214 replies to this topic

[Paul G]

Aquatone,

FWIW, I find the AP 10" Mak rides happily on either a 900 or a Mach1 for visual use. It's only 33 pounds.

Hi Gus,

I have tried the Mach 1.0 but found that damping was an issue. When you add the Losmandy mounting plates (I have them on the top and bottom) plus eyepieces, extenders etc, to the 10", the weight is getting north of 45 pounds. Even though that is well within the capacity of the Mach 1.0 I did find that at the 10" magnification, vibration from the mass of the telescope could be an issue. I don't doubt that the AP900 is a great mounting solution - I sold mine a few years ago. Putting it on a AP1200 is so solid it feels like a professional observatory telescope. I can lean on it and it does not move much when looking through the eyepiece and it kind of fits the character of the telescope.

Chris

I've used the AP 10" Mak-Cass on an AP900GTO and its fine. I too, however prefer it on an even beefier mount (my 1200GTO and someday a 1600GTO).

A 1200 would be better for sure, but I have to transport to observe and with my back the 1200 felt like a boat anchor.

[Peter Natscher]

The first run of the AP Mak-Cass in 2000 was sold for $9k and the later run for $10k or $11k. It is by no means worth today's $30k or more by its performance alone. It's price now is purely in collectable territory.

Clearly Valerie has issues with C14s. To say that it wouldn't perform the best in "very good" to "excellent" seeing is ridiculous and defies the laws of physics.

Indeed.Its incredible how biased the "expert oppinions" can be... Visualy is a no brainer and for phottografic work ive never saw a 10" mak or a 8" outperfotm a C14;-in fact they are not even close.A more expensive gear does not provive better views...they are waht they are...more expensive

[Peter Natscher]

I've looked through APs Mak-Cass'es compairing them to neighboring larger aperture Zambuto Newtonians and the Newtonians blew the Mak away on planets because of the larger Dob's greater light throughput and resolution. With the Mak at *only* 10 in., lower abedo planets like Saturn and Uranus, although sharp, will start fading enough at 400X or more to cause color and detail loss. My past larger Zambuto Dobs (18"-20") with <20% CO showed Saturn the best. I saw the Enckle division twice during 2006 with a 20" f/4.3 Zambuto but never could see it through a 10" Mak. I also never was able to see M57's CS with a 10" Mak. The 10" aperture was a limitation.

You need to look at the actual 80% EE radii.

Whatever gets looked at...well...not to break anybody's dreams, but an AP is a fine instrument, capable of world class wide field images, but it cannot defeat the laws of physics and will not show as much of _anything_ as a C14.

Rod, have you ever looked through an AP 10" Mak-Cass?

I would suspect that C14 would go deeper on the faint fuzzies, but I would not assume it would be better for planetary/lunar views. The AP Mak-Cass is a fine optic and with decent seeing, it can tolerate very high magnification (which has its uses). I haven't yet seen a Celestron OTA that can do that. Perhaps they exist.

[JJK]

I've looked through APs Mak-Cass'es compairing them to neighboring larger aperture Zambuto Newtonians and the Newtonians blew the Mak away on planets because of the larger Dob's greater light throughput and resolution. With the Mak at *only* 10 in., lower abedo planets like Saturn and Uranus, although sharp, will start fading enough at 400X or more to cause color and detail loss. My past larger Zambuto Dobs (18"-20") with <20% CO showed Saturn the best. I saw the Enckle division twice during 2006 with a 20" f/4.3 Zambuto but never could see it through a 10" Mak. I also never was able to see M57's CS with a 10" Mak. The 10" aperture was a limitation.

You need to look at the actual 80% EE radii.

Whatever gets looked at...well...not to break anybody's dreams, but an AP is a fine instrument, capable of world class wide field images, but it cannot defeat the laws of physics and will not show as much of _anything_ as a C14.

Rod, have you ever looked through an AP 10" Mak-Cass?

I would suspect that C14 would go deeper on the faint fuzzies, but I would not assume it would be better for planetary/lunar views. The AP Mak-Cass is a fine optic and with decent seeing, it can tolerate very high magnification (which has its uses). I haven't yet seen a Celestron OTA that can do that. Perhaps they exist.

Peter, I and others have seen M57's central star in my backyard and at the Black Forest Star Party (2011) with an AP 10" Mak-Cass (limiting magnitudes ~ 5.8 & 6.5, respectively). M57 was near the zenith, and I cranked the magnification up to ~ 1,000x. That scope's aperture is not a limitation for that object.

[Peter Natscher]

Then, you had excellent seeing at your observation times and I didn't. M57's CS is fickle with *all sizes* of scopes. Using a former 20" f/4.3 Zambuto Dob at 600X, there were times when I've seen two stars within M57 and times when I've seen none.

I've looked through APs Mak-Cass'es compairing them to neighboring larger aperture Zambuto Newtonians and the Newtonians blew the Mak away on planets because of the larger Dob's greater light throughput and resolution. With the Mak at *only* 10 in., lower abedo planets like Saturn and Uranus, although sharp, will start fading enough at 400X or more to cause color and detail loss. My past larger Zambuto Dobs (18"-20") with <20% CO showed Saturn the best. I saw the Enckle division twice during 2006 with a 20" f/4.3 Zambuto but never could see it through a 10" Mak. I also never was able to see M57's CS with a 10" Mak. The 10" aperture was a limitation.

