Hi Fred -

I can probably give you some information to help you make an educated decision. And what it boils down to is understanding the strengths of the Maksutov-Cassegrain, as it relates to a Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope.

It all roosts on your planned usage for the MCT. If you're planning to use the MCT on solar-system objects such as planets, the Moon, comets, and other objects where a narrow Field-Of-View (FOV) is not an issue, a Maksutov may be a very good choice. If, however, you're wishing to see more spread-out objects such as nebulae like the Veil Nebula and the North American Nebula, a Maksutov isn't what I'd want.

On planets, where you wish to pour-on the magnification, the Maksutov is an ideal choice. Especially if the cost of a similar aperture refractor would be a limiting consideration. As well as space - the Maksutovs pack a mighty punch in a deceivingly small package. As for DSO's (Deep Space Objects), you seldom hear about using a Mak on these, but for some - they are great! Globular-Clusters such a M13 in Hercules, the famous Ring Nebula - M57 - in Lyra, and many others way out there. And for use on our Moon, a Maksutov is ideal. The Maksutov, with it's love for high-power, is also noted for giving you a very sharp and high contrast view of our nearest neighbor. A real crowd-pleaser. People say 'WOW!' when looking at the Moon.

No one type of telescope will be great on everything in the sky. For getting close-in and wanting excellent detail on an object - and keeping an eye on one's bank-balance - the Maksutov is a winning design. It takes a bit of time to get used to the fact that a little telescope like a Mak can deliver spectacular images.

I have a Skywatcher (US-version) 150mm F12 myself as part of my herd. And love what it's shown me. The Orion and the Celestron, and the Skywatcher, offerings are one and the same scope. All are made in the Republic of China (Taiwan) by Synta. And many improvements have been made over the years. 'Mirror-Flop' - a well-known bane of their owners where the mirror will suddenly shift a bit as you're fine-tuning the focus could be quite problematic. Synta has fixed this since then. Many people would outfit the Mak with a Crayford 10:1 Dual-Focuser was the common fix. I went ahead and put one on my Mak anyway, only to never have it truly needed. But I like it anyway. I'm a fan of perfection!

So if you're partial to Orion products, as well as their willingness to answer any questions, both before and after purchase, that should serve you very well. If it's all about how much money it costs, you can take a look at Skywatcher and Celestron, too. Other things I can say deal primarily with modifications for peripheral gear that comes with. Here I'm thinking about the finders. Mine came with a straight-through 8 X 50mm. Most agree an RACI is a must-have, unless you're using the telescope as a yoga-excercise. But that's all that comes to mind for now.

I hope this helps -

Dave

 

Greetings, Fred. I have the 180mm & 127mm versions of the Orion Mak-Cass line and am very pleased with the magnification and resolution I'm able to achieve on planets, Luna and brighter DSOs. I've never used an SCT so I can't really compare, but my Maks give tack-sharp images of stars, rivaling the best refractors. It's great for lunar and planetary imaging, and ok for brighter DSO imaging. Brighter DSOs like M13, M31 and M57 are stunning. As for the moon, a Mak "will take you there" in spades with incredible detail. The 180mm fully assembled is a bit heavy at about 50 lbs (the go-to version is a few pounds heavier). That meniscus lens packs on the pounds. There are also "cool down" and dew issues. It will take time to cool down during winter (maybe about 30 minutes, not too bad), and a dew cap will be necessity as the night gets chillier. Bottom line: if you want high magnification with great resolution in a compact package, and don't mind the extra weight, check out the 180 Mak. Buy a dew cap and set up 30 minutes early on cold winter nights. If possible, you may want to attend a star party and see one in action. I'm not a professional imager by any means, but I wanted to attach an image of M13 that I shot through my Mak. Best wishes with your final decision!

Clear skies,
Reggie

 

I am no authority on telescope designs but from my limited knowledge I would ask why you would be getting a 7" Mak as a complement to your 8" SCT. While I am sure there are differences I think of SCTs and Maks in the same context. Long FL, narrow FOV, high mag designs. Not the same but fulfill similar roles.

You say Stability - visual stability? I don't think a Mak is going to be any more stable than an SCT. That is a function of the atmosphere.

Contrast. Do you have a problem with contrast on the SCT? Have you collimated the SCT?

Do you plan to sell the SCT? I see you plan to go down in aperture.


Others will tell you if a 7" Mak will meet your needs better than an 8" SCT. I am just raising the questions.

 

I have used both of these scopes. If you are a die-hard observer of planets, the Moon, double stars, and planetary nebulae, the Mak is a fine instrument. But the 8" SCT is a more versatile telescope, and with a focal ratio of f/10, will give you a wider field of view. It all depends on your interests...

 

Ed - aeajr - is quite right, these are similar optics, the SCT and the MCT. The MCT didn't appear on the scene until 1941 though. They were introduced in the Soviet Union in it's dark days of World War II. And after the war, they became quite popular in Russia and their allies. For use by us astronomy-people.

They never caught on in the USA though while the Soviet Union was still in existence, with the exception of the Questar line of those small, blue-tubed offerings for outrageous prices. They looked more like something an industrial-mogul might have on his desk in his office - rather than a serious instrument dwelling in the mysterious lair of those kooky amateur-astronomers! But I understand their optics were exquisite. But Questar never formally announced their baby-blue tubed creations were used, in other formats, in our Cold-War rivals - the Soviet Union. Pity!

But the Soviet Union swapped-out governments and suddenly the Maksutov-Cassegrain design started popping-up in the astronomy-peoples' domains.

To paraphrase my response above - no one type of telescope can excel in all pursuits of all astronomical types of objects. Each of the different designs are the best for observing a certain variety of objects: Nebulae, galaxies, double-star systems, and so forth. This is why I, for example, have a Newtonian-Reflector, Refractors, SCT, and my recently acquired Maksutov. And you can, from here, go into varieties of each variety - 'fast'- refractor, 'slow'-refractor, 'fast'-Newtonian, 'slow'-Newtonians, and so on ad infinitum. Rather like nuclear physics which chips away at the quest to define each sub-factor & make-up of the atom.

So as Ed has pointed out, your SCT would indeed be similar to a Maksutov-Cassegrain, but would differ in many things as well. If you want a telescope that will provide you with the best wide-field view, a big Dobsonian-mounted Newtonian reflector would be an ideal choice. And so on down the list we could embark. So don't be surprised if one day you find yourself living in a vertible herd of telescopes - I certainly have. And shall likely continue to!

Bombs Away!

Dave -

44.2759 N & -73.2121 W

 

Hi, Fred. Let me just +1 and echo a lot of what's been said here. I have a 127mm Mak, not the 180mm, but wow how I love it! Just like others have said, the views are truly, ahem, stellar. The commonly used adjective to describe views through a Mak is that they are "apo-like." In other words, pinpoint detail. And it soaks up the magnification.

While the general scuttlebutt is that Maks are not well-suited for DSO observing, I heartily disagree. As mentioned, the 180 has a relatively narrow field of view. But most DSOs simply are not that big. There are only about a dozen or so that are larger than 1 degree - like Andromeda, the Pleiades, M33, M7, the Veil Nebula, etc. But my 127mm has about a 1.04 degree field of view, and the Double Cluster fits in nicely.

One final thing to point out is that the different flavors are actually different. The SkyWatcher flavor has a 2-inch back, allowing you to use 2-inch EPs, so that you can get the maximum FOV out of this scope. So, if you bought, say, the Baader Hyperion Aspheric 36mm/72 degree, that would get you 0.96 degrees maximum at 75x. That's not too shabby, and like I said, all but the very, very largest DSOs will fit into that FOV.

Now, yes, most larger DSOs will benefit from framing - the extra "empty" space around the DSO that will make it stand out better and look more pleasing to the eye. And in truth, Maks just aren't the proper instrument for that in general, and this one, at 2700mm focal length, is about the worst of the lot in that department.

But that's what short focal length refractors are for. Explore Scientific sells 5" and 6" achromatic refractors, the ES 127 and ES 152, for just $599 and $799 respectively. And they will give gorgeously wide fields of view. With that same Baader EP, the 127 will give you 3.14 degrees - big enough for every single object up there - while the 152 will give you 2.62 degrees. Not bad, indeed!

 

Hi Fred -

I managed to dredge-up further data - so I'll toss out what is evolving into a file-copy for the many people who are asking similar questions about these scopes. Seems my prediction of their getting much more popular is coming true. So here's my recent take dealing with collimation.

