Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Any little Mak fans here?

  • Please log in to reply
157 replies to this topic

#101 Bowlerhat

Bowlerhat

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2019
  • Loc: Melbourne, Australia

Posted 23 August 2019 - 07:41 PM

Hey Rick, how's the Vista's performance on higher magnifications? And does the fast f ratio compared to normal one, like the ETX, how apparent is the brightness difference?



#102 Cali

Cali

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 884
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2018
  • Loc: Bay Area

Posted 23 August 2019 - 08:39 PM

 

“Okay, joe1950, we’ll buy that fish story. But for sure with the planet so low in the NJ weeds with the soupy summer haze, and using a small older Mak with a largish secondary obstruction, you’re not going to expect us to believe you actually had any contrast to see any hint of the belts?”

 

The contrast between the very dark belts and the lighter areas was the most surprising thing of all! I was floored at how the NEB and SEB stood out, with edge variations visible. The poles had a slightly different cast from the rest of the disk, and I could just make out a hint of the whitish sub-belt that has been part of and to the south of the SEB; it runs directly into the GRS that was (confirmed by my Jupiter app) on the far side.

 

Last year I recall using this ETX-90 on Jupiter and being disappointed at how dim it appeared.

 

But this observation with the binoviewer was a complete 180! I personally question what some observers report that seems impossible or improbable. So I’m not into exaggeration or wishful seeing. I report what I definitely see and nothing more. And that’s what I observed.

This was my experience too using an Arcturus Binoviewer on a 127mm Mak. It was like having a new scope.

 

- Cal


  • Joe1950 likes this

#103 bbqediguana

bbqediguana

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 906
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Canada

Posted 23 August 2019 - 08:50 PM

Hey Rick, how's the Vista's performance on higher magnifications? And does the fast f ratio compared to normal one, like the ETX, how apparent is the brightness difference?

The Vista MC90 wasn't very good at all. It only went to about 80x before the image started to break down. My ETX 90 by comparison was much, much better. The views through the MC90 were also very dim - especially when compared to a Short Tube 80.

 

I got rid of the MC90 as I just wasn't really happy with its performance despite its compact size.


  • Sarkikos and Bowlerhat like this

#104 RyanSem

RyanSem

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 29 Jul 2018
  • Loc: Lancaster, PA

Posted 23 August 2019 - 09:09 PM

Little Maks are great! I have a C90 and a Nexstar 4 GT, those are the scopes I learned the sky on. 


  • Joe1950 and treadmarks like this

#105 Joe1950

Joe1950

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9431
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2015

Posted 23 August 2019 - 09:59 PM

Following up on post 94, I did take the ETX-90 out for another look at Jupiter. I used the Nikon binoviewer at 156x (more on the power later). Seeing was 5/10 and transparency was good, though there were many high clouds passing over the planet, blocking the view or dimming it. The GRS was on the far side as confirmed by my Jupiter app.

 

When it got between clouds, I saw the same brightness and detail as in the last observation (post 94). It was surprisingly good. Again the contrast between the darker belts and lighter areas was higher than I originally expected it would be. Detail in the band edges was very evident as was different shading at the poles.

 

I did use a Baader 8-24mm zoom eyepiece for comparison. At 8mm, the magnification is 156x (1250/8). That’s the same as with the binoviewer using 16mm eyepieces and a 2x nosepiece/Barlow. But, the size of the disk in the binoviewer was significantly larger than the view with the single zoom lens.

 

Using a Barlow/nosepiece with a binoviewer doesn’t always give the amplification marked on the Barlow. Differences in spacing make it more or less, in this case, a good amount more. I’ll have to use the timing method to accurately determine the actual amplification factors of the nosepiece/Barlows I have. It appears the factor is more than noted so the power used on Jupiter with the binoviewer was likely close to 200x, just estimating.


