cuneiform

Hello, Chaps I was able to find only this topic available to compare, as I hoped, Mac180 and CC200. I'm replying to this topic, as I am going to have only O N E scope in my realm, not so many as you willingly do. Yes, I do have some understanding as empathia for any male's love for the hardware like a Bugatti or Musk's rockets. Unfortunately, I couldn't see any comparison of them if used. Although I have read some other reviews concerning CC200. They are mainly full of positive emotions and hopes taking it as an upgrade after having Mac 180 and many others. At present, however, while comparing theirs PRO & CONTRA, I still cannot decide which would better for me to take. As no one has truly compared theirs PRO & CONTRA. They say that that percentage of 33% as obstruction is a small value, but it is not negligible while being 1/3 of the total. How much would then be much or else too much? As known, in photography the Mak design is quite a norm. But not the Cassegrain. Why? The reviewers always mention that observations within CC200 vs Mak180 are noticeably dimmer. Another point would be that of the open tube. As if there would be only PRO's without any CONTRA. But why? How about the natural dust (i.e. it must be anyway) in the tube? There'd be no reason to blow it up and off the mirrors away if it still remains in the tube permanently. More than obviously is clear, as mentioned in the manual, that the reflective micro-layer within its angstrom thickness might not be cleaned with any normal cleaning means for lenses, the scope has to be sent to the service, so the manual. What is the normal dust weight value at any home per day? - Some 5-10 g per day at the least. The vacuum cleaner knows better. The Mak has no such an issue. And if you take the scope along with into the field out of your home, the collimation made at work wouldn't be kept steady if transported miles away. Hence, it must be regularly proven, must it not? - Has the Mak the same issue? So far, I've been tending towards the Mak provided it has to be the only scope at home and flexible enough to be taken along with. On the other hand, the optical difference within only 1 inch is not as dramatic as that between 6" and 8". If I had a Mak, I would preserve it. Moreover, the CCT's disadvantages had further to be overcome in the SCT later on, and the Mak was invented in the mid 40's. So, the CCT is relatively old in design. To my mind, CC200 is merely an expensive toy to present as a bargain by sellers while the producers would get a sum of about $1000 for a couple of mirrors only made by robots. Just compare: You can get a Nikon P1000 zoom for some $600 or about now, a more complex device due to its substantial cutedge electronics! ))))))))))))))))))))) Therefore, Mak 180 is more advanced by its principle. Moreover, the coolingdown time feature is merely q u a n t i t a v e , while the obstruction level is a q u a l i t a t i v e one, too. Just as the dust collecting feature as well. Regards.