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

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

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

Equipment Discussions >> Cats & Casses

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)
m00nless
sage


Reged: 08/06/08

Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain
      #5644005 - 01/26/13 09:16 AM

How would a SkyWatcher 190mm f/5.3 Maksuton-Newtonian compare to a Celestron 200mm f/10 Schmidt-Cassegrain?

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


Reged: 01/05/08

Loc: Canada
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: m00nless]
      #5644083 - 01/26/13 10:09 AM

Are you doing astrophotography? If so the Mak-Newt wins hands down. My SW 190MN is my main astrophotography workhorse. Very flat field and sharp stars to the edge of field while still reasonably fast and a FOV suited to a wide range of deep sky objects. I rarely observe with it visually so will let others comment on visual use.
...Keith


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

Reged: 04/23/06

Loc: South Louisiana
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: microstar]
      #5644159 - 01/26/13 10:51 AM

I would take the MN any day over a SCT. I do visual only.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
m00nless
sage


Reged: 08/06/08

Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: coopman]
      #5644313 - 01/26/13 12:28 PM

No astrophotography for now. Would there be a real reason to switch to a MN from a SCT for visual?

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

Reged: 10/04/05

Loc: Squamish BC Moved!!!!!
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: m00nless]
      #5644381 - 01/26/13 01:10 PM

Image scale is one reason I could think of, but the use barlows and short focus EPs level the playing field considerably.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cotts
Just Wondering
*****

Reged: 10/10/05

Loc: Toronto, Ontario
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: m00nless]
      #5644411 - 01/26/13 01:29 PM

Visual only? The Mak Newt. The 190mm f/5.3 will have a much smaller central obstruction than the SCT - (around 20% rather than >than 30% for the SCT) which makes the changes to the diffraction pattern almost indistinguishable from an unobstructed telescope. Your planetary and Lunar viewing will be enhanced.

The f/5.3 focal ratio of the M-N will be better for wide field viewing than the f/10 of the SCT.

The two scopes are equally excellent for chromatic aberration.

I have an INTES 6" f/8 Mak Newt (16% central obstruction) which can run with any 6" refractor on the planet and is very much the equal of a 200mm SCT except for light grasp. The 190mm MN should be noticeably better than the 200mm SCT.

Dave


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


Reged: 01/11/13

Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: m00nless]
      #5644416 - 01/26/13 01:32 PM

The Mak-Newt gives a wider field and depending on what you observe, that may be an advantage. I have a 10" Mak-Newt and a C11 and enjoy both, but the wider field is nice on clusters.

Bryan


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Yu Gu
member


Reged: 06/18/06

Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: HenryB]
      #5644498 - 01/26/13 02:27 PM

I had both scope, as well as a TEC140 at the same time. The 190 was kept and the other two were sold. It's really a 185mm F5.4. The CO is 31% for the older version (mine) and larger for the newer ones. On my sample, the figure was exceptionally smooth and accurate, rivials any top maker. The planetary performance is a step above the TEC140, not to mention the light gathering. It's just not as beautiful a machine as a TEC. The C8 had an accurate but less smooth figure (due to high magnification of the secondary).

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

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: m00nless]
      #5644566 - 01/26/13 03:01 PM

Quote:

No astrophotography for now. Would there be a real reason to switch to a MN from a SCT for visual?




The MNT is a fine telescope, but the SCT is a little more versatile. It works well at f/10, f/3.3, and f/6.3. It is as suited for high resolution planetary imaging as deep sky work. It's, very impotantly, got a short, relatively light tube that will not stress a mount. Finally, counteless accessories have been developed for the SCT over the last 40 years.


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

Reged: 08/27/04

Loc: New Hampshire
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: rmollise]
      #5644625 - 01/26/13 03:46 PM

Yu Gu,
Which model 190 Mak-Newt do you have? Is it the Skywatcher brand?


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

Reged: 11/26/06

Loc: Vienna, VA
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: Yu Gu]
      #5644665 - 01/26/13 04:15 PM

Yu Gu,

How did you find that the thermal issues differed between the SCT and MN you had? Was one faster to acclimate than the other?