You need to look at the actual 80% EE radii.

Whatever gets looked at...well...not to break anybody's dreams, but an AP is a fine instrument, capable of world class wide field images, but it cannot defeat the laws of physics and will not show as much of _anything_ as a C14.

Rod, have you ever looked through an AP 10" Mak-Cass?

I would suspect that C14 would go deeper on the faint fuzzies, but I would not assume it would be better for planetary/lunar views. The AP Mak-Cass is a fine optic and with decent seeing, it can tolerate very high magnification (which has its uses). I haven't yet seen a Celestron OTA that can do that. Perhaps they exist.

Peter, I and others have seen M57's central star in my backyard and at the Black Forest Star Party (2011) with an AP 10" Mak-Cass (limiting magnitudes ~ 5.8 & 6.5, respectively). M57 was near the zenith, and I cranked the magnification up to ~ 1,000x. That scope's aperture is not a limitation for that object.

[JJK]

The CS is not always visible in the AP 10" Mak-Cass (typical "duty cycle" of about 20 % to 30 % "on"). At the BFSP 2011, as a sanity check, we also looked at M57 in a 20" Dob. In the larger scope, the CS was visible at about twice the duty cycle of the Mak-Cass. Key to the observation was indeed decent seeing and the ability to make use of very high magnification.

Then, you had excellent seeing at your observation times and I didn't. M57's CS is fickle with *all sizes* of scopes. Using a former 20" f/4.3 Zambuto Dob at 600X, there were times when I've seen two stars within M57 and times when I've seen none.

I've looked through APs Mak-Cass'es compairing them to neighboring larger aperture Zambuto Newtonians and the Newtonians blew the Mak away on planets because of the larger Dob's greater light throughput and resolution. With the Mak at *only* 10 in., lower abedo planets like Saturn and Uranus, although sharp, will start fading enough at 400X or more to cause color and detail loss. My past larger Zambuto Dobs (18"-20") with <20% CO showed Saturn the best. I saw the Enckle division twice during 2006 with a 20" f/4.3 Zambuto but never could see it through a 10" Mak. I also never was able to see M57's CS with a 10" Mak. The 10" aperture was a limitation.

You need to look at the actual 80% EE radii.

Whatever gets looked at...well...not to break anybody's dreams, but an AP is a fine instrument, capable of world class wide field images, but it cannot defeat the laws of physics and will not show as much of _anything_ as a C14.

Rod, have you ever looked through an AP 10" Mak-Cass?

I would suspect that C14 would go deeper on the faint fuzzies, but I would not assume it would be better for planetary/lunar views. The AP Mak-Cass is a fine optic and with decent seeing, it can tolerate very high magnification (which has its uses). I haven't yet seen a Celestron OTA that can do that. Perhaps they exist.

Peter, I and others have seen M57's central star in my backyard and at the Black Forest Star Party (2011) with an AP 10" Mak-Cass (limiting magnitudes ~ 5.8 & 6.5, respectively). M57 was near the zenith, and I cranked the magnification up to ~ 1,000x. That scope's aperture is not a limitation for that object.

[NHRob]

[jmiele]

Interesting that Roland speaks of the elusive M57 CS as an object seen visually by only a couple lucky individuals.

Joe

[JJK]

Interesting that Roland speaks of the elusive M57 CS as an object seen visually by only a couple lucky individuals.

Joe

The number of those folks probably correlates with the number of 10" Maks he produced.

[brianb11213]

Interesting that Roland speaks of the elusive M57 CS as an object seen visually by only a couple lucky individuals.

Hmmm. I couldn't quite get it with 8" but found it pretty easy with a C11. The mag 13-14 star nearby is a doddle with 6".

[idealistic]

Isnt it funny how a few certain subjects seem to fire people up on the forum? M57s central star is, strangely, one of them.

[JJK]

Isnt it funny how a few certain subjects seem to fire people up on the forum? M57s central star is, strangely, one of them.

I wouldn't necessarily qualify it as firing people up. Some objects are simply good tests of optics and/or the observer's skill. It's fun to learn what others have done or tried to do.

[ckwastro]

Interesting that Roland speaks of the elusive M57 CS as an object seen visually by only a couple lucky individuals.

Joe

I've seen it several times under the right conditions with my old 14.5" f/4.3 Starmaster. Like Ed Ting said.....it's blue!

[jmiele]

Indeed, My only sighting was through the same scope. My 14.5 Starmaster with Zambuto mirror. It was at zenith. My observing buddy that night jumped about 3 feet straight up shouting "I see it, I see it!" The three feet may not seem like much to some but given his 5'4" stature, it was the equivalent of launching a capsule into orbit. He only jumped that high one other time. We were in the middle of nowhere and a raccoon brushed his leg.

I can't say I've attempted it regularly however. Without the seeing the optics aren't going to help any.

Joe

[ckwastro]

Much like 5' 7" Spud Webb winning the 1986 slam dunk contest!

Agreed. I've seen the CS the few times we had very good seeing coupled with our excellent transparency. Usually near the zenith and about 700x in the 14.5.