I hope your father-in-law has fared well. I know what a drag being in a hospital can be. I landed in one myself recently. At least they had real chefs' in the kitchen and the food was excellent! (Probably made from non-paying patients... <grumble, snarl...>)

To your query - Maksutovs can look quite confusing regards collimation. This as the secondary has no adjustment-screws like it's cousin, the Schmidt-Cassegrain (SCT). However this is not a problem, the method of collimation is equally as simple as the SCT. But first a word(s) to help you not worry:

The Pdf. I'll link below talks about the Orion Starmax and the Apex-brands of Maksutovs. But these brand-names are Orion's names for these. They are made by Synta in the Republic of China (Taiwan). And so are the SkyWatcher Maksutovs. As well as the Celestron Maksutovs. So the methodology as well as the mechanics of these telescopes are basically identical. Simplicity and function were, and are, a hallmark of Russian technology. And the "Gregorian-Maksutov" telescopes were invented, and then produced, in the Soviet Union in 1941 - when the nation was at war with Nazi Germany - when materials of all types were hard to come by for obvious reasons. The resourcefulness of the war-time Russsians is evident in the design of these wonderful telescopes and as shown by Dmitri Maksutov. Here's a brief history from Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksutov_telescope

Now to the collimation of these seemingly little powerhouses:

Collimation of Maksutov - Cassegrains.pdf

As I stated, this is on Pdf. format. Let me know if you have any problems with it in this format. I'm sure I can find another way if need be. I'm part Russian myself! The photo below shows the back of the SkyWatcher 180mm Maksutov. Note the collimation-screws are about the same as they are on the Orion from the Pdf.

I hope this helps you in your quest for knowledge regards these great & recently invented instruments. I have a SkyWatcher 150mm myself - amongst others. I love it!

'Ta,

Dave

 

Let me just counter what Dave just wrote, and also answer the question you asked about stability.

Dave gave you a primer on collimating Maks, but the truth is, they should not have to be collimated. Maybe if the Mak was dropped, kicked, or drop-kicked, but even then, I would doubt it. As has been mentioned in the thread, the Mak was developed in Russia during World War II, and from my understanding - which may well be apocryphal - it was specifically developed for use on tanks to sight targets. Think about how WW II-era tanks didn't really have shock absorbers like your car does, and you'll see where I'm going with this. Maks were built to withstand vibrations, to be bounced around, and to be manhandled.

Regardless of whether they truly were built for use on tanks on not, Maks themselves are built like tanks - which is why they weigh so much. And this gets to your question. Yes, Maks are stable; more stable than SCTs.

I am collimation-phobic and I specifically bought my 127 Mak so that I would not have to collimate it. I've owned it for two years and haven't even given a thought to collimation, because the views are still perfect, which I can check by defocusing the scope on a bright star and ensuring that the shadow of the secondary is centered in the disk that appears. Can Maks be collimated? Sure. Do they need to be? No. Not for a long, long time.

And even if you did for whatever reason need to collimate one, it would be much, much easier to collimate a Mak than to collimate any other reflector, SCTs included. As Dave mentioned, on the Synta Maks (Celestron, Skywatcher, Orion) the secondary is just an aluminized spot on the back of the meniscus. For that reason, the secondary is permanently collimated. The only collimation you would ever need to do would be of the primary. Every other reflector out there - including the SCT - needs to have both the primary and secondary collimated, increasing both the complexity of the collimation as well as the chances you haven't collimated it properly, leading to subpar views.

 

Hi jgroub -

I would hardly call that "Counter" to what I said. I would call it "clarifying" it! Thank you! I knew I was forgetting something(s)!

I should indeed have added that collimating a Maksutov is generally not going to be necessary. And I wouldn't be surprised if these scopes were used on Russian tanks - and might still be! When you first pick up a Mak, you will see how heavy-duty they are built. The tank they are riding on might have been hit by a Nazi Panzerfaust anti-tank weapon and this could result in destroying the tank - but the Maksutov might well still be perfectly collimated! They are that well constructed/designed.

And I couldn't agree more regards the SCT's being prone to far more issues as regards needing their collimation tweaked now & again. But still - SCT's and MCT's are different animals when it comes down to what applications they are best, or worst, used for. This is, in my opinion, their respective Field-Of-View (FOV) differences: Maksutov best for high-powered views of smaller targets like planets & ring-nebulae. Schmidt for a middle-range FOV objects like open-clusters and multple galaxy groups and smaller, extended nebulae. Middle of the road applications in general.

That's why I have an assortment of telescopes, as my signature indicates.

In the Last-Analysis: If you buy a Mak, it's more than likely it will be well-collimated straight out of the box upon arrival. Just do your best not to drop it down the stairs of throw it out the window. That heavy thing might kill someone if it fell on them!

Enjoy -

Dave