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


Reged: 02/15/09

Loc: Alicante, Spain
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: BillP]
      #5644702 - 01/26/13 04:43 PM

I prefer the MN to the SCT.
As for thermal issues, it is much better in my MN than in my C9 HD, the MN has a fan which make the telescope to be ready in a few minutes

Toni


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Yu Gu
member


Reged: 06/18/06

Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: titanio]
      #5644729 - 01/26/13 05:00 PM

The one I have is the white version. It has a removable door at the back. I typically use a fan to force air in from the back and keep the focuser end open for the air to get out. It works great! I typically set the scope out at sunset and let the fan run for an hour and I haven't had any thermal issue at all! (unlike many other scopes I had). I live in West Virginia and the temperature can drop pretty quickly at night. I can see white ovals on Jupitor consistantly with the MN190, which was not the case for TEC140. The only issue is that I have not yet had a success to get my Denk II working properly with this scope...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
laconicsax
super member


Reged: 10/05/10

Loc: Portland, OR
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: Yu Gu]
      #5644788 - 01/26/13 05:31 PM

The Mak-Newt has more advantages over the SCT than the other way around. As long as you have a mount that can handle it, I'd say go with the Mak-Newt.

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

Reged: 02/01/06

Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: m00nless]
      #5644849 - 01/26/13 06:19 PM

The MNs have an excellent reputation as visual scopes but this is due to the fact that at f/6 the central obstruction can be kept very small.

The 190mm MCT you are looking at is sold usually as an astrograph, and while I could not confirm the Specs of the Skywatcher branded scope, the Orion 190mm f/5.3 has a rather large obstruction, which is almost always the case with astrographs.

The Orion version has a 64mm secondary obstruction so in fact, the secondary obstruction is about the same percentage (33%) as a C8.

And since a C8 has more aperture to start with, it should have a slight edge for deep sky and planets.

The MN will have the ability to provide quite a bit larger field, so will do better for large clusters and such, but there are not that many targets that won't fit into the field of a C8 with a 35mm Panoptic.

The MN also weighs in at a hefty 22 lbs. And being a Newt, it will not have the great ergonomics of a C8.

So, pick you posion. A larger field in a heavier (harder on the mount) and less ergonomic package (MN), or a compact scope that will do slightly better on planets and deep sky, will work on a light mount, and will have great ergonomics with an eyepiece that can always quickly be adjusted to the right angle.

Don't discount the ergonomics. This is the weak point of a GEM mounted Newt. Even if you have rotating rings, the eyepeice can sometimes get into uncomfortable positions. This is hardly ever an issue with a C8.

The question is do you mind the extra bulk and weight of the MN for the bigger field it can provide, or do you want the better deep sky and planetary performance that the C8 can provide.


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

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: Eddgie]
      #5644978 - 01/26/13 07:35 PM

Quote:

Don't discount the ergonomics. This is the weak point of a GEM mounted Newt. Even if you have rotating rings, the eyepeice can sometimes get into uncomfortable positions. This is hardly ever an issue with a C8.




In my experience, the ergonomics of an 8 inch F/5 Newtonian are still reasonable, seated viewing is possible even at the zenith. Effective rotating rings can be fashioned with some handiwork and Teflon.

In my mind, a standard Newtonian with a coma corrector is a worthy competitor to a Mak-Newt and has a few advantages such as fewer issues with dew, open tube promoting thermal equilibrium...

Jon


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

Reged: 10/08/06

Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: Yu Gu]
      #5645011 - 01/26/13 07:51 PM

My route to MN's was very similar to that of Yu Gu. I got my first because I couldn't afford a 4" apo to supplement my Ultima 8 (had my eyes on an AP Traveller at the time). It paid off. I then sold the MN56 and the C8 to obtain an MN76. That paid off too.

I later owned a TEC 140, and ran it side by side with the MN76. I sold that fine refractor too (because the advantages on both deepsky and high mag planetary were considerable).

The C8's attribute of size and weight is a very real issue to consider. However, trying to imply parity in image quality at faster focal ratios by simply screwing on a mass produced accessory is misleading. It has become widely accepted that quality will vary widely with C8's. What is not as widely known is that the same applies (if not more so) to the redcucer/correctors made for them.


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

Reged: 08/27/04

Loc: New Hampshire
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: maknewtnut]
      #5645182 - 01/26/13 09:50 PM

Hi Mark,
Didn't I sell you that first MN56?
Wish I still had it.


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

Reged: 10/08/06

Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: NHRob]
      #5645229 - 01/26/13 10:39 PM

That's right Rob O.

I have another I built recently with Deluxe spec optics. I built it with a carbon fiber tube and Delrin primary cell and focuser block. Incredibly tight star images to very near the edge of the field at lower mags, and still sucks up magnification without flinching for planetary and double star observation....although I have to sell it because the stable is too full.

