whats the diffrence between a mak and an sct

[TJD]

just wondering what the diference is:D and whats best ;)and i please post on this thread i dont like it when i see 400 views and 39 posts:P

[marki]

Maks have thick curved corrector plate with the secondary mirror being an aluminiunized spot placed directly onto the corrector plate itself. An SCT has a corrector plate that is flat on the front but has for want of a better explaination, a trench dug out in the rear surface and a seperate secondary mirror which is mounted through a hole in the corrector plate.

Maks tend to have very high focal ratios usually between F12 - F15 which yeilds a smaller field of view but higher magnification for any given eye piece. The secondary mirror is smaller and thus has less central obstruction giving slightly better contrast. Most SCT scopes have a moderate focal ratio of about F10 which makes them more of a general purpose scope.

As to which is best well I guess its horses for courses really. Visually I like Maks as they deliver outstanding views. For photography I would choose an SCT. There are tons of sites that give detailed descriptions of both so google away and have fun.

Ciao Mark

[Benny L]

+1 not much more I can add to that :thumbsup:

[TJD]

see what i mean 8 views 2 repleys

[Gama]

Read this and you should have some understanding.

http://www.quadibloc.com/science/opt02.htm

Theo

[TJD]

i know how diferent telescopes work as i have taken a part my sct and put togather i even ended up with 3 extra screws still works well ;)
but thanks now i get how its mounted on the corrector plate
;)

[mat,v]

OK trevor,,sorry, i didn't know the difference either,that's why i'm reading this,,but at least i've posted a thread to keep you happy,,;)P.S I have a sct, so i now know the difference too,,,cheers,,,MAT :thumbsup:

[TJD]

thank you mat ive just finish stargazing with a telescope and astronomy hacks both realy good books recomended;):thumbsup:

[marki]

Trevor

Perhaps you should take your scope apart again and find out where those 3 screws go before it stops working :scared:. I have taken a lot of scopes apart and in my experience have not found there to be a lot of surplus parts (they don't put in stuff thats not needed). It would be best to do this with an exploded diagram of your scope and prefferably with a tech savy adult present.

Mark :thumbsup:

[TJD]

you see i found i didnt need them because they were for looks as in the exploded view it showed they didnt do any thing realy and it still works great to me holes in it mean quicker cool down time but any way i put back to me 3 useless screws mean 3 screws more heavy:P

[TJD]

one Vote :(

[marki]

Sorry but its the teacher coming out in me here:P.

Trevor, what do you hope to achieve by this pole? Do you want everybody to vote or do you want to gain an understanding of why people may choose either a Mak or SCT? From my perspective it is not possible to place a vote as I like both Maks and SCT's. I also like reflectors and refractors too so any vote I make would be false. In truth if you get one of each of all the different types of telescope available you will have the perfect telescope. Each excell in different areas and no one type can do it all.

Mark

[dannat]

horses for courses, comes down to the quality of the manufacturer - intes make great maks, but i would take a meadesct over a skywatcher mak

[erick]

Q whats the diffrence between a mak and an sct

A. A lot of dollars? :confuse3:

[csb]

The addage "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." is appropriate.

I have a few posts I wish I hadn't written :sadeyes:

[astrobloke]

I vote for the Maksutov. Why?

Nice Long Focal Lengths usually between F10 and F15. People these days seem obsessed with Fast telescopes for photography which is fine but what is wrong with a Slow scope with NO coma at all unlike a SCT which has coma. Some SCT's claim to be Coma free but they cheat in the optical design. A true Schmidt Cassegrain is supposed to have coma. It's inherent in the design. A Maksutov is coma free by design and has no astigmatism. I think it is one of the best optical configurations ever conceived. I personally rate it even higher than a Ritchey Chretien, which is a bold statement but think about the advantages.

Smaller central obstruction
NO diffraction spikes.
No Coma
No astigmatiom
Perfectly Flat field (No field flattener required)
Closed tube (Thermally Stable)

1 disadvantage of a Mak is a smaller field of view but if you are a photographer you can always make a "mosaic" of smaller images stitched together to make a widefield image . Problem solved.

It also has a smaller central obstruction than a SCT. This has 2 advantages. 1) Less Diffraction 2) More Contrast. Add that to a longer focal length and you have a killer planetary telescope that will rival the best APO refractors out there because you also have the option of larger apertures but at a cost. Most Maksutovs are 90mm or 125mm in aperture. However bigger Maksutovs are available 8", 10", 12"
These are very expensive.

But Perfection always comes at a High Price.
My 2 cents

Kane

[g__day]

I wasn't aware MAKs had less coma than SCTs, but I did hear they are simpler (therefore cheaper) to make than SCTs.

Secondly I hear colliminating MAKs requires more skill than SCTs (but they tend to stay colliminated for longer than SCTs).

Lastly I hear MAKs have a longer cool down time than SCTs due to teh thickness of their glass lens.

[TJD]

if you had 3 thousand dollas what would you by is more like the question

sorrey;)

[TJD]

you can edit them csb which means you can change them

[marki]

You do not need to collimate a Mak unless the manufacturer has done something silly and placed the secondary in a mirror holder rather than a spot on the back of the corrector plate.


Absoloutely agree with Kane on the optical performance of the Mak, they really are something else to look through and I have never had another scope that blackens and flattens the back ground as well as a Mak. Where I diverge however, is that the long focal length can make it very difficult to guide a Mak over long periods and they need more time to capture enough light. It can be done but astrophotography is a very frustrating experience I know, I have tried. I have never tried one at F10 but would love to if anyone is offering:D.

The biggest shame is that Meade canned the 7" Mak mounted on the LX 200 drive.

Ciao Mark

[marki]

Trevor, if I had $3000 I would buy a big Dob :). If I could only choose between a SCT and a Mak , then the Mak would win hands down.

Ciao Mark

[Miaplacidus]

There are many excellent responses to this tread, but don't insist that people vote in the poll. Superficially similar, maks and SCTs are really quite different telescopes. Maks are generally heavier and more expensive when compared to identically apertured SCTs.

It is probably more valid to compare a mak to a quality long FL apo refractor. These are both generally considered excellent lunar and planetary telescopes. In this comparison, a good mak is often lighter, more lugable, possessing a shorter moment arm, and cheaper.

My opinion, anyway.

Cheers,

Brian.

[AstroJunk]

Given that this 6" mak is my new travel scope, what do you think I voted:P

As has just been noted, a Mak is like a short tubed long tube refractor! But don't expect to get Aperture fever with one that's all.

This new Skywatcher Black Diamond job of mine has already given the best 6" views I have ever seen, so I am mighty impressed. It will allow me to do some reasonable research on the road so I am happy.

If you are after an all rounder - get an SCT. Everything is a bit compromised, but I still contend that an LX90 8" is the best 'one stop' telescope ever produced.

[Paul Haese]

Just want to make a couple of points here.

1. Maks and SCT's have different design characteristics and therefore there is no real better unit. It all depends on what you have in mind for it's use. Maks do have certain optical qualities that I was looking for before buying the C14 for planetary imaging. The price and cool down times certainly had an impact on the purchase. That said small Maks give lovely views of the planets but are very slow for DSO viewing and imaging. SCT's are commercially made at a price and therefore are not as good as they could be. They require flatteners and reducers to work as DSO scopes. The main Strength again for an SCT is planetary imaging over viewing. Although contrast can be an issue with the SCT.

2. Marki, Russian Maks often have collimation screws installed into them. In fact I think it is the Intes version has primary and secondary collimation screws. It is mainly the commercial companies that make maks without collimation screws.

Trevor whatever you choose, I reckon it is worth telling us what you want to use the scope for first, that way you will get a practical answer rather than a theoretical bunch of talk.

[TJD]

i didnt want to buy or sell one but ive got an sct and i wanted to see the advantagers of a mak the vote was a thing just to see what others thought were better i havn't voted and i never will but i saw meady advertising there new mak newt so i started the thread to work out what the difrences were and why they addvertise mak newt by the way what is a mak newt like are they the same as a normal mak?:help:

[TJD]

beautiful scope it looks good i like the colar of the black diamond i have it on my 12" dob but it looks a million times better on a mak:thumbsup:

[marki]

Yes Paul you are right there. I have not seen too many Intes scopes about so I was making general comments about the run of the mill skywatchers etc.

Ciao Mark

[Miaplacidus]

Um, no. (There is also a thing called a Schmidt Newtonian.) These look like ordinary newtonians, but they have a corrector plate up front to compensate for coma and also eliminate diffraction spikes.

[TJD]

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MAK NEWT

[marki]

Basically these are newtonian reflectors with a mak corrector plate bolted to the front. Obviously there is some tweeking of the mirrors.

Mark

[Maverick]

Hi all
Google is the best!!!!:thumbsup:

http://www.skywatchertelescope.net/swtinc/knowledge_base.php?class1=1:rofl:Ch eers

[csb]

Ah Ha! Another one who thinks life is like 'Home & Away' > "Let's just edit this scene out and change this here, everything will be ok".

Life is more like 'The Butterfly Effect' ; you don't know the consequences!

:doh: > :) > :driving: > :eyepop: > :sadeyes: > :violin: :lol: :lol:

Thanks :thumbsup: