Mak vs Schmidt

Hi - I'm shopping for my first scope and was told that a 7" Mak-Caasegrain would rival a 9.25 and even an 11" Schmidt Cassegrain for both planetary and deep sky viewing. I know that bigger aperture is better as a general rule so I'm confused. Can I really scale up a 7" with eye pieces that significantly and is the Mak's clarity really that much better?
Thanks in advance.

Hi

Yes, it will but there are more serious issues with a 7" Mak and that's why Meade dropped it. Due to the much thicker corrector plate, weight is almost impossible to deal with and, much worse, cool down time on a 7" Mak is much, much longer than even a large 10" SCT. If you want to use a 7" Mak in the winter, cool down time will be measured in hours!

Thanks a ton Joanie - immensely helpful for a rookie.
Cheers.

You are very welcome. If you are going bigger than 5", a Schmidt-Cassegrain is much more practical for those very reasons.

I was close to deciding on a Vixen VMC200L, until i (fortunately) read this string about the cool down time problems with Maks. But Vixen's literature mentions their VMC200L addresses this cool down time issue. Do you believe that's true, or is there still a cool down difference which justifies a SCT instead?

Thanks much!

Roger

Hi

I haven't heard any reports on that Vixen in terms of cool down time, one way or the other, but it really is your only option if you want a large aperture Mak.

One other possibility is the Meade ACF, which will give you excellent correction across the field and still have excellent cool down time. It is still a Schmidt-Cassegrain at heart and avoids the thick corrector plate of a Mak.

Thanks much for the help!

You are very welcome