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

Russian Maks

  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#51 maroubra_boy

maroubra_boy

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,285
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 03 May 2021 - 06:50 PM

My first encounter with Russian Maks was with an Intes 715D.

 

OMG!  What a scope!

 

I sold it because I was tempted with the 9" Santel Mak.  Yes, I am weak... bawling.gif

 

At least I still know where it is should seller's regret get unbearable!... :lol:

 

Alex.

Attached Thumbnails

  • Intes 715 Deluxe.jpg

  • Paul Hyndman, Jaimo!, Sarkikos and 3 others like this

#52 StarAlert

StarAlert

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,568
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2019

Posted 05 June 2021 - 06:10 PM

Does anyone know how to tell the difference between a M615 and a M615R? Does the M615R actually say M615R? 
 



#53 luxo II

luxo II

    Skylab

  • ****-
  • Posts: 4,338
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 05 June 2021 - 06:40 PM

It’s an M615. There was no “R” designation however I have seen some say “regular” for the standard quality - 1/6 wave P-V.

The only designation they used was D (Deluxe) for the ones that met or exceeded 1/8 wave P-V.

Either way the scope should have a test certificate from Intes, APM or Mike Palermiti (US sales).

Edited by luxo II, 05 June 2021 - 06:43 PM.


#54 StarAlert

StarAlert

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,568
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2019

Posted 05 June 2021 - 06:51 PM

It’s an M615. There was no “R” designation however I have seen some say “regular” for the standard quality - 1/6 wave P-V.

The only designation they used was D (Deluxe) for the ones that met or exceeded 1/8 wave P-V.

Either way the scope should have a test certificate from Intes, APM or Mike Palermiti (US sales).

But the R was a redesign with a smaller CO, no?

See the post from Maknewtnut in this thread.

https://www.cloudyni...orts-with-data/

Edited by StarAlert, 05 June 2021 - 06:56 PM.


#55 luxo II

luxo II

    Skylab

  • ****-
  • Posts: 4,338
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 05 June 2021 - 09:00 PM

Well that's a novelty - but it must have been a special in very small numbers. 

 

The MK66D I have is a shade better than the f/15 M615, and IMHO too many here on CN obsess too much over the central obstruction - quality of the optics matters much more - and the M615 already has a small CO - the reduction obtained in the M615R must have been barely 2mm.


Edited by luxo II, 05 June 2021 - 09:06 PM.


#56 Jaimo!

Jaimo!

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 4,810
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2007
  • Loc: 3rd Stone from the Sun

Posted 05 June 2021 - 11:22 PM

Although, kind of unfair to compare the nomenclature of the Intes scopes (MK66) to the Intes Micro scopes (M615) as they were different generations of scopes, let alone manufacturers...



#57 luxo II

luxo II

    Skylab

  • ****-
  • Posts: 4,338
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 05 June 2021 - 11:50 PM

Not so sure they were that separate. According to their home page Intes was a collective, and ex employees started Intes Micro, STF Mirage and Santel. If you look closely some of the parts used are the same and there must have been a fair bit of goodwill if not collaboration between them.

Another twist is the test certificates, which indicate the same lab tested the MKxx scopes (Intes) and Mxxx (Intes Micro) as well as the optical sets supplied by Intes Micro to APM (my 10”, from 2017).

Edited by luxo II, 06 June 2021 - 03:49 AM.


#58 StarAlert

StarAlert

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,568
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2019

Posted 06 June 2021 - 07:58 AM

I don’t mind the debate about the merits of CO size, but I’m more interested in knowing if there is a way to differentiate the two M615 designs. Does anyone have the smaller CO M615? Did IM actually change the name to M615R or is maybe it reflected on the test certificate? 


Edited by StarAlert, 06 June 2021 - 07:58 AM.


#59 luxo II

luxo II

    Skylab

  • ****-
  • Posts: 4,338
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 06 June 2021 - 08:53 AM

That post by maknewtnut is - I think - misleading. He asked about a 6” mak with 25% CO then he says the M615 shipped with CO 31% and was f/10. That isn’t the M615 - it was the M603.

The M615 has a CO of 28%, specs: https://web.archive....u/good.aspx?d=3

What’s more he doesn’t actually say he received one either, so frankly I think it’s a piece of wishful thinking but a red-herring nonetheless.

I checked the IM website using the way back machine there was no M615R listed so frankly I really doubt there was any such thing.

Happy to proven wrong if you find one tho’.

Edited by luxo II, 06 June 2021 - 10:12 AM.


#60 StarAlert

StarAlert

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,568
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2019

Posted 06 June 2021 - 01:43 PM

It appears that the M615R does exist... I found this old webpage from Teton Telescopes.

 

https://web.archive....&products_id=12



#61 luxo II

luxo II

    Skylab

  • ****-
  • Posts: 4,338
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 06 June 2021 - 02:43 PM

Ah… but find one…. In the metal….

#62 StarAlert

StarAlert

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,568
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2019

Posted 06 June 2021 - 02:45 PM

Ah… but find one…. In the metal….

That's going to be the challenge!

 

I think Maknewtnut owned Teton Telescopes


Edited by StarAlert, 06 June 2021 - 02:47 PM.

  • Jaimo! likes this

#63 payner

payner

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,702
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2007
  • Loc: Bluegrass & SW Appalachian Regions, Kentucky

Posted 06 June 2021 - 03:09 PM

Yes, he was the owner of Teton with a broad-depth of knowledge of MCT designs.

 

Randy


Edited by payner, 06 June 2021 - 08:01 PM.

  • Jaimo! likes this

#64 luxo II

luxo II

    Skylab

  • ****-
  • Posts: 4,338
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 06 June 2021 - 03:54 PM

Well, sounds like they made it as a special 1-off. It’s possible, externally the OTA would have to be about 67mm shorter than the standard 615 and the small secondary would be obvious.

Edited by luxo II, 06 June 2021 - 03:56 PM.


#65 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 32,730
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Right Coast of the Chesapeake Bay

Posted 09 June 2021 - 11:57 AM

Pics of the Santel !

 

Personally I'd expect the MK91 will win that contest easily if (a) the comparisons are done at equal magnification (b) the MK91 is insulated and perfectly collimated, and © the seeing is half decent... but I'll suggest you'll have to wait till its planet season to really see it stretch its legs.

 

The reason I say that is that is while I had an MK91 some years ago, it was pretty routine to take it to 300X most nights and 500X was not uncommon. It also handled average seeing deceptively well; often others would be grumbling about the seeing while I'm thinking "huh ? looks OK by me ...".  

 

In particular there was a night of exceptional seeing with Saturn high in the sky (80 degrees) and at 600X it was possible to see the Encke division in the rings - the rings looked like they had grooves, like a vinyl record. With several present it took us a while to understand and really take in what we could see, as a CPC1100 and 12" LX200 alongside couldn't match it for details. Encke is comfortably beyond any 6" scope/eyepiece/observer combination.

 

Another interesting test is how many of Saturns moons can be seen, though the MK91 should win that easily thanks to the aperture.

 

It was that MK91 that convinced me to acquire my current big mak, which likewise does not disappoint.

The Santel MK91 had a 9.1" aperture, correct?  http://www.stellarop.../santel-mk9.htm  At first I was thinking, "A 91mm? Yeah, that is incredible!"  Still, that performance is great for a 9.1" Mak.

 

So the numbers in the Russian scope names mean inches with a decimal, not millimeters?  Why didn't they use metric?  

 

Mike



#66 luxo II

luxo II

    Skylab

  • ****-
  • Posts: 4,338
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 09 June 2021 - 02:06 PM

The MK91: D=228mm, F=3100mm

The model numbering was weird. MKnn or MKnnnn
- ‘K’ meant cassegrain,
- nn- the first digit was aperture in inches, second digit was just to identify different models of same aoerture (no consistent rule.

For example MK63, MK65, MK66, MK67 - all 6” Rumaks, 63 and 65 f/10 while 66 and 67 were f/12, with fixed mirrors (MK65, MK67) or moving-mirror focusing (MK63, MK66). MK63, MK65 had secondary mirror cemented in place on the corrector while the later ones have a secondary mirror cell.

MK71 and MK91 were made by intes for Santel. Although they don’t appear listed in any Intes docs there were maybe 4 examples of MK91 with Intes labelling.

Their maksutov newtonians were MNnn where first n was aperture in inches and second n was f/ratio. Until the 10” and 12” models where the numbering is also inconsistent.

Edited by luxo II, 09 June 2021 - 02:31 PM.

  • Sarkikos and Magnus Ahrling like this

#67 Stopforths

Stopforths

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 250
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2018

Posted 09 June 2021 - 03:08 PM

I parted with my last Russian Mak but will be in possession of another soon an 815 intes Micro brother kev in lending me. 

 

I've owned over the last 25 years

an intes  mk67  fine scope sold to get the 715

intes micro 715 delux  still regret selling this :(

intes Micro 1008 delux  very heavy superb optics sold and now onsold again I believe :)

I've looked through a 603 and 703 I really love the 603 what a powerhouse brother kev owns it.

 

Everyone of those scopes was superb optically although I currently have a gso 8 inch CC that is a fine scope also.  Be interesting to see what advantages the 815 has over this.

 

The 10 was a mission to set up but from a dark site so good on dso's and performed well on planets when the seeing cooperated.  I had ideas of building an observatory for it but it never happened.  It was bigger and heavier than a c11.



#68 luxo II

luxo II

    Skylab

  • ****-
  • Posts: 4,338
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 09 June 2021 - 04:38 PM

@Mike - the models Phil mentioned are from Intes-Micro… not the same company
  • Jaimo! likes this

#69 StarAlert

StarAlert

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,568
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2019

Posted 25 July 2021 - 08:03 PM

Would someone buy this 11” and sell me their 10”? luxo II?

https://astromart.co...utov-cassegrain

#70 luxo II

luxo II

    Skylab

  • ****-
  • Posts: 4,338
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 25 July 2021 - 08:45 PM

That is the big brother to mine; I thought long  and hard about it ... but it needs a permanent setup which i don't have.


Edited by luxo II, 25 July 2021 - 08:52 PM.


#71 Jaimo!

Jaimo!

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 4,810
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2007
  • Loc: 3rd Stone from the Sun

Posted 25 July 2021 - 08:56 PM

Ooh, that's a beautiful scope.



#72 StarAlert

StarAlert

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,568
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2019

Posted 25 July 2021 - 09:12 PM

It sure is. With shipping and taxes I think it would be about $13k-$14k more than my MK91. Would it really be that much better?

#73 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,008
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 25 July 2021 - 09:39 PM

It sure is. With shipping and taxes I think it would be about $13k-$14k more than my MK91. Would it really be that much better?

There's one for sure way to find out.  grin.gif



#74 luxo II

luxo II

    Skylab

  • ****-
  • Posts: 4,338
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 25 July 2021 - 09:46 PM

 Would it really be that much better?

You'd only notice if you had the chance to do a side-by-side bakeoff with this, the MK91 and say an Intes-Micro 10" at the same location, same targets (planets) and in excellent seeing.

 

Be happy with the MK91, they are excellent scopes.

 

NB The 11" has an unusual feature - the knob protruding in front of the secondary is for adjusting the mirror spacing in case you want to shift the focal plane by rather more than the range of the crayford focuser at the back, eg for camera with reducer or barlow, or binoviewer.


Edited by luxo II, 26 July 2021 - 12:03 AM.


#75 StarAlert

StarAlert

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,568
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2019

Posted 25 July 2021 - 11:28 PM

You'd only notice if you had the chance to do a side-by-side bakeoff with this, the MK91 and say an Intes-Micro 10" at the same location, same targets (planets) and in excellent seeing.

 

Be happy with the MK91, they are excellent scopes.

Yeah, I just can’t see spending another $13k for an additional 2” of aperture. Many nights, the seeing isn’t even good enough to use the TEC160 to its full potential. 




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