool down issues with this telescope, and it is always ready for observing from Sunset onwards. It's thermal management is remarkable. External seeing issues at the greater 10" aperture are also from my experience not conspicuously worse than viewing through my 6.3" AP160 refractor, though I benefit from upper atmospheric conditions near the coast.

As far as imaging deep sky objects such as globulars with longer exposures is concerned, compared to large refractors I have found that the 10" Maksutov requires a much higher level of guiding precision. (Not surprising at 3,708mm focal length) I have experimented with several solutions, but generally off-axis or on-axis solutions are required for anything 5' or longer. However I often use the AP CCD telecompressor when imaging objects such as compact galaxies and globulars which brings the focal ratio down to a more manageable F/9 (ish) depending on its spacing.

Chris


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
vahe
professor emeritus


Reged: 08/27/05

Loc: Houston, Texas
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: David Pavlich]
      #5298506 - 07/01/12 08:47 PM

Quote:

You need to toss in the mount for this exercise. I would think a 10" AP Mak would work visually on an Atlas. I wouldn't even consider putting a 200mm TEC on anything less than a G11 and even that is pushing it.





G11 would be borderline, just barely able to support a 10” Mak, I have a 250 F/20 TEC Mak and G11 handles it in visual mode with binoviewer, but the 5000mm focal length is way over G11’s comfort zone. The smallest mount for a 10” MC in visual mode would be AP Mach1, this mount is in fact lighter than G11 equatorial head and can carry a little more than G11.

The TEC 200FL requires AP900 for visual and 1200 (now 1600) for imaging, G11 can not carry that refractor even in visual mode.

Vahe


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jmiele
Patron Saint?
*****

Reged: 12/04/10

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: vahe]
      #5298556 - 07/01/12 09:24 PM

The TEC180 is about max on the 900. 1200/1600 would be better.

Joe


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

Reged: 05/08/03

Loc: Freedonia
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: JimP]
      #5298952 - 07/02/12 06:29 AM Attachment (59 downloads)

Quote:

Assuming they both cost the exact same thing, which would you choose and why?




Unless I needed the wide field of the 200 I'd get the 10" Mak. I asked Roland what size apo refractor would equal the 10" Mak, fov differences aside, and he said a 9.25" would match its light throughput. The mak would have better resolution, and if the 9.25" apo were perfect and seeing perfect the apo may have slightly better contrast.

That said, the contrast in the AP Mak is superb. It is the first thing experienced observers note the first time they look through the scope. Very smooth optics, small central obstruction, and 1/10 wave (system) pay dividends. I've seen the central star in M57. I've observed Deimos and Phobos with Mars in the fov without an occulting bar, a testimony to the very low scatter.

Thermal management would go to the Mak. I use mine in the mid-Atlantic area and it''s cooled down in 15-20 minutes, basically the time it takes me to get my chair and myself situated. I have to transport to observe and I usually observe alone, and with my back trouble I could not handle an 8" refractor. The Mak rides happily on a Mach1 GTO.

My primary interest is visual lunar/planetary observing, but one of my favorite views with the AP Mak is M13 with a 13 Ethos. Stunning.

If and when weather and busy schedules cooperate Marty Cohen, benevolent dictator of Company 7, and I plan on side by siding my 10" Mak with his AP 206 EDF. Should be interesting.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
coz
sage


Reged: 08/25/10

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Paul G]
      #5299193 - 07/02/12 10:53 AM

I vote for the AP Mak. I just re-read some comments on the AP user group from Roland explaining how difficult it was making these. I think the low % central obstruction is unique and each scope took a long time for him to hand figure.

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


Reged: 04/22/03

Loc: South Carolina
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo *DELETED* new [Re: coz]
      #5299320 - 07/02/12 03:46 PM

Post deleted by JimP

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Refractor6
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/20/04

Loc: Vancouver B.C. , Canada
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: JimP]
      #5299330 - 07/02/12 03:53 PM

Quote:

I have decided to go with the AP 10" Maksutov.
Two super scopes!




No kidding!!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
peleuba
professor emeritus


Reged: 12/01/04

Loc: Southern PA
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Paul G]
      #5299338 - 07/02/12 03:56 PM

Quote:

If and when weather and busy schedules cooperate Marty Cohen, benevolent dictator of Company 7, and I plan on side by siding my 10" Mak with his AP 206 EDF. Should be interesting.




Great looking setup, Paul. I am somewhat local (work in the Baltimore area) and could bring a TEC160FL. I have never viewed through an AP 10 MAK.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Tom and Beth
Post Laureate


Reged: 01/08/07

Loc: Tucson, AZ
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: JimP]
      #5299353 - 07/02/12 04:02 PM

Good choice! I have TEC's version (250 F12) and very happy.
All that said, wouldn't mind having the 200MM APO as well.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
idealistic
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 12/31/10

Loc: massachusetts
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: peleuba]
      #5299354 - 07/02/12 04:03 PM

I just noticed a TEC200FL on Amart "located in the US"....

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
coz
sage


Reged: 08/25/10

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: idealistic]
      #5299364 - 07/02/12 04:09 PM

Congrats!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jmiele
Patron Saint?
*****

Reged: 12/04/10

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: coz]
      #5299369 - 07/02/12 04:11 PM

Good deal Jim. A nice acquisition. Enjoy it.. Joe

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

Reged: 11/12/06

Loc: Sherman Oaks, CA
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: JJK]
      #5299480 - 07/02/12 05:17 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Do you want to look through a perfect mirror with a tiny obstruction, or through unobstructed, perfect crystal? I know what I would walk out with in a heartbeat - TEC200FL.




Have you ever looked through an AP Mak-Cass? I have one and decided to get it after looking through Roland's 8" and 10" prototypes. I have absolutely no regrets. The AP Mak-Cass is a superb lunar/planetary/globular instrument.



I gotta admit after considering the mounting options especially but after reading the rest of this thread, I'm leaning to the Mak-Cass. OK I change my vote!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
idealistic
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 12/31/10

Loc: massachusetts
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: johnnyha]
      #5299496 - 07/02/12 05:30 PM

Yeah, me too. I have to ask though, have you considered a nice 10" Dobsonian?

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


Reged: 02/21/12

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: johnnyha]
      #5299500 - 07/02/12 05:33 PM

I have to ask what can the TEC200FL show that you can't see in a 10" reflector cause I'm interest!
Or why would anyone be unhappy with a TEC200FL and give it up for another scope?
Are you selling a TEC200FL JimP?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Refractor6
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/20/04

Loc: Vancouver B.C. , Canada
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: saemark30]
      #5299509 - 07/02/12 05:38 PM

I think Jim has indicted he's having both in the scope family. I could have misunderstood that and be wrong

Both of these 2 dream scopes for this happy owner..right Jim


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
idealistic
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 12/31/10

Loc: massachusetts
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Refractor6]
      #5299515 - 07/02/12 05:45 PM

Well, one popped up on Amart (TEC200FL) this morning, Id say this is some sort of trade.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Refractor6
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/20/04

Loc: Vancouver B.C. , Canada
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: idealistic]
      #5299554 - 07/02/12 06:05 PM

Quote:

Well, one popped up on Amart (TEC200FL) this morning, Id say this is some sort of trade.




I just checked out the ad..the plot thickens


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

Reged: 11/12/06

Loc: Sherman Oaks, CA
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: idealistic]
      #5299566 - 07/02/12 06:12 PM

Quote:

Yeah, me too. I have to ask though, have you considered a nice 10" Dobsonian?



Actually I have a 15" Obsession and my 14.5" Zambuto replacement mirror is due next month! I just got a nice quartz Protostar secondary too. I'm not an AP guy so this should work for me.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Max Lattanzi
professor emeritus


Reged: 06/27/07

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: JimP]
      #5300456 - 07/03/12 10:47 AM

Hi Jim,

I just realized one thing:at the beginning you asked a straight question w/o providing any background information.
So it was something like "if you were to own just one scope, bla bla bla". And you had my reply (which I confirm).

But now, IF I had the chance (like someone of my knowledge ) to *already* own a 10” apo and a 8” apo... I guess I could very well agree with you that picking up the AP10” Mak would not be such a bad idea in the end.

Gosh, it has to be really really terrible from your side to be torn by such an untenable dilemma...
Well, good for you...! You’ll be surely happy with either one!

Awaiting for a field report and some pix.

Cheers,
-- Max


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


Reged: 02/21/12

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Max Lattanzi]
      #5300656 - 07/03/12 01:37 PM

Not me personally, but if I were you I would get both and put them side by side for a comparo.

