LX200R

"Rich" wrote
...
On 6 Mar 2006 09:23:52 -0800, wrote:


SCTs work on brute force aperture. Which is why (since resolution is
determined by aperture) some of the best planet shots come from big
SCTs.........

Rich, et al:

Here's (http://www.damianpeach.com/barbados05.htm) a page full of very
high rez planetary images taken with a Celestron 9.25" SCT. If this is what
a small SCT can produce I would certainly have no problem with owning one.
On the one occasion that I had a chance to observe Saturn thru a C-9.25
sitting right next to a 6-inch Astro Physics refractor I did not see any
real difference in the views of the planet that each scope was offering.

As for the Meade "R's"..... my guess is that they are best thought of as
SCT's with improved coma correction and thus will be very good for deep sky
imaging, but not the first scope you would consider for planetary observing.

George N.

Not really. SCTs have performance limitations (admittedly less today
than years ago)
such as their mass production optics and central obstruction sizes and
the way they
get around it is with larger apertures. So the choice really is, spend
$10,000 for a big
Mak of some kind or a smaller refractor, or get a 14" SCT and have
$5000 or so in change left over.