"Little Mak" 10 x 30 Monocular

D

Deano

Joined
Nov 17, 2001
Messages
9
Guys,
Anyone got one of these lovely looking monocular.
I'm thinking of ordering one of these anyone got any advice, store
etc.

http://store.yahoo.com/opticsplanet/littlemak.html

opticsplanet_1660_320402
 
I bought one of the Steiner monoculars. it is neat and compact and folds up. It literally fits in a front shirt pocket or a pants pocket...its a great little scope. Once I decided on one though it was a bit hard to find, but they are out there. The bottom line is a small easy to carry monocular or binoc is goiing to go with you instead of being a hangar queen at home.

Aloha,
Wabi
 
Of course, the Steiner costs about 3 x what the Little Mak does, and Russian optics can be pretty good, too. I have a 20 x Russian telescope built on the same principles as the LM. It's almost too powerful -- if I don't steady it carefully, the image really moves around too much.
 
Thanks for your replys, when i get round to ordering one, which wont be long coz of my addiciton to gagets, I'll do a review.
 
Noticed one thing about this little "Mak" that I thought would be worth mentioning -- I'm not sure if it's cause for concern. The catalog page keeps mentioning it as a "10x30" and as having a 1.5" aperture. It looks, however, as if the light gathering capability of this scope would be significantly less due to the fact that the mirror, or "central obstruction" in the main lens appears to cover over 50% of the aperture. So, we're actually talking a 10x scope with an effective aperture of .75, which to me seems like it's pushing it.

I'd be interested to hear what someone with more hard knowledge on this topic thinks -- I'm not a science guy, and I could very well be talking right out of my butt on this one....

Jeeves:cool:
 
jeeves, I believe the light gathering capacity depends on the forward objective itslef, not on any 'obstruction' deeper into the optic. That mirror only reflects whatever light gets in in the first place.
 
Jeeves thanks for the input , its worth hearing all opinion just so every angle is covered.
 
Just wanted to clarify what I was saying about Mak design. Esav, your statement is correct, however, with Maks, there in fact IS a mirror just on the inside of the main objective that impedes a measurable amount of incoming light. Light comes in through the primary objective, bounces against the primary mirror on the back wall of the scope, and then bounces a second time against a secondary mirror on the inside of the main objective before getting routed to the eye. This secondary mirror directly obscures light coming into the scope. The pics of the Mini Mak below seem to show a sizable mirror right in the middle of the primary objective. I'm pretty sure that light isn't going to be coming through that area. With a scope this small, and with such a high magnification, this could start to be an issue.

Check out this page: http://www.celestron.com/tb-2ref.htm --and scroll all the way to the very bottom for a small diagram of the Maksutov-Cassegrain design.


Cheers!
-Jeeves
 
I have a Zeiss if you are looking for the perfect pocket carry monocular. Even comes with a kydex carry system. They sell for $100 nib without the kydex, would be up for a trade though.

PIC of my Zeiss


~Ryan~
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top