  • Boom, Jim1804 and pdxmoon like this

#106 Shorty Barlow

Shorty Barlow

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 812
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2015
  • Loc: Lloegyr

Posted 25 August 2019 - 08:20 AM

Believe it or not, I decided to try my binoviewer in my ETX-90 OTA, mounted on a Celestron Alt-Az (with slo-mo). The common saying with 90mm Maks is that they run out of light before they run out of detail.

 

So you would say such a scope with a binoviewer which splits the light in half would just not work. Add to that, the target, Jupiter was maybe 15o off the horizon and the conditions were typical NJ summer; hazy, hot and humid.

 

But I gave it a go anyway. To make things even harder, I used 16mm eyepieces with a 2x nosepiece/Barlow, giving 155x.

 

Well. The disk of Jove was a fairly good size in the binos. The edge was sharp, and it was not at all lacking for light! It wasn’t blindingly bright, but much brighter than I’d ever expect.

 

“Okay, joe1950, we’ll buy that fish story. But for sure with the planet so low in the NJ weeds with the soupy summer haze, and using a small older Mak with a largish secondary obstruction, you’re not going to expect us to believe you actually had any contrast to see any hint of the belts?”

 

The contrast between the very dark belts and the lighter areas was the most surprising thing of all! I was floored at how the NEB and SEB stood out, with edge variations visible. The poles had a slightly different cast from the rest of the disk, and I could just make out a hint of the whitish sub-belt that has been part of and to the south of the SEB; it runs directly into the GRS that was (confirmed by my Jupiter app) on the far side.

 

Last year I recall using this ETX-90 on Jupiter and being disappointed at how dim it appeared.

 

But this observation with the binoviewer was a complete 180! I personally question what some observers report that seems impossible or improbable. So I’m not into exaggeration or wishful seeing. I report what I definitely see and nothing more. And that’s what I observed.

 

Next clear night I’ll duplicate conditions and verify, if I get the same results.

 

Thanks,

joe

I believe you. That's the thing with astronomy though; expect the unexpected. I've seen a Martian polar cap with a 90mm Mak. And I mean a cap, and not a large albedo phenomena (carbon monoxide and water vapour) that are often mistaken for the caps. Seeing, transparency, altitude of the object observed, and a load of other atmospheric conditions all contribute I should imagine. I've split the Double Double at around 70x, sometimes it takes 150x!


  • Joe1950 and Bowlerhat like this

#107 Paul Schroeder

Paul Schroeder

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2003

Posted 25 August 2019 - 08:36 AM

Small maks can be a lot of fun - FWIW, below is an image I took a few years back with a Pico-6, a 60mm mak.

 

Paul

Attached Thumbnails

  • Jupiter March 2016 Pico-6 copy.jpg

Edited by Paul Schroeder, 25 August 2019 - 07:39 PM.

  • Starman27, payner, Jaimo! and 4 others like this

#108 Joe1950

Joe1950

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9431
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2015

Posted 25 August 2019 - 10:06 AM

Amazing, Paul!  That’s the best Jupiter image I’ve seen using 60mm. Back when I started in the 1960s, you might get something like that with a 10-12” Newt!

 

Couldn’t agree more, Shorty. I recall an opposition of Mars, maybe 15 years back and it was at a very high altitude. The ETX-showed a wealth of detail that I never expected on several observing nights. In that case, even with average seeing, it was the altitude that made a huge difference.

 

Anything were able to see with Jupiter and Saturn nearly in the weeds at 25o now is a bonus. But as they climb back higher over the next few years, even better views are waiting!

 

Astronomy is a hobby done on nature’s schedule.


Edited by Joe1950, 25 August 2019 - 10:07 AM.


#109 Auburn80

Auburn80

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 890
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2013

Posted 25 August 2019 - 10:40 AM

Amazing, Paul! That’s the best Jupiter image I’ve seen using 60mm. Back when I started in the 1960s, you might get something like that with a 10-12” Newt!

Couldn’t agree more, Shorty. I recall an opposition of Mars, maybe 15 years back and it was at a very high altitude. The ETX-showed a wealth of detail that I never expected on several observing nights. In that case, even with average seeing, it was the altitude that made a huge difference.

