SCTs versus Mak Cas and RCs for visual?

[yusufcam (Colin)]

someone recently gave me an opinion on maks versus scts which was contrary to what i had heard elsewhere...

i had read in a few locations that maks were considered optically better than SCTs but was suprised to hear the other opinion which was that this isn't the case as the mak glass is thicker thereby absorbing more light and thus the images were of lesser quality.

anyone care to share some expertise?

a second question...

do people us RCs for visual astronomy, if not, why? The prices on them are getting very competitive (6" RC $600 versus 6" mak $999).

????

[casstony]

RC's are used less for visual due to the large secondary obstruction (50% on the 6") which reduces contrast. The obstruction becomes proportionately smaller in the larger size RC's, though still large enough to reduce planetary contrast, but probably doesn't have much impact on deep sky observing.

Mak's and SCT's are both good visual scopes with the quality of the particular sample being more important than the design. The SCT is easier to collimate since there is only one element that can be collimated (the secondary) whereas the primary can also be collimated on a MCT.

[yusufcam (Colin)]

Originally Posted by casstony

RC's are used less for visual due to the large secondary obstruction (50% on the 6") which reduces contrast. The obstruction becomes proportionately smaller in the larger size RC's, though still large enough to reduce planetary contrast, but probably doesn't have much impact on deep sky observing.

Mak's and SCT's are both good visual scopes with the quality of the particular sample being more important than the design. The SCT is easier to collimate since there is only one element that can be collimated (the secondary) whereas the primary can also be collimated on a MCT.

makes sense...

thanks