Buy ETX 90 or ETX 105

Folks,

I already have a Meade SC-8 LXD-55 but it is just too heavy for
day-to-day use where I have to transport it to a viewing
location, and a little noisy for preference.

I am considering adding an ETX for more convenient planetary and
lunar viewing. The '90 is UKP 600 and the '105 is UKP 750. How
much benefit would I get from the larger aperture (medium light
polution locally) and are they both light enough to easily
transport and easy to set up? I know the shipping weights are
approx 12 lbs and 18 lbs

Is there anything more compact that would give similar optical
performance?

Having got a scope for photography and serious use when the
occasional occasion (sic) permits I would like one that is
small, convenient, has lots of bells and whistles and above all
has that special wow factor - look what you can see of the
heavens with that tiny little scope! I remember seeing the disc
of Jupiter for the first time with a small scope many years ago
and the feeling that gave me, how accessible the sky seemed.

With either of the Meades I would also buy the eyepieces again
(the offer continues). I think the extra UKP 100 would be an
investment if I ever came to selling one of the scopes. On the
other hand if someone makes a scope smaller, lighter and half
the price I wouldn't say no!

TIA,
James

Hi,

I've had an ETX-105 for a few months now.

I find its pretty portable - I often travel from London to family on
the Lincolnshire coast for relatively clear skies.

I bought the hard case, which isn't that great, but it fits in the
boot of a Ford Ka with overnight stuff no problem. The tripod goes on
the back seat.

Setup takes a few minutes to align, get the finder zero'd, enter the
location coord's etc, but no problem. The scope is easily
manhandleable, although I often sweat whilst getting holding it with
one hand and doing up the tripod screws with the other.

I would be very interested in a comparison between your existing scope
and the ETX-105. I've got to say I was disappointed with its
performance on deep-sky objects (no surprise in hindsight), but for
planets and great star views, very enjoyable, especially with the
eyepiece set. Jupiter was breathtaking a few weeks ago.

Cheers,
Les.

Hi,

I've had an ETX-105 for a few months now.

I find its pretty portable - I often travel from London to family on
the Lincolnshire coast for relatively clear skies.

I bought the hard case, which isn't that great, but it fits in the
boot of a Ford Ka with overnight stuff no problem. The tripod goes on
the back seat.

Setup takes a few minutes to align, get the finder zero'd, enter the
location coord's etc, but no problem. The scope is easily
manhandleable, although I often sweat whilst getting holding it with
one hand and doing up the tripod screws with the other.

I would be very interested in a comparison between your existing scope
and the ETX-105. I've got to say I was disappointed with its
performance on deep-sky objects (no surprise in hindsight), but for
planets and great star views, very enjoyable, especially with the
eyepiece set. Jupiter was breathtaking a few weeks ago.

Cheers,
Les.

In article , "James Harris"
no.email.please says...
Folks,

I already have a Meade SC-8 LXD-55 but it is just too heavy for
day-to-day use where I have to transport it to a viewing
location, and a little noisy for preference.

I am considering adding an ETX for more convenient planetary and
lunar viewing. The '90 is UKP 600 and the '105 is UKP 750. How
much benefit would I get from the larger aperture (medium light
polution locally) and are they both light enough to easily
transport and easy to set up? I know the shipping weights are
approx 12 lbs and 18 lbs

Is there anything more compact that would give similar optical
performance?

Having got a scope for photography and serious use when the
occasional occasion (sic) permits I would like one that is
small, convenient, has lots of bells and whistles and above all
has that special wow factor - look what you can see of the
heavens with that tiny little scope! I remember seeing the disc
of Jupiter for the first time with a small scope many years ago
and the feeling that gave me, how accessible the sky seemed.

With either of the Meades I would also buy the eyepieces again
(the offer continues). I think the extra UKP 100 would be an
investment if I ever came to selling one of the scopes. On the
other hand if someone makes a scope smaller, lighter and half
the price I wouldn't say no!

TIA,
James



If money isn't a problem then the 105 would be my choice.

I have the ETX90 I bought it for portability and easy set up. I have to
say that I'm very, very pleased with it. As I'm sure you're aware
neither of these are in the same league as the big scopes but they do
their job very well.

When I bought mine the 105 wasn't available and I couldn't afford the
125. I often wonder if I'd had the money would I have gone for size over
portability, I think I might and that would have been a mistake!
--

Regards

Nick

In article , "James Harris"
no.email.please says...
Folks,

I already have a Meade SC-8 LXD-55 but it is just too heavy for
day-to-day use where I have to transport it to a viewing
location, and a little noisy for preference.

I am considering adding an ETX for more convenient planetary and
lunar viewing. The '90 is UKP 600 and the '105 is UKP 750. How
much benefit would I get from the larger aperture (medium light
polution locally) and are they both light enough to easily
transport and easy to set up? I know the shipping weights are
approx 12 lbs and 18 lbs

Is there anything more compact that would give similar optical
performance?

Having got a scope for photography and serious use when the
occasional occasion (sic) permits I would like one that is
small, convenient, has lots of bells and whistles and above all
has that special wow factor - look what you can see of the
heavens with that tiny little scope! I remember seeing the disc
of Jupiter for the first time with a small scope many years ago
and the feeling that gave me, how accessible the sky seemed.

With either of the Meades I would also buy the eyepieces again
(the offer continues). I think the extra UKP 100 would be an
investment if I ever came to selling one of the scopes. On the
other hand if someone makes a scope smaller, lighter and half
the price I wouldn't say no!

TIA,
James



If money isn't a problem then the 105 would be my choice.

I have the ETX90 I bought it for portability and easy set up. I have to
say that I'm very, very pleased with it. As I'm sure you're aware
neither of these are in the same league as the big scopes but they do
their job very well.

When I bought mine the 105 wasn't available and I couldn't afford the
125. I often wonder if I'd had the money would I have gone for size over
portability, I think I might and that would have been a mistake!
--

Regards

Nick

Hi Les,

Since posting I've had a look at an ETX 90 in my local store. I
didn't get to make use of it, just get an idea of its weight and
size.

I must say I was amazed at how light it was - and how plasticy
it seemed. I've seen a comparitive review on Mike Weasners site
http://www.weasner.com/etx/guests/gu...omparison.html
between the '90 and the '105. The local store didn't have a '105
in stock but they will call me when one arrives. Hopefully I
will be able to try it out before choosing as there were some
comments on the noise of the drives.

Is there anything with similar quality optics and above all
similar or lower weight and bulk that would be cheaper without
the Goto stuff? That seems to add a lot to the costs of these
Meades.

Cheers,
James


"Les" wrote in message
om...
Hi,

I've had an ETX-105 for a few months now.

I find its pretty portable - I often travel from London to
family on
the Lincolnshire coast for relatively clear skies.

I bought the hard case, which isn't that great, but it fits in
the
boot of a Ford Ka with overnight stuff no problem. The tripod
goes on
the back seat.

Setup takes a few minutes to align, get the finder zero'd, enter
the
location coord's etc, but no problem. The scope is easily
manhandleable, although I often sweat whilst getting holding it
with
one hand and doing up the tripod screws with the other.

I would be very interested in a comparison between your existing
scope
and the ETX-105. I've got to say I was disappointed with its
performance on deep-sky objects (no surprise in hindsight), but
for
planets and great star views, very enjoyable, especially with
the
eyepiece set. Jupiter was breathtaking a few weeks ago.

Cheers,
Les.

Hi Les,

Since posting I've had a look at an ETX 90 in my local store. I
didn't get to make use of it, just get an idea of its weight and
size.

I must say I was amazed at how light it was - and how plasticy
it seemed. I've seen a comparitive review on Mike Weasners site
http://www.weasner.com/etx/guests/gu...omparison.html
between the '90 and the '105. The local store didn't have a '105
in stock but they will call me when one arrives. Hopefully I
will be able to try it out before choosing as there were some
comments on the noise of the drives.

Is there anything with similar quality optics and above all
similar or lower weight and bulk that would be cheaper without
the Goto stuff? That seems to add a lot to the costs of these
Meades.

Cheers,
James


"Les" wrote in message
om...
Hi,

I've had an ETX-105 for a few months now.

I find its pretty portable - I often travel from London to
family on
the Lincolnshire coast for relatively clear skies.

I bought the hard case, which isn't that great, but it fits in
the
boot of a Ford Ka with overnight stuff no problem. The tripod
goes on
the back seat.

Setup takes a few minutes to align, get the finder zero'd, enter
the
location coord's etc, but no problem. The scope is easily
manhandleable, although I often sweat whilst getting holding it
with
one hand and doing up the tripod screws with the other.

I would be very interested in a comparison between your existing
scope
and the ETX-105. I've got to say I was disappointed with its
performance on deep-sky objects (no surprise in hindsight), but
for
planets and great star views, very enjoyable, especially with
the
eyepiece set. Jupiter was breathtaking a few weeks ago.

Cheers,
Les.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:00:52 +0100, "James Harris" no.email.please
wrote:

Is there anything with similar quality optics and above all
similar or lower weight and bulk that would be cheaper without
the Goto stuff? That seems to add a lot to the costs of these
Meades.

James, you could consider the 105 or, preferably, the 127mm maksutov
that is made in China by Synta and sold under the Skywatcher brand
hert. The 127 got a good review in Astronomy Now a while ago.
- Mike

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:00:52 +0100, "James Harris" no.email.please
wrote:

Is there anything with similar quality optics and above all
similar or lower weight and bulk that would be cheaper without
the Goto stuff? That seems to add a lot to the costs of these
Meades.

James, you could consider the 105 or, preferably, the 127mm maksutov
that is made in China by Synta and sold under the Skywatcher brand
hert. The 127 got a good review in Astronomy Now a while ago.
- Mike

If I'm honest I think the ETX-105 is excellent resolution-wise,
star-testing suggests the optics are good, and planetary detail is
very good, and Autostar works well.

But after several months my thoughts a

1. I wish I'd got the 125, because I keep wondering how much better it
would be. Still reasonably portable.

2. That £750 plus extras taking it over £1000 is an awful lot for a 4"
scope. It's left me thinking I would like a 8" reflector at least to
get better deep-sky performance. Even the brightest (say M13) are
fairly unimpressive through the 105.

3. The Meade hard carry case isn't very good - a decent photographic
case or other specialist astro case would be much better.

Having said that, the eyepiece offer added a lot to the value...

Cheers,
Les.