Re: tak quality SCT?

I looked through an AP Mak Cas once.
Maybe it was just me, but I was far more impressed at the AP 1200 mount
than the OTA.......
Allan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps so, especially, if you were at a star party, and just before
looking through the AP Mak, you looked through a 20" Dob?

I'll admit, I've seen this once too, at one Astrofest, just coming from
a friend's Compustar 14, and then looking through the AP 10" Mak
(Roland's own personal scope, perhaps the Prototype)

Yes, I'm sure I saw a little more nebulosity in the C-14 lookng at DSO's
such as the Lagoon, and Trifid nebulas vs the AP 10" Mak, but I also did
regognize too, the much tighter star images, and high contrast that was
at hand through the AP.
The differences were subtle, and after running back, and forth a few
times, you begin to recognize the quality of the AP Mak. Individual
stars did appear a bit more "bloated" through the C-14. For visual use,
this may not seem quite so important, but for imaging, I'm sure this
makes all the difference in the world.

Another feature of the AP Mak. No mirror "Flop", and no Focuser "Slop".
Roland didn't cut any corners in these areas.

Bear in mind, that the C-14 has a mirror 4" larger in Diameter. Also
the fact that this test was done under what I call mediocre conditions
at an Astrofest 15 miles away from Kankakee, Ill. at the time.

I see no reason why a high quality SCT with superb wavefront quality
cannot be competitve to a high quality Maksutov.

As I mentioned earlier, there are other variants of the SCT that I'm
sure could have a better wider corrected field versus the average run of
the mill commercial SCT.

The current SCT's are quite light, and are good performers, but in my
opinion, lack in a few minor areas. Yes, a little more time spent on
better matching, and figuring of Optics would go a long way to putting
these scopes into a more consistant high quality. What if Celestron and
Meade spent an additional week to get Optics 'just right". What could
this cost? Another $1K?

Also, the mechanics could have improvments.
The biggest gripes, and shortcomings I see, are inadequate, relatively
flimsy focusing mechanisms, and thier outdated design, and Primary
Baffle Tubes/Mirror supports, which could be made to higher quality
designs, and tolerances. What could this cost? Another $500 tops? The
present focusers in Commercial SCT's must cost the manufacturers a
whopping $5 apiece! Take a look if you can, at an AP 10" Mak's Focusing
mechanism. A hell of a big difference.

If a Celestron C11 had 1/10 wave final wavefront optics, what good would
it be, if the scope still exhibits focuser slop, and mirror flop? Mark
D.

.