Bye george if I had a 10" APO I would just use that.


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

Reged: 05/08/03

Loc: Freedonia
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: peleuba]
      #5300748 - 07/03/12 02:34 PM

Quote:

Quote:

If and when weather and busy schedules cooperate Marty Cohen, benevolent dictator of Company 7, and I plan on side by siding my 10" Mak with his AP 206 EDF. Should be interesting.




Great looking setup, Paul. I am somewhat local (work in the Baltimore area) and could bring a TEC160FL. I have never viewed through an AP 10 MAK.




I'll let you know when we get around to it. It would be nice to add the 160 to the mix, plus your expertise in evaluating optics would be helpful as well.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Max Lattanzi
professor emeritus


Reged: 06/27/07

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: idealistic]
      #5302287 - 07/04/12 01:56 PM

Quote:

I just noticed a TEC200FL on Amart "located in the US"....




...and I just noticed that someone, who might have intentionally ignored this thread, grabbed it in less than 48h...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rfic1
sage
*****

Reged: 10/25/05

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Paul G]
      #5302298 - 07/04/12 02:01 PM

As I mentioned earlier as much as I would hate to pass on a TEC 200 FL I thought the 10" AP Mak was the best telescope for the desired purpose esp from a planetary imaging standpoint. I do have a TEC180FL and a TEC 200 f/15 MAK. I have been very impressed with the planetary images provided by the Mak. Although I have not compared them both side by side on the same night I believe the 8"Mak gives up little to the 180. The 8" Mak has shown me detail on Ganymeade. I have never seen such a feature with the 180. I believe there have been posts in the past from a owner of both a AP 7" f9 and the high quality Ceravolo 8" Mak Newt stating planetary views to be similar.

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


Reged: 02/21/12

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: rfic1]
      #5302473 - 07/04/12 03:32 PM

One source of 10" Mak is APM, and 8" triplet APOs.
Intes made some 11" models as well.
Owner was disappointed by the views, due to the seeing here.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Max Lattanzi
professor emeritus


Reged: 06/27/07

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: rfic1]
      #5302553 - 07/04/12 04:15 PM

Quote:

The 8" Mak has shown me detail on Ganymeade. I have never seen such a feature with the 180.




I have seen details on Ganymede (and Io) several times using a 180EDT. I would be really surprised if you cannot do the same with your 180FL. It *does* take a very-good to excellent night, though. It's a matter of seeing; a bit like the Pup. Probably you've been just unlucky on those nights with the 180FL. There's nothing wrong with your excellent refractor.

-- Max


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mark8888
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 09/24/10

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Max Lattanzi]
      #5566938 - 12/12/12 02:50 AM

Quote:

Jim,

While asking this, you are certainly aware that Roland keeps in his own observatory a 10” Mak and a 180EDT side by side. I recall him stating more than once that, only when seeing is approaching Pik 9, thus *very seldom*, his Mak delivers slightly better planetary performances than the nearby Apo. As soon as the air starts moving a bit, the Mak lies behind (his words). That’s the reason why he has been always keeping the 180EDT.




Hi... I'm reviving this kind of old thread because I found the above quote interesting. As a person who wasn't aware of that, I wonder if anyone happens to have a link to documentation about it, like a quote from the man himself? I'd be interested to read what he had to say about it verbatim. I did a search but couldn't find it.

ps wow 12/12/12! nice.

Edited by mark8888 (12/12/12 03:32 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mel M
super member
*****

Reged: 05/04/08

Loc: southern Oregon
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: mark8888]
      #5567779 - 12/12/12 02:55 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Jim,

While asking this, you are certainly aware that Roland keeps in his own observatory a 10” Mak and a 180EDT side by side. I recall him stating more than once that, only when seeing is approaching Pik 9, thus *very seldom*, his Mak delivers slightly better planetary performances than the nearby Apo. As soon as the air starts moving a bit, the Mak lies behind (his words). That’s the reason why he has been always keeping the 180EDT.




Hi... I'm reviving this kind of old thread because I found the above quote interesting. As a person who wasn't aware of that, I wonder if anyone happens to have a link to documentation about it, like a quote from the man himself? I'd be interested to read what he had to say about it verbatim. I did a search but couldn't find it.

ps wow 12/12/12! nice.




He has said his refractors are best for imaging and that there are better choices for visual.


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

Reged: 05/08/03

Loc: Freedonia
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Mel M]
      #5567988 - 12/12/12 05:28 PM

Since his refractors are nulled at peak visual wavelength I'd be interested in seeing the context of his comment; given that and the minimum guaranteed Strehl of 0.984 it's hard to imagine another scope of similar aperture being a better visual instrument. His 10" Mak, for instance, was designed as a no-compromise visual lunar/planetary scope.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
maknewtnut
Member
*****

Reged: 10/08/06

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Paul G]
      #5568007 - 12/12/12 05:43 PM

It's just this sort of thread that could be referred to when the never ending threads about how a refractor will always be superior to any reflector pop up. An associated myth are claims that a refractor is equal to a reflector X number of inches larger.

Since these sort of arguments seem to pop up without end, I can't help but surmise that many folks have never seen what a superb reflector is capable of providing. For that matter, I believe it's likely many of the same folks have never observed with an apo triplet any larger than 5-6" either.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ValeryD
Vendor (Aries)
*****

Reged: 11/26/05

Loc: Kherson, Ukraine.
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Paul G]
      #5568013 - 12/12/12 05:48 PM

Since I have essentially the same 10" Mak and a very similar (in performance on planets) a 178mm Fluorite APO, I have to say that I slightly disagree with Roland's estimations.

1. Mak starts to outperform the 178mmm APO from the seeing of 7 out of 10, being slightly better at 6 out of 10.

2. At seeing 8 out of 10, the 10" Mak wins with serious gap without any doubts.

3. At seeing higher than 8 out of 10, Mak wins hands down.
No comparition.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mel M
super member
*****

Reged: 05/04/08

Loc: southern Oregon
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Paul G]
      #5568054 - 12/12/12 06:23 PM

Quote:

Since his refractors are nulled at peak visual wavelength I'd be interested in seeing the context of his comment; given that and the minimum guaranteed Strehl of 0.984 it's hard to imagine another scope of similar aperture being a better visual instrument. His 10" Mak, for instance, was designed as a no-compromise visual lunar/planetary scope.




The context was considering the cost of his refractors there were better options for visual use.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Astrojensen
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/05/08

Loc: Bornholm, Denmark
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Mel M]
      #5568148 - 12/12/12 07:27 PM

If the cost, the mount or the size is not an issue, then, aperture for aperture, a refractor is best (within limits). If, however, any of these are an issue, you'll have to compromise. It's as simple as that, in my opinion.

Can you afford a 12" refractor? I can't. Can I afford a 12" newtonian? Yup! Are they equal? No, but there are worse alternatives: No scope at all!


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mel M
super member
*****

Reged: 05/04/08

Loc: southern Oregon
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Astrojensen]
      #5568194 - 12/12/12 07:55 PM

Quote:

If the cost, the mount or the size is not an issue, then, aperture for aperture, a refractor is best (within limits). If, however, any of these are an issue, you'll have to compromise. It's as simple as that, in my opinion.

Can you afford a 12" refractor? I can't. Can I afford a 12" newtonian? Yup! Are they equal? No, but there are worse alternatives: No scope at all!


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark




He has also said refractors larger than 7 or 8 inches have problems that make other options more attractive for visual use.


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

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: JimP]
      #5568203 - 12/12/12 08:01 PM

Quote:

Buying is not the question. Let's say neither would sell for more than the other. You walk into a store and can walk out with one, no charge. Which would it be?




A couple years maybe.

Pete


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

Reged: 08/24/11

Loc: Chattanooga, TN
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Mel M]
      #5568217 - 12/12/12 08:15 PM

Quote:

Quote:

If the cost, the mount or the size is not an issue, then, aperture for aperture, a refractor is best (within limits). If, however, any of these are an issue, you'll have to compromise. It's as simple as that, in my opinion.

Can you afford a 12" refractor? I can't. Can I afford a 12" newtonian? Yup! Are they equal? No, but there are worse alternatives: No scope at all!


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark




He has also said refractors larger than 7 or 8 inches have problems that make other options more attractive for visual use.




Problems such as?


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

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: JJK]
      #5568221 - 12/12/12 08:17 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Theres a reason D. Peach lugs those heavy C14s all the way to Barbados during opposition. For imaging the extra 4" will win.

As to the op, its a tough one. For imaging Id go with the AP, for visual, the TEC. Letting go of that TEC is dicey, 8" chunks of fluorite are going the way of the dodo.




He also doesn't have an AP Mak-Cass.




Very true but post imaging processing would fly right past the AP10 images. Oh I'm sure the 10mak is dandy and probably the best in the world and I believe other c14 owners who give the visual nod to that Mak. But being that processing can manipulate contrasts with extreme efficiency that little contrast edge the mak might have had is left behind as wavelet sharpening brings out micro details only a 14" can access through angular resolution. I would suggest perusing some of the 180mm AP APO planetary images and it's clear even a ten inch f/4 newt is outdoing it.

Which one would I owner though - money no object. It'd be the Mak hands down. The c14 has that angular edge to be sure but in terms of visual contrasts and an aperture less needy of seeing than the 14 and the ten is king. The eight - any eight by ANYBODY- will never outdo a ten inch aperture in imaging. Visually it might do better in lesser seeing but don't we observe for those better nights?

Pete


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ziggy943
Post Laureate


Reged: 08/11/06

Loc: Utah
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5568235 - 12/12/12 08:31 PM

No doubt the AP 10" Mak is capable of superior performance on the Moon and planets over the TEC 200. Question is, in the field how often will that happen.

In my experience there are two components to the final "seeing." One is the atmosphere over which we have no control. The other is the thermal stabilization of the telescope. My experience with telescope thermal stability was with the 9" refractor an, by the time it was set up, it was ready to go. Not so with the 8" MAK. With very few exceptions it never reached equilibrium.

In my location it was my experience with a TEC 200 F/15 Mak that it reached it's planetary and double star potential 2 or 3 time in 4 years. Visually, side by side, the 160 class APO's outclassed it on Mars and double stars. That's why I made the decision to go with an APO refractor for myself. I'm not talking about just after set up, I mean for the observing session. My favorite double to judge the seeing is Epsilon Lyrae. I recall a friend shaking his head when looking through my 8" MAK. That hurt. OTOH, I had E-Lyrae at 400x in the MAK one night (literally one night) when seeing must have been perfect and had an image I can still see. On that night it was better than a 160 could be. Is that enough? It isn't for me.

I prefer the consistency of the refractor over the MAK in my location. If you live in an area where you have minimal nightime cooling the MAK may be a better choice.

When all is just right with the MAK it was the better scope but on run-of-the-mill nights the refractor is the better choice.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Peter Natscher
professor emeritus


Reged: 03/28/06

Loc: Central Coast California
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Ziggy943]
      #5568434 - 12/12/12 11:08 PM

You don't now anything about the AP 10" Mak-Cass with your statements. Roland designed his 10" with a removable back cover exposing the primary mirror's backside, a primary mirror fan if needed, and a primary figured with aspheric curves for a flatter field and made of quartz. The two optical elements Mirror and corrector are 1/10 wave as is all of Roland's telescopes! Imagine that – 10 inches of 1/10th wave optics!! Who else is doing that? After the optics were bought from ARIES Optical, Roland was dissatisfied with their quality and totally refigured them to his high specs. Roland didn't make much money on these scopes after all of his extra work on them. Perhaps, this is why he dropped continuing the Mak-Cass production. This design quickens equilibration time and even allows great observing at moderate powers right after setting up outside before sunset. The 10" AP Mak-Cass is far superior in design to any other Cat. As you focus at any power. there is absolutely no mirror slop, either. Also, the Mak is not a reflector. It is a Cat.

Quote:

No doubt the AP 10" Mak is capable of superior performance on the Moon and planets over the TEC 200. Question is, in the field how often will that happen.

In my experience there are two components to the final "seeing." One is the atmosphere over which we have no control. The other is the thermal stabilization of the telescope. My experience with telescope thermal stability was with the 9" refractor an, by the time it was set up, it was ready to go. Not so with the 8" MAK. With very few exceptions it never reached equilibrium.

In my location it was my experience with a TEC 200 F/15 Mak that it reached it's planetary and double star potential 2 or 3 time in 4 years. Visually, side by side, the 160 class APO's outclassed it on Mars and double stars. That's why I made the decision to go with an APO refractor for myself. I'm not talking about just after set up, I mean for the observing session. My favorite double to judge the seeing is Epsilon Lyrae. I recall a friend shaking his head when looking through my 8" MAK. That hurt. OTOH, I had E-Lyrae at 400x in the MAK one night (literally one night) when seeing must have been perfect and had an image I can still see. On that night it was better than a 160 could be. Is that enough? It isn't for me.

I prefer the consistency of the refractor over the MAK in my location. If you live in an area where you have minimal nightime cooling the MAK may be a better choice.

When all is just right with the MAK it was the better scope but on run-of-the-mill nights the refractor is the better choice.




Edited by Peter Natscher (12/13/12 09:21 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Peter Natscher]
      #5568505 - 12/13/12 12:06 AM

Quote:

You don't now anything about the AP 10" Mak-Cass with your statements. Roland designed his 10" with a removable back cover exposing the primary mirror's backside, a primary mirror fan if needed, and a primary figured with aspheric curves for a flatter field and made of quartz. The two optical elements Mirror and corrector are 1/10 wave as is all of Roland's telescopes! Imagine that – 10 inches of 1/10th wave optics!! Who else is doing that? After the optics were bought from AIRES Optical, Roland was dissatisfied with their quality and totally refigured them to his high specs. Roland didn't make much money on these scopes after all of his extra work on them. Perhaps, this is why he dropped continuing the Mak-Cass production. This design quickens equilibration time and even allows great observing at moderate powers right after setting up outside before sunset. The 10" AP Mak-Cass is far superior in design to any other Cat. As you focus at any power. there is absolutely no mirror slop, either. Also, the Mak is not a reflector. It is a Cat.

Quote:

No doubt the AP 10" Mak is capable of superior performance on the Moon and planets over the TEC 200. Question is, in the field how often will that happen.

In my experience there are two components to the final "seeing." One is the atmosphere over which we have no control. The other is the thermal stabilization of the telescope. My experience with telescope thermal stability was with the 9" refractor an, by the time it was set up, it was ready to go. Not so with the 8" MAK. With very few exceptions it never reached equilibrium.

In my location it was my experience with a TEC 200 F/15 Mak that it reached it's planetary and double star potential 2 or 3 time in 4 years. Visually, side by side, the 160 class APO's outclassed it on Mars and double stars. That's why I made the decision to go with an APO refractor for myself. I'm not talking about just after set up, I mean for the observing session. My favorite double to judge the seeing is Epsilon Lyrae. I recall a friend shaking his head when looking through my 8" MAK. That hurt. OTOH, I had E-Lyrae at 400x in the MAK one night (literally one night) when seeing must have been perfect and had an image I can still see. On that night it was better than a 160 could be. Is that enough? It isn't for me.

I prefer the consistency of the refractor over the MAK in my location. If you live in an area where you have minimal nightime cooling the MAK may be a better choice.

When all is just right with the MAK it was the better scope but on run-of-the-mill nights the refractor is the better choice.







I agree with Peter. The AP 10" Mak-Cass's thermal management and mirror shift are well executed.

In addition, its optics are impressive. The scope can be pushed productively to far greater magnification than any SCT with which I've observed.

Edited by JJK (12/13/12 12:07 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
M13 Observer
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 12/09/06

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: mgwhittle]
      #5568529 - 12/13/12 12:36 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

If the cost, the mount or the size is not an issue, then, aperture for aperture, a refractor is best (within limits). If, however, any of these are an issue, you'll have to compromise. It's as simple as that, in my opinion.

Can you afford a 12" refractor? I can't. Can I afford a 12" newtonian? Yup! Are they equal? No, but there are worse alternatives: No scope at all!


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark




He has also said refractors larger than 7 or 8 inches have problems that make other options more attractive for visual use.




Problems such as?




9 plus inch refractors become bloody big and heavy. Not too many people have adequate mounting to support them. Not too many people have the equipment available to move them. They require serious dedication to even house in an observatory large enough. There are a few people who manage to do so, but they are rare indeed.

A well executed 10" such as the AP Mak is a total lightweight in a short manageable package in comparison to the 10" AP refractor Clint(sp) has. I shudder with the thought of even moving the pier he uses, never mind that monster mount and OTA!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Astrojensen
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/05/08

Loc: Bornholm, Denmark
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: M13 Observer]
      #5568631 - 12/13/12 03:29 AM

Quote:

A well executed 10" such as the AP Mak is a total lightweight in a short manageable package in comparison to the 10" AP refractor Clint(sp) has. I shudder with the thought of even moving the pier he uses, never mind that monster mount and OTA!




Nevertheless, it's a dream of mine to one day own an 8" - 10" refractor (in a permanent observatory). A realistic dream, given my current income? No, but dreams are what they are.


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark


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


Reged: 04/20/06

Loc: Minnesota
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: maknewtnut]
      #5569034 - 12/13/12 11:12 AM

Mark,
You are right.

After many years of looking through high end refractors was convinced that APOs were the ultimate planetary scopes. I still consistently see 5-6 apos outperform reflectors of almost any size at a typical star party. But good reflectors that are collimated well are still pretty rare around here. But once I had the chance to spend some time with a really fine reflector, mostly my Lockwood figured 10", I realized that I was wrong. In good seeing etc, I have seen it easily outperform 6 and 7 inch APOs in side by side views on Jupiter. Have not been able to do side by side with larger refractors.

Now I am convinced the biggest drawback of reflectors is cool down issues and air currents. Something that refractors seem to handle a little better. But once things are cooled and the seeing is good, aperture will win out.

Russ


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
maknewtnut
Member
*****

Reged: 10/08/06

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: RussD]
      #5569343 - 12/13/12 02:07 PM

Ziggy makes a good point too. Consistency in achieving potential performance may very be the most overlooked issue in scope selection (and discussion about it). One factor that often affects consistency is location. Those that live in high desert have to contend with far different ambient conditions than someone that lives on the coast. Detrimental effects from CO become exacerbated by less than ideal seeing conditions as well.


Case in point: all the folks who endlessly refer to Peach's planetary images as 'proof' of how good all C14's are.

There are too many factors to consider to lay down blanket statements.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ziggy943
Post Laureate


Reged: 08/11/06

Loc: Utah
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Peter Natscher]
      #5569371 - 12/13/12 02:21 PM

Peter, Your quote,

"Also, the Mak is not a reflector. It is a Cat."

Of course the Mak is a reflector. It has a primary mirror does it not? It's a more exotic reflector but it's still a reflector.


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


Reged: 11/02/06

Loc: Latitude 47
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Peter Natscher]
      #5569372 - 12/13/12 02:22 PM

Quote:

The two optical elements Mirror and corrector are 1/10 wave as is all of Roland's telescopes! Imagine that – 10 inches of 1/10th wave optics!! Who else is doing that? After the optics were bought from ARIES Optical, Roland was dissatisfied with their quality and totally refigured them to his high specs. Roland didn't make much money on these scopes after all of his extra work on them. Perhaps, this is why he dropped continuing the Mak-Cass production.




The two optical elements have to be more than 1/10 wave corrected. 1/10 wave is what A-P guarantees is the wavefront quality at the eyepiece and being mirrors, both secondary and primary surfaces have to be figured to 1/20 wave. Roland's said he stopped making this design because it was a "female dog" to make with its aspheric curves.

While Roland put considerable thought into the cooling aspects of the scope, such as a rear-polished quartz primary, fans, removable backplate, etc., the fact remains that large scopes will have trouble catching up to ambient when it drops faster than the rate at which they can reasonably cool off. In the northern climes, especially when it's a bit dry, temperatures often keep dropping into the early morning. Any large scope, including the venerable A-P Mak, will have to wait till this time for optimum performance. FWIW, my 7" refractor performs optimally only at this time, not from its own cooldown problems but from the fact that the atmosphere had stabilized by then.

Tanveer.


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


Reged: 11/02/06

Loc: Latitude 47
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: JimP]
      #5569376 - 12/13/12 02:26 PM

Quote:

Buying is not the question. Let's say neither would sell for more than the other. You walk into a store and can walk out with one, no charge. Which would it be?




Without busting a spinal disk I doubt any of us codgers could actually walk out of a store with a 200mm refractor.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bowmoreman
Clear enough skies
*****

Reged: 09/11/06

Loc: Bolton, MA
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: TG]
      #5569529 - 12/13/12 04:22 PM

My weigh-in, with not anywhere near enough "samples" (especially on nights with good enough seeing)... Rating Jupiter views:

1. 12" Takahashi DK (my neighbors) - revelatory views
2. Close 2nd - my 10" f4.7(ish) Zambuto mirrored Dob
3. My C11
4. My TOA130
5. My FSQ106

Note the *almost* perfect correlation to aperture... with the 10" Zambuto reflector clearly beating the 11" C11, likely due to a) quality of optics and b) rather smaller central obstruction

As I'm not - yet - a planetary imager (though my friend/neighbor with the Tak M300 *is*) I can't / won't comment on that aspect...

So... I'd have to vote for the AP Mak... especially on "practicality" grounds


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Peter Natscher
professor emeritus


Reged: 03/28/06

Loc: Central Coast California
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: TG]
      #5569563 - 12/13/12 04:43 PM

Also, the AP 10" Mak-Cass needs no collimation as other Cats and Cass'es do! – the secondary is not a separate mirror but a silvered area on the corrector (as Questars are).

Quote:

Quote:

The two optical elements Mirror and corrector are 1/10 wave as is all of Roland's telescopes! Imagine that – 10 inches of 1/10th wave optics!! Who else is doing that? After the optics were bought from ARIES Optical, Roland was dissatisfied with their quality and totally refigured them to his high specs. Roland didn't make much money on these scopes after all of his extra work on them. Perhaps, this is why he dropped continuing the Mak-Cass production.




The two optical elements have to be more than 1/10 wave corrected. 1/10 wave is what A-P guarantees is the wavefront quality at the eyepiece and being mirrors, both secondary and primary surfaces have to be figured to 1/20 wave. Roland's said he stopped making this design because it was a "female dog" to make with its aspheric curves.

While Roland put considerable thought into the cooling aspects of the scope, such as a rear-polished quartz primary, fans, removable backplate, etc., the fact remains that large scopes will have trouble catching up to ambient when it drops faster than the rate at which they can reasonably cool off. In the northern climes, especially when it's a bit dry, temperatures often keep dropping into the early morning. Any large scope, including the venerable A-P Mak, will have to wait till this time for optimum performance. FWIW, my 7" refractor performs optimally only at this time, not from its own cooldown problems but from the fact that the atmosphere had stabilized by then.

Tanveer.




Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mark8888
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 09/24/10

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Peter Natscher]
      #5569790 - 12/13/12 07:24 PM

Peter, speaking of comparing large refractors and Maks, are you happy with your AP175, or is there something about it you wish were more AP Mak-like?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Peter Natscher
professor emeritus


Reged: 03/28/06

Loc: Central Coast California
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: mark8888]
      #5569872 - 12/13/12 08:16 PM

I haven't had enough observing time with my 175 yet to give a complete answer but right away, but the biggest difference between the two is the difference in focal lengths. The 10" Mak-Cass has over 3600mm focal length compared to 1400mm for the 175. That's over 100% more fl for the Mak. For planetary observing, this means you can use longer fl eyepieces with more eye relief without any or marginal amplification. The 10" with a ~3600mm native fl and Mark V bino using the 1.25X GPC gets 385X with a easy to look into 12mm eyepiece with generous eye relief. The 175 has a shorter 1400mm fl, less than 50% of the 10" Mak, so I'm constantly amplifying the eyepieces with 2X barlows or GPC's in the Mark V bino to approach 300X or more. I am already using the 2.6X GPC in the Mark V bino to bring its fl up to 3640mm and using two 11mm TV Plossels with shorter eye relief to get 330X on planets. The Mak is designed for high power but small field of view. The Mak is more specialized than the 175. I like the 175's versatility over a longer fl Mak design in that it can frame more deep sky objects using low to medium powers. Mechanically, I find the 175 very satisfying to use and its overall build feels to me superior to the Mak. In the future after Roland ceases to produce any more telescopes, I think he will most likely be remembered first for his triplet APO's over any of his other designs and I like the idea of owning and observing with one of these.

Quote:

Peter, speaking of comparing large refractors and Maks, are you happy with your AP175, or is there something about it you wish were more AP Mak-like?




Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mark8888
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 09/24/10

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Peter Natscher]
      #5569933 - 12/13/12 08:46 PM

Thank you for your comprehensive thoughts! Very interesting comparison. It seems to me that... a refractor can do everything a Mak can do, but some things not as well (for example, achieve high mag as easily, and of course the size gets unmanageable with higher aperture), while a Mak simply cannot achieve as a wide a field as refractor can... so it kind of makes a refractor more essential to have as a scope, unless you really aren't interested in wide fields. Of course, as is pointed out so often, one can have more than one scope... your post makes it very clear why that might be a good idea.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Tom and Beth
Post Laureate


Reged: 01/08/07

Loc: Tucson, AZ
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: maknewtnut]
      #5570072 - 12/13/12 10:30 PM

Quote:

Ziggy makes a good point too. Consistency in achieving potential performance may very be the most overlooked issue in scope selection (and discussion about it). One factor that often affects consistency is location. Those that live in high desert have to contend with far different ambient conditions than someone that lives on the coast. Detrimental effects from CO become exacerbated by less than ideal seeing conditions as well.


Case in point: all the folks who endlessly refer to Peach's planetary images as 'proof' of how good all C14's are.

There are too many factors to consider to lay down blanket statements.




Good points, Mark. And recently Damian produced some jaw dropping shots with the AP 10" Mak.

Edit: to avoid injury, sit down

Here is a movie Damian Peach made using my telescopes while visiting recently.
The images used to make the movie were made primarily with an AP 10" F/14.6
Maksutov. One image was made with a TMB 10" F/9 apo. See below FYI.

Jim Phillips

http://www.damianpeach.com/jup1213/oct2012whole.wmv




Edited by Tom and Beth (12/13/12 10:47 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Tom and Beth
Post Laureate


Reged: 01/08/07

Loc: Tucson, AZ
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: mark8888]
      #5570087 - 12/13/12 10:36 PM Attachment (58 downloads)

Quote:

Thank you for your comprehensive thoughts! Very interesting comparison. It seems to me that... a refractor can do everything a Mak can do, but some things not as well (for example, achieve high mag as easily, and of course the size gets unmanageable with higher aperture), while a Mak simply cannot achieve as a wide a field as refractor can... so it kind of makes a refractor more essential to have as a scope, unless you really aren't interested in wide fields. Of course, as is pointed out so often, one can have more than one scope... your post makes it very clear why that might be a good idea.




OK, but who says you can't have both? This is a REALLY lousy pic taken with the Security Cam, but you get the idea.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bowmoreman
Clear enough skies
*****

Reged: 09/11/06

Loc: Bolton, MA
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Tom and Beth]
      #5571212 - 12/14/12 05:35 PM

Lordy, but the word jealous just doesn't even begin to come close!



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ziggy943
Post Laureate


Reged: 08/11/06

Loc: Utah
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Tom and Beth]
      #5571222 - 12/14/12 05:46 PM

Thanks for posting that Jim. It may be the same as Damian posted on Facebook. Goes to show it's not just the telescope but also the experience and expertise of the operator.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Bowmoreman]
      #5571264 - 12/14/12 06:16 PM

I'll take the TEC

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ziggy943
Post Laureate


Reged: 08/11/06

Loc: Utah
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5572788 - 12/15/12 03:46 PM

Quote:

I'll take the TEC




And your reasons are...?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Ziggy943]
      #5574432 - 12/16/12 04:26 PM

Because much more often than not, the 8" apochromat will consistently outperform the Mak on lunar planetary. Planetary Imaging is all about aperture and you can manipulate the the contrast, sharpen the image all you like and add a nice dark background. That has absolutely zero to do with the reality of observational astronomy. If one intends to image, I would easily go with the Mak.

Edited by Daniel Mounsey (12/18/12 12:14 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ziggy943
Post Laureate


Reged: 08/11/06

Loc: Utah
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5575035 - 12/17/12 12:30 AM

Consistency was my reason as well.

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

Reged: 08/08/07

Loc: La Union, PI
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Bowmoreman]
      #5575171 - 12/17/12 04:48 AM

Quote:

Consistency in achieving potential performance may very be the most overlooked issue in scope selection (and discussion about it). One factor that often affects consistency is location.




True. While we're considering variables, ease of transport and set up is another. When making comparisons, if you house the refractor (someone will mention it), you also have to house and cool the Mak. If we account for real world ops, then the Mak has a couple advantages over the refractor.

These two scopes are probably so closely matched that any one variable from cooling, to collimation, to seeing, to set up, and price could put one above the other on any given night. However, there is no arguing performance of aperture as it gains contrast AND resolution over smaller apertures. So, really this boils down to a a preference of performance (knowing the Mak is well very corrected with an aspheric surface) over aesthetics (assuming the refractor is just as good.) And that's an argument you just cannot win or lose - just debate them endlessly without conclusion.

This particular comparison boils down to preference. I am a Mak fan over smaller refractors and do not have an observatory with a heavy mount under some moderate climate with very good seeing. I'd prefer the Mak under these circumstances.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
M13 Observer
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 12/09/06

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5575582 - 12/17/12 11:53 AM

Quote:

Because much more often than not, the 8" apochromat will consistently outperform the Mak on lunar planetary. Imaging is all about aperture and you can manipulate the the contrast, sharpen the image all you like and add a nice dark background. That has absolutely zero to do with the reality of observational astronomy. If one intends to image, I would easily go with the Mak.




I'm not so sure that makes a lot of sense. The AP Mak-cass is 10" aperture, but is f/14.6. Not a really great imaging platform other than for the brightest of objects such as the moon or planets and best suited for these with a webcam stacking frames to capture the best possible instances of seeing. On nights of great seeing, I have used my 180 f/7 apo as well as a friends Tak Mewlon 250 side by side on the same objects at close to the same magnification as best could be accomplished. While the apo is only a 180mm (7") and not a 200mm (8"), the 10" Mewlon definitely has better light grasp with a noticeably brighter image when directly compared and slightly better resolution for details on those moments when seeing allowed. This is real world but I have not had the pleasure of trying this same test with a 200mm class apochromat. In summary, I would likely find the AP Mak-cass to be an outstanding visual instrument, while the smaller refractor would be better used as a more general purpose tool, both for imaging and visual use.

If we are also speaking of nights of average seeing, I personally don't think there would be a whole lot of difference between a 200mm Apo and a 10" AP Mak-cass if one is trying to view objects where resolution is required. There wasn't any realistic difference between the 10" Mewlon and my 7" apo when resolution was necessary under poor to moderate seeing. For larger diffuse objects where seeing is not the primary criteria, the 180mm APO definitely won in poorer seeing, but only because the magnfication was dropped significantly opening up a much wider field of view and allowing the contrast difference to shape the observers perception of the object. This option is not available on the Mewlon, nor on the AP Mak-cass due to the long focal length of these instruments.


Edited by M13 Observer (12/17/12 12:08 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Astrojensen
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/05/08

Loc: Bornholm, Denmark
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: M13 Observer]
      #5575786 - 12/17/12 02:13 PM

Quote:

The AP Mak-cass is 10" aperture, but is f/14.6. Not a really great imaging platform other than for the brightest of objects such as the moon or planets




Oh really?

http://geogdata.csun.edu/~voltaire/roland/ngc2903c.html

http://geogdata.csun.edu/~voltaire/roland/ngc604.html


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
M13 Observer
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 12/09/06

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Astrojensen]
      #5576061 - 12/17/12 05:11 PM

Quote:

Quote:

The AP Mak-cass is 10" aperture, but is f/14.6. Not a really great imaging platform other than for the brightest of objects such as the moon or planets




Oh really?

http://geogdata.csun.edu/~voltaire/roland/ngc2903c.html

http://geogdata.csun.edu/~voltaire/roland/ngc604.html


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark




Yes, oh really! They are excellent examples of, ahem, um, not so great images, at least in my opinion. Yes, they ARE images and the 10" AP mak-cass can be forced to work on some deep sky objects producing specific results such as some detail within NGC 604 or catching Pease 1. A high QE cam such as an ST10XME is pretty much a basic necessity to do so with it though. A compressor would be helpful as well. I think I'll stick with my natively f6 - f10 instruments for imaging thanks.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Astrojensen
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/05/08

Loc: Bornholm, Denmark
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: M13 Observer]
      #5576114 - 12/17/12 05:48 PM

I am not an imager, but I thought these images were excellent and both show details rarely seen in amateur images, because people often image with very short focal length scopes.

I did not include the image here: http://geogdata.csun.edu/~voltaire/roland/soapbubble3.html but it seems to be another (to me) really excellent image taken with a long focus instrument (f/12.5 in this case).

What is an excellent image, in your opinion?


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
M13 Observer
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 12/09/06

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Astrojensen]
      #5576174 - 12/17/12 06:20 PM

Quote:

I am not an imager, but I thought these images were excellent and both show details rarely seen in amateur images, because people often image with very short focal length scopes.

I did not include the image here: http://geogdata.csun.edu/~voltaire/roland/soapbubble3.html but it seems to be another (to me) really excellent image taken with a long focus instrument (f/12.5 in this case).

What is an excellent image, in your opinion?


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark




Yeah, that image is not bad at all. It helps that it is one of my favourite deep sky objects. Narrowband and what looks to be the Hubble palette, a pretty nice image overall with good processing. The AP 305mm f/12.5 Mak-cass never made it into production. I wonder why not? Oh well, to put it back on track, I'll take anyone's soon to be discarded AP 10" Mak-cass. Not so keen on a 200mm apo though. Just too big for me to handle.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: M13 Observer]
      #5576697 - 12/18/12 12:58 AM

Quote:

I'm not so sure that makes a lot of sense. The AP Mak-cass is 10" aperture, but is f/14.6. Not a really great imaging platform other than for the brightest of objects such as the moon or planets and best suited for these with a webcam stacking frames to capture the best possible instances of seeing.




Just a correction. When I said imaging, I specifically meant planetary imaging. With that said, I went back and edited my comment.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5576886 - 12/18/12 07:33 AM

Quote:

Because much more often than not, the 8" apochromat will consistently outperform the Mak on lunar planetary. Planetary Imaging is all about aperture and you can manipulate the the contrast, sharpen the image all you like and add a nice dark background. That has absolutely zero to do with the reality of observational astronomy. If one intends to image, I would easily go with the Mak.




Dan,

Have you critically compared an 8" apo to an AP 10" Mak-Cass for lunar and planetary visual work? Jim Phillips likely has, and his opinion should be sought out.

The largest apo I've done that with is an AP180 f/9 EDT. Frankly, I thought the Mak-Cass had the edge, but it takes a night of very good seeing to make a meaningful comparison.

I've been extremely impressed by the AP Mak-Cass. I've seen fine features on the Moon and Jupiter that I never noticed in other scopes of comparable aperture. I had the chance to pick up a refigured AP 206 f/8 apo this year (one hour away from my home), but didn't feel compelled to do so.

Clear Skies,
John


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: JJK]
      #5577071 - 12/18/12 10:31 AM

Yes, when I return I'll share couple of pics with you guys and explain some stories in side by side comparisons at Charlton Flats with high quality Maks 7", 8" and also 10" as long as you guys are interested. I've spent a lot of time with them. Jim Phillips is a good friend and a wonderful observer and I respect his opinions highly.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott99
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 05/10/07

Loc: New England
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: JJK]
      #5577901 - 12/18/12 08:50 PM

Quote:


The largest apo I've done that with is an AP180 f/9 EDT. Frankly, I thought the Mak-Cass had the edge, but it takes a night of very good seeing to make a meaningful comparison.




I think 180mm vs. the 10 inch Mak is a better comparison, I think most people would take the 8 inch apo over the Mak (I would take the 8-inch). A 7 inch also weighs about the same as the 10-inch Mak. An 8 inch refractor is going to be heavier and need a bigger mount.

Great topic for debate though! I'd love the improved views of DSO's with the 10 inch Mak, it would be a tough decision with a 180mm apo. But the apos have the incredible low-power, wide-field views too. If I was going with one "dream scope" it would probably be the refractor for that reason.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Peter Natscher
professor emeritus


Reged: 03/28/06

Loc: Central Coast California
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Scott99]
      #5578014 - 12/18/12 10:15 PM

The 10" f/14.6 Mak-Cass with 3600mm fl. is a very specialized scope designed for planetary and double star observing. It excels with showing detail and contrast in brighter objects. I wouldn't use it for observing DSO's, at least the one's that I like observing. 10" aperture doesn't do that very well for my tastes since I'm used to observing with 18"-24" Dobs. When I used the 10" Mak-Cass for nine years, it sat in its storage box most of the year. My larger ap Zambuto Dob's always got first use. Better to use your faster set-up 12.5"-18" or larger Dob's for DSO's. Once you get used to observing DSO's with larger ap scopes, the 10" Mak-Cass is a let down on those objects.

Quote:

Quote:


The largest apo I've done that with is an AP180 f/9 EDT. Frankly, I thought the Mak-Cass had the edge, but it takes a night of very good seeing to make a meaningful comparison.




I think 180mm vs. the 10 inch Mak is a better comparison, I think most people would take the 8 inch apo over the Mak (I would take the 8-inch). A 7 inch also weighs about the same as the 10-inch Mak. An 8 inch refractor is going to be heavier and need a bigger mount.

Great topic for debate though! I'd love the improved views of DSO's with the 10 inch Mak, it would be a tough decision with a 180mm apo. But the apos have the incredible low-power, wide-field views too. If I was going with one "dream scope" it would probably be the refractor for that reason.





Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Tom and Beth
Post Laureate


Reged: 01/08/07

Loc: Tucson, AZ
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Peter Natscher]
      #5578180 - 12/18/12 11:57 PM

C'mon mate. Nobody would argue that a 18-24 inch scope of ANY design wouldn't blow away the views of either of the scopes in this thread. Good grief.....


Quote:

The 10" f/14.6 Mak-Cass with 3600mm fl. is a very specialized scope designed for planetary and double star observing. It excels with showing detail and contrast in brighter objects. I wouldn't use it for observing DSO's, at least the one's that I like observing. 10" aperture doesn't do that very well for my tastes since I'm used to observing with 18"-24" Dobs. When I used the 10" Mak-Cass for nine years, it sat in its storage box most of the year. My larger ap Zambuto Dob's always got first use. Better to use your faster set-up 12.5"-18" or larger Dob's for DSO's. Once you get used to observing DSO's with larger ap scopes, the 10" Mak-Cass is a let down on those objects.

Quote:

Quote:


The largest apo I've done that with is an AP180 f/9 EDT. Frankly, I thought the Mak-Cass had the edge, but it takes a night of very good seeing to make a meaningful comparison.




I think 180mm vs. the 10 inch Mak is a better comparison, I think most people would take the 8 inch apo over the Mak (I would take the 8-inch). A 7 inch also weighs about the same as the 10-inch Mak. An 8 inch refractor is going to be heavier and need a bigger mount.

Great topic for debate though! I'd love the improved views of DSO's with the 10 inch Mak, it would be a tough decision with a 180mm apo. But the apos have the incredible low-power, wide-field views too. If I was going with one "dream scope" it would probably be the refractor for that reason.








Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott99
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 05/10/07

Loc: New England
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Tom and Beth]
      #5581307 - 12/20/12 07:27 PM

Quote:

C'mon mate. Nobody would argue that a 18-24 inch scope of ANY design wouldn't blow away the views of either of the scopes in this thread. Good grief.....




yes, I tend to view everything by "weight class", similar to boxing or wrestling, because of back problems. Large scopes are not an option for me.

I know that I could obtain a gigantic scope for the cost of my 6-inch apo, but it's not very relevant for those of us that are limited to "small" scopes for one reason or another.

There are aesthetic reasons for not wanting a monstrosity of a telescope too. Not everybody wants to "go big or go home"!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Peter Natscher
professor emeritus


Reged: 03/28/06

Loc: Central Coast California
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Scott99]
      #5581472 - 12/20/12 09:14 PM

You're right! That's why I'm observing with the largest ap scope I can manage (a 24" SST) while I'm able to. I'm 62 now, strong and healthy and will surely someday become less interested in transporting this large scope to and from dark sites. Right now, It takes no more energy for me to transport to a remote site my 24"er than my AP 175 along with at it's ATS transportable pier, its AP 900 GTO mount, its 2 x 19 lbs. of counter weights, etc. I have been observing frequently with a friend who has always used his AP 155EDFS on a 900GTO and AP pedestal for his observing of DSO's. He is very satisfied with how deep he gets with DSO's with his 6" ap scope. He has just completed the H400 list. He wants to do the HII list next but I recommended that he get at least a 12" Dob to do that with to enjoy them more. I've observed both of these lists years ago with 18"-20" Dobs -- totally enjoyable! He comes over and occasionally takes a look through my 24" scope and is WoWed at how bright and easily seen my objects are, but happily returns to his dimmer looking DSO's in his 6" APO. He says the sharpness of his views always make him the happiest -- it's the pin-point stars with nice diffraction patterns. The brightness factor with a larger ap Dob isn't as important. Dobs slightly mushy stars just don't do it for him. I say he hasn't seen really deep stuff after 20 years of observing, and I'm glad I am enjoying the deep stuff. To each his own

Quote:

Quote:

C'mon mate. Nobody would argue that a 18-24 inch scope of ANY design wouldn't blow away the views of either of the scopes in this thread. Good grief.....




yes, I tend to view everything by "weight class", similar to boxing or wrestling, because of back problems. Large scopes are not an option for me.

I know that I could obtain a gigantic scope for the cost of my 6-inch apo, but it's not very relevant for those of us that are limited to "small" scopes for one reason or another.