Anything were able to see with Jupiter and Saturn nearly in the weeds at 25o now is a bonus. But as they climb back higher over the next few years, even better views are waiting!

Astronomy is a hobby done on nature’s schedule.


Yea, I remember attempting planetary imaging using eyepiece projection and a 35mm camera into the 90s. Mirror slap, hat trick exposure, slow film. Ahhhhhh, memories 🤣
  • Joe1950 likes this

#110 Joe1950

Joe1950

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9431
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2015

Posted 25 August 2019 - 01:21 PM

Oh yes I do! The hat trick was a real hoot. Open and lock the shutter with a piece of black poster board covering the front of the scope. Wait till everything stopped moving and then open and close the cardboard shutter by hand! lol.gif

 

And you had to do this several times to bracket the exposure times!

 

We were pushing the tech envelope to the max! 


  • Jim1804 likes this

#111 fcathell

fcathell

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Tucson, AZ

Posted 25 August 2019 - 03:12 PM

I think one of the reasons small scopes will "fool" you with unexpected images is the fact that atmospheric turbulence has less effect the smaller the aperture.  I have in past years had 90, 102 and 127 Maks (all with good optics) set up together and looked at the image differences on Jupiter. The thing that shocked me was how just incremental differences in aperture can affect the image quality if there is turbulence. I saw cases where the 90 Mak clearly showed sharper banding and festoons traces where the 127 was almost a blurred wipe out. Just "backtracking" one less aperture size could make a significant difference in some cases. This is one reason I settled on the 102 Mak for quick looks or grab-and-go.  The image brightness was an improvement over the 90, but with minimal sacrifice of increased turbulence distortion. Of course, on those nice steady nights, the largest aperture blows the "mini-Maks" away.  Dry, transparent skies are common here in Arizona, but the dryness does not usually bring steadiness. 

 

Frank


  • Joe1950 and treadmarks like this

#112 Joe1950

Joe1950

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9431
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2015

Posted 25 August 2019 - 04:12 PM

A very good point, Frank!

 

Is seems the Jet Stream always leaves the country via NJ during the summer months. Very often my C80ED or the ETX-90 will show the best when seeing is poor. And that seems more often than not.

 

I think my strategy will be to start with one of the smaller, easy-out scopes, and if conditions appear to be exceptional, switch to one of the larger ones.



#113 treadmarks

treadmarks

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 956
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Boston MA

Posted 25 August 2019 - 06:10 PM

I think one of the reasons small scopes will "fool" you with unexpected images is the fact that atmospheric turbulence has less effect the smaller the aperture.  I have in past years had 90, 102 and 127 Maks (all with good optics) set up together and looked at the image differences on Jupiter. The thing that shocked me was how just incremental differences in aperture can affect the image quality if there is turbulence. I saw cases where the 90 Mak clearly showed sharper banding and festoons traces where the 127 was almost a blurred wipe out. Just "backtracking" one less aperture size could make a significant difference in some cases. This is one reason I settled on the 102 Mak for quick looks or grab-and-go.  The image brightness was an improvement over the 90, but with minimal sacrifice of increased turbulence distortion. Of course, on those nice steady nights, the largest aperture blows the "mini-Maks" away.  Dry, transparent skies are common here in Arizona, but the dryness does not usually bring steadiness. 

 

Frank

I don't often do shootouts like that, but it is a topic that interests me because the scientific theory says that small scopes have an advantage. Experience (and perhaps a more careful reading of optical theory) seems to indicate seeing is more of an equalizer than a kingmaker most of the time.

 

In any case I am happy to hear (and see) all the great views people have gotten through their little Maks. When seeing has cooperated I have also gotten great views of Jupiter with tiny details inside the belts, the GRS, and on the edges of the belts. I did do a shootout with my 8" SCT on one such night of good seeing. The 102mm could not manage the same magnifications as the 203mm, so the smaller details could not be seen in the 102 and the size of Jupiter was not as pleasing.

