Intes MK-72 versus MK67 and MN61
Miland Joshi
4-inch Apo, the MN61 to a 5-inch Apo in terms of image quality (eg rings
of Saturn). However the MN61 is more expensive, much heavier, and hence
needs a bigger stand which is in turn much heavier and more expensive.
Recently however I've found about the 'forthcoming' Intes MK72,
apparently heavier than the MK67 but lighter than the MN61, and it is
supposed to be portable.
(a) Has anyone experience of this new scope, and does it need a stand
heavier than one which would support the MK67?
(b) How does its image quality compare to the other two?
Regards
Miland Joshi
Tom Hobby
eliminate all vibrations, especially at the higher powers. Don't go
cheapie on the mount or you will regret it.
Tom
Brad
You arent comparing apples for apples here. The MN61 is a Mak Newt and the 67
and 72 are Mak Cass'es. The 72 is available right now.
I believe the tube is only 19 pounds on the MN61 which isnt all that heavy.
Brad
Shoot for the moon, for if you miss, you will be among the stars.....
lude...@my-deja.com
bjd...@aol.com (Brad) wrote:
>
>
> You arent comparing apples for apples here. The MN61 is a Mak Newt
and the 67
> and 72 are Mak Cass'es.
The 72 is available right now ,
only at drawings. The MK-72 is not available for anybody before March
2000
Markus
>
> I believe the tube is only 19 pounds on the MN61 which isnt all that
heavy.
>
> Brad
> Shoot for the moon, for if you miss, you will be among the stars.....
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bill Becker
lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <19991105225351...@ng-cj1.aol.com>,
> bjd...@aol.com (Brad) wrote:
> >
> >
> > You arent comparing apples for apples here. The MN61 is a Mak Newt
> and the 67
> > and 72 are Mak Cass'es.
>
> The 72 is available right now ,
> only at drawings. The MK-72 is not available for anybody before March
> 2000
>
> Markus
Hi Markus, ITE has the MK-72 listed in their product line: standard
version $1595 & 45.00 S&H, deluxe version $1995 & 45.00 S&H.
Best regards,
Bill
Michael P. Smith
Bill Becker <bb...@rmisp.com> wrote in message
news:801l93$lrh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Markus is a very reliable source, or atleast has been historically. A call
to ITE might reveal that although the scope is listed the actual delivery
time will be 4+ months (ie. after March 2000).
Michael P. Smith
Bill Becker
> Markus is a very reliable source, or atleast has been historically. A
call
> to ITE might reveal that although the scope is listed the actual
delivery
> time will be 4+ months (ie. after March 2000).
>
> Michael P. Smith
>
>
scopes so they're probably listed for preorders. I should have known
better than to question Markus on his post. Many thanks.
Lawrence Sayre
>
> Bill Becker <bb...@rmisp.com> wrote in message
> news:801l93$lrh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <8018i3$djn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <19991105225351...@ng-cj1.aol.com>,
> > > bjd...@aol.com (Brad) wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You arent comparing apples for apples here. The MN61 is a Mak Newt
> > > and the 67
> > > > and 72 are Mak Cass'es.
> > >
> > > The 72 is available right now ,
> > > only at drawings. The MK-72 is not available for anybody before March
> > > 2000
> > >
> > > Markus
> >
> > Hi Markus, ITE has the MK-72 listed in their product line: standard
> > version $1595 & 45.00 S&H, deluxe version $1995 & 45.00 S&H.
> to ITE might reveal that although the scope is listed the actual delivery
> time will be 4+ months (ie. after March 2000).
>
> Michael P. Smith
It may even very well be that ITE is the US distributor for APM/Markus
Ludes?
---------------------------------------------
"Man's mind is his basic tool of survival!"
(a quote from the famous 'John Galt' speech
in the equally famous book "Atlas Shrugged")
Lawrence Sayre <lsa...@stratos.net>
---------------------------------------------
lude...@my-deja.com
> >
> > Markus
>
> Hi Markus, ITE has the MK-72 listed in their product line: standard
> version $1595 & 45.00 S&H, deluxe version $1995 & 45.00 S&H.
> Best regards,
> Bill
INTES plan was available for October, than delayed to December, than
delayed to January and 2 days ago we was informed delayed until March
2000
Markus
lude...@my-deja.com
> It may even very well be that ITE is the US distributor for APM/Markus
> Ludes?
yes.
The MK72 is delaed due follow reason: I told to INTES if they design it
with to small tubes as in MN71, than i refuse to sell it. Now the
redesign this scope for larger tube.
There is still available the INTES MICRO 703 , 180/1800 Mak
Markus
> > Lawrence Sayre <lsa...@stratos.net>
> ---------------------------------------------
R. Kantrowitz
than a 4-inch. The definition is slightly better and the image is much
brighter. It's not as good as a 5-inch Starfire but it's much more
portable and mountable. If you get a 7-inch Maksutov, it will take a long
time to cool down. My experience is that a 4-inch triplet takes about 30-45
minutes to give its' best images in the winter and a 5-inch triplet takes a
good hour as does a 6-inch Maksutov Cassegrain. By the time the 7 inch
cools down, it will be time to get to bed on a worknight! I know a number
of folks who regularly observe with newtonians larger than 12 inches, but I
also know several people who hate setting up their 10-inch SCs. If you are
really worried about portability, perhaps you should satisfy yourself with a
6-inch Mak-Cass.
