Mak-Cass versus Schmidt-Cass Systems

[Goldfinger]

Can anyone offer their opinion on these two types?

I know the Schmidt-Cass is made by Celestron and the Mak-Cass is made by Orion.  What are the advantages and disadvantages of each.  Is one system more prevalent than the other among star gazers as far as optics go?

The reason I'm asking is because there's a 6" Mak-Cass system I'm thinking about purchasing.

Any opinions will be helpful and appreciated.

Thanks

[Brutha]

My understanding is that Maksutovs tend to have a longer focal length, so are better for planets and lunar viewing, but typically not so good for fainter deep sky objects.

[Goldfinger]

3 hours ago, Brutha said:

My understanding is that Maksutovs tend to have a longer focal length, so are better for planets and lunar viewing, but typically not so good for fainter deep sky objects.

Does that mean Schmidt-Cass scopes are better for DSO'S than planetary viewing?

Does anyone here have a Mak-Cass scope? I'd sure like to hear from those that do.

 

[Zermelo]

40 minutes ago, Goldfinger said:

Does that mean Schmidt-Cass scopes are better for DSO'S than planetary viewing?

I don't have either, but as both types have relatively long focal ratios and narrower fields of view, they will tend to be less suited to extended DSOs than are newtonians. Conversely, the higher F ratios mean that you can more easily get the higher magnifications that are useful for solar system objects. Both types have a central obstruction and therefore their views lose some contrast compared with a decent refractor. This is more so for the S-C as it has a slightly larger secondary.

I think there are plenty of members here who own maks, I've seen less from S-C owners.

[Gfamily]

One thing about both Maks and SCTs is that their relatively narrow field of view means that larger DSOs such as Open Clusters don't look at their best.

For example, the Double Cluster in Perseus may only be visible as a cluster and a half - and M81/M82 can only be seen together if both of them are hard up against opposite edges of the field of view. 

Even smaller open clusters can look disappointing, as one of their features is how they stand out as a compact unit against the background scattering of stars.  

I don't think I really appreciated this until I borrowed a short f/5 refractor last summer, clusters really stood out which made a big difference to the quality of the view.  

Personally, I have an 8" F/10 SCT and a 5" F/12 Mak - I rarely have them both out at the same time - the 8" comes out for Star Parties and on the rare occasion we go specifically out for a night's observing under dark skies in North Wales, the Mak is what we take on holidays, as it's much more compact both as the OTA and the tripod. 

[johninderby]

Any discussion of Mak vs SCT should also include the Classical Cassegrain. The Classical Cassegrain while an old design has only recently become available in a competitively priced version. I’ve had an 8” SCT and a Skymax180 but have now moved to an 8” Classical Cassegrain. A great performer with no dewing problems and quick cool down and a proper crayford focuser. wouldn’t want to go back to the Mak or SCT in the 8” or there about size range.

Edited May 23, 2021 by johninderby

[Cosmic Geoff]

3 hours ago, Goldfinger said:

Does that mean Schmidt-Cass scopes are better for DSO'S than planetary viewing?

Does anyone here have a Mak-Cass scope? I'd sure like to hear from those that do.

One only has a choice of Schmidt Cass (SCT) or Mak-Cass (Mak) over a small range of apertures.

I have examples of both, and would say that unless you are an expert observer or have exacting requirements you may not notice a lot of difference at 6" aperture.  The typical f10 focal ratio of a SCT makes it a little more general-purpose than a Mak, as the latter have longer focal ratios.

There is a saying that 'nobody ever complained of having a bad Mak'  and the one I have performs very well, but anecdotally there seems to be more variation in the optical performance of SCTs.

If your interest is planetary viewing, that means aperture, which means a SCT, or Classic Cassegrain (CC) or perhaps a large Mak, and the latter will be heavy, have a long focal lengtth & ratio, and take longer to cool down.

[johninderby]

The biggest problem with many SCTs is that they aren’t performing at their best as they aren’t well collimated.

Maks very rarely need collimating and Claasical Cassegrains hold collimation very well so are more likely to deliver their best all the time. 

