lx200 8" vs LX90 10"

these telescope cost approx the same price (lx200 8" and LX90 10"),
anyone can tell me which one is best for someone who is more for visual
but could take pictures and who does not know what are the advantages
of the ZIS system and PPEC of the lx200 which are not on the LX90 (is
it really useful????)
And wants to be able to bring it up to the roof of the building (with
the lift). There is some light pollution though.

Thanks.

pascal wrote:
these telescope cost approx the same price (lx200 8" and LX90 10"),
anyone can tell me which one is best for someone who is more for visual
but could take pictures and who does not know what are the advantages
of the ZIS system and PPEC of the lx200 which are not on the LX90 (is
it really useful????)
And wants to be able to bring it up to the roof of the building (with
the lift). There is some light pollution though.

Thanks.

If you are sure that you'll remain largely interested in visual work,
the 10 inch might be a nice choice. BUT...the 8 LX200GPS is a more
capable scope on a _considerably_ steadier fork. In addition to PPEC (a
way of reducing drive error that can help during long exposure
imaging), the scope has many other features the 99 does not...the
microfocuser, GPS receiver, etc. I'd suggest the GPS scope.

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.

RMOLLISE wrote:

pascal wrote:

these telescope cost approx the same price (lx200 8" and LX90 10"),
anyone can tell me which one is best for someone who is more for visual
but could take pictures and who does not know what are the advantages
of the ZIS system and PPEC of the lx200 which are not on the LX90 (is
it really useful????)
And wants to be able to bring it up to the roof of the building (with
the lift). There is some light pollution though.


If you are sure that you'll remain largely interested in visual work,
the 10 inch might be a nice choice. BUT...the 8 LX200GPS is a more
capable scope on a _considerably_ steadier fork. In addition to PPEC (a
way of reducing drive error that can help during long exposure
imaging), the scope has many other features the 99 does not...the
microfocuser, GPS receiver, etc. I'd suggest the GPS scope.

The other point is that carrying a 10" SCT for any significant distance
or time is a serious effort. Be sure you can handle it before buying.

It isn't the weight so much as the awkward bulky shape.

Regards,
Martin Brown

And wants to be able to bring it up to the roof of the building (with
the lift). There is some light pollution though.

If you really intend to be lugging the scope around a lot I would have
to recommend the 8" scope. These things are pretty unweildy. I'd
seriously recommend going to an astronomy store and seeing one 'in the
flesh'.

On 13 Jan 2006 00:29:07 -0800, "Andy Grove"
wrote:

And wants to be able to bring it up to the roof of the building (with
the lift). There is some light pollution though.

If you really intend to be lugging the scope around a lot I would have
to recommend the 8" scope. These things are pretty unweildy. I'd
seriously recommend going to an astronomy store and seeing one 'in the
flesh'.
===============
I REALLY agree ....

As much as I would love a 10 inch scope I do HAVE to haul my scope out
to the backyard (and fight the trees) or toss it into the to the truck
and travel ...

I did the dealer thing...a few years ago and after trying to pick or
move some scopes just 20 feet or so

I walked out witrh a Nexstar 8i .... ONlY becauise it was portable...

I'm happy.. I'm satisfied....BUT I am not interested in Imaging...

Bob G. .

Martin Brown wrote:
The other point is that carrying a 10" SCT for any significant distance
or time is a serious effort. Be sure you can handle it before buying.

It isn't the weight so much as the awkward bulky shape.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Hi:

Right. Frankly, the 8 seems to be the sweet spot for SCTs. Not having
an observatory at the moment, my good, old C8 gets more use than any of
the other scopes. Enough light gathering oomph, but light enough not to
discourage me on so-so evenings.

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
and _The Urban Astronomer's Guide_

Like SCTs and MCTs?
Join the SCT User Mailing List.
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user

See my home page at
http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm
for further info

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

Andy Grove wrote:
And wants to be able to bring it up to the roof of the building (with
the lift). There is some light pollution though.


If you really intend to be lugging the scope around a lot I would have
to recommend the 8" scope. These things are pretty unweildy. I'd
seriously recommend going to an astronomy store and seeing one 'in the
flesh'.



I second that. I went with an 8" Celestron fork mount SCT because the
11" was so much larger (and heavier!) that it would not have been used
all that much. If one has a fixed backyard viewing location, no big
deal. But if you need to travel to remote sites for dark skies,
size-mass are huge factors.

"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
...
Andy Grove wrote:
And wants to be able to bring it up to the roof of the building (with
the lift). There is some light pollution though.


If you really intend to be lugging the scope around a lot I would have
to recommend the 8" scope. These things are pretty unweildy. I'd
seriously recommend going to an astronomy store and seeing one 'in the
flesh'.