 

However I was shocked at how well it kept up with the 8". There were plenty of details to be seen as described above. I'm not going to say it makes me question needing a C8, but if all I had was the 102 I would not feel like I'm missing out or the view isn't worthwhile. They showed the same things, the SCT just showed more of them, if that makes sense.


  • Joe1950 and fcathell like this

#114 Joe1950

Joe1950

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9431
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2015

Posted 25 August 2019 - 06:43 PM

Makes perfect sense. There is a undeniable value in a smaller aperture, moderately priced instrument despite what some would have you believe.

 

If any aspect of observing is under rated it is the long term factor of ‘ease of use.’ In that I would include size, weight and the time for set-up and take-down. For those of us who must take the instrument outside the home, dealing with doors and steps, set it up and move it from spot to spot while out to get a clear view; then reverse the entire process, the small scopes excel.

 

At least that has been my experience. 


  • Sarkikos and barbie like this

#115 treadmarks

treadmarks

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 956
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Boston MA

Posted 25 August 2019 - 10:11 PM

Makes perfect sense. There is a undeniable value in a smaller aperture, moderately priced instrument despite what some would have you believe.

 

If any aspect of observing is under rated it is the long term factor of ‘ease of use.’ In that I would include size, weight and the time for set-up and take-down. For those of us who must take the instrument outside the home, dealing with doors and steps, set it up and move it from spot to spot while out to get a clear view; then reverse the entire process, the small scopes excel.

 

At least that has been my experience. 

People always measure performance per aperture. One of the points I wanted to get across is that this is a red herring. It makes sense mainly from an optics theory perspective. But for the average amateur who has to schlep a telescope around every night, performance per convenience makes way more sense. Why does aperture even matter from a practical perspective, if you can have a larger aperture telescope that is physically smaller, lighter and more convenient then the telescope with better performance per aperture?

 

Also, in honor of this thread I did another New England Patriots vs. high school football team matchup between my Mak and SCT. I intended to do just a collimation session tonight, but with above average seeing and Jupiter and Saturn hanging around up there, I had to look. Since I could slip the Mak into my bag and barely notice it's there, it was able to sneak its way into the show.

 

Surprise, an 8" SCT showed more than a 4" Mak grin.gif To me, the interesting question is: would it have been worth bringing out the SCT if I didn't need to collimate it, or was the Mak enough for this night? I think on Saturn, brightness is an issue for little Maks. The 8" SCT really overpowers it there. On Jupiter, the SCT showed faint polar belts that the Mak didn't, but they both showed details in the equatorial belts. To me, the 8" SCT was worth it for Saturn but I may as well have used the Mak for Jupiter.



#116 Jim1804

Jim1804

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 319
  • Joined: 26 May 2011
  • Loc: Raleigh-Durham NC, USA

Posted 25 August 2019 - 11:24 PM

People always measure performance per aperture. One of the points I wanted to get across is that this is a red herring. It makes sense mainly from an optics theory perspective. But for the average amateur who has to schlep a telescope around every night, performance per convenience makes way more sense. Why does aperture even matter from a practical perspective, if you can have a larger aperture telescope that is physically smaller, lighter and more convenient then the telescope with better performance per aperture?

Also, in honor of this thread I did another New England Patriots vs. high school football team matchup between my Mak and SCT. I intended to do just a collimation session tonight, but with above average seeing and Jupiter and Saturn hanging around up there, I had to look. Since I could slip the Mak into my bag and barely notice it's there, it was able to sneak its way into the show.

Surprise, an 8" SCT showed more than a 4" Mak grin.gif To me, the interesting question is: would it have been worth bringing out the SCT if I didn't need to collimate it, or was the Mak enough for this night? I think on Saturn, brightness is an issue for little Maks. The 8" SCT really overpowers it there. On Jupiter, the SCT showed faint polar belts that the Mak didn't, but they both showed details in the equatorial belts. To me, the 8" SCT was worth it for Saturn but I may as well have used the Mak for Jupiter.


