visual quality between the lx200 8" and 10"

Hi, I know that both have the same features, that the 10" is more
expensive and more difficult to move around but if you consider visual
quality only, can we say that there is a noticeable difference between
these 2 and on which conditions of observation.

I have a feeling that many persons who have possessed an 8" for a
number of years are moving to the 10" . If you have done so, what have
you found in the 10" that was not with the 8"?

Is there any website where I can have a better idea of the difference
(photos taken with both telescopes, articles, ...)

thanks

Pascal

pascal wrote:

I have a feeling that many persons who have possessed an 8" for a
number of years are moving to the 10" . If you have done so, what have
you found in the 10" that was not with the 8"?

Is there any website where I can have a better idea of the difference
(photos taken with both telescopes, articles, ...)


Hi:

These things are somewhat subjective, and what one person considers a
dramatic difference is "minor" to someone else. Going from an 8 to a 10
does entail a considerable increase in light-gathering power. Still,
how dramatic the difference is perceived to be depends on the skies,
the observer experience, object being observed, etc. PERSONALLY, I
don't notice that dramatic difference over an 8 until 11 - 12 inches.

Frankly, people forget just how much an humble C8 can show of the
skies. Despite being lucky enough to have access to larger aperture
SCTs, my C8 is still my most used scope. Why?

It has to do with portability. While going from 8 to 10 inches provides
a large jump in light gathering, it also brings a big jump in mass. A
10 inch scope is _far_ less portable than an 8, and less likely to be
used on the spur of the moment, especially.

Photos are not a good indication of a scope's visual performance. Best
bet? Get thee to a club star party and look through some 8s and 10s in
person. ;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm

Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user

See: http://journals.aol.com/rmollise/UncleRodsAstroBlog/
For Uncle Rod's Astro Blog.

pascal wrote:

Hi, I know that both have the same features, that the 10" is more
expensive and more difficult to move around but if you consider visual
quality only, can we say that there is a noticeable difference between
these 2 and on which conditions of observation.

If you need the light grasp for deep sky the 10" wins. I have a 10"
LX200. If you have to carry it any distance the 8" wins.

I have a feeling that many persons who have possessed an 8" for a
number of years are moving to the 10" . If you have done so, what have
you found in the 10" that was not with the 8"?

Before you buy a 10" SCT be absolutely sure you can lift and handle it
comfortably without damaging your back. Moving the 8" is a doddle by
comparison and a lot easier to set up and break down.

The difference in linear dimensions doesn't sound much 2" on 8" but the
increase in physical bulk and weight are very significant. You have to
see one in the flesh to understand. Putting it up for the very first
time is a nerve wracking experience - it gets easier after that.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Hi Pascal,

Two thoughts:

(1) The improvement is subjective. Go to
http://skyandtelescope.com/resources/organizations/ and find
your local astro club. Go to a public night and locate an 8"
and 10" scope, preferably both SCTs. Otherwise, compare two
newts of that size. Ask them to both point at the same objects
a couple of times and compare the views for yourself.

(2) The 10" is a lot heavier and bulkier. Arrive early at the
public night and as they are setting up, ask if you can see
how heavy they are. That may make your mind up right there.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon? If so, try
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

If you enjoy optics, try
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ATM_Optics_Software/
*********************************************

so forget 10" and go to 11 or 12" and there you will see a difference - a
huge
difference. A larger difference than between4" and 8" ~!



pascal wrote:

Hi, I know that both have the same features, that the 10" is more
expensive and more difficult to move around but if you consider visual
quality only, can we say that there is a noticeable difference between
these 2 and on which conditions of observation.

I have a feeling that many persons who have possessed an 8" for a
number of years are moving to the 10" . If you have done so, what have
you found in the 10" that was not with the 8"?

Is there any website where I can have a better idea of the difference
(photos taken with both telescopes, articles, ...)

thanks

Pascal

11" is really expensive and must be huge. I had a comment from someone
from a french user group who said he can hardly uplift his 10" by 5cms
up (he said the telescope is heavier than him). I will need to bring it
to the nearest mountain (20km drive, 1300m altitude) so I guess i
should go for the best compromise quality/mobility.

I live at 420m above sea level, how much the visibility is suppose to
improve at 1300m? and should that be a factor when buying a 8" or a 10"?

pascal wrote:

Hi, I know that both have the same features, that the 10" is more
expensive and more difficult to move around but if you consider visual
quality only, can we say that there is a noticeable difference between
these 2 and on which conditions of observation.

There is quite a difference, IMHO. Under even moderately dark
skies (LM ~5.5), the views through a friend's 10" LX200 (with UHTC)
compete favorably with views through 12" premium Dobs, when it comes
to being able to see faint extented objects such as galaxies,
or detail in nebulae such as M42 or M8, or low-contrast planetary
detail. Many fainter objects are simply not available through
another friend's 8" LX90. (We've done side-by-side tests with
premium eyepieces such as Naglers and Pentax.)

Lunar/bright planetary viewing, and of course, photography/CCD
imaging, are less affected by the aperture difference.

Gregory

"pascal" wrote in message
oups.com...
11" is really expensive and must be huge. I had a comment from someone
from a french user group who said he can hardly uplift his 10" by 5cms
up (he said the telescope is heavier than him).

I can carry my 10" LX200 + tripod (without wedge) from my house into my garden, say 5 to 10
meters without hurting my back. It *is* heavy though. with wedge that's impossible, both due to
size of the complete asssembly and the weight. I now setup first the tripod+wedge, then carry
to OTA into the garden, which is easy. Indeed, handling this big scope the first time is
scarry, but now it is easy and quick. I am very happy to have chosen the 10" over the 8". But
then, I will have a permanent setup later this year, and after using that for a while, I am
sure I want to upgrade to 12 or 14" :-)

--
Martijn (astro-at-pff-software.nl)
10" LX200GPS-SMT
ETX105. Coronado PST
www.xs4all.nl/~martlian