Ralph K.
Miland Joshi wrote in message <3822DF...@le.ac.uk>...
>I've read the test reports on the Net that the MK67 is comparable to a
>4-inch Apo, the MN61 to a 5-inch Apo in terms of image quality (eg rings
>of Saturn)...
Paul Hyndman
"R. Kantrowitz" <mist...@erols.com> wrote:
> If you get a 7-inch Maksutov, it will take a long time to cool
> down. My experience is that a 4-inch triplet takes about 30-45
> minutes to give its' best images in the winter and a 5-inch
> triplet takes a good hour as does a 6-inch Maksutov Cassegrain.
> By the time the 7 inch cools down, it will be time to get to bed
> on a worknight.
Yeah, cool down time can be a bummer, but many of the higher grade Mak-
Casses and Mak-Newts now come with fans or have the back plates
machined to accept them. The increased use of Sital or Quartz (low co-
efficient of thermal expansion) for the primaries and secondaries also
aids in speeding the viewing time.
My own 8" Intes Micro MN86 Mak-Newt has thus far given me no problems
reaching thermal equilibrium. It's gone through a 20-25 degree (F)
temperature differential to being "viewable" before I was ready to
view! (Getting the rest of my cra... er... gear set up!)
Clear Skies!
Paul
--
Paul Hyndman pghy...@yahoo.com Madison, CT
Gary Hand
Gary H.
tgs...@my-deja.com
Miland Joshi <MJ...@le.ac.uk> wrote:
> I've read the test reports on the Net that the MK67 is comparable to a
> 4-inch Apo, the MN61 to a 5-inch Apo in terms of image quality (eg
rings
hence
> needs a bigger stand which is in turn much heavier and more expensive.
> Recently however I've found about the 'forthcoming' Intes MK72,
> apparently heavier than the MK67 but lighter than the MN61, and it is
> supposed to be portable.
> (a) Has anyone experience of this new scope, and does it need a stand
> heavier than one which would support the MK67?
> (b) How does its image quality compare to the other two?
>
> Regards
> Miland Joshi
ordered new. The heavy weights are coming from Aluminum tubes made in
mother Russia. I don't think there's a price upcharge and the weight
drops by half which is a help.
PCFS User
I understand that the Celestron G5 is a 5" SCT. Wouldn't it lose out to
the 6" Mak-Newts on both aperture (5" instead of 6 or 7) and optics (SC
instead of MK), though I imagine it would win on portability?
Regards
Miland
Miland
> ordered new. The heavy weights are coming from Aluminum tubes made in
> mother Russia. I don't think there's a price upcharge and the weight
> drops by half which is a help.
That's very useful info. Is ITE the same as Intes, or the American
Orion...?
Brian Avila
scopes online. Here is a link to their website for more info on them.
http://www.burnettweb.com/ite/index.html
Clear Skies
Brain Avila
Miland <MJ...@le.ac.uk> wrote in message news:38282F...@le.ac.uk...
mbarto...@my-deja.com
The 25mm ep it comes with is fine and a 40mm Kellner provides some
stunning wider views. However, when I up the mag using a 12mm or 6mm
Kellner I'm disappointed with the results (collimation is excellent).
Doubles that should split don't, clusters that should resolve won't. I
accept that conditions in light polluted and damp Manchester UK are not
perfect but I still feel results could be improved with advice from out
there. Do you only get what you pay for and if so how much considering
the scopes spec? Would a Barlow with fewer better eps be better? What
are zoom eps like? What are your favourites?..................... or do
I have to move??
Many thanks, Mick.
Tdcarls
barlows with eyepieces better than a high power ep because of the eye relief.
I have a Celestron Ultima 2x barlow and a Meade 142 2.8 barlow. In eyepieces,
I have a 11mm TV plossel, a 15mm plossel, 18mm Meade SW (the most used) and a
26mm Meade super plossel. I found that these focal length eyepieces with the
barlows give me a wide range of power with only a bit of overlap.
I am thinking of getting a 40mm though just to get down to a lower power.
Todd
http://members.aol.com/tdcarls/simpleastrophotography.html
RHGRUEN
I have a C5+ and have absolutely no problem with 9mm (telvue Nagler) and
smaller 6.7 (ultra wide Meade) and 4.7 same. I also have a 2x Meade barlow
model #140 which works extremely well and very sharp.
How do you know your scope is well collimated? You have to use a lot of power
to finely collimate it. I use my 4.7mm with the 2x barlow (510 power) to
accurately collimate. Good collimation makes a large differnce. My C5 images
are refractor almost like after careful collimation. Super images, and very
sharp which most C5's are capable of. Double check your collimation. Also the
Celstron star (prism) 1 1/4" diagonals are usually way off. I used a laser to
align my diagonal.
Ralph G
Miland
Seriously, the light pollution in the suburbs of Leicester is no better
than I imagine is the case in any British city. I imagine your country
has less of a problem with light pollution, even in suburban areas,
because of the greater space, and furthermore you have deserts and
mountains where I imagine the problem would be nil. The question is, how
difficult is it for dwellers in surburbia to get to a desert or mountain
in your country?