Intes Micro MK-67

Ratings:Top:Astronomy:Equipment Reviews:Telescope Reviews:Intes Micro MK-67

 Info  Votes  Messages  More Stats  Up One Level
Vote
Page 1 of 2 Next

Intes Micro MK-67
Excellent, excellent optics. Good mechanics. Superb value.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=37852

Intes Micro MK-67
I have two of these tube assemblies, and each produces nearly perfect high power images of the planets, moon, etc. They are much better optically than my C8, and C11 telescopes, and I would highly recommend the Intes MK-67 Telescope.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=37853

Intes Micro MK-67
Fantastic, the best.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=37856

Intes Micro MK-67
Star test perfect. Excellent visual image. Not enough back focus, Crayford focusser fair, and finder terrible (Telrad does the job just fine.) Strong plusses are light weight, airline transportable, and sharp image edge-to-edge with perfect image flatness.

Overall Rating: 9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=37858

Intes Micro MK-67
Excellent star test. Does an outstanding job on Lunar/planetary. Images with the Intes mirror diagonal are virtually indentical to TV 2" diagonal. Scope holds collimation well. A great buy!

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=37859

Intes Micro MK-67
OTA only. Excellent optics, not perfect on star test, but only error is minor undercorrection. Both double double and Izar are laughably easy on a good night. First diffraction rings don't even touch. In focus, stars absolutely textbook through 300X if seeing allows. Shows excellent detail on Mars, lots of low level markings and light areas, even on the "bad" side. Polar caps a cinch even in summer. Sharp all the way to the edge with all quality eyepieces, very forgiving of cheap designs. No field curvature, no image shift. Nice 2-inch focuser, but travel too limited. Long cool down time. Very compact, very solid. Finder so-so, bad edge correction. Nice carry handle, nice carry case.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=37860

Intes Micro MK-67
Very nice telescope. Startest only showed minor undercorrection, though stars nicely snaps into focus. Very sharp optics for an obstructed telescope. Much sharper than seen in commercial 8" SCT-s. Solid, compact OTA with a 2-inch Crayford focuser. Handsome 7x35 mm finderscope, though cross hairs cannot be seen under dark skies. Only disadvantages are long cool-down time and lack of back focus. Built to last a life time: beautiful all-round instrument. I.m.o. it is a good alternative for expensive 4- to 5-inch APO-s.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=37864

Intes Micro MK-67
TA only. Perfect in-focus, slightly dissimilar intra and extra diffraction patterns (?because it is a Mak?)Superb contrast compared to 2 C8's I have owned. Excels at plantetary, not bad at DS. I like being able to collimate secondary, as opposed to normal design Maks. Rugged contruction and quality 'feel'. Limited back-focus a bit of a pain. Finder so close to main tube as to be almost unuseable.

Overall Rating: 9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=37865

Intes Micro MK-67
Love my MK67; as other reviewers have noted, the definition is fantastic! Lightweight and portable; does well on a CG5 mount. Rating:9

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=37866

Intes Micro MK-67
Excellent telescope. Mediocre finder, but who spends all night through a finder?
I bought a 7 inch baffled intes-micro dew cap from ITE and adapted to my MK-67.
I traded a 4 inch apo refractor for the MK-67. I got the better deal. It won't
fit its nice carrying case. Perfect diffration pattern. Saturn looked great
and Cassini's division looked like a black band at 400X. Superior to Questar.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=37867

Intes Micro MK-67
On a night of moderate steadiness, fairly deep sky, moderate to low humidity with an extinguishing overhead magnitude of about 5 (within a city of a quarter million folk with lights) I was able to do the following: see the outlying portions of M31 (Andromeda galaxy), possibly detect the 14th magnitude central star of the dumbell nebula, the Great Nebula in Orion looked like a boiling caldron of smoke and gasses, the trapezium revealed a fifth star, perhaps...just maybe glimpsed a bit of the veil nebula, able to easily see galaxy NGC 1398 in Fornax and galaxy NGC 1371 but with averted vision on the second, was not able to see the Eridanus cluster, Saturn revealed four moons and a fairly clear cassini division, Jupiter revealed a bullet hole black eclipse shadow. On a previous night, which was much steadier, the cassini division was a jet black line all around, the four moons of Jupiter all revealed size as tiny disks, shadows on the limb of the nearly full moon were jet black. M31 and M15 are easily resolved into balls of stars.
Drawbacks include that it does take over an hour to reach thermal equilibrium when it is near freezing outside after bring the OTA outside from a warm area. Once the correction plate dews up one is pretty much through for the night unless you want to haul it in and wait for it to dry up and then take over another hour for thermal equilibrium.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=37868

Intes Micro MK-67
I have the Orion (Argonaut) version of this unit and have written up
my experiences with that scope elsewhere on this site. Despite this,
it also made sense for me to comment on the OTA alone and perhaps
recast my input in a slightly different form...

Like all performance scopes, the MK-67 is heavily impacted by seeing
conditions -- especially on planetary objects. However, under stable
skies (not necessarily clear), Saturn displays a laundry list of features
(Cassini division, inner dusky ring against the planet body, shadow
of body on B-ring, unresolved striations in A-ring -- hints of the
Encke division --, north equatorial belt, a broad equatorial
band at planet waist, up to 5 satellites.) Views of Saturn are
simply transfixing (though, in my opinion, no real "work" can be
done with Saturn using such a modestly sized scope.) But
you will find yourself returning to it time and time again and also
revisiting your perplexity of how it can look so good or so bad
depending on the sky...

Jupiter's satellites are obviously not stars. (Although if I had
more than a 200x ep, all four Galilean's would probably display
a disk.) Six belts are visible on the surface (the equatorial belt splits
into a central and southern component) plus the two NEB's and 2 SEB's.
At 200x, I have not seen detail within the EB, but irregularities in its
edge are often apparent. Finally the "Great (not so Red) Spot" is
visible when present. I would say that the 34% central obstruction
of the MK-67 reduces image contrast on Jupiter. For this reason, surface
details may not be obvious to less-experienced observers.
In terms of serious "work", MK-67 users can probably make useful
contributions in the area of satellite- and the occasional NEB disturbance-
transit timing but little more than this...

For deep-sky use (more important to me personally than viewing
planetary detail), the MK-67's long-focus gives up a little to shorter-focus
8" Newtonians (in terms of light grasp and image brightness). However,
the MK-67 provides superb definition -- when sufficient light is present.
(M42 is a religious experience, brighter globular clusters resolve in ways
comparable to that reported about 8" Newts rather than 6" models).
For lesser surface brightness "deep-fuzzies" (such as the Ring Nebula)
a lot depends on the observer's experience in "seeing" faint detail or
variations in image intensity. In viewing the 52 Cygni region, for instance
with both the MK-67 and a decent 10" Dobsonian Newt (using an OIII filter),
the 10" Dob will show you filamented nebulae which just happens
to have stars embedded in them. The MK-67 will show you star
arcs that just happen to be connected by faint nebulosity. Surprise!
Aperture wins!

NOTE: I would say that the bottom line of deep sky and planetary
observation with this scope is that you have to learn to really "sense"
deep sky subtleties more readily apparent in 8" reflectors and
scrutinize for planetary detail distinctly present in 5" refractors.

Color-correction in this scope is outstanding. Star images are better
than SCT's of any size. Star-tests show textbook perfection inside
focus while outside focus tends to be slightly "mushy" -- but still quite
good. According to the literature, this suggests that the optical
configuration is slightly under-corrected.. Compared to an APO
refractor however, the MK-67's central obstruction exaggerates
the size of bright-star spurious disks (at similar magnifications). (Vega's
180X disk, for instance, is probably 4 arc-seconds in diameter,
however it's 10.5 magnitude companion is not over-powered by
light-scattering.)

During much less than ideal sky conditions (Milky Way not quite visible),
I have seen stars photoelectrically measured at magnitude 12.8. I
suspect that under ideal conditions, the threshold limiting magnitude
is closer to 14. (This is a little better than most 6" scopes, but if you
keep in mind the excellence of the optics, this should not be surprising.)

In general, I would knock the OTA down a notch for a variety of
reasons: First, the contrast of fine planetary detail is hindered by
the rather large size of the central obstruction. (This same
phenomenon also negatively impacts double-star resolution where
a bright primary is present -- Antares for instance). Second, the amount
of back-focus is limited (although you can optimize to your eyepieces
if you are willing to play around with the secondary mirror position.)
Third, the scope takes a while to stabilize under rapid cool-down
and is subject to frequent dewing of the meniscus. (Heat must be
applied several times over a typical four hour observing session.
-- A dew cap really helps here.) Fourth, the finderscope has poor edge
correction, obscure cross-hairs (OK for planets -- but not deep-sky),
and is mounted far too close to the optical tube and focuser.
(Note to manufacturer: I understand that it is so close to make it
easily stored in its case but...) Finally, the observing position is poor
for objects directly overhead when using standard leg-length tripods
on GEMs. (I have to sit on an observing stool to offset this problem
-- or else exploit the ample opportunities to work on my "horse-stance".

Concerning quality assurance of the Intes scope: In general, it appears
that Intes consistently sources high-quality optics, however, the
mechanics of the scope can occasionally be off significantly. (I personally
found it necessary to "shim" the focuser body to the optical tube in
order to ensure that the center of the on-axis light cone is properly
positioned in the ep. (I also had to shim the inexpensive 1.25" mirror
star diagonal I use for the same reason.) Because these scopes are
becoming ever more popular, I would assume the necessity for such
"ad hoc" alignment aids will only increase -- so be forwarned.

Despite the above nit-picking, I would say that MK-67
performance exceeds that of a 4" APO on planetary detail and is
comparable to the average 8" Newtonian on deep sky. Not too
shabby for a scope that is easily set up. and can be handled as
"carry on" luggage during air travel. The real question before the
deep-sky amateur is this: "For $1K, why would I buy a 6" when
I can pick up a decent 10" Dobsonian?" The answer is
simple: Get the 10" Dob -- unless you also have a penchant for
outstanding planetary views, frequently travel with your scope,
want an equatorially mounted scope that can be stored and moved
about locally as a single unit, or have a penchant for terrestrial
observation that parallels your astronomical interests.

As for me, I'd probably think twice about trading my MK-67 for
a 10" Dob. Is there anyone out there who would like to put me
to the test?

Overall Rating: 9
Weight: 5 (Veritable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=37869

Intes Micro MK-67
This might be the best telescope for the money spent.

This evaluation is of a 150 mm MK-67 standard manufactured by Intes of Moscow in the spring of 1999; mounted on a Celestron G4 tripod of aluminum extendable legs and a german equatorial mount with dual axis drives; including a convenient and durable zippered carrying bag, a 30 mm eyepiece, 7X35 finder, daisy finder, dust cap and assorted tools. New, these components would cost around $1300. I was fortunate to obtain it from the original owner with less than two years of gentle wear for $950.

Ratings on Specifics: On a scale of 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent).
Mechanics: The scope receives an 8, and the mount-tripod and drives a 7.
Portablity, Storage, Ease of Set Up/Take Down: 10
Optical Quality: 8.
Aesthetics (finish and telescope "look"): 8.
Price: 7.
Fellowship 10.

One might ask how a telescope, which receives ratings of 7 and 8 on a number of categories, can receive a rating of 10 overall. An analogy from swimming competitions might be useful. A team can win an overall state championship even though the boys team came in seventh and the girls team came in second. Other telescopes are superior in price, superior in light gathering, superior in mechanical quality, superior in ease of storage-setup-transport, or superior in optical excellence. Others might be superior in two of these categories. But one would be hard put to find a telescope which surpasses the MK 67 in most or all of these categories.

Highlights:
(1) Contrast with a good low cost eyepiece (e.g. a Paul Rini, a University Optics orthoscopic) is very good. Stellar backgrounds are inky black, as are shadows on the moon, reminescent of a long focal length large refractor.
(2) Resolution is very good. The moons of Jupiter are disks. Saturn's Cassini division goes all the way around. The double stars 52 orionis and alpha geminorum (castor) are two pearls in a row. Claims of seeing the encke division and the crepe ring are often heard. One can easily see the domes of Hortensius in the Copernicus region of the moon and even glimpse the caldera on the top of the domes.
(3) Deep Sky is good. M42 looks like flames. The smoke ring looks like a smoke ring. Globulars look like clusters of stars. Many galaxies beyond the Messier list are visible. And this is from within a light polluted city. Galactic detail is reported in dark sky areas.
(4) The crayford focuser is smooth and allows for tension control. Further, the focuser can be rotated to any point allowing ease of access to the focus knobs.
(5) Collimation is easy. This scope is designed to be adjusted and maintained by the owner. Both the primary and secondary mirrors have easily accessible and usuable sets of collimation screws.
(6) The entire arrangment takes up a very small amount of space in the home. The telescope carrying case, an eyepiece box, and a small tool box take up about 4 cubic feet on a shelf. The assembled but retracated tripod takes up about 4 square feet of floor space. All of the components, plus an observing chair and table easily fit in the trunk of a compact car. Set Up takes less than ten minutes.
(7)The RA drive for the cg4 tracks easily and effortlessly. With four D cell alkaline batteries, the drive can easily track for twenty or more hours in zero degree fahrenheit weather. The declination slow motion control is easy and accurate to use.
(8) In an urban environment with a light polluted sky, the finder provides very useable views for guiding to objects. The daisy finder (not provided) is a very useful addition.
(9) The fellowship among those who possess and use this instrument are a very informed, civil, and friendly group of people. One of the joys I have experienced is the initial and ongoing relationship with the person from whom I purchased the scope. The representatives of the companies that market these scopes are responsive and helpful. The same is true for contacts within Intes. The scopists and stargazers who use these scopes carry on a constant, lively, informative and friendly dialogue on various mailing lists.

