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

The Eclipse MakView200

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
16 replies to this topic

#1 mloffland

mloffland

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,510
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2004

Posted 27 November 2006 - 12:47 PM

The Eclipse MakView200
By: John Crilly

#2 reflector74

reflector74

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,249
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2005

Posted 27 November 2006 - 07:10 PM

I like Maksutov's a lot, but they are pretty expensive once you get past 6" aperture. Also, past 6", the cool down times become quite long. I once owned a 9" and it was a beast. Great optics though! :)

#3 BillC

BillC

    on a new path

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,391
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2004

Posted 27 November 2006 - 11:19 PM

Dear John:

As a Mak owner, I enjoyed your article. However, I would like to offer some additional information—useless to the points you were making, but possibly important to some of us opto-geeks.

The Rumak is indeed an instrument that has its secondary detached. Traditionally, the name goes to the originator of the concept, and the concept was around long before the Rumak; most notably, credit could be given to Robert Sigler (Sigler-Maksutov) or Mike Simmons (Simak).

Secondly, while the Maksutov was named for its accredited designer, Dimitri Maksotov, the design was in fact produced in Holland by Bouwers, and in England by Cooke, I believe, before Maksutov published his papers.

It should be remembered that putting a long focal length into a short space was a big deal and that the world was at war at the time. Thus, even a simple telescope design needed to be shrouded in secrecy.

Cheers,

Bill

#4 jason_milani

jason_milani

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,423
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2004

Posted 28 November 2006 - 11:32 AM

Thanks for the nice review John.

#5 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Posts: 35,955
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003

Posted 29 November 2006 - 02:23 PM

Dear John:

As a Mak owner, I enjoyed your article. However, I would like to offer some additional information—useless to the points you were making, but possibly important to some of us opto-geeks.


Hi, Bill.

Thanks for your comments and for the clarification. Lots of folks are interested in the provenance of these designs and my report was, indeed, very thin on those details.

#6 BillC

BillC

    on a new path

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,391
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2004

Posted 29 November 2006 - 04:22 PM

>>>Hi, Bill.

Thanks for your comments and for the clarification. Lots of folks are interested in the provenance of these designs and my report was, indeed, very thin on those details.<<<

Hi John:

I'm just glad you're not angry with me. 'Seems I'm always butting in too much.

Cheers,

Bill

#7 8ballsct

8ballsct

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 31
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2006

Posted 29 November 2006 - 09:34 PM

The review was excellent, I especialy liked the out of focus star to show collimation. One thing I will point out is Celestron has spec'ed their 8" central obstruction at 31%. This means the Makview sits right between them as far as central obstruction goes. I have own both telescopes and the Meade has slightly higer contrast then the Celestron showing that a few percent differance in CO can give results that can easily be washed out by other factors.

#8 Clive Gibbons

Clive Gibbons

    Mostly Harmless

  • *****
  • Posts: 16,724
  • Joined: 26 May 2005

Posted 30 November 2006 - 09:09 AM

Just a couple of questions about c.o. and the scope's aperture.

When Eclipse specifies the central obstruction, does it include any contribution made by the secondary baffle?

Does Eclipse mention the size of the primary mirror?
How oversize is it, in relation to the corrector lens?
There have been a couple of instances in the past where Mak-Cass. primary mirrors have been virtually the same diameter as the corrector lens, which results in reducing the telescope's effective aperture.

Thanks and kudos for the fine review!

#9 BillC

BillC

    on a new path

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,391
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2004

Posted 30 November 2006 - 07:28 PM

>>>One thing I will point out is Celestron has spec'ed their 8" central obstruction at 31%.<<<

That's good. I've been wanting a reason to buy a new caliper.

Cheers,

Bill

#10 8ballsct

8ballsct

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 31
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2006

Posted 02 December 2006 - 08:17 PM

"Central obstruction smaller than commonly available SCT models – about 34%"
the point is the review twice makes a point of smaller CO. My point is that it is not significantly smaller than the other commonly available SCT's, and is such a small differance as to be worthless.

#11 steddyman

steddyman

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 169
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2006

Posted 04 January 2007 - 03:11 PM

How expensive is the scope?

These scopes look the same as the following onces:

http://www.astrophot...eclipsemaks.htm

These are some of the cheapest scopes available in the UK. The MAKVIEW 150 retails at £289 but the 200 is not yet listed.

Are these the same or is it some sort of con?

#12 tony4563

tony4563

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 132
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2004

Posted 04 January 2007 - 03:45 PM

Well, I emailed 'em before Christmas asking a few details, but no reply yet. Mind you, they could still be on festive holidays

#13 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Posts: 35,955
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003

Posted 04 January 2007 - 07:26 PM

How expensive is the scope?

These scopes look the same as the following onces:

http://www.astrophot...eclipsemaks.htm


As I point out in the review, the Makview200 is a different optical design from the low-end Gregory Maks as shown in your link. This design is more complex and more expensive to produce.

#14 steddyman

steddyman

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 169
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2006

Posted 05 January 2007 - 08:00 AM

Sorry John. I know its a different aperature, but aren't these all made by the same manufacturer. Is it the case that the smaller ones are a different design?

#15 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Posts: 35,955
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003

Posted 05 January 2007 - 08:14 AM

Is it the case that the smaller ones are a different design?


Yes. The smaller units are the less complex Gregory Mak design, in which the secondary mirror is restricted to the same curve as the corrector lens. This design has been used in some mid-grade telescopes, such as Meade's 7" Mak-Cass, but is more commonly found in lower-end economy import models (Meade's 3.5"-5", Synta's 4", etc.). The Makview200 uses a separate secondary mirror, permitting additional degrees of freedom for the designer and a wider range of practical focal ratios at the cost of increased mechanical complexity. This design is more commonly found in the mid- to high-end Russian Mak-Cass instruments, with which this model has much in common, including higher-spec optics.

#16 karlpenney

karlpenney

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2007

Posted 11 January 2007 - 10:19 PM

What is that image just above the one of M27?

#17 orioneyes

orioneyes

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 107
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2006

Posted 15 January 2007 - 04:39 AM

Thanks John,
It was both interresting and informative.
John


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