I second that. I went with an 8" Celestron fork mount SCT because the
11" was so much larger (and heavier!) that it would not have been used
all that much. If one has a fixed backyard viewing location, no big
deal. But if you need to travel to remote sites for dark skies,
size-mass are huge factors.
Yes, and the 10" Meade units, are as hard, if not harder to handle, than
the Celestron 11"...
The handle placement,and overall 'layout', is very poor indeed.
The larger scopes are great, if you have a site with only a few paces
between storage, and 'use', or where a trolley can be used, but if you are
moving the scope any distance, the larger units need some 'thought'...

Best Wishes

Phil Wheeler wrote:
Andy Grove wrote:

And wants to be able to bring it up to the roof of the building (with
the lift). There is some light pollution though.



If you really intend to be lugging the scope around a lot I would have
to recommend the 8" scope. These things are pretty unweildy. I'd
seriously recommend going to an astronomy store and seeing one 'in the
flesh'.



I second that. I went with an 8" Celestron fork mount SCT because the
11" was so much larger (and heavier!) that it would not have been used
all that much. If one has a fixed backyard viewing location, no big
deal. But if you need to travel to remote sites for dark skies,
size-mass are huge factors.

Oddly enough, my C 8 is my home scope, and the
C 11 G 11 is my portable travel scope.

Needless to say, the C 8 gets the most use now....



AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

Linux CentOS 4.2, KDE 3.3

Right now, I'm facing a similar dilemma; I have a Celestron CPC 1100 XLT on
order, but Celestron seems to be having all sorts of trouble getting it out
the door. Add to that the fact that Meade keeps upgrading their scopes- I'm
now thinking of canceling the CPC and ordering a Meade LX scope.

One comment to the original poster: 10" LX90 (sans tripod) is considerably
lighter then the LX200GPS 10"; and the 12" LX90 probably weighs in at about
the same weight as the LX200GPS 10". I'm not sure how this relates to the
8" LX200GPS- but if your budget (and back) requirements put you in a
comparison between the 8" LX200G or the LX90 10"- I'd have to agree with the
majority here and go with the LX200G. (You might also want to consider the
brand-new LX200R which features the even better-for-photography "RC" optics.
It only costs a bit more and has all the same great features of the LX200G.
Just a thought...)

My main problems are in trying to decide between the 10" LX200R or the 12"
LX90 (now with GPS! Yay!). In comparing to the CPC 1100, both have
enormous pluses and a few minuses.

The LX200R has the least amount of light gathering, but also the least
amount of coma (inherent in SCTs) because of it's RC optics. The LX90 would
have the most light gathering capability of the three scopes, but less
pointing accuracy then the LX200R or the CPC 1100 (the LX200R has the most
accurate according to specs at the websites of the companies). The database
of objects in the LX200R is the largest- and it has the fastest slewing
available of the three; the CPC 1100 has the second largest database of
objects but slews at about half the best speed of the LX90 (which is only
slightly slower then the LX200R).

I believe that UHTC and XLT coatings are equal in whatever it is that they
do... I just think it's funny that both companies insist on this as an
upgrade to their scopes (except in the case of the RCX400) rather then a
standard- it's as if there'd be a reason not to want the best light
transmission you could get. What, the optics rot away faster due to these
coatings?

As for go-to and alignment- the CPC1100 seemed to have the coolest way of
doing so with it's "Skyalign" feature (and reviews of this have been
stellar)- but Meade has countered with a much more advanced alignment system
and their ads to the effect of not needing to choose 3 stars is arguably a
deal buster for the merits of Skyalign. Frankly- a GPS/LNT 12" LX90 seems
far superior to the Celestron CPC1100 at this point. (and the added bonus
of aperture costing only $200-$500 more, depending on coatings, is a
bargain-squared!)

About the only real advantage I can still find in the CPC1100 is it's ease
of mounting to the tripod- why Meade hasn't upgraded their procedure to
something like the CPC way of doing it is beyond me. This is the only real
weakness I see in the LX90 and LX200R designs. I know that this is fixable
with a "landing pad" sort of arrangement, and I definitely will probably
order the one from Peterson Engineering if I get the Meade... or should I
say when I get the Meade?

So really- at this point- my dilemma is which to choose? The LX90 12" -
weighing in at about 56lbs or the LX200R 10" GPS - weighing in at the 65lbs?
The venerable LX200GPS 12" weighs in around 75lbs- and might be easier on
the budget then the LX200R- and the "Get-a-Grip" handles from Peterson might
also make this scope worth while in the lifting area.

I agree with the argument that it really boils down to the scope's use-
while visual use would be the scope's primary use, I don't want to make
photography out of the question. On the other hand, I doubt that I'd ever
be interested in wedge/EQ photography- part of the reason I'm heading to a
go-to alt-az scope is to get away from polar alignment. I really hate polar
aligning a scope. (It's just me- at 45, I want it as simple as it gets.
Polar alignment was fun when I began in astronomy at 8 years old- I'm done
with it now) Anyway, any photography I do these days is much more likely to
be of the short exposure/stacking type then long exposures.

Clear Skies Forever,
Paul