Trying to choose between a 7" f/15 Mak and 8" f/10 SCT for the CGEM. Bear two things in mind...I've always wanted a Mak and think it a better choice for my usual suburban viewing of "round stuff", double stars and clusters, while still being fairly good for deep-sky from dark sites. Secondly, I will probably spring for a C-11 OTA sometime in the next six months, so an 8" SCT OTA would get sold when that happens, while I would keep the Mak. Opinions sought. Help Chuck spend his money before the soon-to-be-ex wife gets it. Thanks!
Chuck, You might also want to check out the Vixen VMC200L see: http://www.telescope.com/control/vixen/vixen-cassegrains/vixen-vmc200l-catad ioptric-reflector-telescope-optical-tube-assembly It avoids a corrector plate and thus cools down much quicker and you avoid dewing and the necessity of a dewcap. If you decide on this make sure you get the right dovetail. I have both a 7" Meade Mak and an Ultima 2000 SCT 8". You need to run the cooling fan for the Meade (supplied) in order for it to cool down in real time. I compared the Meade Mak and the SCT side by side and found no difference in planetary or lunar performance. The Meade did have a slightly darker background at the same power. The SCT was well collimated and is the best example of an 8" SCT I have looked thorough easily handling 300x and more on Saturn. Having said all that you probably have a better chance of getting good quality from Vixen. Celestron, Meade and Orion all have more quality problems. I have seen some good Orion Maks and some awful ones - ditto for Celestron and Meade. Clear Skies, Don -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 8:27 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Mak or SCT? Trying to choose between a 7" f/15 Mak and 8" f/10 SCT for the CGEM. Bear two things in mind...I've always wanted a Mak and think it a better choice for my usual suburban viewing of "round stuff", double stars and clusters, while still being fairly good for deep-sky from dark sites. Secondly, I will probably spring for a C-11 OTA sometime in the next six months, so an 8" SCT OTA would get sold when that happens, while I would keep the Mak. Opinions sought. Help Chuck spend his money before the soon-to-be-ex wife gets it. Thanks! _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
See: http://www.vixenoptics.com/reflectors/vmc200l.htm Vixen has it on sale for $999, much better price than Orion. You would probably need to get a Losmandy style dovetail for it. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Don J. Colton Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 8:57 AM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Mak or SCT? Chuck, You might also want to check out the Vixen VMC200L see: http://www.telescope.com/control/vixen/vixen-cassegrains/vixen-vmc200l-catad ioptric-reflector-telescope-optical-tube-assembly It avoids a corrector plate and thus cools down much quicker and you avoid dewing and the necessity of a dewcap. If you decide on this make sure you get the right dovetail. I have both a 7" Meade Mak and an Ultima 2000 SCT 8". You need to run the cooling fan for the Meade (supplied) in order for it to cool down in real time. I compared the Meade Mak and the SCT side by side and found no difference in planetary or lunar performance. The Meade did have a slightly darker background at the same power. The SCT was well collimated and is the best example of an 8" SCT I have looked thorough easily handling 300x and more on Saturn. Having said all that you probably have a better chance of getting good quality from Vixen. Celestron, Meade and Orion all have more quality problems. I have seen some good Orion Maks and some awful ones - ditto for Celestron and Meade. Clear Skies, Don -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 8:27 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Mak or SCT? Trying to choose between a 7" f/15 Mak and 8" f/10 SCT for the CGEM. Bear two things in mind...I've always wanted a Mak and think it a better choice for my usual suburban viewing of "round stuff", double stars and clusters, while still being fairly good for deep-sky from dark sites. Secondly, I will probably spring for a C-11 OTA sometime in the next six months, so an 8" SCT OTA would get sold when that happens, while I would keep the Mak. Opinions sought. Help Chuck spend his money before the soon-to-be-ex wife gets it. Thanks! _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Several years ago a teacher for Waterford private school lived in our neighborhood. She had a seven inch Questar in her closet at school which was gathering dust. She brought it home and asked for me to help her set it up. It had the same style mount as the 3.5" Questar only much bigger. We put it on the sidewalk and knelt down to look at Mars since she didn't have a table that would work. The image of Mars blew me away - one of the best views I have ever seen. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Don J. Colton Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:23 AM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Mak or SCT? See: http://www.vixenoptics.com/reflectors/vmc200l.htm Vixen has it on sale for $999, much better price than Orion. You would probably need to get a Losmandy style dovetail for it. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Don J. Colton Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 8:57 AM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Mak or SCT? Chuck, You might also want to check out the Vixen VMC200L see: http://www.telescope.com/control/vixen/vixen-cassegrains/vixen-vmc200l-catad ioptric-reflector-telescope-optical-tube-assembly It avoids a corrector plate and thus cools down much quicker and you avoid dewing and the necessity of a dewcap. If you decide on this make sure you get the right dovetail. I have both a 7" Meade Mak and an Ultima 2000 SCT 8". You need to run the cooling fan for the Meade (supplied) in order for it to cool down in real time. I compared the Meade Mak and the SCT side by side and found no difference in planetary or lunar performance. The Meade did have a slightly darker background at the same power. The SCT was well collimated and is the best example of an 8" SCT I have looked thorough easily handling 300x and more on Saturn. Having said all that you probably have a better chance of getting good quality from Vixen. Celestron, Meade and Orion all have more quality problems. I have seen some good Orion Maks and some awful ones - ditto for Celestron and Meade. Clear Skies, Don -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 8:27 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Mak or SCT? Trying to choose between a 7" f/15 Mak and 8" f/10 SCT for the CGEM. Bear two things in mind...I've always wanted a Mak and think it a better choice for my usual suburban viewing of "round stuff", double stars and clusters, while still being fairly good for deep-sky from dark sites. Secondly, I will probably spring for a C-11 OTA sometime in the next six months, so an 8" SCT OTA would get sold when that happens, while I would keep the Mak. Opinions sought. Help Chuck spend his money before the soon-to-be-ex wife gets it. Thanks! _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I found the MAK to be less than ideal in our location. The 8" TEC I had seldom reached thermal equilibrium. Active cooling is almost a must. I went the refractor route. If it needs to be a Case then I agree with Don. The 7" Nears has an internal weight that needs cooling. Not my favorite design. Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless -----Original message----- From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thu, Dec 2, 2010 15:27:39 GMT+00:00 Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Mak or SCT? Trying to choose between a 7" f/15 Mak and 8" f/10 SCT for the CGEM. Bear two things in mind...I've always wanted a Mak and think it a better choice for my usual suburban viewing of "round stuff", double stars and clusters, while still being fairly good for deep-sky from dark sites. Secondly, I will probably spring for a C-11 OTA sometime in the next six months, so an 8" SCT OTA would get sold when that happens, while I would keep the Mak. Opinions sought. Help Chuck spend his money before the soon-to-be-ex wife gets it. Thanks! _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I tend to keep my small reflector OTAs cool during the day so cool-down after setup is rarely an issue. I've been known to refrigerate scopes for hours before attaching them to my mount. Even driving to a remote site, if you set the OTA in the passenger footwell and run the car A/C on it during the dirve up, it speeds up cool-down remarkably. Only works for "short" scopes, however, lol. I would agree that Vixen produces a better quality product overall, however I tend to prefer a closed tube for compact portable scopes like this, to keep the optics cleaner. I had a home-made 4.25" classical Cass many years ago and it was just like a Newtonian as far as dust accumulation. The lack of diffraction spikes on the Maks and SCTs is nice most of the time too, except when splitting close, unequal doubles. The spikes can then actually be a benefit in locating a dim, close companion. On 12/2/10, Me Siegfried <ziggy943@xmission.com> wrote:
I found the MAK to be less than ideal in our location. The 8" TEC I had seldom reached thermal equilibrium. Active cooling is almost a must. I went the refractor route. If it needs to be a Case then I agree with Don. The 7" Nears has an internal weight that needs cooling. Not my favorite design.
Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless
-----Original message----- From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thu, Dec 2, 2010 15:27:39 GMT+00:00 Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Mak or SCT?
Trying to choose between a 7" f/15 Mak and 8" f/10 SCT for the CGEM.
Bear two things in mind...I've always wanted a Mak and think it a better choice for my usual suburban viewing of "round stuff", double stars and clusters, while still being fairly good for deep-sky from dark sites.
Secondly, I will probably spring for a C-11 OTA sometime in the next six months, so an 8" SCT OTA would get sold when that happens, while I would keep the Mak.
Opinions sought. Help Chuck spend his money before the soon-to-be-ex wife gets it.
Thanks!
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Trying to choose between a 7" f/15 Mak and 8" f/10 SCT for the CGEM.
Bear two things in mind...I've always wanted a Mak and think it a better choice for my usual suburban viewing of "round stuff", double stars and clusters, while still being fairly good for deep-sky from dark sites.
Secondly, I will probably spring for a C-11 OTA sometime in the next six months, so an 8" SCT OTA would get sold when that happens, while I would keep the Mak.
Opinions sought. Help Chuck spend his money before the soon-to-be-ex wife gets it.
Thanks!
_
BUY BOTH!!!!!
Hi Chuck, You may want to look into the new Celestron EdgeHD 8" OTA. It's an aplanatic SCT so it should have a nice flat field with no coma. Here is a link to it at OPT. http://www.optcorp.com/product.aspx?pid=1-600-602-1544-13267 Clear skies, Dale.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah- astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 8:27 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Mak or SCT?
Trying to choose between a 7" f/15 Mak and 8" f/10 SCT for the CGEM.
Bear two things in mind...I've always wanted a Mak and think it a better choice for my usual suburban viewing of "round stuff", double stars and clusters, while still being fairly good for deep-sky from dark sites.
Secondly, I will probably spring for a C-11 OTA sometime in the next six months, so an 8" SCT OTA would get sold when that happens, while I would keep the Mak.
Opinions sought. Help Chuck spend his money before the soon-to-be-ex wife gets it.
Thanks!
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
participants (5)
-
Chuck Hards -
Dale Hooper -
Don J. Colton -
Me Siegfried -
Rob Ratkowski Photography