As for my previous post...Rod, sorry if it seems like I might pick on your replies now and then. The SCT is a good choice for many. However.....IMHO, playing them up as having no cons whatsoever is a gross disservice to those asking for opinions on the differences between them and other makes and/or design types. EVERY telescope has pros and cons, and attributes each person can weigh in level of importance to them.


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

Reged: 10/04/05

Loc: Squamish BC Moved!!!!!
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: NHRob]
      #5645252 - 01/26/13 11:02 PM

Quote:

Hi Mark,
Didn't I sell you that first MN56?
Wish I still had it.





Vancouver Telescope has an MN 66 with test papers around. If they are selling it or its being spoken for are questions I cant answer


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

Reged: 05/16/03

Loc: Franklin, Ohio
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: Cotts]
      #5645257 - 01/26/13 11:05 PM

Quote:

Visual only? The Mak Newt. The 190mm f/5.3 will have a much smaller central obstruction than the SCT - (around 20% rather than >than 30% for the SCT) which makes the changes to the diffraction pattern almost indistinguishable from an unobstructed telescope. Your planetary and Lunar viewing will be enhanced.




My 6" f/5 Mak Newt has a 32% central obstruction, so I seriously doubt that the f/5.3 has a 20% obstruction. It's even difficult to find standard commercial Newtonian's with central obstructions less than 25%.

Back to the question at hand...I spent a considerable amount of time comparing my C6 SCT with my 6" MN and ended up thinking that for planetary viewing the C6 SCT performed better. The 6" MN was close, but did not show quite as much detail. Of course for wide field work, the 6" MN excels. That's what it's designed for...wide flat fields.

One of the things you left out of your question though is 'which SCT'? The newer EdgeHD SCT's are quite a bit better than the standard SCT's in regards to flat fields and edge of field correction.

I'd like to reiterate one of the comments above also...a Mak Newt scope is a lot bigger than the SCT of the same aperture. My 6" MN is about 28" long while my C6 SCT is about 14" long. The case for the MN is 36" x 14" x 17" and weighs about 35 lbs with the scope in it. The C6 can fit in a small duffle bag. For that matter my EdgeHD 8" has a smaller foot print than the 6" MN and the EdgeHD 8" scope dramatically outperforms the 6" MN. Ergonomically, the MN is also cumbersome to use on an EQ mount while the SCT is quite comfortable. Ergonomics and comfort do matter, and make for a more enjoyable viewing experience.

Patrick

Edited by Patrick (01/26/13 11:40 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Paul Hyndman
sage


Reged: 07/13/04

Loc: Connecticut Shoreline USA
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: Patrick]
      #5645598 - 01/27/13 08:23 AM

Quote:

My 6" f/5 Mak Newt has a 32% central obstruction, so I seriously doubt that the f/5.3 has a 20% obstruction. It's even difficult to find standard commercial Newtonian's with central obstructions less than 25%.




MNs designed for visual usage place focus very close to the tube wall, squeaking by with as small a (fully illuminated) secondary as possible. Placing focus so close to the OTA presents a dilemma for imaging and bino-viewing though, usually requiring a relay lens (or Barlow/Powermate etc) to sufficiently "draw out" the image enough to reach focus. To accommodate these uses, some later designs bumped focus further from the tube by reducing the distance from the primary, necessitating the use of a larger secondary, hence a larger CO.

While nice images can be attained using a MN, its greatest prowess (IMHO) is attained when optimized for visual use.

Paul

PS: I loved my (visually optimized) MN86 but, alas, eventually parted with it to make room for other equipment (it was built like a tank, and almost as pretty!)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
orion61

*****

Reged: 10/20/07

Loc: Birthplace James T Kirk
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: Paul Hyndman]
      #5646197 - 01/27/13 02:47 PM

If optical quality is the same I'll go the SCT,
The Schmidts built in about the last 10 years or so
are pretty consistant


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

Reged: 11/17/04

Loc: Londonderry, NH
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: Patrick]
      #5647741 - 01/28/13 10:19 AM

Quote:

Back to the question at hand...I spent a considerable amount of time comparing my C6 SCT with my 6" MN and ended up thinking that for planetary viewing the C6 SCT performed better. The 6" MN was close, but did not show quite as much detail. Of course for wide field work, the 6" MN excels. That's what it's designed for...wide flat fields.