Low lights:
(1) The crayford focuser has only 35 mm of backfocus. With some eyepieces an extension tube needs to be used (e.g. a barlow with the lens removed) or the drawtubes extended. This diminishes greatly from this scopes value for terrestrial viewing.
(2) It can take up to two hours for the scope to adjust to outside temperatures when brought out from a warm house to below freezing temperatures outside. There is even some tube current problems each time the temperature changes during the night.
(3) The exposed nature of the meniscus leads to quick dewing in high humidity areas. A lens cap helps a lot.
(4) The finder scope ends up in some hard to use positions because the tube cannot be rotated (in this configuration).
(5) This mount for this scope cannot handle a breeze. That is, the image shakes noticeably.
(6)The declination circle does not provide a high degree of precision. Further, combining this scope with this mount, offsets the declination axis by about ten degrees.

This telescope is fun.

Overall Rating: 10
Optics:8 Value:7
Weight: 5 (Veritable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=37870

Intes Micro MK-67
i am italian and i think that the mk67 is the best telescope to observe moon,planets,sun and double stars.saturn to 300x was comparable to that shown
by an apo of 5 inch.
A suggestion: buy you him!!!

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=37871

Intes Micro MK-67
Can't add much to what has already been posted. Well built, excellent optics. Focus range accomodates all my eyepieces (including 10mm Speers) except the UO MK-70 which I have to lift up out of the diagonal a bit. The 22mm Nagler is THE eyepiece for this scope for deep-sky. Has to be seen to be believed. Highly recommended.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=37872

Intes Micro MK-67
... I forgot to add. If you can afford it, get a Televue Everbright diagonal for this scope. It does make a difference.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=37873

Intes Micro MK-67
More than just a Masterpiece!
helyacho@nl.packardbell.org

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=37874

Intes Micro MK-67
i think it SHOULD be a ten... why? i do NOT have one yet.. i am here reading this.. i do not know WHERE to get one from...!!!! HELP!!!! thank you ...DARRELL WOODS pisces_lxix@yahoo.com

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=37875

Intes Micro MK-67
Greetings MakScope Afficionados,

Been regularly observing with this model scope now for almost a year. (Please see reports at http://astro.geekjoy.com/)

Some things to consider: Since this could be the last modestly apertured scope you will ever purchase, seriously consider getting the deluxe version.

Why? Not so much for the improved optical quality (1/8th wave rather than 1/6th) but for the improved coatings.

The standard model peaks out at magnitude 13.0 (direct visual stellar acquisition at 180X under a 6.0 ULTM sky). With improved coatings, it is thought that a .4 - .5 magnitudinal improvement is seen.

My experience has been that the difference between a 5.5 and a 6.0 sky is staggering!

Want to really see the Flame Nebula near Zeta Orionis? Improved coatings could make all the difference...

Those of us who have the standard model might do well to consider some of the high-reflectivity mirror coatings available through organizations like Sirius Optics (http://siriusoptics.com/).

Enjoy,

jeff barbour

NOTE: To the previous poster - I purchased my MK-67 (Argonaut) from Orion Binocular and Telescope (http://www.telescope.com/). The standard model is available with CG4 equivalent mount and 2 decent Plossl eyepieces (9 and 25mm) for under 1.1K (before tax etc.) This is not the deluxe version but try contacting Orion to determine if they can order one with the improved coatings. They are a very responsive bunch and I have personally done very well dealing with them...

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=37876

Intes Micro MK-67
All,

Just contacted Orion Binocular and Telescope and talked with a technical representative. Although there are a few Argonauts left, Orion has elected to no longer stock this (or related) Intes models. None of the remaining Argonauts include advanced coatings or optics. Finally, I also learned that even while the scopes were actively being resold, it was unlikely that arrangements could be made to get a deluxe version.

I believe that Bill Burnett's organization (ITE: Internet Telescope Exchange http://www.burnettweb.com/ite/telescop.htm) is now the primary contact/supplier of Intes scopes in the US.)

jeff

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=37877

Page 1 of 2 Next

[Click Here to Login]
Don't have a login? Register!

Checking Your Telescope
Starting out in Amateur Astronomy
 
How to use This Site
Why Register?
[Get rid of the ads!]
Voting Guide