[Goldfinger]

1 hour ago, johninderby said:

Any discussion of Mak vs SCT should also include the Classical Cassegrain. The Classical Cassegrain while an old design has only recently become available in a competitively priced version. I’ve had an 8” SCT and a Skymax180 but have now moved to an 8” Classical Cassegrain. A great performer with no dewing problems and quick cool down and a proper crayford focuser. wouldn’t want to go back to the Mak or SCT in the 8” or there about size range.

What brand and model of a Classical Cassegrain do you have? I'm a total newbie and have never heard that term before. I might even consider purchasing one if it's within my budget.

 

[Zermelo]

5 minutes ago, Goldfinger said:

What brand and model of a Classical Cassegrain do you have? I'm a total newbie and have never heard that term before. I might even consider purchasing one if it's within my budget.

Not sure what your budget is, but you might find this interesting, from our sponsors:

 

 

[johninderby]

23 minutes ago, Goldfinger said:

What brand and model of a Classical Cassegrain do you have? I'm a total newbie and have never heard that term before. I might even consider purchasing one if it's within my budget.

 

I have the TS 8” version and have upgraded the focuser to a Baader Steeltrack. It is also available under FLOs StellaLyra brand name.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/telescopes-in-stock/stellalyra-6-f12-m-crf-classical-cassegrain-telescope-ota.html

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/telescopes-in-stock/stellalyra-8-f12-m-lrs-classical-cassegrain-telescope-ota.html

Edited May 23, 2021 by johninderby

[Goldfinger]

16 hours ago, johninderby said:

I have the TS 8” version but it is akso available under FLOs StellaLyra brand name.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/telescopes-in-stock/stellalyra-6-f12-m-crf-classical-cassegrain-telescope-ota.html

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/telescopes-in-stock/stellalyra-8-f12-m-lrs-classical-cassegrain-telescope-ota.html

While I can afford the OTA unfortunately I need a tripod and lenses with that so that will put me over my budget. 

I'm thinking about this telescope. I know this sounds silly but I'm a tall guy with back issues. This one means I wouldn't have to bend as low to view. I know that's a poor reason for choosing a telescope but one of the factors I'm taking into consideration when it comes to my purchase.

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Orion-Star-Seeker-IV-150-mm-Kit-w-Orion-Lens-Kit-/184846223124?_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49286

 

[Louis D]

5 hours ago, Goldfinger said:

I know this sounds silly but I'm a tall guy with back issues. This one means I wouldn't have to bend as low to view.

Many folks, myself included, find seated observing much more relaxing and enjoyable.  In that case, you want a telescope mount that can be lowered enough to not have to be used with a tall observing chair.  If your back can't take being bent over at all, then that would limit you somewhat.

What is your working budget?

[Ags]

I have a 4 inch Mak and 6 inch SCT. The SCT gives a bigger exit pupil at higher magnifications, essential as my eyes are plagued with floaters. A Mak of similar aperture would just be too heavy for my setup.

The SCT is also fitted with a 0.63 reducer giving it a 945mm focal length, so I can get 1.6° true field of view with 1.25" eyepieces. Reducers don't seem to work well with Maks, but with my SCT they seem to improve the view!

On the other hand, the SCT doesn't hold collimation well. I am always tweaking the collimation screws and never 100% satisfied with the results. Another drawback of the SCT is star images are always a little messy. So for double stars I prefer my little Mak - it just gives a prettier view.

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by Ags

[JamesF]

1 hour ago, Louis D said:

Many folks, myself included, find seated observing much more relaxing and enjoyable.

Definitely.  Nothing has made a bigger improvement to my enjoyment of visual astronomy than working from a comfortable seat.  I can't now imagine doing anything else.

James

[Goldfinger]

4 hours ago, Louis D said:

Many folks, myself included, find seated observing much more relaxing and enjoyable.  In that case, you want a telescope mount that can be lowered enough to not have to be used with a tall observing chair.  If your back can't take being bent over at all, then that would limit you somewhat.

What is your working budget?

I never thought about sitting in a chair but that's a terrific idea 8f I can find the right set up.

My budget is around $800.00 for everything. Telescope, lenses and some filters. What would you recommend? I'm mostly interested in the planets but willing to try my luck with DSO's. 

 

[Pete Presland]

I had a Mak180 for quite a few years, then moved to my current scope a SCT C9.25. Slightly bigger aperture (180mm v 235mm), slghtly smaller Focal length (2700mm v 2350mm). I just felt it was little bit more of an "all rounder" option. The collimation on the Mak was rock solid, the SCT is pretty good as well. Both required a decent crayford focuser due to the mirror slop when focus at high focal lengths with a camera.

Edited May 25, 2021 by Pete Presland

[nfotis]

On 23/05/2021 at 02:22, Goldfinger said:

Can anyone offer their opinion on these two types?

I know the Schmidt-Cass is made by Celestron and the Mak-Cass is made by Orion.  What are the advantages and disadvantages of each.  Is one system more prevalent than the other among star gazers as far as optics go?

The reason I'm asking is because there's a 6" Mak-Cass system I'm thinking about purchasing.

Any opinions will be helpful and appreciated.

Thanks

 

The Orion/Skywatcher/Celestron/Meade Maksutovs are made by Synta, with small differences in finish and accessories. The Skymax 127 is the first scope I bought, sharp and contrasty and easy to handle.

Just bought a Skymax 180 (wrote a small "first impressions" topic under "Scopes"). The good thing about Maks is that these offer a nice contrasty view like refractors and are excelling in planets and the moon/sun, while their construction with spherical glasses is quite reliable these days.

The SCTs offer more aperture for their cost and are more general purpose (you can also use Hyperstar for ultra-fast imaging). The view is usually less contrasty, but their larger aperture is very helpful in imaging ("aperture is king"). Usually they need some more careful collimation in order to give best performance.

Both types are closed tubes and their front glass element insulates adequately the internal optical elements from dust, dirt etc.

The Classical Cassegrain don't use any glass in their construction ("it's all done with smoke and mirrors" 🙂 ), so they don't suffer from chromatic aberrations AFAIK. Their open tube construction means that you will accumulate dust etc on the mirror over the years (you can wash it carefully), and the secondary mirror has to be mounted using spider vanes, which cause diffraction spikes on bright stars. If you hate spikes on stars, you may not like the CC series.

N.F.

 

[Cornelius Varley]

19 minutes ago, nfotis said:

The Orion/Skywatcher/Celestron/Meade Maksutovs are made by Synta, with small differences in finish and accessories

Not sure that Meade's maks are Synta products.

[Goldfinger]

9 hours ago, Goldfinger said:

I never thought about sitting in a chair but that's a terrific idea 8f I can find the right set up.

My budget is around $800.00 for everything. Telescope, lenses and some filters. What would you recommend? I'm mostly interested in the planets but willing to try my luck with DSO's. 

 

Does anyone have any opinions on this scope whether good or bad. It fits my budget. Just need a couple lenses and moon filter.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Orion-StarSeeker-IV-150mm-GoTo-Mak-Cass-w-Controller-5mm-Wide-Field-Eyepiece/334010735531?_mwBanner=1&ul_ref=https%3A%2F%2Frover.ebay.com%2Frover%2F0%2Fe11011.m43.l1120%2F7%3Feuid%3D9d076462825c48198aec60575b4dc916%26bu%3D43616103338%26segname%3D11011%26crd%3D20210523053121%26osub%3D-1~1%26ch%3Dosgood%26loc%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F334010735531%26exe%3D98325%26ext%3D231947%26nqt%3DAQAAAAAAACAACAAAAAAAAACAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAIAAAAAAAACAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQA**%26nqc%3DAQAAAAAAACAACAAAAAAAAACAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAIAAAAAAAACAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQA**%26mdbreftime%3D1621772284799%26es%3D0%26ec%3D1%26sojTags%3Dnqt%3Dnqt%2Cnqc%3Dnqc%2Cmdbreftime%3Dmdbreftime%2Ces%3Des%2Cec%3Dec%2Cexe%3Dexe%2Cext%3Dext%2Cbu%3Dbu%2Cch%3Dch%2Csegname%3Dsegname%2Ccrd%3Dcrd%2Curl%3Dloc%2Cosub%3Dosub%26srcrot%3De11011.m43.l1120%26rvr_id%3D0%26rvr_ts%3D9e5862341790a9f750f572a6fff23981&ul_noapp=true&pageci=5da69de4-8733-4a17-94a5-e061d4c08a34

[Cornelius Varley]

35 minutes ago, Goldfinger said:

Does anyone have any opinions on this scope whether good or bad. It fits my budget. Just need a couple lenses and moon filter.

