Maksutov or Schmidt ??

Hi,

Having had my interest in astronomy re-kindled due to the long dark and
surprisingly clear nights I've started looking at buying a scope again.
I bought a Celestron 8 GPS a couple of years ago but didn't use it much
and eventually sold it (about 5-6 months later).

Although I enjoyed the images I saw of things like Saturn, Jupiter,
Orion and the moon I'm basically a lazy person and the thought of
dragging it downstairs and outside frequently and set up and align (or
let it align should I say) only for the skies to cloud over within 30
mins used to get me down - you know what I mean??

I digress... I was thinking of getting something a bit smaller, a bit
more point and shoot which didn't cut any corners in the quality stakes
and perhaps, even raise them slightly. In light of this my targeted
weapon of choice is an Orion Optics OMC140 GP - partly because it's 3
figures as opposed to 4 (£995) but mostly because it's more compact,
lighter and if I really want GOTO, heavier, sturdier mount,
motor-driven - I can upgrade as and when.

Now to the point... Am I making a wise decision (in your opinions) to
go for a Maksutov design instead of a Schmidt or is a case of 6 of 1,
half a dozen of the other? I've read somewhere that the Maksutov is not
quite as good optically as the Schmidt and that it's easier to make and
therefore should be cheaper. I'm pretty sure that whenever I've seen
quality Maksutov's that theyve carried a price premium over their
Schmidt brothers (Mead LX series for example).

Can anyone help me come to a decision or even steer me down a better path..?

Thanks in advance, Gary.

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 01:11:25 +0000, Gary Sanderson wrote:

Hi,

Having had my interest in astronomy re-kindled due to the long dark and
surprisingly clear nights I've started looking at buying a scope again.
I bought a Celestron 8 GPS a couple of years ago but didn't use it much
and eventually sold it (about 5-6 months later).

Although I enjoyed the images I saw of things like Saturn, Jupiter,
Orion and the moon I'm basically a lazy person and the thought of
dragging it downstairs and outside frequently and set up and align (or
let it align should I say) only for the skies to cloud over within 30
mins used to get me down - you know what I mean??

I digress... I was thinking of getting something a bit smaller, a bit
more point and shoot which didn't cut any corners in the quality stakes
and perhaps, even raise them slightly. In light of this my targeted
weapon of choice is an Orion Optics OMC140 GP - partly because it's 3
figures as opposed to 4 (£995) but mostly because it's more compact,
lighter and if I really want GOTO, heavier, sturdier mount,
motor-driven - I can upgrade as and when.

Now to the point... Am I making a wise decision (in your opinions) to
go for a Maksutov design instead of a Schmidt or is a case of 6 of 1,
half a dozen of the other? I've read somewhere that the Maksutov is not
quite as good optically as the Schmidt and that it's easier to make and
therefore should be cheaper. I'm pretty sure that whenever I've seen
quality Maksutov's that theyve carried a price premium over their
Schmidt brothers (Mead LX series for example).

Can anyone help me come to a decision or even steer me down a better path..?

Thanks in advance, Gary.

Gary, I think you may be dissapointed in the effects of the size
reduction; A 140mm telescope is about half the size of a 200mm in
area. Also, the maximum practical magnification will be less and if
planetary observation is your main interest then this will be
important to you.

I believe you may get a slightly smaller central obstruction (and
therby, higher contrast) in the OMC140, but I can't be sure because
Orion don't quote this measurement on their web site.

Maksutovs tend to have slightly heavier lumps of glass in them than
Schmidt Cassegrains so cool down is likely to be longer. I see that
Orion offer a cooling fan as an option for the 140.

If you compare the same size of 'scope then the Mak is almost always
more expensive, see the OMC200 prices, for example.

Having said all that, I have seen some good web cam images from OMC
140s and Orion have a good reputation for quality so you might be
quite satisfied with it.

An alternative at less than half the price would be the Skywatcher 127
Maksutov which many, including myself, reckon is a good 'scope for the
money, although collimating it is very fiddly and of course, it is
even smaller. It takes about an hour to cool so may not be the 'point
and shoot' that you are looking for; I guess only a refractor will
give you that.

Regards

- Mike