MAK vs reflector

[andy435]

I've read that MAK is best for observing the solar system and that a reflector is more versatile (also good for solar system)

MAK vs reflector with the same magnification, let's say x150 - which will give me the most detailed and sharpest visual image of the planets?

[John]

Assuming the aperture is the same, the optics are decent in both, in collimation, cooled and the same eyepieces are being used then the views could well be pretty much the same. If the newtonian reflector is a fast one with a proportionately larger secondary obstruction the contrast and sharpness could be a bit better with the maksutov-cassegrain but there are lots of variables.

 

[orion25]

I agree with John. Everything else being equal, I would say mainly the size of the secondary obstruction will determine any significant difference in clarity. Of course, the physics of these types of scopes are what make them respectively good at their jobs. Are you trying to increase the mag of a fast scope by using more glass? A basic amateur reflector may need significant focal length to match a basic Mak in mag. Also, are you talking about a standard reflector with the spider vanes or a schmidt-newtonian? There are many variables...

Cosmic smoke, mirrors and glass!

Reggie

[ghostdance]

My  personal experience ( nuthin scientific I'm afraid!) is that my 90 Mak is *great* for Lunar gazing, but the seeing in my sky has to be superb for it to match my 6" reflector on, say, Jupiter or Saturn. Being a bear of little brain, I ascribe this to my skies not being up to the magnification that the Mak offers -  although I do wonder if the small aperture doesn't exactly help. Which is why I lust after  102 or even, hush!, a 127...

Thus, the reflector gets more eye-time in Chez Ghost - but I do adore the *tiny* size of the 90, although my ST80 supplanted it as my grab'n'go, much better for showing people some good ol' wide field wonders!

[Peter Drew]

Well they're both reflectors, each uses a mirror as the main imaging component. I would expect the Mak to have the edge on planetary performance aperture for aperture. 

[N3ptune]

I read the following link a few month ago, it's simple and instructive on Maksutov-Newtonian and Shcmidt-Newtonian.

https://starizona.com/acb/basics/equip_telescopes_schmidtnewt.aspx

[nightfisher]

A 150 Mak will smoke a 150 F5 mewt on planets on a good night, maybe a closer call with te 150 F8 newt

[ecuador]

The Mak will most likely be sharper than a Newt at the same aperture. You might find this comparison quite interesting.