Eric63
sage
Reged: 06/16/12
Loc: Ottawa, Ontario
|
That extra inch…
#5672446 - 02/10/13 02:23 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Last night my son and I were out at a dark site in frigid weather. The temperature dropped from -10C (14F) to -20C (-5F) during our 2 hour session, but we were dressed appropriately (and the cottage was not far away ). We took both the 127Mak and the 150 F5 Newt with us on this moonless night of average seeing, figuring that we had both planetary and DSO well covered. We looked at favourites such as M42, the double cluster, open clusters in Auriga, but what surprised me the most was Jupiter. I knew that aperture made a difference, but I did not expect to be as noticeable as it was with just an extra inch. Also, I have always believed that an F5 Newtonian would not be as good on planets because of how sensitive it is to collimation (I used a Cheshire to check it before we went out). I was wrong.
Jupiter was amazing in the Newt. It was noticeably brighter and the edge of the bands were sharper and more defined on average than in the Mak. The Mak was still very good but the sharpness came and went while it was steadier in the Newt. Both scope had cooled for two hours, but perhaps the Mak was still sensitive to the dropping temperature or to body heat (and breathing). The Mak on the other hand was a touch better on contrast. Polar shading was more obvious, but a bit being the key word. I believe that the extra brightness of the Newt was a strong advantage and it helped seeing some detail in the bands, while in the Mak I had to tease them out by patiently sitting and observing.
The Newt also offered nice low power wide field views but the Mak still offered amazing views of M42 and the open clusters; it just was not wide field but that was not a bother. In the end, both of these are very nice scopes at a dark site and each has its advantages. The real advantage of the Mak is ergonomics. It was more comfortable being seated behind it when we wanted to look at an object for an extended period of time. This made it easy to wait for periods of clear seeing, during which very nice detail came into view. The Mak is also easier to take with us while the Newt stays at the cottage. With ski equipment and clothing packed in the car, I can easily take the 127Mak, a small EP case and the AZ4. The Newt has a larger case and it pretty well takes most of the trunk space when we take it along.
Oh yes one more thing that was bothersome. In the cold weather, the focuser in the Mak was very stiff and made focusing a chore, but for some reason the Newt remained smooth for the entire time.
Eric
|
Tony Flanders
Postmaster
   
Reged: 05/18/06
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
Re: That extra inch…
[Re: Eric63]
#5672487 - 02/10/13 02:39 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Jupiter was amazing in the Newt. It was noticeably brighter and the edge of the bands were sharper and more defined on average than in the Mak.
But of course! I'm sure the Mak is a fine scope for what it is, but you can't defy the laws of physics. With an aperture 15% smaller and a much bigger central obstruction -- no way is a 5-inch Mak going to compete with a 6-inch Newt.
As for being f/5, remember that the primary mirror of the Mak is much, much faster -- probably closer to f/2.5. Short focal ratios are not an obstacle to high-quality images.
|
Raginar
Carpal Tunnel
   
Reged: 10/19/10
Loc: Rapid CIty, SD
|
Re: That extra inch…
[Re: Tony Flanders]
#5672625 - 02/10/13 04:15 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
That's what I noticed when I swapped from my ETX125 to a AT8IN (200mm newt). Size really does matter. You should see Jupiter through a 10" SCT. Still my favorite telescope I bought... I wish I hadn't sold it.
|
GeneT
Ely Kid
   
Reged: 11/07/08
Loc: South Texas
|
Re: That extra inch…
[Re: Eric63]
#5672812 - 02/10/13 06:26 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Yes, an extra inch from a 5 to 6 inch will show more. Also, maybe the optics are better on the 6. There are several factors that go into the issue of good telescopic views.
|
kansas skies
sage
Reged: 12/02/12
Loc: Kansas, USA
|
Re: That extra inch…
[Re: GeneT]
#5672836 - 02/10/13 06:37 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I had a 127mm Mak for 6 or 7 years and used it quite often. I always thought it was an amazing little scope for the money. I do have to say that its main shortcoming in my opinion was exactly what you mention here. I noticed it most often when observing Saturn. The planet looked very sharp, but the Cassini division seemed to pop in and out of view. At one point, I set it up side by side with a very nice 4" f/15 achro refractor. The refractor held very sharp detail at a constant level, while detail was popping in and out on the Mak. I would have to say that when the Mak popped in to focus, it held its own very well when compared to the view from the refractor. Of course, if you factor in portability and ease of setup, the Mak looked awfully good. I'm still left wondering why the Mak behaved in that manner.
Bill
|
Eric63
sage
Reged: 06/16/12
Loc: Ottawa, Ontario
|
Re: That extra inch…
[Re: kansas skies]
#5672845 - 02/10/13 06:43 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Bill, that's exactly the issue, the sharpness would come and go, but when it was there it was great. Dimmer than the 150, but still great. I'm pretty sure that I still had thermal issues with the scope while the open tube Newt had reached equilibrium.
Eric
|
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
   
Reged: 06/16/04
Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
|
Re: That extra inch…
[Re: Eric63]
#5672872 - 02/10/13 06:59 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Bill, that's exactly the issue, the sharpness would come and go, but when it was there it was great. Dimmer than the 150, but still great. I'm pretty sure that I still had thermal issues with the scope while the open tube Newt had reached equilibrium.
Eric

Seeing, colllimation, thermal equilibrium... fans are good with larger scopes, it's nice to have enough aperture to take advantage of the seeing...
Jon
|
WarmWeatherGuy
professor emeritus
   
Reged: 08/27/11
Loc: Orlando, FL 28° N, 81° W
|
Re: That extra inch…
[Re: Eric63]
#5673032 - 02/10/13 08:43 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
A 5 inch scope can also take pretty good pictures of Jupiter.
This picture of Jupiter was taken with a 5" Maksutov.
|
wirenut
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 09/21/06
Loc: m'dale Pa
|
Re: That extra inch…
[Re: WarmWeatherGuy]
#5673368 - 02/11/13 12:30 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
you mentioned one focuser got stiff but the other remained smooth. I suspect the grease/lube used wasn't up to the cold weather. you may want to clean out the old grease and replace with some lithium grease.
|
BigC
Carpal Tunnel
   
Reged: 09/29/10
Loc: SE Indiana
|
Re: That extra inch…
[Re: Eric63]
#5673430 - 02/11/13 01:58 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Really the Newt is superior in many ways like "view per dollar" ;and the main advantage of the various folded optic designs is compactness and more comfortable viewing.
For example a 8" Newt of f10 (comparable to the common SCT) would be at least 7 feet in length thus making transporting,setup,and positioning oneself at the eyepiece all much more trouble.Although I am sure the view would be better.
|
Eric63
sage
Reged: 06/16/12
Loc: Ottawa, Ontario
|
Re: That extra inch…
[Re: wirenut]
#5673542 - 02/11/13 06:52 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I thought of re-greasing the Mak, but came perfectly collimated from the factory and so I think I will let it be
|
kansas skies
sage
Reged: 12/02/12
Loc: Kansas, USA
|
Re: That extra inch…
[Re: Eric63]
#5673547 - 02/11/13 06:57 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I suspect that the tendency for detail to pop in and out probably has to do with ones eyes trying to maintain focus within the shorter in-focus zone of the very fast primary mirror of the Maksutov as mentioned above. Anyway, that makes sense to me.
As for regreasing the focuser, I would consider it a worthwhile task. I regreased the focuser on my Orion 127 Mak and it made a considerable difference in cold weather. I don't remember the name of the grease I used, as I borrowed some from a friend. I do remember that it was a special grease that was similar to lithium, but was designed to work in an optical environment (no outgassing) over a very wide range of temperatures. I also might add that while the Mak's OTA was easy to get apart, it was a real pain to put back together and collimate.
Bill
|
csrlice12
Post Laureate
   
Reged: 05/22/12
Loc: Denver, CO
|
Re: That extra inch…
[Re: kansas skies]
#5673607 - 02/11/13 08:19 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
That fading in and out--that was your eyeball freezing.....
-5F, I'm on CN.....Can't handle the cold like I used too. Glad you and your son had a good night viewing....just think, when he grows up all he'll have to do is dial up weather central for clear viewing weather.....unless he buys astronomy equipment, then sattelites will fall from the skies and clouds will form......the curse lives on..... Clear Skies!
|
Widespread
sage
Reged: 05/11/11
Loc: Bowling Green, Kentucky
|
Re: That extra inch…
[Re: csrlice12]
#5673696 - 02/11/13 09:38 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Since the OP is about aperture, I don't want to take this too far off track, but lately I've become interested in the benefits of the increased depth of focus provided by true long focal ratios, particularly for planetary viewing (i.e. a f/10 refractor, as opposed to a combination of f/2 and f/5 mirrors, e.g.).
Of course, the effects will depend on local seeing conditions, and any attempt at quantification is way above my head. I have scopes of various F ratios (F/5, F/7, F/10, F/12), but their apertures also vary, so no A to B comparison is possible.
I have also read that smaller scopes are less susceptible to seeing effects. Planets are bright enough that it would be nice to know the sweet spot where smaller aperture and increased depth of focus compensate the most for sacrifice of contrast/ resolution loss.
Maybe this varies by local seeing conditions. Or maybe it's already been figured out by myriad amateurs, and the answer is the classic 4-inch, f/8 ~ f/10.
We all know about these tradeoffs; it would be nice if there were a handy guideline for real world applications. Sorry if this post seems like pointless rambling.
Musing while munching Muesli, David
|
dpwoos
Pooh-Bah
   
Reged: 10/18/06
|
Re: That extra inch…
[Re: kansas skies]
#5673730 - 02/11/13 10:05 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
I suspect that the tendency for detail to pop in and out probably has to do with ones eyes trying to maintain focus within the shorter in-focus zone of the very fast primary mirror of the Maksutov as mentioned above. Anyway, that makes sense to me.
I think the fl of this mak is 1500mm, f/11.8? Also, I have never heard of any popping in and out of focus due to accommodation, but it is a creative idea! Seems to me that the best explanation is insufficient cool down, especially given the massive corrector. I suggest giving the mak more time and doing another comparison, as I am skeptical of a big difference between the 127mm and the 150mm (assuming that both are working up to snuff).
|
Tony Flanders
Postmaster
   
Reged: 05/18/06
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
Re: That extra inch…
[Re: Widespread]
#5673781 - 02/11/13 10:27 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Since the OP is about aperture, I don't want to take this too far off track, but lately I've become interested in the benefits of the increased depth of focus provided by true long focal ratios
This is a long-standing fallacy that has been debunked numerous times. The focuser of an f/10 scope needs to move 2.5 times as far as the focuser of an f/4 scope to achieve the same focusing. However, as far as depth of field, sensitivity to seeing, and so on, there's no difference at all. If you put 2.5X step-down gearing into the f/4 scope's focuser, the two scopes will behave precisely the same.
Quote:
I have also read that smaller scopes are less susceptible to seeing effects.
That is true to the extent that smaller scopes never perform as well as bigger ones in any circumstances. Therefore, starting at a lower base, they're less crippled by poor seeing.
|
Tony Flanders
Postmaster
   
Reged: 05/18/06
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
Re: That extra inch…
[Re: kansas skies]
#5673790 - 02/11/13 10:32 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
I suspect that the tendency for detail to pop in and out probably has to do with ones eyes trying to maintain focus within the shorter in-focus zone of the very fast primary mirror of the Maksutov as mentioned above.
That doesn't make much sense in optical terms. The beam of light emerging from the eyepiece doesn't "know" how fast the Mak's primary mirror is. A 5-inch scope at 100X is a 5-inch scope at 100X, regardless of what technology is used to achieve that.
I think it's almost certainly a thermal issue. All other things being equal, Maks equilibrate slower than any other design of equal aperture. That is solvable with proper ventilation, however.
|
Widespread
sage
Reged: 05/11/11
Loc: Bowling Green, Kentucky
|
Re: That extra inch…
[Re: Tony Flanders]
#5673913 - 02/11/13 11:49 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Thanks, Tony. I see I misunderstood the issue.
I found an interesting article by Neil English that explains the various factors well: http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=2529
Neil argues that while seeing-induced defocus is indeed neglible, seeing-induced *focus inaccuracies* do affect fast instruments more than slower ones.
There is also a very interesting discussion on star test energy distribution (achromats have more energy in central maxima of airy disc, less in diffraction rings), which seems to favor achromats, and the impact of switching from photopic to mesoptic vision (impairs achromat's Strehl more than apo's).
I need to read the article a couple of more times. I'm like a grade school kid reading his older brother's textbook.
Best, David
|
Eric63
sage
Reged: 06/16/12
Loc: Ottawa, Ontario
|
Re: That extra inch…
[Re: Tony Flanders]
#5673943 - 02/11/13 12:14 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I think Tony is right and thermal issues were at play. The temperature was dropping from -10C to -20C and although my little mak was well cooled, I guess it could not keep up with the falling temperatures like the Newt did. Also, the Newt was well collimated since I had been reading up on the subjectand practicing it for the pat month. As for the Mak; I had it checked by the shop upon purchase and again two months later and in both cases they said it was dead on. I will take their word on it since I do not have much experience with testing and calibrating a Mak (but I will learn ).
Eric
|
Eric63
sage
Reged: 06/16/12
Loc: Ottawa, Ontario
|
Re: That extra inch…
[Re: Widespread]
#5673947 - 02/11/13 12:16 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
That looks like a very interesting article David. I think I will take my time and read it tonight.
Eric
|