“I don't understand your "far more trouble free" statement? I've had no trouble at all with mine.“
To name a few ‘problems’ mentioned throughout this thread.
- Need of extension rings when using visually as opposed to off the shelf.
- Possible need to change extension rings when using eyepieces of varying design and size (eg. Naglers to orthoscopics, going from 2” eyepieces to 1.25” eyepieces, etc.)
- Acknowledged need for collimation when the extension rings are changed out.
- Need to be collimated when focuser is rotated because it is not square.
I’ve never experienced these problems with any refractor, Mak, or SCT I’ve owned.
“I don't think one should compare a 102mm (4") f/7 refractor.”
Why not when it has been well proven that the scope is operating at an effective aperture in that range when one considers both the central obstruction and the size of the baffled light cone.
“And I don't think one should compare a 6" (or greater) f/12 instrument of any design. And a Mak (or any other catadioptric 'scope) has it's own issues.”
This is perhaps your most baffling statement, (excuse the pun). Why the hell not? You’re saying that it’s not fair to compare a 6” F12 cassegrain-type telescope to another 6” F12 cassegrain-type telescope?
Again, the Orion 150mm Mak uses an oversized primary (~162mm) that actually produces an effective aperture of 150mm aperture when considering the size of the baffled light cone. It would seem to me that it would be a very fair comparison.
”totally subjective, as in "I just prefer this other one when I look through the eyepiece."
One who can read and who values expert opinion (acknowledging that such a person might seem rare today), does not need to drive a Yugo to know they would not want to own one.
“But not really what this thread is about.“
I’m sorry, I didn’t notice the word ‘Moderator’ below your name. I shall have to look more carefully in the future.
However, I am not the first person to make these comparison in the 45 pages of this thread. I think it quite important to make such comparisons. They may just prevent someone from buying something they might be dissatisfied with. I am speaking particularly of the 6” model here as most seem to be happy with the 8”. I for one had seriously considered being an early adopter of the 6” when the two were first announced, nearly a year before they ever hit market. One they did, and more information came out, I am pretty sure that given the telescopes that I do have and the larger number that I have had over the years, I would have been a pretty disappointed customer. Is it not fair to save another from possible disappointment? At any rate, I am gleefully happy that you have been so satisfied with your two.
Edited by Terra Nova, 29 September 2020 - 11:12 AM.