which scope and mount

[soggybongo]

got enough dosh saved now for a new setup, but a little stuck on choosing it. I realy want to get into deepsky astrophotograhy so this is what it will be used for the most.

In your opinion which one is better?

Meade LX90 ACF 12inch UHTC with LX200™ - series steel tripod.

or

Meade LX200 10inch ACF OTA with EQ6 SynScan Mount.

Cheers guys

[Zul]

Meade LX200 10inch ACF OTA with EQ6 SynScan Mount. sorry for editing

[soggybongo]

Meade LX200 10inch ACF OTA with EQ6 SynScan Mount. sorry for editing

can i ask why this scope and mount and not the other?

[E621Keith]

Unless you have a wedge or a field derotator, the AltAz mounted LX90 will give you trailing due to field rotation.

[ollypenrice]

Whoa, stop, you need to do more homework. (I'm just being honest.)

Those scopes have big focal lengths and that means you need a seriously accurate mount. People who haven't done much imaging will tell you to look at the weight payload of the mount. They are not wrong, but the other thing is to consider the accuracy needed for long focal lengths. A 12 inch SCT needs something way more accurate than an EQ6 or the proprietory Meade fork and wedge. Some people do eventually get the wedge and fork to work but many others don't. The small number of imagers using big SCTs have them on Geminis, Takahashis, APs and G11s, not on forks or EQ sixes. (I have 2 of the latter. Great value and fine for a metre of FL. Maybe nearly 2 metres with a lot of effort but I prefer to be imaging than faffing with a mount performing way outside its comfort zone.) I do know one or two people who have got the fork and wedge to work but not so well that they still own them. And I sold mine.

Anyway, are you sure you want to be imaging at those focal lengths? You need exceptionally good seeing and freedom from wind for starters, so at long FL your imaging nights are even fewer than they are at short FLs which are tolerant of wind and bad seeing. Those with long FLs available in their setups don't expect to be able to use them anything like as regularly as their short FL alternatives. If the conditions are not great you'll get no more out of 2 metres FL than you'll get out of a metre, and it will be much harder work in the big one.

If you look at the free CCD Calculator (it Googles) you can try framing different objects onto your size of chip. You might be surprized how big many of the great objects are on the sky.

I find that my smallest scope, an 85mm apo, is my most productive. Last week sub standard skies meant it was working every night and getting lovely results when the bigger stuff was struggling.

Olly

[mike.brightmore]

Many thanks Olly. I found your post really useful

[Gina]

A highly recommended scope for DSO AP is the ED80 eg. Skywatcher Evostar 80 DS Pro. I also highly recommend the book Make Every Photon Count by Steve Richards available from FLO.

[soggybongo]

Whoa, stop, you need to do more homework. (I'm just being honest.)

Those scopes have big focal lengths and that means you need a seriously accurate mount. People who haven't done much imaging will tell you to look at the weight payload of the mount. They are not wrong, but the other thing is to consider the accuracy needed for long focal lengths. A 12 inch SCT needs something way more accurate than an EQ6 or the proprietory Meade fork and wedge. Some people do eventually get the wedge and fork to work but many others don't. The small number of imagers using big SCTs have them on Geminis, Takahashis, APs and G11s, not on forks or EQ sixes. (I have 2 of the latter. Great value and fine for a metre of FL. Maybe nearly 2 metres with a lot of effort but I prefer to be imaging than faffing with a mount performing way outside its comfort zone.) I do know one or two people who have got the fork and wedge to work but not so well that they still own them. And I sold mine.

Anyway, are you sure you want to be imaging at those focal lengths? You need exceptionally good seeing and freedom from wind for starters, so at long FL your imaging nights are even fewer than they are at short FLs which are tolerant of wind and bad seeing. Those with long FLs available in their setups don't expect to be able to use them anything like as regularly as their short FL alternatives. If the conditions are not great you'll get no more out of 2 metres FL than you'll get out of a metre, and it will be much harder work in the big one.

If you look at the free CCD Calculator (it Googles) you can try framing different objects onto your size of chip. You might be surprized how big many of the great objects are on the sky.

I find that my smallest scope, an 85mm apo, is my most productive. Last week sub standard skies meant it was working every night and getting lovely results when the bigger stuff was struggling.

Olly

many thanks for your advice, why do retailers sell a scope with a mount that is just not up to scratch?

I was leaning more towards the lx90 and eq6 mount as the 90 is well below what the mount can cope with extra bits i pop on there, like my dslr, ccd.

I understand that it has a high FL but would a focal reducer not bring it down a peg or two?

I want a scope and mount that will be great for observing and great for astrophotography.

I have £2500 saved, i dont need any lens, filters, barlows as i already have them but in 1.25" so all i need is a decent scope and mount. I already have a lxd75 mount with a Meade SN6-AT scope which will be sold to fund a ccd.

so what would be your choice of scope and mount be for 50% viewing and 50% photography?

[soggybongo]

how about an NEQ6 PRO SkyScan mount with a Meade Series 5000 ED APO OTA 127mm or Meade 102mm Triplet F7 ED APO?

[ollypenrice]

how about an NEQ6 PRO SkyScan mount with a Meade Series 5000 ED APO OTA 127mm or Meade 102mm Triplet F7 ED APO?

Not a bad idea in principle but now the Meade 127 is roundly beaten optically and mechanically by some new kids on the block like the Altair Astro 115. I have imaged quite extensively with both. The Meade is far from bad but the quality of photographic stellar images is much, much better on the newer designs. Visually there's little in it. The ED120 needs considering, too. Anyway a larger refractor is a possibility, yes.

But I wouldn't do that in your position. I'd go for a small refractor on an HEQ5, autoguided via ST80 or finder-guider and something like a QHY5 or second hand Atik16ic. And I'd also buy a Dob, the largest that the remains of the cash would afford. The ED80 needs to be on the small refractor shortlist but there are others. The WO 70 with rack and pinion might be good. You could send one huge order in to FLO and a fleet of delivery vans would arrive at your doorstep!

The one-scope-fits-all is a snare and a delusion in my view. Why compromise when you can have full-on solutions within budget with two scopes?

As for why they make out that their fork SCTs are an imager's dream - well, they want your money don't they. I have a friend and guest who uses a Meade ACF 8 inch on an EQ6 and he does well with it but his EQ6 is the most accurate I've ever seen. It generally runs the same kind of error under guiding as my Takahashi EM200. Not all EQ sixes are equal! If mine had been like his I would have saved a few £Ks on the Tak mount... In my first reply I was thinking you were interested in putting a 10 inch Meade on the EQ6. That would be pushing it for imaging. I do put a 10 inch Meade on an EQ6 for visual when people ask for it. It's absolutely fine with an eyepiece.

Olly

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I am thinking along the lines of getting an HEQ5 for my APM 80mm F/6, while the much bigger C8 sits on its Great Polaris mount for visual stuff (following Olly's advice). A little APO frees up more cash for the mount and camera. While I am saving for that mount, the little APO is a brilliant wide field instrument.

[soggybongo]

Not a bad idea in principle but now the Meade 127 is roundly beaten optically and mechanically by some new kids on the block like the Altair Astro 115. I have imaged quite extensively with both. The Meade is far from bad but the quality of photographic stellar images is much, much better on the newer designs. Visually there's little in it. The ED120 needs considering, too. Anyway a larger refractor is a possibility, yes.

But I wouldn't do that in your position. I'd go for a small refractor on an HEQ5, autoguided via ST80 or finder-guider and something like a QHY5 or second hand Atik16ic. And I'd also buy a Dob, the largest that the remains of the cash would afford. The ED80 needs to be on the small refractor shortlist but there are others. The WO 70 with rack and pinion might be good. You could send one huge order in to FLO and a fleet of delivery vans would arrive at your doorstep!

The one-scope-fits-all is a snare and a delusion in my view. Why compromise when you can have full-on solutions within budget with two scopes?

As for why they make out that their fork SCTs are an imager's dream - well, they want your money don't they. I have a friend and guest who uses a Meade ACF 8 inch on an EQ6 and he does well with it but his EQ6 is the most accurate I've ever seen. It generally runs the same kind of error under guiding as my Takahashi EM200. Not all EQ sixes are equal! If mine had been like his I would have saved a few £Ks on the Tak mount... In my first reply I was thinking you were interested in putting a 10 inch Meade on the EQ6. That would be pushing it for imaging. I do put a 10 inch Meade on an EQ6 for visual when people ask for it. It's absolutely fine with an eyepiece.

Olly

many thanks for your input Olly, it's very much appreciated.

[soggybongo]

looking like a eq6 pro and not the heq5 mount as i may want a higher payload down the line. still to decide on the main scope but either an orion ST80 or skywatcher ST80 for a guide scope.

would also like to mod my canon eos 350d cam for astro (this can wait)

This will leave me with about £1500 for my main scope, i could wait another 6 months and add another £600 to my budget along with the sale of my near mint Meade LXD75 N-6AT with LXD75 goto mount - have not got a clue what to ask for this.

Any sugestions?