There are aesthetic reasons for not wanting a monstrosity of a telescope too. Not everybody wants to "go big or go home"!





Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mike Clemens
Frozen to Eyepiece
*****

Reged: 11/26/05

Loc: Alaska, USA
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Peter Natscher]
      #5582004 - 12/21/12 08:00 AM

I'm on team TEC but I've got to say those two images by the 10" mak are just awesome.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Mike Clemens]
      #5582231 - 12/21/12 10:27 AM

Quote:

I'm on team TEC but I've got to say those two images by the 10" mak are just awesome.




You should see how the AP Mak-Cass performs at the eyepiece.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott99
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 05/10/07

Loc: New England
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Peter Natscher]
      #5582411 - 12/21/12 12:27 PM

Quote:

You're right! That's why I'm observing with the largest ap scope I can manage (a 24" SST) while I'm able to. I'm 62 now, strong and healthy and will surely someday become less interested in transporting this large scope to and from dark sites. Right now, It takes no more energy for me to transport to a remote site my 24"er than my AP 175 along with at it's ATS transportable pier, its AP 900 GTO mount, its 2 x 19 lbs. of counter weights, etc. I have been observing frequently with a friend who has always used his AP 155EDFS on a 900GTO and AP pedestal for his observing of DSO's. He is very satisfied with how deep he gets with DSO's with his 6" ap scope. He has just completed the H400 list. He wants to do the HII list next but I recommended that he get at least a 12" Dob to do that with to enjoy them more. I've observed both of these lists years ago with 18"-20" Dobs -- totally enjoyable! He comes over and occasionally takes a look through my 24" scope and is WoWed at how bright and easily seen my objects are, but happily returns to his dimmer looking DSO's in his 6" APO. He says the sharpness of his views always make him the happiest -- it's the pin-point stars with nice diffraction patterns. The brightness factor with a larger ap Dob isn't as important. Dobs slightly mushy stars just don't do it for him. I say he hasn't seen really deep stuff after 20 years of observing, and I'm glad I am enjoying the deep stuff. To each his own




Peter, yes there's nothing I enjoy more than making the rounds of the big scopes to check out the views! That's the fun of observing clubs & events, I always take home some unforgettable views.

I actually enjoyed doing the H400 with a Star 12 ED. It's been done with scopes as small as 55mm, although you're pretty much doing a survey at that point, not going to see much detail.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rachel W
member


Reged: 07/10/12

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Mike Clemens]
      #5583424 - 12/22/12 12:19 AM

Hi All:

Loved reading this entire thread, wow! There's just a wealth of deep and wide knowledge and so many love affairs with each to their own favorite mistress of the sky. And let's not kid ourselves, in the end we view with what we love to view with - it's personal and it's special; just like any mistress should be. For after all, they are expensive, fickle and can make for heated household debate (lol).

I can't appreciate large aperture viewing to a great extent yet, having recently moved up from a C80 achro to a TEC 140 APO. Of course, I'm completely blown away and have been since I got the 140 in September - it's a keeper for sure. I also like my 9x63 and 25x100 binos too for that quick and lazy tour around the sky; life is good, well except I have to view in LA and have only made it once out to my friend's home in the desert where the sky is awesome.

However, I can't get over the idea of using a world-class 10" mak, f10. I'm 70 and a robust lady and I can handle the TEC 140 and the CGEM well enough by myself, but they aren't light by my reckoning - a 10" mak, hmmm. What I'd love to do . . . (fantasy time) is to partner with a great designer/builder and create a really light-weight 10" mak that cools down fast and follows the naturally occurring lapse rate and mount it on something that is super accurate and truly easy to move/transport/set-up, and has a 1/10th-1/12th wave front at the business end of the scope - that's all. If I were younger, I'd seriously think about financing such a project (it's just money, right?!), with a great decade or two to enjoy and truly master a very special precision instrument.

This thread got me to thinking again . . . and heck, 70 is the new 60 - right?

Thanks to every one here for the wonderful thread; it was delicious. I'll keep checking in here.

Clear skies and great views,

Rachel


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Rachel W]
      #5583550 - 12/22/12 03:05 AM Attachment (70 downloads)

I spent extensive hours working with the TEC200 apo, TEC200 Mak cass and the TEC250 F-20 Mak cass in this image. The TEC200 apo and TEC250 cass were owned by a good friend of mine John Curry. The TEC250 Mak was pitted against a particular C9.25 and a world class 8" TMB triplet. Each one left indelible memories. The TEC250 was technically challenging.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5583551 - 12/22/12 03:07 AM Attachment (65 downloads)

TEC250

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5583552 - 12/22/12 03:08 AM Attachment (54 downloads)

Here it mounted in on a 16" LX200 mount. It was a beast.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Astrojensen
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/05/08

Loc: Bornholm, Denmark
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5583589 - 12/22/12 04:31 AM

But the views! We want to hear about the views!


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark


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

Reged: 05/08/03

Loc: Freedonia
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5583612 - 12/22/12 05:53 AM

Quote:

The TEC250 was technically challenging.




Can you elaborate?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Peter Natscher
professor emeritus


Reged: 03/28/06

Loc: Central Coast California
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Paul G]
      #5584072 - 12/22/12 01:11 PM

I bet it was in its thermal characteristics.

Quote:

Quote:

The TEC250 was technically challenging.




Can you elaborate?




Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Peter Natscher]
      #5590525 - 12/26/12 11:36 PM

That is correct. You could ask Yuri, but I would imagine the meniscus must have been pretty thick. The OTA weighed ton. I had a lengthy conversation with Bryan Greer about it while we were hanging out in New York during NEAF a few years back. If I recall correctly, Bryan had been trying to assist Yuri with working the fans internally within the OTA but at the time it was being done, it still seemed to be in the experimental phases. Bryan could probably elaborate more accurately if asked.

The TEC250 was a beautiful scope. When I first saw it, Curry had it up at Pinos. One of the guys I was with was one of the most experienced planetary observers in the group and it was our impression that Curry had little experience at Pinos because we were wondering why he would even bother setting up such elegant for such a crummy location for seeing. Pinos isn't my favorite location for planets in fact I hate the place for that. We invited Curry to Charlton. The temperature drop was quite subtle but even still, Curry had some issues stabilizing the thing. Maybe it was caused from head in his vehicle, who knows.

We spent a few sessions with it. We had some beautiful telescopes set up at the time and some great observers present. The idea was that the internal fans were to "stir" the thermals, but it was still too difficult in fact after the fans were turned off, Curry expressed some issues about actual heat plumes coming off the tiny, heated electrical motors. He even tried putting compressed gas into the OTA which turned cool upon release and we knew there was no way that would work.

I realize the AP is well ventilated, but even still, the entire optical train has to work in harmony. An anonymous owner in the CN forums has expressed that it's been easier for him to use his 5" AP apo with pleasing results. Larger aperture of high quality will produce the best angular resolution on planets, but thermals can degrade any aperture. The best results come from hard labor at the eyepiece. I can not state that enough. People can throw the numbers around all they like, but until an observer is actually in the field dealing with this stuff, it's just a numbers game.

It doesn't tell the truth about what really happens. People think I'm a refractor lover and I'm not. I love Newtonians and my experience has taught me that ultimately, the Newtonian with proper tuning is the ultimate setup, but it comes with some work. The reason I'm suggesting the 8" apo is because there are many observers who have no idea how amazing they can be and I mean STUNNING! So much detail it would blow your mind, all in high definition. I've tested several large apos and the image quality is consistently reliable; you can count on it to work if it's a good sample. If people are just going to throw numbers around, then I can assure others they need to spend some time in planetary bootcamp. I'm talking about visual planetary observations, not imaging.

If you can get a large scope working on a good night then boy are you in for a beautiful surprise, but the key is that it's gotta work for you! I love the TEC200 Mak. I have nothing but admiration for Yuri. He does beautiful work overall, particularly his refractors.


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

Reged: 05/08/03

Loc: Freedonia
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5590963 - 12/27/12 10:45 AM

Quote:

Maybe it was caused from head in his vehicle, who knows.




You guys obviously have more fun observing than I!

Quote:

We spent a few sessions with it. We had some beautiful telescopes set up at the time and some great observers present. The idea was that the internal fans were to "stir" the thermals, but it was still too difficult in fact after the fans were turned off, Curry expressed some issues about actual heat plumes coming off the tiny, heated electrical motors. He even tried putting compressed gas into the OTA which turned cool upon release and we knew there was no way that would work.

I realize the AP is well ventilated, but even still, the entire optical train has to work in harmony. An anonymous owner in the CN forums has expressed that it's been easier for him to use his 5" AP apo with pleasing results. Larger aperture of high quality will produce the best angular resolution on planets, but thermals can degrade any aperture. The best results come from hard labor at the eyepiece. I can not state that enough. People can throw the numbers around all they like, but until an observer is actually in the field dealing with this stuff, it's just a numbers game.

It doesn't tell the truth about what really happens. People think I'm a refractor lover and I'm not. I love Newtonians and my experience has taught me that ultimately, the Newtonian with proper tuning is the ultimate setup, but it comes with some work. The reason I'm suggesting the 8" apo is because there are many observers who have no idea how amazing they can be and I mean STUNNING! So much detail it would blow your mind, all in high definition. I've tested several large apos and the image quality is consistently reliable; you can count on it to work if it's a good sample. If people are just going to throw numbers around, then I can assure others they need to spend some time in planetary bootcamp. I'm talking about visual planetary observations, not imaging.

If you can get a large scope working on a good night then boy are you in for a beautiful surprise, but the key is that it's gotta work for you! I love the TEC200 Mak. I have nothing but admiration for Yuri. He does beautiful work overall, particularly his refractors.




Your experience with thermal issues with the large TEC Mak doesn't really apply to the AP Mak. It isn't a matter of the AP being better ventilated, in fact the ota from the primary mirror to the meniscus is sealed and isn't ventilated at all, nor are there mixing fans for the air mass inside the ota. It isn't necessary as long as the main heat sink, the primary mirror, is cooled. The thick meniscus has no problem cooling rapidly since it is exposed to the night sky, in fact the only problem it poses is that it cools too fast, too far, and can be a dew magnet unless one takes steps to slow its cooling.

The AP Mak was designed to be used for planetary observing in the sometimes very stable air at dusk when the temperature is dropping rapidly. After comparing many different permutations of instrumented scopes Roland pinpointed the sources of the thermal problems and addressed them effectively in the 10" Mak. There are many things that went into effective thermal management, I will touch on only the ones Roland discussed publicly on various forums:

-- the focal ratio of the primary was chosen in part to be less sensitive to temperature changes
-- the Corning quartz primary doesn't change much with temp changes
-- the primary is a truncated cone to reduce thermal mass
-- the back of the primary is polished to increase thermal emissivity
-- all surfaces of the primary are ground, no "skin" left to cause the mirror to pretzel when its temp changes
-- the back of the scope comes off to expose the back of the primary
-- fans that blow on the back of the primary to speed cooling
-- the paint used on the ota improves thermal characteristics
-- Roland even addressed the final small heat plume that rises from the baffle tube

The end result is a scope that not only cools rapidly but gives a good image while it is still cooling down. I don't have a 200mm apo, but the 10" Mak cools faster and tracks dropping temps better than my 175mm apo; the 200 would be even slower to acclimate.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aquatone
sage


Reged: 03/23/06

Loc: Moraga, CA (Bay Area)
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Paul G]
      #5591127 - 12/27/12 12:38 PM

A comment from the eyepiece that fully concurs with the above. I also rarely have cool-down issues with my 10" AP Mak-Cass. Usually it is ready for observing as soon as it is hoisted onto the mount early in the evening. Any residual thermal variations dissipate quickly even while the outside temperature is falling. (I have also tested with a laser thermometer) I know this seems really hard to believe for those who do not have direct first hand experience with this instrument and who compare it to other Maks or other larger telescopes. Frankly I am not fully sure what is going on either, I suspect it is not any one big design trick, but rather that Roland hit upon a certain combination of thermal management methods that in aggregate just work together at a very high degree of efficiency. Gus's comments about the baffle tube which is not solid but perforated with holes to dissipate the heat plume is a good example of the attention to detail.

Chris


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Aquatone]
      #5592061 - 12/28/12 01:14 AM Attachment (38 downloads)

Gus, Chris,

Both of you shared good points and Roland has done a wonderful job with his OTA in order to minimize thermal issues. I agree it does have advantages over the TEC250, however, all instruments of this nature still have to acclimate. Contrary to popular belief, optics which are exposed to their immediate surroundings often face thermal challenges. It's like dropping fish into a fish tank with new water.

In this example here of the Ceravolo HD216 Mak Newt I've been working with, I have also done lots of testing and it's incredibly well designed to cope with thermal internally back to front. But, even it too, requires some time to reach optimal performance, just like the AP Mak my friend had, who is a member here on CN.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mike Clemens
Frozen to Eyepiece
*****

Reged: 11/26/05

Loc: Alaska, USA
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5592118 - 12/28/12 03:13 AM Attachment (38 downloads)

We're in danger of the jury being swayed by these Mak pics.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mike Clemens
Frozen to Eyepiece
*****

Reged: 11/26/05

Loc: Alaska, USA
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Mike Clemens]
      #5592120 - 12/28/12 03:16 AM Attachment (28 downloads)

OK it does have a lens.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
vahe
professor emeritus


Reged: 08/27/05

Loc: Houston, Texas
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Paul G]
      #5592340 - 12/28/12 09:30 AM

Quote:


The AP Mak was designed to be used for planetary observing in the sometimes very stable air at dusk when the temperature is dropping rapidly. After comparing many different permutations of instrumented scopes Roland pinpointed the sources of the thermal problems and addressed them effectively in the 10" Mak. There are many things that went into effective thermal management, I will touch on only the ones Roland discussed publicly on various forums:

-- the focal ratio of the primary was chosen in part to be less sensitive to temperature changes
-- the Corning quartz primary doesn't change much with temp changes
-- the primary is a truncated cone to reduce thermal mass
-- the back of the primary is polished to increase thermal emissivity
-- all surfaces of the primary are ground, no "skin" left to cause the mirror to pretzel when its temp changes
-- the back of the scope comes off to expose the back of the primary
-- fans that blow on the back of the primary to speed cooling
-- the paint used on the ota improves thermal characteristics
-- Roland even addressed the final small heat plume that rises from the baffle tube






All of the points that you make are valid points, they are obvious and are visible, but the real secret of how the overall system is thermally equalized has never been revealed.
There have been many discussion on this on the web, but the bottom line can be summed up with a reply by Roland in response to a question that someone asked, the overall cooling design is a “house secret” and he is not willing to reveal any of that to the competition.

Vahe


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daniel Mounsey
Vendor (Woodland Hills)
*****

Reged: 06/12/02

Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Mike Clemens]
      #5593847 - 12/29/12 06:51 AM

Mike,
You did well sir. I know exactly what you're seeing and if it isn't working, it's because the seeing isn't working and you can pretty much count on it.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Peter Natscher
professor emeritus


Reged: 03/28/06

Loc: Central Coast California
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Daniel Mounsey]
      #5594265 - 12/29/12 12:05 PM

I had a HD216 back in 1998 and it too held onto thermals inside the tube due to its primary holding onto heat longer than necessary. Was its primary a Cervit substrate or something similar, but certainly not Pyrex or quartz which would have released its heat faster. During warm summer nights of observing off of a still-warm paved parking lot and set up along side of a AP180EDT and Tak FS150, the refractors were doing a lot better on Jupiter than my HD216 was. I believe the 8" primary mirror was *glued* to a back wall with one fan blowing air against it through a small hole in the sealed wall. There was still too much warm air volume radiating from the primary into the evening to get out of the tube. I replaced the HD214 with a 14.5" f/5.2 Starmaster and never looked back. I was happier with the Starmaster's summer heat habits.

Quote:

Gus, Chris,

Both of you shared good points and Roland has done a wonderful job with his OTA in order to minimize thermal issues. I agree it does have advantages over the TEC250, however, all instruments of this nature still have to acclimate. Contrary to popular belief, optics which are exposed to their immediate surroundings often face thermal challenges. It's like dropping fish into a fish tank with new water.

In this example here of the Ceravolo HD216 Mak Newt I've been working with, I have also done lots of testing and it's incredibly well designed to cope with thermal internally back to front. But, even it too, requires some time to reach optimal performance, just like the AP Mak my friend had, who is a member here on CN.




Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Peter Natscher
professor emeritus


Reged: 03/28/06

Loc: Central Coast California
Re: AP 10" Maksutov vs TEC 200 Fluorite apo new [Re: Mike Clemens]
      #5594269 - 12/29/12 12:05 PM

You da man!!

Quote:

We're in danger of the jury being swayed by these Mak pics.




Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | (show all)


Extra information
14 registered and 39 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Scott in NC, FirstSight, panhard, star drop 

Print Thread

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


Thread views: 11515

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics