Meade ETX90 PE or Celestron C6-S XLT?

Hi,

I am choosing between a Meade ETX90 PE and a Celestron C6-S XLT
telescope.

Aside from the most obvious feature differences between these scopes
(GoTo, Mak-Cas vs Sch-Cas), how different do these scopes perform in
viewing the planets and deep-sky objects?

Which one provides the best value for the money?

Thanks,

Koen

Aperture, my friend, aperture. A 90mm scope will be very limited in
what it can show you, even on the Moon and planets. The 6-inch SCT will
show you all the basic wonders of the sky. My advice, however? Pony up
for the C-6 SGT.

Uncle Rod


wrote:
Hi,

I am choosing between a Meade ETX90 PE and a Celestron C6-S XLT
telescope.

Aside from the most obvious feature differences between these scopes
(GoTo, Mak-Cas vs Sch-Cas), how different do these scopes perform in
viewing the planets and deep-sky objects?

Which one provides the best value for the money?

Thanks,

Koen

wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi,

I am choosing between a Meade ETX90 PE and a Celestron C6-S XLT
telescope.

Aside from the most obvious feature differences between these scopes
(GoTo, Mak-Cas vs Sch-Cas), how different do these scopes perform in
viewing the planets and deep-sky objects?

Which one provides the best value for the money?

Thanks,
Get the C6.
The older C5, has always been one of my favourite 'small' scopes, and the
new 6" version, is a lovely unit. Nearly 3* the actual light gathering
ability of the 90mm scope (just over one magnitude). You will see more.
Old rule of thumb. 'Aperture is king'. Print out some good sky charts,
and you will also learn more about the sky than with the GoTo scope.

Best Wishes

Koen wrote:
I am choosing between a Meade ETX90 PE and a Celestron C6-S XLT
telescope.

Aside from the most obvious feature differences between these scopes
(GoTo, Mak-Cas vs Sch-Cas), how different do these scopes perform in
viewing the planets and deep-sky objects?

Which one provides the best value for the money?

The only way in which the ETX90 wins is in portability. Otherwise, the
C6S should provide superior light-grasp for observing DSOs, and superior
contrast/resolution for observing planets, the Moon, the Sun (with the
proper filter), close doubles, etc.

Portability should not be neglected entirely, of course, but keep in
mind that the C6S is not exactly a beast itself. So unless you have a
solid table on which you can plop the ETX90 directly, without a tripod,
the portability advantage it holds may be largely negated by the mount
requirements.

I have a C5+, the smaller (and discontinued) cousin of the C6S. They
are definitely capable scopes.

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Hi Brian:

You'll be pleased to know that the C5 is back (as a fork mount SE):

http://www.celestron.com/c2/product....=13&ProdID=414

Uncle Rod


Brian Tung wrote:


I have a C5+, the smaller (and discontinued) cousin of the C6S. They
are definitely capable scopes.

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

RMOLLISE wrote:
Hi Brian:

You'll be pleased to know that the C5 is back (as a fork mount SE):

http://www.celestron.com/c2/product....=13&ProdID=414

Oh yes, I know about the N5 SE (see my C5+ web page, near the bottom).
My comment about the discontinuation referred solely to the C5+ model in
particular.

Those interested in the history of the Celestron 5-inch SCTs may enjoy
looking at my page; Rod's SCT guide is also an excellent source of
historical information (especially those wonderful old ads!).

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Actually Brian, the ETX has better contrast than the C6 due to a
snmaller CO. I have an ETX105 and it is a killer on planets and the
boon. Not bad on DSO, but smaller FOV/F:ratio. All things considered
I'd go for the C6 myself if I were looking at the two.

Craig
--
Remove My_Skin to E-mail me.


Brian Tung wrote:

The only way in which the ETX90 wins is in portability. Otherwise,
the C6S should provide superior light-grasp for observing DSOs, and
superior contrast/resolution for observing planets, the Moon, the Sun
(with the proper filter), close doubles, etc.

Craig wrote:
Actually Brian, the ETX has better contrast than the C6 due to a
snmaller CO.

It has a smaller CO, yes, but it also has a smaller aperture, and that
matters more. Otherwise, a 60 mm refractor would have better contrast
and resolution than a 12-inch Newt, and we all know that that is not so,
provided the seeing is anything better than plain awful.

Lots of books show MTF curves normalized for maximum spatial frequency,
which is misleading. If you show them on the same scale, you'll see
that the contrast curve for the C6 dominates that of the ETX90.

This isn't to say the ETX90 and the ETX105 are bad scopes for observing
the planets; indeed, I would say that planets are their strengths. But
they do not show more contrast/detail than larger telescopes of
equivalent quality. Of course a larger telescope of much inferior
quality would be worse. But you're talking about contrast as a matter
of design, not execution.

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html