I have wondered for a while how the optics in the ES mak newts stacked up to the Intes Micro mak newts. For me, this post helps answer that question. When comparing scopes of the same aperture, the better optics will win. It sounds like most of the C6s have good optics, but as a general rule, I would be very surprised if the average C6 could routinely beat the average Intes Micro mak newt on planetary performance.


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

Reged: 05/16/03

Loc: Franklin, Ohio
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: spencerj]
      #5648416 - 01/28/13 02:59 PM

Quote:

It sounds like most of the C6s have good optics, but as a general rule, I would be very surprised if the average C6 could routinely beat the average Intes Micro mak newt on planetary performance.




It would be fun to do a side by side. I see the MN66 has a 20.4% central obstruction, so I'm guessing it would do very well.

Patrick


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
RogerRZ
Whatta you lookin' at?
*****

Reged: 01/09/06

Loc: West Collette, NB, Canada
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: Patrick]
      #5648466 - 01/28/13 03:19 PM

My MN65 is listed as having a 26% CO, along with a .97-ish Sthrel. I don't know if this is average for the breed (they seem quite scarce), but it does throw up very nice views that are more similar than different to my 2012 vintage C8.

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

Reged: 10/04/05

Loc: Squamish BC Moved!!!!!
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: RogerRZ]
      #5648927 - 01/28/13 06:36 PM

Quote:

My MN65 is listed as having a 26% CO, along with a .97-ish Sthrel. I don't know if this is average for the breed (they seem quite scarce), but it does throw up very nice views that are more similar than different to my 2012 vintage C8.




My old MN-61 with its 18% obstruction. The MN-76 it replaces has a 7.1" clear aperture with just a 1.125" obstruction, making for 15.8% obstruction, a fair improvement but the increase in size is more noticed.


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

Reged: 05/16/03

Loc: Franklin, Ohio
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: JohnH]
      #5649478 - 01/28/13 11:24 PM

Quote:

My old MN-61 with its 18% obstruction. The MN-76 it replaces has a 7.1" clear aperture with just a 1.125" obstruction, making for 15.8% obstruction, a fair improvement but the increase in size is more noticed.




I always wonder what size the 100% field illumination is with scopes like these. If I had to guess, it's pretty small. That's perfectly fine for planetary work, but aren't these mainly visual scopes?

Patrick


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jsrj98
member


Reged: 02/21/08

Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: Patrick]
      #5649656 - 01/29/13 02:44 AM

Quote:

I always wonder what size the 100% field illumination is with scopes like these. If I had to guess, it's pretty small. That's perfectly fine for planetary work, but aren't these mainly visual scopes?





The two Mak-Newts (MN56, MN55) I've owned were fine visual instruments, but had serious limitations for imaging. I loved both scopes, and claimed I'd never sell them-- but ended up doing that in both cases. I also vowed I'd never buy a SCT-- and recently did just that. I've had my EdgeHD 8 for less than a week now, but WOW, what a great scope.

The MN55 wouldn't even come to focus with a new filter wheel I purchased, so replaced it with an MN55. It had more back focus, but when I changed cameras to one with an APS sized chip, the illumination was poor. While I could correct the image with flats, I couldn't get over the fact that I was losing so much data. Without flats, there's no way to make an acceptable image with a Mak-Newt IMO-- and I did that for years with them. I eventually moved on to smaller ED refractors and APO's (90mm to 100mm).

From a visual perspective, for me actually looking thru the APO was always a more pleasing experience than with my Mak-Newts. With them I was always fighting cool down issues (and the MN55 had a fan), plus they are bulky and heavy for their aperture. I never owned a Nagler at the same time as my Mak-Newts, but I can't image they would come close to fully illuminating a 22mm Nagler, let alone a 31mm.

When I decided I wanted more aperture than my smallish APOs could give me (but still have the same viewing experience with a Nagler) I bought an EdgeHD 8. Because I'd read nothing bad about one, I felt confident I'd probably get good to excellent optics. Mine shows a very good star test, and so far I'm extremely happy with the decision. When Celestron ships my dedicated reducer, I suspect I'll be even happier.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
orion61

*****

Reged: 10/20/07

Loc: Birthplace James T Kirk
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: jsrj98]
      #5649831 - 01/29/13 08:17 AM

If you look back a couple pages there is quite an exhaustive
thread about central obstruction and images and it doesn't seem to degrade the views nearly as much as people believe it does. A good example is the Meade RCX, fantastic optics with a larger secondary, brightness well, that may be a different story.


