Billions and Billions.com
Interested in an Intes-Micro from ITE?
Caveat Emptor
(Buyer Beware)t
Intes-Micro M606 Maksutov-Cassegrain Astrograph
MSRP $1,650 from ITE
-a review and history-
With the advent of less expensive imaging devices such as DSLRs and DSIs, more and more amateur astronomers are entering the astrophoto arena. Though many fine scopes are available to observers, imaging-friendly ‘Astrographs’ are rarer.
Today’s APS-size chips require a flat, coma-free field, which is evenly lit and unvignetted. Visual scopes are made to deliver this at center, but image quality degrades as it approaches the outskirts of the field. Though many imagers have optimized SCTs, APOs and Newtonians for photography, true astrographs become prohibitively expensive for many of us. Cassegrainian-based designs such as the Ritchey-Chretien, BRC and Dall-Kirkham are among the finest, but these cost about $1,000 per inch, and are offered in a minimum of 10-12” apertures.
Enter Dmitri Maksutov and the other Russian Revolution. Beginning in 1941, D.D. Maksutov began applying his ‘Meniscus Corrector Plate’ to a Classical Cassegrainian system. Like Bernhardt Schmidt before him, he found that a corrector lens would yield high quality, coma-fee performance from a simple, spherical primary mirror. By eliminating the figuring of a more difficult and expensive paraboloid, an excellent optic could be delivered consistently and cheaply.
‘Maks’ (Mak-Cass) were unsuitable for Deep-Sky photography due to the folded system’s long focal length and slow focal ratio. Over the years, variations to the original design such as Rumaks, Simaks and Mak-Newts (Maksutov-Newtonians) have yielded focal ratios in the neighborhood of f/4-f/6 and resulted in an economical alternative at about $300-$400 per inch.
Russian Maksutov manufacturers are somewhat shrouded in mystery and unreachable via email. Though optics tend to be excellent, the makers are cut off from the world of imaging. They lack the savvy of Japanese, German and American companies who understand the interface of telescope and camera. I don’t know of a single Russian amateur astrophotographer, so the makers are driven by German and American dealers who provide input, but the finished products are often crude and curious. This is manifest in the mechanical aspects of the telescopes, specifically fit and finish.
Some of the ‘Mak’ factories have consolidated or closed. Though the history is somewhat confusing, the surviving and thriving maker seems to be Intes-Micro. I have owned two telescopes by them and two by the defunct Intes-Plus. In the past, the instruments were mechanically utilitarian, but sturdily overbuilt, and again bearing excellent optics. Today this is less the case, as both fit and finish and optics have declined. And that brings us to the Intes-Micro M606 by Mr. Mike Palermiti of ITE- Jupiter, Florida.
Mike is an optical designer and tester of some reputation. After several years as a consultant to Mr. Bill Burnett of ITE, he acquired the company and is by far the largest importer of Russian telescopes to the U.S. He offers some Intes-Micro stock designs, as well as those personally designed by him, but executed by I-M. I have enjoyed a good relationship with the company for seven years and my images with the MK69, MN56 and M606 have been published on their website as well as various print and web-based publications. ITE has always made me feel as a valued team member and that is why they have been the first place I turn for affordable astrographs.
This June I placed an order for the relatively new M606, a redesign of the Intes-Plus MK69, which I used successfully with 35mm film for several years. In August I took delivery of an updated M606 with a ring system. This replaced the original mounting blocks, which prevented the use of a piggyback rail. The M606 is a 152mm f/6 Mak-Cass of Simak design. The silvered spot on the meniscus, which serves as the secondary mirror in a classic Maksutov, is in this case replaced by a secondary mirror held in a three-vaned spider at the midpoint of the tube.
The OTA purchase price is $1,650. The off-white aluminum tube is 14 lbs and includes: rings, 2” to 1.25” adapter, camera bracket, soft case and 10 x 50mm finder. I also purchased a necessary focal extension barrel and a reducer. The M606 comes with a simple helical focuser without index marks. The meniscus corrector is K-8 glass with multicoated anti-reflection layers and the mirrors are LK-5 glass with SiO2-protected aluminum coatings.
After waiting patiently for two months, I received a call from Mike saying the scope was ready for shipment. An impending hurricane had him rushing to ship the scope and he merely wanted to confirm my VISA number. It was all I could do to slow him down enough to remind him of several issues which needed to be completed before shipping.
Upon opening the package I noticed a badly bent focuser set screw. Though the carton was well packed, the scope could bottom out and the screw foreshadowed the next discovery- a telltale rattle. The corrector plate had come loose. My previous model, the MN56 had lost collimation when its secondary stalk came loose. Though the installation of a hardware store O-ring (which should have been integral to the design) prevented it from happening again, it necessitated removal of the corrector. I was not looking forward to once again opening a brand new OTA.
The next feature evaluated was the focuser. If you’re an imager, you know how critical they are. Granted, most of us need to upgrade any scope’s stock focuser, but the 606’s unindexed, rough helicoid is grossly inadequate. Whereas in the past Intes would provide a nice, brass compression ring with their focusers and adapters, this one has a paper-thin brass which was bent and curling out of its recess, threatening to drop inside the OTA. Additionally, the fit of the necessary extension barrel into the focuser has so much ‘slop’ that attaining proper alignment is difficult. Due to this, the middle of the imaging plane is pushed significantly off-center when snugged. The barrel also tends to tilt, rendering a crooked imaging plane and uneven focus. In application, removing the compression ring yields a better fit, but will mar your barrels and only present one setscrew to hold your camera. The threaded rear cell will accommodate a higher quality Borg helicoid or JMI Crayford focuser, which are available through ITE or separately. Spending an additional $200-$400 however is a lot to ask after an initial expenditure of $1,650.
Overall the OTA looked fine, identical to my last MN56 Mak-Newt. Frankly, both are less solid than the Intes MK69, which was built like a tank. The objective cap had a poor fit as the felt lining had been applied in a very sloppy manner causing it to crimp. The finder was, as expected an example of the legendary awful Intes finders. The bracket is flimsy at best and the finder is mechanically and optically poor. When I turned my (not included) illuminator with fresh batteries on high, the reticle was virtually invisible under Mag 6.6 skies. As I use manual setting circles rather than Goto, synching on a star is important to me and the finder would need to be replaced.
The new ring system is inexcusably poor. The MN56 came with a very thin cuff with a handle, which had to be replaced with a set of $180 Parallax rings. As evidenced by the accompanying photographs, the M606’s rings were equally inadequate and even more poorly made. They would barely serve for visual work, much less CCD imaging. They would not tighten down sufficiently to grip the tube. The Losmandy-style dovetail was OK, but lacked necessary holes for me to install my STV’s eFinder. Matching its bolt pattern to a true Losmandy DUP was not possible. Mike had also drilled one ¼”x20 hole in the center of the top plate, rather than two at the end as I’d requested for an ADM piggyback rail.
Facing a loose corrector plate, a ring system that would force me to incur another $180 replacement and an inadequate focuser, I was close to returning the telescope to ITE for a refund. The secondary cell was the clincher. The MK69 had a beefy 4-vane spider. Being an opponent of diffraction spikes, Mike strove to lessen their effect in the 606, going too far in my opinion. The 606 has three too-thin vanes. Though suspended under tension, they've been said to vibrate at a touch of the tube. What’s worse, the secondary is totally inaccessible for collimation unless the user disassembles the OTA at the midsection. Once opened and without the corrector plate, a star test is impossible. Mike contends that the secondary need only be sighted by laser or sight tube before reassembly, but I feel that total user-collimation is imperative. Four other M606 users have expressed problems with this arrangement to me and since publishing this page several other ITE customers have contacted me about their bad experiences with various scopes from Mike 'Nobody's Pal' ermiti:
"I had all the same problems you had. As a matter of fact each and every problem you had I had. So your report is accurate and I sold my scope with a JMI focuser for $750 after it was only 5 months old. 2 of those months I spent trying to collimate and as I said even Mike at ITE could not collimate the scope. Out of frustration and disgust I sold it. A deal for $750 but not a deal for the $2000 I wasted and the entire winter that I lost with no scope to image. Here in the South you only get a few months of good imaging time. Mine where wasted trying to collimate."
The M606 was returned to ITE for the aforementioned issues. Mike said he saw things from my perspective and offered to go 2/3rds on a JMI motorized focuser and Parallax rings. Upon receipt, Mike tightened the corrector; rechecked collimation, swapped knurled nuts on the ring’s locking bolts, and straightened out the brass in the focuser. At that time he withdrew his original offer to partially cover an upgrade and returned the scope.
Upon reevaluation, I still had issues with the scope, but decided to give it an optical and photographic fair shake. A trip to the hardware store was required for a washer. If you study the clamp photo carefully, you’ll note that the ring clamp’s locking bolt did not even meet the nut. One hinge clamps was ‘maxed-out’ metal to metal. Not to sound like Mr. Rogers, but “Can you say flexure?” Another trip to the store produced some gray felt, which I used to shim the back ring. As you can see, the back and front clamps are totally dissimilar. They are also precariously pinned to the rings with small, flathead screws and there is a scary separation underneath.
With the rings in usable shape, I mounted the M606 to the G-11 for an optical evaluation. A star test revealed a ‘so-so’ diffraction pattern with a decided pinch. In order to accomplish an evenly illuminated field, the M606 has a huge secondary, claimed to fill an APS chip. Its predecessor the MK69 had the same basic architecture, but whereas that scope was acceptable visually, the M606 is pure astrograph. In the eyepiece, stars have a soft look with an intrusive secondary shadow. There is no sense of ‘snapping to focus’ or a sharp image in the eyepiece.
A test photograph of a star field revealed a beautiful diffraction pattern. Though stars in most of the image looked well focused, stars in other areas were not. I attributed this to the tilting of the image plane mentioned earlier. I later discovered that the adjustable focal plane of the SXV-M25C camera was also misadjusted, so this might have been partially responsible. I had an overall impression of a softer photographic image as well. My previous MN56 was tack-sharp by comparison. This was due in part to a very small secondary. Though ITE assured me the 56 would fully illuminate the 9 x 7mm detector of the SXV-H9C, that was far from the case. The tradeoff for sharpness was a wicked linear gradient, which was very difficult to tame and the reason for moving up to the M606.
In the M606, the compromise was to be some sharpness for a fully illuminated APS-sized detector by way of the large secondary. In practice, the M606 lacked some sharpness and exhibited 15% light fall-off in a good deal of the corners despite the guarantee. Granted, Flats are almost unavoidable with any system in order to attain a perfectly even field, still the vignetting was more than expected. This was exacerbated by the vignette being off-center, again due to the unacceptable shifting over of the camera when the setscrews of the extension barrel were tightened.
At this time I re-contacted Mike expressing my disappointment. ITE has what I consider an unfair 30% restocking fee for 30 days. Unfortunately, 30 days had passed and the best that was offered was $800 (50%) in credit towards the purchase of a $2,600 MN74. I protested, reminding Mike of my long association with ITE and my vocal support of them in the imaging community. As I felt taken advantage of by ITE’s misrepresentation of the M606, I stated that I would have no choice but to post my findings publicly. At that time, Mike relented and offered to accept the M606 back less 30% to which I agreed.
Facing a $400 loss, I decided to use the M606 in a bona fide imaging session. M33- The Triangulum Galaxy is the result. Although comprised of a mere 4 x 10 minutes of signal, the image is actually quite fine. During this second session I was struck by the effort required to focus the M606. Analysis of the star’s close-up in the software’s focus window clearly exhibits its energy being broken up by the large obstruction. In In less-than-great Northeast U.S. seeing, FWHM and Brightest Pixel readings varied greatly. By comparison, my ED refractor as well as the MN56 quickly snapped to 1.0-1.2 pixels FWHM. Couple the longer focusing session at the laptop with the rough, manually-turned helicoid of the 606 without reference marks, and you’ll assure yourself of a trip to the chiropractor for whiplash. In fairness, the Vixen R200SS's similarly-sized secondary also makes focusing a more difficult process.
I sent M33 to ITE so Mike would know that I felt the scope certainly had optical merit, which could be utilized if the issues mentioned were resolved. As usual, Mike was significantly impressed to ask if he could post the image to the ITE site to which I agreed. For my troubles, Mike gave me an added bonus. He stated that as I could produce such a fine image, a return was no longer an option. He once again offered to buy 2/3rds of a JMI focuser, but when he learned I was considering selling, he once again withdrew his word and offered me 20% off. So in the end, ITE loses a loyal customer. Not only would I not buy from them again, but I can no longer recommend them to you either. The M606 is a fair astrographic optic mounted in an embarrassingly poor package. $1,700 can buy you a Vixen R200SS Newtonian with coma corrector. That astrograph has immaculate fit and finish and will outperform the M606 at an f/4 focal ratio. That is what’s next for me. M33 demonstrates that good photos can be gotten with the M606. At least I can sell it in good conscience on Astromart. A ring set and better focuser would go a long way towards creating a decent system at a $2,100 price tag.
ITE is not the first astronomy retailer to show their ‘used car salesman’ ethics. Intes-Micro is not the first manufacturer to produce a product seemingly devoid of the features we imagine to be fundamental. It is my opinion that Intes-Micro products have decreased in overall quality, particularly mechanics, and rather than progressing into the CCD age, are retrogressing. The marriage of ITE designs and Intes-Micro manufacture may not be the best. I do not have the sense that critical user input is respected or desired. I would not discourage you from pursuing other I-M telescopes from a different dealer. The M606 in its present state however is to be avoided. If the telescope were either reduced in price range and/or came with a different focuser, ring system, finder, redesigned secondary and decent quality control, I could recommend it to imagers with APS detectors on a budget. As followup, a friend at SBIG sold his also. When shipped, the secondary ripped from the inadequate vanes, smashing the primary. :>)
