Image of the day

Captured by
~ AstroMart LLC~

I LOST YOUR IMAGES!!

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Anyone with experience on the Intes Micro M500D

Started by jmb, 07/30/2007 06:34PM
Posted 07/30/2007 06:34PM Opening Post
I wondered if any one out there has used the new Intes Micro M500D 127mm F10 Mak. I'm thinking of buying one as a nice grab and go. I would be interested in optics (advertised as 1/8 wave), mechanics( I have heard some of the Russian scopes are weak in this regard)as well as fit and finish(any plastic?) I have owned a TEC 6, so I know what a good Mak is, and also a Starmax 127, a good value. Is this scope closer to the TEC or the Orion?
Posted 07/31/2007 06:26PM #1
Nobody out there has any thoughts about the Intes Micro M500D? If not, experience with other Intes Micro maks would be helpful. Thanks, Jack
Posted 07/31/2007 11:18PM #2
Can't help with the the M500D but I have a Intes MK91 (9" maksutov-cassegrain) and the Intes MN56(Maksutov-Newtonian. Both are built like tanks with outstanding optics. I can't tell you much about the focuser they came with or even if they came with one. I put a Clements focuser on the MK91 and the MN56 had a JMI NGF DX-1 already installed. I am "very happy" with both of this (to say the least).

You might want to read this too ..

http://www.astromart.com/forums/viewpost.asp?forum_post_id=482269&poll_id=&news_id=&page=4

-JW:
Posted 08/02/2007 11:40AM #3
Jack:

I too have the little M500 and the TEC 6. In side by side comparisons the only real optical difference was due to aperture. My particular TEC 6 has the "cleanest" star test I've yet run across but the M500 was no slouch in that regard.

In a side by side test with my AR5 w/chromacor, the AR5 was ever so slightly sharper but the M500 was better color corrected, especially off-axis and DYNAMITE with a binoviewer.

I can highly recommend one even at its list price.

Jeff

"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things" 8O
Posted 08/02/2007 05:34PM #4
If planets are one reason for considering the 5" IM Mak I would reconsider a 5" MN which has a smaller co. and is much better on planets.
6" would be the smallest Mak that I would consider for planets.

Vahe
Posted 08/10/2007 08:13PM #5
I said I'd get back to all of you when I received the Intes Micro 603 we ordered. We haven't had time to test it on the interferometer, but that will happen in short order.

My first impressions; First, UPS did their usual smashing of the shipping box. It was completely mutilated. Luckily the scope itself is sent in its own padded case which helped protect it, sort of. Since UPS did such a fine job of throwing this item around they managed to knock loose the secondary mirror cell. So much for collimation.

The secondary mirror cell is held in place with a threaded ring. It is imperative to a user to make sure this ring is tightened snug. If you don't, the metal threaded cap that covers the collimation screw area, when turned to remove it, can rotate the secondary mirror cell. So don't put the cap on very tight or don't allow the cap to bottom out tight.

Visual inspection of all the parts; not the best anodize coatings of the black adapters I've ever seen. The included finder scope is ok, but is heavy and looks like military optics. The reticle was loose in the finder, probably from the UPS effort. The included padded case is nice, but the material inside has a tendency to collect hair. Mine looked like it was full of cat hair but cleaned up nicely.

The optical tube of the MAK had a paint chip right on the top. I don't think this happened from UPS, but since the scope is for work, I don't care. The structure of the scope is solid and built well, not like a cheap scope.

The focuser works good. It feels tight in some areas but I think it will smooth in with some use. Not much if any backlash from forward to reverse focusing, that is good.

The optics; I had to collimate it since UPS was so abusive. It wasn't too far off once the cell was tightened back down. Here's where I think the scope may excel. I used a LED with multiple apertures for a false star. It was daylight so I had to collimate indoors down a really long hall. Once I tweaked it close it became apparent that you could really dial in on the diffraction rings when focused to a pin point. I didn't notice any real flaring and can't wait to get it on a stable mount and work a small star at night. So in my lowly opinion, I believe the optics will be on par with the specs.

We'll know for certain in the next couple of weeks.

All in All, I'm happy with it for the reason we bought it, so far. If I was buying this for my own use I may have taken issue with the paint defect, maybe not. However, for the reason of the optics, I feel if you work the collimation to absolute perfection, then you'll see this scope will bring out some truly tight star pin points, almost refractor, but not quite, but close.

I'll follow up with the optic report soon. Joe