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

Reged: 05/16/03

Loc: Franklin, Ohio
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: jsrj98]
      #5649900 - 01/29/13 09:16 AM

Quote:

Quote:

I always wonder what size the 100% field illumination is with scopes like these. If I had to guess, it's pretty small. That's perfectly fine for planetary work, but aren't these mainly visual scopes?



when I changed cameras to one with an APS sized chip, the illumination was poor.




That's kind of what I figured. I think that's one reason Explore Scientific decided to go with the larger CO on their Comet Hunter. The large secondary means the scope is capable of being used as an astrograph. Mine is actually an f/4.8, but you can see that in some loss of contrast visually.

For imaging, the CO contrast loss doesn't matter, and the larger 100% full illumination circle is very useful. Still, it is a big instrument for only being 6" of aperture.

For Mak Newts, rather than make comparisons to SCT's, I think they should be compared to APO refractors because they have more in common in terms of f/ratio and focal lengths. My Comet Hunter has a focal length of 731mm at f/4.8 with 6" of aperture. The ES 127 f/7.5 Triplet APO has a focal length of 952mm at f/7.5. With a 0.8x focal reducer that gets much closer to the Comet Hunter (762mm at f/6).

Also, the comparison in physical size is closer between a large refractor and the MN.

Patrick


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

Reged: 11/17/04

Loc: Londonderry, NH
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: jsrj98]
      #5649949 - 01/29/13 10:00 AM

Quote:


From a visual perspective, for me actually looking thru the APO was always a more pleasing experience than with my Mak-Newts. With them I was always fighting cool down issues (and the MN55 had a fan), plus they are bulky and heavy for their aperture. I never owned a Nagler at the same time as my Mak-Newts, but I can't image they would come close to fully illuminating a 22mm Nagler, let alone a 31mm.





This comes up a lot on this forum. Someone has never tried a wide field eyepiece in their Mak Newt (or doesn't even own a Mak Newt), but they are sure the view would be unacceptable. Well . . . I owned a MN66 (smaller secondary than the MN55 or MN65) and I own a 26mm Nagler T5. I have used that eyepiece in that scope several hundred times. While there is a mathematical drop-off in light (that I am sure causes an issue in deep sky imaging) for visual use, the combination works very well.

I loved viewing 2* plus areas of the sky with the 26mm Nagler. The view was flat and sharp to the edge. The illumination drop off does not affect the visual view—certainly not to the extent that some with (or without) experience claim. Outside of an Apo refractor or a Newtonian with a very large secondary mirror, there is always a drop off in illumination at the edge of the field in all telescope designs. The SCT is certainly not immune to this. Until the recent release of the HD SCTs, field curvature as well as edge illumination was an issue in a standard C8. Basically, I could choose to either focus the stars in the middle of the field or the stars at the edge of the field in my C8 with the 26mm Nagler. (Unless I chose something in between where everything was just a little blurry.) So the Mak Newt is held to a higher standard in edge of field illumination because the standard SCT has so much field curvature that illumination drop off is not the biggest issue?

The C8 I had did not have great optics. It was a black tube version from the 90s. My MN66 killed in every way except for light grasp, but the sharper image in the MN66 minimized that advantage the C8 had. The MN66 showed more detail on Mars, Jupiter. Gave cleaner views of double stars. Showed flat, wide-field views that the C8 could never dream of producing. And it cooled down faster. A lot faster. Again, my C8 was not great, but it was not a lemon either. It was somewhere in between and probably well within the bell curve for what was being produced at the time.

Mak Newts are bulky and heavy for their aperture. For me that was the real weakness. As far as cool down goes, that has never been a problem for me either. Certainly not if the comparison is an SCT. The Mak Newt has an oversized tube and light only passes through the tube twice (not 3 times like in a Mak Cass or SCT). Those two features make the Mak Newt superior to those scopes for cool down. Does a standard Newtonian or refractor cool down faster? Sure, but cool down is not a big drawback to the Mak Newt design.


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

Reged: 10/04/05

Loc: Squamish BC Moved!!!!!
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: spencerj]
      #5649981 - 01/29/13 10:18 AM

Between my MN-61 and now the MN-76, I have used both a 26mm Nagler and a 41mm Panoptic. I had not noticed any serious light fall off across the field of view while observing.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jsrj98
member


Reged: 02/21/08

Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: JohnH]
      #5650013 - 01/29/13 10:38 AM

Quote:

Between my MN-61 and now the MN-76, I have used both a 26mm Nagler and a 41mm Panoptic. I had not noticed any serious light fall off across the field of view while observing.




On my MN55 (which was theoretically optimized for imaging, with a larger secondary and more back focus) the light loss at the outer 1/4 edge of an image taken with a QHY8 CCD camera (slightly larger than a normal DSLR) was more than 50%. I just couldn't get over that, which is why I eventually sold it. At the time I never owned a Nagler, so I could not make a visual comparison.

In theory, the Mak-Newt should experience less cool down issues than an SCT. I've only had my EdgeHD 8 for less than a week, so I guess I'll eventually find out. Having said that I was always disappointed how long it took the views to get really good on my two Mak-Newts.

From a quality perspective (star test), the MN56 and MN55 were always first rate-- and I had the 'papers' from ITE to prove their high Strehl. Of course my new Edge didn't come with any 'proof' of quality (which is why it took me so long to pull the trigger on it), but it's star test is virtually the same on both sides of focus-- which I thought was amazing for a mass produced scope. I'm going to have to dig up my copy of Suiter's book to try to find a fault.


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

Reged: 11/17/04

Loc: Londonderry, NH
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: jsrj98]
      #5650045 - 01/29/13 10:57 AM

What kind of cool down times were you seeing with the Mak Newts? What about the EdgeHD. I used to take mine from inside the house to outside in the winter (40-60*) temp change. It was always fine after an hour or so and ready for high magnification in about 2 hours.

Have you measured the light loss at the edge of the image in the EdgeHD?


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


Reged: 02/15/09

Loc: Alicante, Spain
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: Paul Hyndman]
      #5650083 - 01/29/13 11:21 AM

Quote:

Quote:

My 6" f/5 Mak Newt has a 32% central obstruction, so I seriously doubt that the f/5.3 has a 20% obstruction. It's even difficult to find standard commercial Newtonian's with central obstructions less than 25%.




MNs designed for visual usage place focus very close to the tube wall, squeaking by with as small a (fully illuminated) secondary as possible. Placing focus so close to the OTA presents a dilemma for imaging and bino-viewing though, usually requiring a relay lens (or Barlow/Powermate etc) to sufficiently "draw out" the image enough to reach focus. To accommodate these uses, some later designs bumped focus further from the tube by reducing the distance from the primary, necessitating the use of a larger secondary, hence a larger CO.

While nice images can be attained using a MN, its greatest prowess (IMHO) is attained when optimized for visual use.

Paul

PS: I loved my (visually optimized) MN86 but, alas, eventually parted with it to make room for other equipment (it was built like a tank, and almost as pretty!)




My Mak Newt 8" f 6 has a 17% central obstruction and it weight less than 12 kg.

Toni


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

Reged: 01/23/04

Loc: Sterling, VA
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: titanio]
      #5650242 - 01/29/13 12:46 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

My 6" f/5 Mak Newt has a 32% central obstruction, so I seriously doubt that the f/5.3 has a 20% obstruction. It's even difficult to find standard commercial Newtonian's with central obstructions less than 25%.




MNs designed for visual usage place focus very close to the tube wall, squeaking by with as small a (fully illuminated) secondary as possible. Placing focus so close to the OTA presents a dilemma for imaging and bino-viewing though, usually requiring a relay lens (or Barlow/Powermate etc) to sufficiently "draw out" the image enough to reach focus. To accommodate these uses, some later designs bumped focus further from the tube by reducing the distance from the primary, necessitating the use of a larger secondary, hence a larger CO.

While nice images can be attained using a MN, its greatest prowess (IMHO) is attained when optimized for visual use.

Paul

PS: I loved my (visually optimized) MN86 but, alas, eventually parted with it to make room for other equipment (it was built like a tank, and almost as pretty!)




My Mak Newt 8" f 6 has a 17% central obstruction and it weight less than 12 kg.

Toni




My 8" f/4 has a 25% CO and weighs about 22lb (10 kg).


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


Reged: 11/02/06

Loc: Latitude 47
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: bierbelly]
      #5650354 - 01/29/13 01:44 PM Attachment (23 downloads)

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

My 6" f/5 Mak Newt has a 32% central obstruction, so I seriously doubt that the f/5.3 has a 20% obstruction. It's even difficult to find standard commercial Newtonian's with central obstructions less than 25%.




