Quote:
Originally Posted by astro1965
Hi all, was just wondering wether a Mak or SCT would give a sharper(con trasty) view.Have read various reviews that say a well collimated,cooled SCT matches the views through a Mak,others say the Mak is far superior.Would like some input from those who have owned both these scopes at some stage.I am thinking of one of these as a second scope.Currently have a 12 inch dob.Thanks,Nick.
|
Hi Nick,
Assuming there are no manufacturing or design flaws and everything else is constant, then an equal aperture Maksutov Cassegrain should slightly outperform an equal aperture SCT, as a lunar planetary telescope. There are optical reasons for this. However, when you start to introduce design and or manufacturing flaws like the undersized primary mirror and or the undersized baffle tube discussed above by Adrian and Morton, then everything changes. If you could locate a 2nd hand Maksutov Cassegrain from Intes, or Intes Micro, or the 7"/F15 Meade LX200 Maksutov Cassegrain you would likely find these to be better scopes optically than the newer offerings made in the far East. These occasionally come up on Icetrades and often come up on Astromart. They sometimes come up really cheap also, but with no mount. You may of course be happy with a reasonable performing scope and just buy a new one from Skywatcher or Celestron. The prices on these have come down dramatically in the last 20 years in relative terms.
Notwithstanding the mirrors on this 7" Intes needed a recoat it was a steal at $500 It's a better telescope than anything made by Celestron and Skywatcher.
Cheers,
John B