8” Classical Cassegrain vs Skymax 180

[johninderby]

They are getting pretty good at making good hyperbolic secondary mirrors now which really helps.

All the various designs have different comprimises. The big advantage the classical has over  a Rumak or Mak is zero problems with dew. No glass at the front to dew up plus it tracks temperature changes better and less tube currents. 

BTW coma is equivalent to that of an f12 newt so not much.

Edited October 8, 2019 by johninderby

[chiltonstar]

I await the forthcoming posts with interest! 

Chris

[johninderby]

The buy button has been clicked upon and one white TS-Optics 8" f/12 Cassegrain telescope 203/2436 mm OTA should be arriving via DPD by this weekend. 👍🏻😀🙂

Dare I check the forecast for this weekend. 🙀

Checked and maybe Thursday next week.. 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼

Edited October 8, 2019 by johninderby

[Alan White]

I was just about to say buy White, John.
Thank goodness I was not about to post Black.
I just knew you would be unable to leave the itch unscratched.

Well you have sealed the weekend weather fate for the UK now 😢
 

 

[Stu]

Hopefully there will be some chances to do a side by side with the 180Pro before it leaves..  

[johninderby]

180 due to be collected on Monday and forecast is for rain on Fri, Sat and Sun nights. 🤬

The only side by side will be on the bench it seems..

Edited October 8, 2019 by johninderby

[astroavani]

Hello John!
I am very interested to know the conclusions you get about this Cassegrain! I am very interested in getting one for my field planetariums because the C14 is unbearable.
I appreciate any communication you make about it!

[johninderby]

Hi

The weather has been so bad haven’t had much chance to get it out very often  but here is the thread I’ve started on it. Very promising and cools down surprisingly quickly. The other night I had it out to observe the moon as was impressed by how good the views were with no cool down time at all. I would say less than an hour is needed to cool down properly. Also dew doesn’t seem to be a problem. Will take very high magnification and found a 4.5mm Baader Morpheus was useable if seeing is good. 

So everything has been very positive so far.

 

[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.

Edited April 17, 2020 by cuneiform
Add on's.