Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_dslr_mirrorlesss_winners.thumb.jpg.9deb4a8db27e7485a7bb99d98667c94e.jpg

Recommended Posts

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?

Edited by andy435

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Edited by John
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by orion25
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  :icon_biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.