MNs designed for visual usage place focus very close to the tube wall, squeaking by with as small a (fully illuminated) secondary as possible. Placing focus so close to the OTA presents a dilemma for imaging and bino-viewing though, usually requiring a relay lens (or Barlow/Powermate etc) to sufficiently "draw out" the image enough to reach focus. To accommodate these uses, some later designs bumped focus further from the tube by reducing the distance from the primary, necessitating the use of a larger secondary, hence a larger CO.

While nice images can be attained using a MN, its greatest prowess (IMHO) is attained when optimized for visual use.

Paul

PS: I loved my (visually optimized) MN86 but, alas, eventually parted with it to make room for other equipment (it was built like a tank, and almost as pretty!)




My Mak Newt 8" f 6 has a 17% central obstruction and it weight less than 12 kg.

Toni




My 8" f/4 has a 25% CO and weighs about 22lb (10 kg).




Just to join the party, here's my MN-66:

Quartz primary, clear polished on the back to speed up cool down, 20% CO, 1/50 RMS , 1/10 wave certified by Intes. Mount by 1st Base Mounts, assembled and finshed by yours truly.

Unlike other MN-66s, it has a fan on the side sticking out like an ugly wart, but which also helps clearing off the boundary layer from the primary. In addition, the mirror is cored to hold it to the cell with a plug/nut.

After I almost broke my neck in the dark trying to use it on the CGE, I put it on a dob mount where it excels in both widefield (2 degrees with a 23mm Nagler clone) and planetary usage (300x on the planets and 500x on the moon). I've used it a lot more since I put it on the dob mount simply because it's always ready to go and cools down in 30min.

Tanveer.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Paul Hyndman
sage


Reged: 07/13/04

Loc: Connecticut Shoreline USA
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: TG]
      #5650845 - 01/29/13 06:00 PM

Nice set up, Tanveer!

Paul


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


Reged: 02/15/09

Loc: Alicante, Spain
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: Paul Hyndman]
      #5650920 - 01/29/13 06:40 PM

Hi
My Mn 86 has also quartz optics



Toni


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

Reged: 01/18/07

Loc: Pembroke Pines ,FL
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: TG]
      #5650935 - 01/29/13 06:51 PM

Lovely Tanveer, great handywork!

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

Reged: 01/18/07

Loc: Pembroke Pines ,FL
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: titanio]
      #5650941 - 01/29/13 06:55 PM

Wow que telescopio, lovely setup!

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


Reged: 02/15/09

Loc: Alicante, Spain
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: Julio]
      #5652226 - 01/30/13 12:29 PM

Gracias Julio

Now I have my MN86 on a very nice Losmandy GM8

Toni


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


Reged: 11/02/06

Loc: Latitude 47
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: titanio]
      #5652311 - 01/30/13 01:20 PM

@Julio, @Paul: thanks! I didn't do much, just sent Mark Wagner at 1st Base Mounts and Rings the specs and he sent me a first-class CNC machine cut kit using top-notch plywood. Putting it together and finishing it took but a few days of evening work. If you need a dob mount, his shop is highly recommended.

@Titanio: You can't do better than a Wirth built tube with deluxe Intes optics. I think you'll want to hang on to that OTA for life. One question for you though: what are you doing to get your Mark V (?) to come to focus? I used to have a Siebert OCA that would allow Sibert BV's to come to focus but I sold the whole package and now have a Mark V but it won't come to focus with a regular 2" barlow. I think I need an A-P BARCON to use just the lens as an OCA.

Tanveer.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Paul Hyndman
sage


Reged: 07/13/04

Loc: Connecticut Shoreline USA
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: TG]
      #5653328 - 01/30/13 10:16 PM

Quote:

I used to have a Siebert OCA that would allow Sibert BV's to come to focus but I sold the whole package and now have a Mark V but it won't come to focus with a regular 2" barlow. I think I need an A-P BARCON to use just the lens as an OCA.




Tanveer, I don't know about current availability, but the Denkmeier OCS did a spendid job as a low-amplification relay lens for my MN86, although there was a slight amount of field curvature at the edge and mild vignetting (most likely from the small secondary).

Here are some sample shots comparing it to a 2X Powermate. Focus was shifted outwards out from a -12mm (inside) position to a +25mm (available) position.




Paul


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

Reged: 10/08/06

Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: jsrj98]
      #5653420 - 01/30/13 11:31 PM

I just read one fellow's negative comments about a couple of I-M MakNews he owned. Opinions can and will vary, and that's fine. IMO, most folks should be able to substantiate WHY they hold a given opinon.

