Author Topic: Why do Maks have such a bad rep?  (Read 229 times)

Jack Jefferson

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Maks have such a bad rep?
« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2018, 08:06:15 AM »
As far I know the Cassegrain-based telescopes are quite popular and real best-sellers; I suspect that they are one of the reason behind the "demise" of mass-market slow f/ achromatic refractors.
Mind that this does not imply that mak-cass are always better than slow achro refractors (as for an example, the refractors have some advantages due to the fact that their focal lenght is not obtained through amplification).

Maybe some suggested you a small/medium Dobsonian because these are seen as less specialized telescopes (a 8" f/6 is strong on planets, DSOs and can frame a quite large field of view with 2" eyepieces); however every kind of telescope has its shortcomings and the best perfomer could be less suited to one's needs/desires.

Cassegrain's greater virtue is their small size for any given aperture* (which affects the mount's minimum size and therefore transportability), but this could be totatally meaningless to some people; likewise, a goto, battery-powered AltAz mount could be suited to someone's tastes, but unsuited to others.

My guess is that there are less complaints about APOs because quite often they are purchased by more experienced stargazers (maybe as a 2nd, 3rd, etc...telescope) which are perfectly aware of their pros and cons.

*of course a 16" f/10 Cassegrain is not that small, but is in any case smaller than a 16" f/10 refractor or Newtonian

Tommy Farley

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Maks have such a bad rep?
« Reply #16 on: January 12, 2018, 09:32:19 PM »
Quote
My guess is that there are less complaints about APOs because quite often they are purchased by more experienced stargazers (maybe as a 2nd, 3rd, etc...telescope) which are perfectly aware of their pros and cons.

Of course they are... who would pay that much for that small of a scope without knowing?

Tye Paez

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Maks have such a bad rep?
« Reply #17 on: January 13, 2018, 05:08:46 AM »
<p class="citation">Quote.*of course a 16" f/10 Cassegrain is not that small, but is in any case smaller than a 16" f/10 refractor or Newtonian. [/quote]

Very true but...

A Cassegrain needs to be F/10, a Newtonian can be F/5, F/4 or even F/3. Then add the challenges of mounting a 16 inch Cassegrain and the tables are turned. A 16 inch Newtonian on a Dob mount is an easy one person set up, 10 minutes or so and a truss style may well fit in a sedan. The only "affordable" 16 inch Cassegrain I know of is the 16 inch Meade though at $23,000 it's not cheap and at 374 lbs, it's not and easy 10 minute one person setup...

That said.. Everything I have seen written about Maksutov Cassegrains has been positive and some are legends. The 10 inch Astro-Physics Mak was conceived with the idea of building an ultra high quality, "affordable" telescope. However, when it came to building it it, it turned out that the effort required to achieve the necessary perfection was far greater than Roland Christen expected and so only a few of these $10,000 OTAs were built. with their zero expansion optics and vented OTA design, thermal equilibrium is not the issue it is with most Maks. The optics were hand figured. The last sale I know of was some years back for about $30,000.

I have owned several Maks. My experiences are like Tony's, optically good but not well suited for Starhopping.

jon

olexecin

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Maks have such a bad rep?
« Reply #18 on: January 15, 2018, 08:37:09 PM »
But for a combo g&amp;g set up with short tube, easy to mount on a light goto mount
And Great views, the maks really shine imo, and yeah, why was I so slow to discover
This? I doknow, maybe I've been too tuned into the nay sayers, so a few chearleaders
maybe
helpfull but you know we always like hearing what we want to hear.

Theodore Inlaw

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Maks have such a bad rep?
« Reply #19 on: January 16, 2018, 03:49:06 AM »
jon, if you like your little mak, that's all that's important. it suits you, easy to carry around in a city, apartment , up to the roof. there's lot's of people around here that don't post and they have maks for the ease of use, they're small compact packages. there's a whole forum of guy's that use just binoculars, some use small refractors only. but they do have a narrower fov, and you know what I've mentioned in the past. if having that portable mak gets you out viewing instead of carrying a cumbersome 8in dob to the roof of your apartment, then that's a good thing. nice thing about a mak, a small handful of plossls covers most viewing situations. there's no one perfect scope

engoecircming

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Maks have such a bad rep?
« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2018, 08:07:35 AM »
I wanted a Mak for over 40 years. I finally got one and ya know what? It doesn't s*ck too bad!


Ronald Bryan

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Maks have such a bad rep?
« Reply #21 on: January 21, 2018, 01:35:12 AM »
Optically Maksutovs in general give good views, but with two drawbacks. One is the sealed tubes mean larger Maksutovs take a long time to reach equilibrium with the surrounding air. The other is the field of view will be narrow, unless you chose a Mak-Newt. And larger Maksutovs are very expensive. Of course they have the advantage of compactness, are well suited to lunar, planetary and double star observing, do not need collimation in general and the mirrors are protected from dust and dirt. They are indeed easy to use as well.Also, the ones where the secondary mirror is an aluminized spot on the corrector are inferior optically to the "Rumak" type which has a separate secondary mirror. In smaller apertures, they do have a lot going for them, as long as their strengths and weaknesses are taken into account.

Taras

Chuck Klem

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 124
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Maks have such a bad rep?
« Reply #22 on: January 21, 2018, 06:50:38 AM »
I do not know where and how you came to that impression... The following link about C90 Mak and its responses is a testimony to its popularity...

In fact, the C90 Mak is my first scope and I used it every day as a spotting scope during the day, and as a grab-n-go at night sometimes for planets and double stars..It suits me just fine for its intended purposes, that is all I wants from it. No scope is good for every situation, though one's preference may differ...

(edit) here is the link:http://www.cloudynig...0/?hl= c90  mak

piatimascomp

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Maks have such a bad rep?
« Reply #23 on: January 25, 2018, 08:14:03 PM »
I love my 127. Its my favorite scope. Thats all the time I have to post right now, anybody put it down, them fightin words

inuninab

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Maks have such a bad rep?
« Reply #24 on: January 31, 2018, 09:47:03 AM »
Some of the russian MAKs have venting to aid with cooling. Those also have better optics. They also cost a bit more...but those are worth considering. A very nice one is on astromart for around 950 right now. I've considered getting one of those quite a bit in the past.

telschronexic

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Maks have such a bad rep?
« Reply #25 on: February 08, 2018, 05:34:12 PM »
I bought my first scope in 2005, a Skyview Pro 127 Mak. I still have this 'little' scope because it's a great scope. The views are...crispy. I always set up my scopes two hours before observing so cool down has never been an issue. Enjoy your Mak.

nijambaci

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Maks have such a bad rep?
« Reply #26 on: February 08, 2018, 10:29:00 PM »
Quote
Quote
My guess is that there are less complaints about APOs because quite often they are purchased by more experienced stargazers (maybe as a 2nd, 3rd, etc...telescope) which are perfectly aware of their pros and cons.

Of course they are... who would pay that much for that small of a scope without knowing?

Well, if people buy telescope in the same way they buy other items, I suspect there is a certain number of unaware buyers  ...

tanktositsoft

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Maks have such a bad rep?
« Reply #27 on: February 09, 2018, 07:38:54 AM »
I think the general thought pattern with some people is that you really cannot see dim enough objects well enough until you get to at least a six inch scope, maybe even an eight inch. I do not know if the objection to smaller scopes is directed at any particular type. Personally, I think it has more to do with what objects you are interested in seeing and what aspects of astronomy an individual enjoys. I have never owned a MAK of any kind, but the few I have looked through have been very nice. The people who own them really seem to have a good time and that is what really matters.

Jim Snyder

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Maks have such a bad rep?
« Reply #28 on: February 09, 2018, 09:42:51 AM »
Who doesn't like a good Maksutov? I have owned 6 or 7 in the past and I impulse bought an Intes Micro MN55 just yesterday--should arrive next week. Sure that is a Maksutov Newtonian, but that still counts, right? Plus it negates the "Maks have a narrow FOV" argument. As another poster mentioned, all scopes have their own strengths and weaknesses. That is what makes them special. You just need to find one (or five) that meet your specific observing style and preferences. It sounds like you have. So enjoy the views.