4:06 - "Because of the thick corrector plates on the Mak, its light gathering is very slow. This is not ideal for astrophotography." -- I'm sorry, what does it mean? The corrector plate is a lens, so are you saying its thickness is so great it significantly reduces light flux? That I would find hard to believe. Also, not mentioned is that the secondary mirror, which obstructs part of the light is normally smaller in Maks than in SCT's. See 2:22 - compare Mirror 2 on the left and on the right.
The name is French, and it's pronounced 'KASS-granh', almost like 'gran', but not quite getting the 'n'. But, that nit-picking aside, I liked your approach and informative delivery.
Nice and simple explanation, thanks. I have a NexStar 127SLT which is a MAK. I want to do astrophotography, but as I suspected, and you confirmed, this OTA is unsuitable. You can take shorter videos of planets and stack them but that is just as easily done using an SCT.
There's quite a few folks who have been able to screw on an SCT-type Focal Reducer to the back of their MAKSUTOV telescopes in order to widen the field of view and to speed up the f-stop ratio. Even the large 2700mm f/15 SkyMax 180 will come down to f/9.5 and offer considerably more light to work with if fitted with a 0.63x reducer. I've seen some pleasant deep space objects and nebulas photographed with 127 MAKs as well. The Schmidt-Cassegrain type scopes have their own set of problems... often requiring flatterers and regular collimation. The cool-down time for a MAK wasn't really covered here and is typically slightly longer than other types of telescopes. Other than Great Orion Nebula, you can't see much in the way of DSOs looking though telescopes with the naked eye, so that leaves the Moon, Stars and Planets... all of which are best served with a MAK. If buying for Astrophotography, I'd probably aim for the higher-end Celestron EDGE HD models or even a RASA type model. And of course you can do spectacular wide-field (24mm-50mm) to medium-field (85mm-600mm) images with just a camera, with or without tracking.
Which one is better for planetary imaging with high resolution? I havent found the answer in the video. Only astrophotography but i think that is deep sky imaging?
I just bought a Celestron NexStar 4SE, which is a MAK. I am not interested in deep space astrophotography, so thanks for confirming that I bought the right kind of scope for my intentions.
That is interesting, becase all the other Nexstar *SEs (5SE, 6SE and 8SE) are Schmidt-Cassegrain. I first read you post and wat like, "No it's not." Then I did some digging and found it is the only one in the line that is a MAK.
They say that Dmitriy Maksutov invented his MAK telescope back in 1940s with an idea to make a good compact telescope easy to use for schools and astronomy classes. It had a small tube 10cm diamete and 18 cm length, x70 and a short az mount.
MAK Telescopes are good too. But it depends on what u want to observe primarily. If u want to observe planets and nearby objects in great detail then mak Telescopes are good
I thought it was the typically long focal ratio of the Mak that made it photographically ‘slow’’-not the fact that it has a thick meniscus type corrector. BTW, it’s pronounced Cass-eee-grain rather than Cass-AY-grain.
They are about the same price, but the mak gets a bit more expensive if you get one with big aperture like the 180 mm mak. The big difference in price is the mount you get with it.
Have you considered making a video on different focuser types and how to choose the right focuser for your telescope? Maybe even how to measure to make sure you get the proper baseplate? I think this could be very helpful, especially for people customizing/upgrading older or more inexpensive scopes.
That "kay-say-grain" part is painful to hear 😅
hahaha 🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗
Over and over again, yes-ay-grain! I can't stop hearing it. But excellent description of each-ay-grain
Cat-a-di-op-tric 😳, how we meant to trust what they say when they can't even say it correctly?
Cass-a-grain. Repeat after me kids
It does bring the narrator's credibility into question.
4:06 - "Because of the thick corrector plates on the Mak, its light gathering is very slow. This is not ideal for astrophotography."
-- I'm sorry, what does it mean? The corrector plate is a lens, so are you saying its thickness is so great it significantly reduces light flux?
That I would find hard to believe.
Also, not mentioned is that the secondary mirror, which obstructs part of the light is normally smaller in Maks than in SCT's. See 2:22 - compare Mirror 2 on the left and on the right.
The name is French, and it's pronounced 'KASS-granh', almost like 'gran', but not quite getting the 'n'. But, that nit-picking aside, I liked your approach and informative delivery.
Nice and simple explanation, thanks. I have a NexStar 127SLT which is a MAK. I want to do astrophotography, but as I suspected, and you confirmed, this OTA is unsuitable. You can take shorter videos of planets and stack them but that is just as easily done using an SCT.
I'm glad you found this video helpful 🤗🤗
There's quite a few folks who have been able to screw on an SCT-type Focal Reducer to the back of their MAKSUTOV telescopes in order to widen the field of view and to speed up the f-stop ratio. Even the large 2700mm f/15 SkyMax 180 will come down to f/9.5 and offer considerably more light to work with if fitted with a 0.63x reducer. I've seen some pleasant deep space objects and nebulas photographed with 127 MAKs as well. The Schmidt-Cassegrain type scopes have their own set of problems... often requiring flatterers and regular collimation. The cool-down time for a MAK wasn't really covered here and is typically slightly longer than other types of telescopes. Other than Great Orion Nebula, you can't see much in the way of DSOs looking though telescopes with the naked eye, so that leaves the Moon, Stars and Planets... all of which are best served with a MAK. If buying for Astrophotography, I'd probably aim for the higher-end Celestron EDGE HD models or even a RASA type model. And of course you can do spectacular wide-field (24mm-50mm) to medium-field (85mm-600mm) images with just a camera, with or without tracking.
Which one is better for planetary imaging with high resolution? I havent found the answer in the video. Only astrophotography but i think that is deep sky imaging?
usually longer focal ratio is better for planets. Maks have longer focal ratios so are better for planets
Maks are better for planets.
I just bought a Celestron NexStar 4SE, which is a MAK. I am not interested in deep space astrophotography, so thanks for confirming that I bought the right kind of scope for my intentions.
That is interesting, becase all the other Nexstar *SEs (5SE, 6SE and 8SE) are Schmidt-Cassegrain. I first read you post and wat like, "No it's not." Then I did some digging and found it is the only one in the line that is a MAK.
They say that Dmitriy Maksutov invented his MAK telescope back in 1940s with an idea to make a good compact telescope easy to use for schools and astronomy classes. It had a small tube 10cm diamete and 18 cm length, x70 and a short az mount.
@ 5:30, '...limited to observing planars...' Yikes! 😀
Poor Cassegrain was massacred
They're both cassegrain.
lol this a joke?
Maks are sharper and have better contrast than SCT's due to their smaller central obstruction.
I always thought the MAK was better than the SCT, thanks to you I avoided a huge mistake :D
MAK Telescopes are good too. But it depends on what u want to observe primarily.
If u want to observe planets and nearby objects in great detail then mak Telescopes are good
@@TheAlienTechschất lượng hình ảnh và độ phân giải của mak có tốt hơn SCT không?
Thank you for the details. I'm a relative newbie with an 8" Dobsonian and EQ mount 4.5 reflector. I'm still soaking up as much information as I can.
I thought it was the typically long focal ratio of the Mak that made it photographically ‘slow’’-not the fact that it has a thick meniscus type corrector. BTW, it’s pronounced Cass-eee-grain rather than Cass-AY-grain.
I can’t believe this is the take they went with
Nvm probably ai. I was assuming this video was older than it is
C_________assegrain.
Thanks for the video!!
Wait a sec, I don't think I've ever seen a Schmidt cheaper than an equivalent Mak-Cass. Maybe I'm just Googling wrong
They are about the same price, but the mak gets a bit more expensive if you get one with big aperture like the 180 mm mak. The big difference in price is the mount you get with it.
Thanks
Is this created by AI?
Noooo
AI is stupid unless given human intervention.
@@TheAlienTechs why were you talking like that?
@@digitalblasphemy1100 That's my voiceover artist, not me.. n she talks like that.....🤗🤗🤗🤗
@@TheAlienTechs I like her voice except for that 'Kay-say-grain ' part lol, but at least she pronounces every word correctly,
Great explanation, but listening to her talk is agonizing.
Have you considered making a video on different focuser types and how to choose the right focuser for your telescope? Maybe even how to measure to make sure you get the proper baseplate? I think this could be very helpful, especially for people customizing/upgrading older or more inexpensive scopes.
Thanks.
"Nearby objects"......did you mean the moon?
Moon n planets
"Cass Saay Grain"
Look how they massacred my boy...
hahahaha,
btw its difficult to pronounce for most not-tech people. 😅😅🤗
Good content, but that voice! Is this AI?
No, it's a real woman's voice
@@TheAlienTechs What is her accent, do you know?
Don't you just hate ai?
It's not AI.. 🤗🤗