In this instance, pointing out the illuminated circle size of ANY 5" f/6 Newt based design is a foray into the obvious. As another participant mentioned, this topic, as it relates to these telescopes, seems to come up on this forum with some frequency. It's noteable that in most instances, the poster also refers to illuminating their 31mm Naglers. I'm confused. Why is full illumination of ANY eyepiece with a 41mm field stop in a telescope with a 30mm secondary mirror even a topic of discussion?

I've been a long time advocate of weighing the merits of comments and reviews. One method one can utilize to separate the wheat from the chaff are common threads. One person with an axe to grind is fairly easy to spot when they complain about what almost everyone else compliments. I was taken aback about comments on cooldown with I-M MakNewts. Why? Because that's an attribute an overwhelming percentage of users have offered kudos for.

To continue along the same line with 'issues' about illuminated field size for imaging after adding a filter wheel....given the specs for backfocus, I'm confused as to why you were surprised. Perhaps others can share their successful imaging results. Names like Paul Hyndman and Dean Salman leap to mind (to name just a few) .

Most Cassegrain variants (which includes MCT's as well as SCT's) will provide you with FAR more backfocus most Newtonian based designs. Even given that, given the same simple mathematics, I wish you luck fully illuminating a 31mm Nagler with your new C8..but enjoy regardless.

I sincerely mean that last part. Enjoy John...but c'mon!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jsrj98
member


Reged: 02/21/08

Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: maknewtnut]
      #5653529 - 01/31/13 02:04 AM

If I came across as severely negative against the Mak-Newts I owned that was NOT my intention. I really enjoyed them. However, from an imaging standpoint the ones I owned did have their limitations, which I well understood. For several years I happily imaged with an SX H9 using both scopes with excellent results. When I moved on to a larger chip camera their small secondary proved to be a drawback that I eventually decided I couldn't live with. Astronomy, and especially imaging, is a journey, and you often don't fully know what you are getting into when you start down a particular path.

As I mentioned in my previous post, at the time I owned them I did not also own a Nagler (all my free cash was spent on imaging equipment) so I can't comment on the view with them using those type of eyepieces. I really have no idea if the light falloff would be acceptable-- especially with a 31mm.

When I moved on to an APO refractor for imaging, I stopped taking flats because there was no need to do so-- the chip was completely illuminated. Of course, I did need to use a field flattner (there are trade offs everywhere).

I haven't imaged yet with my Edge8, I'm waiting for the dedicated reducer to be shipped-- I have no desire to image at F/10. Therefore, I have not yet measured any light fall off with the scope. I can tell you, however, that the image plane is completely flat to my eye. Even my APO had a field curvature that I could detect with a Nagler. Not so with the Edge.

Would a 6" or 7" Mak-Newt deliver a better planetary image than the Edge8? Probably. I didn't buy my first SCT for that purpose only, but as an all-around scope-- competent for both visual use and imaging. I can tell you that tonight it delivered the best view of M42 of any scope I've owned, and that includes the Mak-Newts, a customized 8" 'planetary' Newt with superb optics and a very small secondary and nice 10" Dob.


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

Reged: 08/18/07

Loc: Great Grey Spot "Denmark"
Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: jsrj98]
      #5653627 - 01/31/13 05:41 AM

Quote:

I can tell you that tonight it delivered the best view of M42 of any scope I've owned, and that includes the Mak-Newts, a customized 8" 'planetary' Newt with superb optics and a very small secondary and nice 10" Dob.




One reason for this could be you've had your best all time seeing this night! other than this just doesn't make sense.
Other reasons might be that those other " optimized ??" scopes you compared the views with, didn't really have such great optics as you say.
That said, I find it great to read so many good reviews of the new Edge HD, "Improved QC" wich might ensure future customers a certain level of quality is great!
but implying, that mass produced equipment are better than that of a niche production from companies crafting limited numbers aiming at through out quality rather than price point, is silly.


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

Reged: 10/08/06

Re: Maksuton-Newtonian vs Schmidt-Cassegrain new [Re: jsrj98]
      #5653883 - 01/31/13 09:19 AM

One thing does appear to be sure. The Edge HD's seem to be making many folks happy, which is great. Kudos to Celestron. Enjoy!

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


Extra information
15 registered and 19 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Starman27, kkokkolis 

Print Thread

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


Thread views: 3753

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics