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.
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.
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
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
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
Trevor
Perhaps you should take your scope apart again and find out where those 3 screws go before it stops working . 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.
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
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.
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
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).
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.
The biggest shame is that Meade canned the 7" Mak mounted on the LX 200 drive.
and whats best 
and i please post on this thread i dont like it when i see 400 views and 39 posts
. 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.