The Orion 150 Mak is the same as the Skywatcher Skymax 150, so yes, it is a good telescope..

[Louis D]

9 hours ago, Pete Presland said:

I had a Mak180 for quite a few years, then moved to my current scope a SCT C9.25. Slightly bigger aperture (180mm v 235mm), slghtly smaller Focal length (2800mm v 2350mm). I just felt it was little bit more of an "all rounder" option. The collimation on the Mak was rock solid, the SCT is pretty good as well. Both required a decent crayford focuser due to the mirror slop when focus at high focal lengths with a camera.

It's my understanding the hoisting a C9.25 onto a mount is right at the limit for many folks with good backs, and the OP has stated he has back issues, so I would probably steer him toward a lighter solution.  I know I had to take a pass on a used 127 Mak/EQ combo from Orion because the OTA was bolted directly to the mount without a dovetail and clamp.  Along with the counterweights, it was just too punishing on my back to lift as a unit.  I didn't feel like adding and removing the weights each time I wanted to move it around the yard, so I went with an alt-az mount with the 127 Mak.  It's much easier to pick up and move as a unit to dodge trees, houses, and bushes.

[Louis D]

11 hours ago, Goldfinger said:

I never thought about sitting in a chair but that's a terrific idea 8f I can find the right set up.

My budget is around $800.00 for everything. Telescope, lenses and some filters. What would you recommend? I'm mostly interested in the planets but willing to try my luck with DSO's. 

 

A 127 Mak on an alt-az mount is a good beginner's setup that isn't extraordinarily heavy and yet is quite capable of delivering rewarding views of most solar system objects and the brighter DSOs.  I'd definitely recommend getting a 9x50 RACI finder to go with it because the Mak's long focal length yields such a narrow field of view.  The problem right now is lack of stock.  Are you looking to buy from within the UK, US, or elsewhere?

[Nik271]

On 23/05/2021 at 00:22, Goldfinger said:

 

I know the Schmidt-Cass is made by Celestron and the Mak-Cass is made by Orion.  What are the advantages and disadvantages of each.  Is one system more prevalent than the other among star gazers as far as optics go?

 

I have both a 5 inch and a 7 inch Mak-Cass. Their advantages are that they are simpler to make than SCs - they only use spherical surfaces and because of this they tend to be cheaper and have almost no quality issues (as far as I know).

The advantage of SC is that above 6 inches they are lighter, because the front corrector is thinner. While there are very few Mak Casses above 7 inches there are plenty of bigger SCs, the 8 inch being the most popular (at 5kgs the 8 inch SCT weighs only as much as the 6 inch MakCass).

For planetary the MakCasses have a slight advantage since their focal lengths are larger. For DSO the advantage is with SCTs because they give wider views.

SCs can be used with reducers, as far as I know focal reducers don't work very well with Maks.

[Pete Presland]

2 hours ago, Louis D said:

It's my understanding the hoisting a C9.25 onto a mount is right at the limit for many folks with good backs, and the OP has stated he has back issues, so I would probably steer him toward a lighter solution.  I know I had to take a pass on a used 127 Mak/EQ combo from Orion because the OTA was bolted directly to the mount without a dovetail and clamp.  Along with the counterweights, it was just too punishing on my back to lift as a unit.  I didn't feel like adding and removing the weights each time I wanted to move it around the yard, so I went with an alt-az mount with the 127 Mak.  It's much easier to pick up and move as a unit to dodge trees, houses, and bushes.

I didnt see the back reference, both of them are quite heavy. I am ok with the C9.25 at the moment, but in 10 years time though who knows? It is something that i think about more and more even at 54 yrs.