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

BVs and 4" Mak?

  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Kim2010

Kim2010

    Gemini

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,073
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2010

Posted 26 February 2024 - 10:48 AM

What is the main reason that Ed Ting says he finds using his BV fun on an 4" Mak?

 

https://youtu.be/QFW1jzv91YY?t=676

 

I do have a 4SE, which I assume is optically similar to that SW Mak.

 

The funny thing was almost 15 years ago, when I emailed Ed Ting asking for advice on the 4SE, he said it was all junk LOL I assume he made that statement without actually looking at the 4" Mak since he now sings praises for the similar SW 4" Mak foreheadslap.gif



#2 vtornado

vtornado

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,175
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Kane County Illinois

Posted 26 February 2024 - 11:34 AM

IDK,  maybe Ed is no longer such a strapping young man and he is on the downward side of the aperture ladder. Perhaps he was more annoyed at the mount?  

 

I had a 100mm Orion apex mak around that time and it was a fine telescope.

 

A Mak or SCT has enough focus travel so you don't have to use a barlow or hack down your tube.  Some people love BVs.  (I do, for moon and planets) Others can't merge the image, or find nothing magical about them.  It is very personal.

 

If you aren't happy with pedestrian eyepieces weight and expense doubles too.


  • Kim2010 likes this

#3 MisterDan

MisterDan

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,732
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2014
  • Loc: Colorado

Posted 26 February 2024 - 11:43 AM

"Similar" does not mean "same."  A zebra is similar to a donkey.  If your 4SE sports good optics and wows you, that's great, and it's definitely good to know.  I've heard of other 4SEs that were significantly less than "wow."

 

I make no assumptions about Mr. Ting's opinion of, or experiences with, the 4SE.  If your implication is that he's contradicting himself by favoring a Skymax 102 Maksutov over a Celestron 4SE, then think again.  They are two different telescopes with different configurations, mechanics, and specifications, and they are made by different companies.  There is plenty of "room" for your 4SE to be excellent, while another 4SE (or Skymax 102) is poor.

 

Best wishes.

Dan


Edited by MisterDan, 26 February 2024 - 01:06 PM.


#4 Kim2010

Kim2010

    Gemini

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,073
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2010

Posted 26 February 2024 - 01:10 PM

"Similar" does not mean "same."  A zebra is similar to a donkey.  If your 4SE sports good optics and wows you, that's great, and it's definitely good to know.  I've heard of other 4SEs that were significantly less than "wow."

 

I make no assumptions about Mr. Ting's opinion of, or experiences with, the 4SE.  If your implication is that he's contradicting himself by favoring a Skymax 102 Maksutov over a Celestron 4SE, then think again.  They are two different telescopes with different configurations, mechanics, and specifications, and they are made by different companies.  There is plenty of "room" for your 4SE to be excellent, while another 4SE (or Skymax 102) is poor.

 

Best wishes.

Dan

No. These scopes come from the same Synta optics. I have never heard of a bad 4SE optics or a bad SW Mak optics. Ed was just spouting junk off his mind 15 years ago. He has tried them NOW and he likes them. Back then, he just assumed cheap and small = bad.

 

I can bet he has never even tried the 4SE that time. He just assumed that such bunch were "junk" If you had read his email, you'd know he didn't even try the 4SE. He was just mindlessly categorizing such scopes as junk that time.


Edited by Kim2010, 26 February 2024 - 01:12 PM.



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