This. My C90 or ST80 never replace my C6 (except maybe when traveling when space is at a premium). But I use them on nights that I would never bring the C6 out to the driveway, align it, and then haul it back in again after 30 mins.

Instead, set the C90 out on the porch at dinner time, and by the time it’s dark I’m ready to go - on nights that aren’t “worth” a bigger scope.

The C6 always goes to the club dark(er) site with me - there the situation warrants the bigger scope.
  • Sarkikos and Joe1950 like this

#117 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 78521
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 26 August 2019 - 07:21 AM

Does that make sense? Because at 127, even with an obstruction and all the rest, the MAK has to gather more light than the 4". So, what I perceived was certainly an optical illusion.

 

 

Not necessarily. The 127 Maks are actually about 120 mm, the CO is 40% if you measure the secondary baffle.

 

If the mirrors are 90% reflective, the throughput is the equivalent of a ~99 mm Refractor, assuming a single coated meniscus. The Refractor probably has better baffling and if ED/Apo better optics. 

 

I've had a few Maks. The last one was an Orion 127 Starmax. I hear glowing reports of Refractor like contrast but compared to the 120 mm Eon, the Starmax just didn't have the contrast or sharpness. 

 

I get it that one scope was far more expensive and much longer but in a direct comparison the Mak was disappointing.

 

I'm 71, a 120 mm F/7.5 is still easy grab and go for me.

 

Jon

 

Jon



#118 Joe1950

Joe1950

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9431
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2015

Posted 26 August 2019 - 08:33 AM

The Bresser 127 Mak I have has an oversized primary so it is a true 127. Plus, I shortened the secondary baffle also (some take it off altogether) bringing it down to 34%. Still high, but better than the original 42%.

 

In good seeing, the 100mm f/9 refractor will edge it out in detail and contrast, as you might expect. The Mak, with its optical drawbacks still puts up good sharp images and surprising contrast.

 

The Mak, uses the same mount as the refractor, a Vixen Porta II, and is easier to get out the door, down the steps and to the observing spot. And then move among the trees.

 

The f/9 refractor is less stable with a much longer moment arm (that increases with length squared) than the short Mak. The refractor settles down quickly, but focusing is not easy with the swinging motion. To mount it properly would require a much heavier (and much more expensive) mount/tripod.

 

So I guess everything has advantages and disadvantages. You choose what’s suits the best for you and your situation. And wallet. Money can’t buy happiness, but it can get you a really nice scope.


Edited by Joe1950, 26 August 2019 - 08:35 AM.


#119 treadmarks

treadmarks

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 956
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Boston MA

Posted 26 August 2019 - 09:54 AM


I've had a few Maks. The last one was an Orion 127 Starmax. I hear glowing reports of Refractor like contrast but compared to the 120 mm Eon, the Starmax just didn't have the contrast or sharpness. 

 

I get it that one scope was far more expensive and much longer but in a direct comparison the Mak was disappointing.

I get that refractors perform better at the same aperture. I just don't see why it matters for anything other than optics theory. I would go so far as to say that aperture is a deceptive guide for the telescope buyer. Aperture pretends to describe both performance and portability but it deceives in both. We have this whole "reflector aperture" vs. "refractor aperture" going on. And aperture is always a smaller measurement than the tube length, usually by a multiple of 5 or more unless we're talking about CATs. The limiting factor in portability is usually the largest measurement, not the smallest one.

 

If we go by real, practical metrics like cost, size, or or weight, things become a lot less fun for refractors. Since this is a thread about little Maks let's use the Orion 102 Mak as an example. It costs $250 and weighs 5 lbs. The nearest price-equivalent apo refractor is the SW Evoguide 50mm finder scope at $225. The 90mm Mak is also in the same price class at $200.

 

The 50mm finder scope has the 102 beat on weight, registering 2 lbs. while the 102 is at a daunting 5 lbs. But they're about the same length, 10.5" for the 50mm finder scope and 11" for the Mak, so we'll call it a draw there. Things quickly go downhill for the refractor when we start comparing performance...


