Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_31.thumb.jpg.b7a41d6a0fa4e315f57ea3e240acf140.jpg

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Sure, but how well do SCT corrector plates stand up to common carrier shipping?

spacer.png

spacer.png

spacer.png

spacer.png

spacer.png

spacer.png

spacer.png
This is but a small sampling of images I found online (mostly on CN).  Most were damaged in shipping.

I couldn't locate a single image of a broken Mak meniscus corrector.  I rest my case.

That makes the point !

Thinking back, the SCT's that I've owned have been collected from the seller myself so not put at that risk.

The meniscus of a mak-cassegrain is quite a lot thicker than the corrector of an SCT.

Maksutov-Cassegrain vs Schmidt-Cassegrain: Let The Battle Begin -

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

SCTs aren't really flimsy though...   

One problem with comparing maks and SCTs is that most maks are well collimated as they hold collimation so well whereas many SCTs need collimating or are a bit off so don't perform at thier best. 

Or just do away with the corrector all together. 👍🏻 My StellaLyra CC6”

Posted Images

2 hours ago, johninderby said:

Or just do away with the corrector all together. 👍🏻

My StellaLyra CC6”

A89F2A93-CC70-4EDD-AEF3-3623E5D5E259.jpeg

Since it's still a parabolic mirror, do you need a coma corrector, or is it a really slow f-ratio?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, John said:

I agree that maks are can be sharper than SCT's. I've owned several of both types and the build seemed solid on all of them.

The Skywatcher, Celestron and Orion (USA) maks are all made by Synta as are the Celestron SCT's now, at least the ones under 11 inches in aperture. Possibly those as well now. Even Meade seem to be selling a Synta made mak now:

https://www.meade.com/telescopes/maksutov-cassegrain/lx65-mak-6.html

 

 

If I am not mistaken, all traditional Celestron SCT are being built by Synta, only the EdgeHD seem to be still keeping production in California.

Regarding shipment of SCTs, my used C9.25 was shipped from UK to Greece between me and another forum member without any hitch (only some newbie unpacking snafu which moved the focuser a bit, it seems due to haste).

The CC and RC have their own pluses and minuses. The open tube construction exposes the innards to the elements, dew and dust, and I dislike the spider vanes spikes on stars (OK, the last one is subjective).

The SCT are a compromise of large aperture and short length, but they are quite a decent instrument which works very well with a small amount of effort (basically, you check collimation regularly). For astrophotography, it takes some extra effort but these can deliver (just saw a presentation by a very good planetary imager, who does impressive work with a C14):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puoh1ikzonA

In general, all scopes are precision tools which can offer lots of joy. The SCT are the boring Ford of astronomy which do the job without much fuss and pain, if you want long focal distance and okay focal distance (I own a Skymax 127 and a C9.25 XLT - I consider the latter the limit of portability for a middle age man who has to carry everything alone two floors above the apartment)

For visual and planetary/lunar observation, a Skymax 150 may be an excellent solution (and it has a 2" visual back, so you can screw a full frame dSLR without much vignetting). For planetary and lunar imaging, a C8 or C9.25 offer much more aperture.

N.F.

Edited by nfotis
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, nfotis said:

 

If I am not mistaken, all traditional Celestron SCT are being built by Synta, only the EdgeHD seem to be still keeping production in California.

Regarding shipment of SCTs, my used C9.25 was shipped from UK to Greece between me and another forum member without any hitch (only some newbie unpacking snafu which moved the focuser a bit, it seems due to haste).

The CC and RC have their own pluses and minuses. The open tube construction exposes the innards to the elements, dew and dust, and I dislike the spider vanes spikes on stars (OK, the last one is subjective).

The SCT are a compromise of large aperture and short length, but they are quite a decent instrument which works very well with a small amount of effort (basically, you check collimation regularly). For astrophotography, it takes some extra effort but these can deliver (just saw a presentation by a very good planetary imager, who does impressive work with a C14):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puoh1ikzonA

In general, all scopes are precision tools which can offer lots of joy. The SCT are the boring Ford of astronomy which do the job without much fuss and pain, if you want long focal distance and okay focal distance (I own a Skymax 127 and a C9.25 XLT - I consider the latter the limit of portability for a middle age man who has to carry everything alone two floors above the apartment)

For visual and planetary/lunar observation, a Skymax 150 may be an excellent solution (and it has a 2" visual back, so you can screw a full frame dSLR without much vignetting). For planetary and lunar imaging, a C8 or C9.25 offer much more aperture.

N.F.

Great summary, although the SCT's do seem more unreliable than the Maks. I do agree that the SCT's are probably the best all around scope. If it wasn't for the reports I've seen about many breaking during shipping and needing more collimation then I would definitely go for one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction: The CC doesn’t suffer from dew which is one of it’s biggest plusses and as for exposed to the elements well what about all those newts and dobs that seem to get by without it being a problem plus it cools down in a fraction of the time of a mak or SCT. No way would I go back to a similar sized SCT. 

I tealise a lot haven’t actually had their hands on a CC but once you have you’ll be a convert.

Edited by johninderby
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.