>>3051424>monstrous 1000mm Meade telescopekek no. It's just Meades' version of a mirror lens. The only serious Maksutov design they ever manufactured had a design flaw that meant it never reached thermal equilibrium.
>And even if a mirror lens were perfectly collimated, it still wouldn't resolve as well as even a lousy refracting lens.Not true, resolution is one of the strengths of catadioptric systems. Granted a high end refracting 'scope will out perform it slightly but in the case of the Meade you have, it would be 3 feet long and cost at least 4 times the price.
>>3051427meh
>>3051536>especially for low-contrast objectsAgain refractors do have the edge slightly. This is more down to poorly designed baffles and internal anti reflective coatings rather than the central obstuction.
>It's not like Meade is some fly-by-night operator>It's not some piece of shit Tasco.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meade_Instruments#Financial_problems>Meade's Irvine, California manufacturing plant was closed, with manufacturing moved to a new plant in Mexico>In September 2013, Sunny Optics Inc, a unit of the Chinese firm Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co Ltd, completed the acquisition of the entire share capital of Meade.Celestron beat them to it, the generic C90 type is cool (with some black flocking inside).
The P900 is an interesting camera but it's shortcomings are aplenty. For Astrophotography it's probably the worst choice evar. For the Moon (the second brightest celestial object) it's still far from ideal.
Pic related is shot with an "inferior" catadioptric system. 2000mm f1:14. No stacking, minimal PS editing (apsc so the far right has been added as I couldn't get the whole Moon in frame).
