Thanks,
Jeff DeTray
je...@detray.com
http://www.detray.com/jeff
Wide-field Astrophotos & Barn-door Camera Mount
I had a Intes Micro Alter M603 for about 3 months.
It is a fine, compact, rugged and well built instrument (no I'm not affiliated
with anyone). A dewcap is a must on it. Don't buy the one from Intes-Micro.
I've tried that, and although it is a wonderful piece of workmanship it
doesn't keep the dew away.
Go for something simple instead, e.g. felt og velvet in a cardboard or
aluminium tubing.
The 12x55 finder is bad! Only 1/3 of the field is usable. I don't understand
why Intes-Micro makes such a bad finder.
The focuser on it was a little too stiff which made it quite difficult to
focus in cold weather, however I think it is possible to adjust this. The
barlow that comes with it is quite good. The 30mm eyepiece is acceptable.
Over 200x on the Moon is no-problem with this scope. And star images are very
sharp, and deep sky contrasty. Much more than in my old 8" Meade SCT. The
background sky is pitch-black in the Maksutov, not so in the SCT at same mag.
If I were to choose between the 6" Mak and the 8" old SCT, I'd go for the Mak
even though it has a smaller aperture, mainly because my SCT was somewhat
bad,- I guess.
I tried the M603 six times on Jupiter, and compared it to my 3.5" Vixen apo
fluorite refractor (FL-90S), and a cheap 6" Meade Starfinder Newton. Of
course the 6"ers showed a brighter image, but none of them could show the
intricate detail that was visible at that time around the GRS and esp. in the
SEB as well as the 3.5". So I decided that since the M603 didn't show
substantially more detail than my 3.5" on Jupiter, I traded it in for the
Mak-Newt MN61 which I hope will show even more (I have not received it yet).
You can always hope :-) I'm not implying in any way that I'm a highly skilled
telescope tester, but I've looked thru many-a-scope since 1979, and I know a
sharp and contrasty image when I see one. The M603 is quite capable of this,
it is just that little feeling I got when comparing it with the apo - there
was an eversoslight difference, and being a "planet/telescope nut" I decided
to keep the apo, return the M603, and go for something else. I *may* have been
wrong doing so.
An observing friend of mine has a M603. I looked thru that one, and it seems -
although I cannot qualify it very much - that the quality is similar. The
focuser on his is easier to use, but the image seems to move ever so little.
It didn't do that in mine.
HEAT is a problem with these Maks. It also was with mine. My observing friend
is having a fan installed in the back of his Mak, and holes cut around the
corrector plate (don't do this before the warranty runs out, and get someone
who is trained to do it). He says that it has improved the views
substantially.
So all in all I can say that the M603 is a fine instrument which I would
gladly buy again. It does have a heat "problem" - which the MN61 has very much
too - according to the test in S&T April issue.
Kindest regards
Morten Bech Kristensen
Denmark
Jeff DeTray skrev:
It is already exchanged to an much better quality finder since several month
> The focuser on it was a little too stiff which made it quite difficult to
> focus in cold weather, however I think it is possible to adjust this.
It is also improved since middle of last year> > >
Markus>
> Kindest regards
> Morten Bech Kristensen
> Denmark
>
> Jeff DeTray skrev:
>
> > If you have any experience with this scope, I'd like to hear from you. I'm
> > considering it as my next scope.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jeff DeTray
> > je...@detray.com
> > http://www.detray.com/jeff
> > Wide-field Astrophotos & Barn-door Camera Mount
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own