  • pdxmoon and mrsjeff like this

#120 Auburn80

Auburn80

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 890
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2013

Posted 26 August 2019 - 11:59 AM

I get that refractors perform better at the same aperture. I just don't see why it matters for anything other than optics theory. I would go so far as to say that aperture is a deceptive guide for the telescope buyer. Aperture pretends to describe both performance and portability but it deceives in both. We have this whole "reflector aperture" vs. "refractor aperture" going on. And aperture is always a smaller measurement than the tube length, usually by a multiple of 5 or more unless we're talking about CATs. The limiting factor in portability is usually the largest measurement, not the smallest one.

 

If we go by real, practical metrics like cost, size, or or weight, things become a lot less fun for refractors. Since this is a thread about little Maks let's use the Orion 102 Mak as an example. It costs $250 and weighs 5 lbs. The nearest price-equivalent apo refractor is the SW Evoguide 50mm finder scope at $225. The 90mm Mak is also in the same price class at $200.

 

The 50mm finder scope has the 102 beat on weight, registering 2 lbs. while the 102 is at a daunting 5 lbs. But they're about the same length, 10.5" for the 50mm finder scope and 11" for the Mak, so we'll call it a draw there. Things quickly go downhill for the refractor when we start comparing performance...

You make a couple of good points; especially the one about practical metrics. A couple though seems to need clarification.

 

You stated "refractors perform better at the same aperture" then say it doesn't matter except for optical theory. IMHO, better is better contrast and sharpness right?  Certainly not just optical theory.

 

The other is "Aperture pretends to describe both performance and portability but it deceives in both."  Firstly, I've never read where anyone contends that greater aperture is more portable. Maybe when comparing say a 6" newt to an 8" sct; the 8 would be more portable but  . . . . ?  The other confusion to me is that greater aperture performing better being a deception.  In keeping with this topic, is it not accurate to say that a 102Mak would perform better than a 90 or that a 127 performs better than a 102?  Sorry, but simple physics and the vast number of amateur astronomers all will agree that within a general quality level, greater aperture yields better performance.  Portability and cost is a separate consideration.


  • Boom likes this

#121 pdxmoon

pdxmoon

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2013
  • Loc: Oregon

Posted 26 August 2019 - 12:02 PM

I get that refractors perform better at the same aperture. I just don't see why it matters for anything other than optics theory. I would go so far as to say that aperture is a deceptive guide for the telescope buyer. Aperture pretends to describe both performance and portability but it deceives in both. We have this whole "reflector aperture" vs. "refractor aperture" going on. And aperture is always a smaller measurement than the tube length, usually by a multiple of 5 or more unless we're talking about CATs. The limiting factor in portability is usually the largest measurement, not the smallest one.

 

If we go by real, practical metrics like cost, size, or or weight, things become a lot less fun for refractors. Since this is a thread about little Maks let's use the Orion 102 Mak as an example. It costs $250 and weighs 5 lbs. The nearest price-equivalent apo refractor is the SW Evoguide 50mm finder scope at $225. The 90mm Mak is also in the same price class at $200.

 

The 50mm finder scope has the 102 beat on weight, registering 2 lbs. while the 102 is at a daunting 5 lbs. But they're about the same length, 10.5" for the 50mm finder scope and 11" for the Mak, so we'll call it a draw there. Things quickly go downhill for the refractor when we start comparing performance...

 

Different tools for different purposes. The MAK 127 does for me what the SW100 does (almost) but in a much more portable package--with the bonus of tracking. So, although I love the SW, and I still use it, I use the MAK as well. It's not really a comparison, it's just another tool I can reach for as a lunar observer, depending upon my personal needs at the moment. Like an artist reaching for a specific brush...


  • Auburn80 likes this

#122 treadmarks

treadmarks

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 956
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Boston MA

Posted 26 August 2019 - 01:15 PM

You make a couple of good points; especially the one about practical metrics. A couple though seems to need clarification.

 

You stated "refractors perform better at the same aperture" then say it doesn't matter except for optical theory. IMHO, better is better contrast and sharpness right?  Certainly not just optical theory.

 

The other is "Aperture pretends to describe both performance and portability but it deceives in both."  Firstly, I've never read where anyone contends that greater aperture is more portable. Maybe when comparing say a 6" newt to an 8" sct; the 8 would be more portable but  . . . . ?  The other confusion to me is that greater aperture performing better being a deception.  In keeping with this topic, is it not accurate to say that a 102Mak would perform better than a 90 or that a 127 performs better than a 102?  Sorry, but simple physics and the vast number of amateur astronomers all will agree that within a general quality level, greater aperture yields better performance.  Portability and cost is a separate consideration.

Ok, you read the opposite of what I was trying to say.

 

Aperture-for-aperture doesn't matter because a telescope buyer is not limited to one aperture. Normally, people are limited by things like budget, weight, size, etc. Maybe you have this idea that the only possible decision is between a refractor and a reflector of the same aperture. What if I told you I could buy a reflector with twice the aperture of a refractor, for half the cost? Your 4" refractor may beat a 4" reflector, but it's not going to beat an 8" reflector. Doesn't seem fair, does it? Well, comparing $2000 refractors to $300 cats doesn't seem fair to me nor does it make any practical sense.

 

To me, a smaller aperture measurement implies a smaller and more portable telescope. But if you have a 5" refractor and an 8" SCT, it's not true. The SCT is smaller. So the aperture can mislead someone into thinking they're getting a smaller and more portable package.

 

As for the last point on which you are confused, a smaller aperture refractor can outperform a larger or same size aperture reflector. So if someone went by a simple rule of "aperture always wins" when making this apples-to-oranges reflector/refractor comparison, again they would be deceived.



#123 Auburn80

Auburn80

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 890
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2013

Posted 26 August 2019 - 03:57 PM

I dunno trademarks. I could only go by what you said and I quoted. And I did qualify my aperture statement to comparable quality levels and that price and portability were factors to be considered but separately.

Two cases in point. A 127 mak will outperform a 102. It is a little larger and a little heavier and more expensive but it does a better job at what a telescope is supposed to do within its design constraints. Now some users may put a high priority on price and portability and decide that the 102 is best for them. That's perfectly OK.

The other is comparing different apertures in different designs. That's fraught with many pitfalls but IF THE QUALITY IS COMPARABLE, larger apertures go deeper and with higher resolution. And again, price and portability are additional factors to be considered.

#124 fcathell

fcathell

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Tucson, AZ

Posted 26 August 2019 - 07:16 PM

Always an interesting discussion on small Maks.  As Joe 1950 is aware, I reduced the size of the flared baffle on my Orion 127 such that the CO is about 34%.  There was no detrimental effects even with an adjacent moon near the observed object.  I also sanded the inner side of this baffle to reduce the glare.  The primary central baffle is internally flocked with a thin felt like material. There is no doubt in my mind that the images improved due to contrast. What was most noticeable was that it was easier to see Saturn's Dione and Tethys on a more consistent basis. I attached a pic of the final secondary baffle.

 

Frank

Tucson

Attached Thumbnails

  • M127 Baff.jpg

  • Auburn80, Joe1950 and Bowlerhat like this

#125 treadmarks

treadmarks

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 956
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Boston MA

Posted 01 September 2019 - 12:11 PM

I just remembered another big reason little Maks are so great: they work well on photo tripods. In fact the Orion Maks are sold in a spotting scope configuration meant for tripods. Definitely a feature I need to use more. To illustrate why, here is a photo:

 

20190901_123143 - Copy.jpg

 

We call that bend at the bottom "Broken Glass Gulch." And that's just the first set of stairs sweaty.gif


  • Sarkikos, PXR-5, Hesiod and 1 other like this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics