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

1st Catadioptric

  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 kenny moses

kenny moses

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2013
  • Loc: Colorado, western

Posted 21 September 2021 - 07:35 PM

Between a 150mm Mak-Cass and a C5 would the Mak have inferior deep space views, within reasonable size and brightness limits?



#2 Echolight

Echolight

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,988
  • Joined: 01 May 2020
  • Loc: Texas

Posted 21 September 2021 - 07:40 PM

The Mak is bigger. So it should offer better views on smaller dimmer objects. But it will have a narrower field of view making it more difficult to find stuff with a manual mount, or align with a GoTo mount. And the wider field of the C5 will fit some larger objects.



#3 ColdestCrow

ColdestCrow

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2021
  • Loc: USA

Posted 21 September 2021 - 07:55 PM

Maks are often known for their sharp clear views, and this particular mak is a bit bigger than the C5, for deep space every inch counts.

The focal length is a little longer on the mak so you’ll need a longer focal length eyepiece or wider afov eyepiece to produce the same views as the SCT, but the difference isn’t that huge and you’ll still be able to do any DSO viewing with the mak.

All that being said, I think the mak will be a better scope than the sct.

#4 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 99,590
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002
  • Loc: PA, USA, Planet Earth

Posted 21 September 2021 - 08:37 PM

One other drawback of the MCT is a longer cool-down time.  Both telescopes will require some sort of dew mitigation.

 

I would probably choose the Mak.



#5 vtornado

vtornado

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,247
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2016
  • Loc: 42N 88W

Posted 21 September 2021 - 08:45 PM

Deep space can mean small things like globs, and galaxies, or big things like open cluster and large nebula.

Mak will have a bit more light gathering, but a smaller field of view.

Mak is considerably heavier and will require a larger mount.

Mak will be better on Planetary, double splitting etc where high power is needed.

Cooling is more of an issue with mak.



#6 spereira

spereira

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 6,707
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2017
  • Loc: Bedford, NH

Posted 22 September 2021 - 07:33 AM

Moving to Cats & Casses.

 

smp



#7 ny65

ny65

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 252
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2020
  • Loc: Ithaca, NY, USA

Posted 22 September 2021 - 10:10 AM

FWIW, I went through a similar comparison between Maks and SCTs before I bought my new scope. I finally went with the Mak - Orion 150mm - and am quite happy with the choice. FOV is quite narrow but the optics seem to be really good - images of planets have been really good. To allow for good thermal stabilization, I put the scope out a few hours before when I want to start observing; this has not been a big hassle, but since the scope is bulkier than an SCT, it may take longer to stabilize if there are significant temperature changes during your observing session.



#8 Bill Barlow

Bill Barlow

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,156
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Overland Park KS

Posted 22 September 2021 - 10:29 AM

The C8 weighs about the same as the 5.9” MAK but gathers 78% more light, which is significant.  I would choose the C8 over the MAK especially if you like viewing deep sky objects.  I have a C5 and it is very lightweight and portable with excellent optics.  Depends on what your priorities are.

 

Bill



#9 Sacred Heart

Sacred Heart

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,304
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2020

Posted 22 September 2021 - 01:40 PM

I have a 7"maksutov, it pulls in m31, m13 and such, as bright as a f14.6 can.an f10 should be brighter or close to the mak.  But how a Mak shines in DSO, my opinion,  you can barlow it and it is still sharp.  That Schmidt had better be pristine to try to match it.   Planets and the Moon,  like I said you can push a Mak.     Joe



#10 Bean614

Bean614

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,153
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2015
  • Loc: Mass.

Posted 22 September 2021 - 08:10 PM

One other drawback of the MCT is a longer cool-down time.  Both telescopes will require some sort of dew mitigation.

 

I would probably choose the Mak.

"drawback of the MCT is a longer cool-down time."....?????

 

There is NO cool down time required for the Mak OR the SCT.  Zero!

 

May I politely suggest that those who haven't been following the advances in dealing with the thermal issues of Catadioptric scopes in the past 5 or 6 years, please do a Search for Insulation  or Reflectix.  It is now the generally accepted and preferred method, and doest NOT involve "cooling", per se, and the scope gives perfect views as soon as you take it out.

  Plus, it cost less than $20.  


  • doug mc and paul m schofield like this

#11 Sacred Heart

Sacred Heart

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,304
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2020

Posted 22 September 2021 - 08:52 PM

I do not know for sure, but something tells me that a foil type insulation would block sun light to keep things cooler. If the air temp is warm say 80F  and 2.5 hours later it is 68F it would be a question of cool down.  That is where you would need the glass to be more stable in temp swings.  Foil may help, but the glass being more stable is the better solution.

     My opinion,   Joe



#12 Bean614

Bean614

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,153
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2015
  • Loc: Mass.

Posted 23 September 2021 - 05:54 PM

I do not know for sure, but something tells me that a foil type insulation would block sun light to keep things cooler. If the air temp is warm say 80F  and 2.5 hours later it is 68F it would be a question of cool down.  That is where you would need the glass to be more stable in temp swings.  Foil may help, but the glass being more stable is the better solution.

     My opinion,   Joe

Please...... before offering opinions on something you state "I do not know for sure", just put Insulation or Reflectix into the Search Box, upper right of any CN page, in the "Forums" category,  and begin to read.  All will be explained. 


  • tturtle and alnitak22 like this

#13 Sacred Heart

Sacred Heart

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,304
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2020

Posted 23 September 2021 - 07:54 PM

Hello  Bean614,  You are correct, I did not research it thoroughly.  I should not have stated what I did the way I did.   I have now found out that it does not prevent cool down, it still happens,  just at a much slower rate.  So you do not have the effects of a rapid temperature change.  Therefor more stable optics.   Joe


  • paul m schofield likes 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