Meade LX90 10" vs. Celestron CPC 11"

[rayman]

After months of looking at telescopes, I am down to the Meade LX90 10" or Celestron CPC 11', however it is difficult to determine the difference between these scopes. I would like to list what I have found and was wondering if anyone could give me more information.

Both scopes have superior optics.

Meade states that it has an oversize mirror by about 1/4" and its UHTC coatings will increase light transmission up to 3/4".

Celestron also has the XLT coating and I am not sure it is any better or worse than the Meade UHTC coating.

Common sense dictates that I have more light gathering power with the 11" but how much and would it even be noticable?

The Meade LX90 10" is about 15 lbs lighter than the Celestron.

I have looked at both scopes and it seems that the Celestron has a sturdier mount.

The user reviews I have read indicate that the Meade is a lot faster and smoother in finding objects.

I can get the Meade for $2450 with a rebate on a Deep Sky Imager Pro and color set for $228 and this is the main attraction at this point. The Celestron is selling for $2799 and I noticed that they increased the price on their web site to $2899. In addition, I don't understand why these companies advertise these scopes on sale when the price is clearly found on the maufacturer's web site.

As far as eypieces, I was told by a dealer that the Celestron eypiece and filter set for $99 was like a toy and the Meade eyepiece and filter set for $199 was not bad but not great.

The bottom line with me is that I want to get into photography starting with the planets and eventually moving to deep space. I understand that I will need an equatorial wedge in the future but was also told by a dealer that the Meade wedge wasn't great.

So here I still deciding between the two. Any insights withouts would be helpful.

Ray

[barkis]

Hello Ray,

I have a LX90 LNT 12" and as strange as this may sound, I bought the telescope almost 1 year ago, and I have not used it yet.

I have been engaged in spending money in fits and starts to improve the instrument prior to installing in a permanent observatory, which should be finished in about 2 months. I bought a wedge for it from the states. Electric JMI focuser mirror lock, Crayford focuser and focal reducers.

I need to buy a pier to mount it on too. I have done simulation runs only with the scope connected to Starry Night Pro, and it responds quite well to all the commands. But, of course that is not on the real sky. This preamble, does not help you in any way, but yesterday, I was browsing the net, and came across an article by a chap called Christensen, I will try later to find the link for you, as I was on my other computer when I did that search. However, he wrote an article comparing two like systems, both 8" SCT's. One was a Meade, and the other was a Celestron. This chap is an astro photographer of great repute, so if I can't get the link you need, I am sure Astroman may know of him.

However, although there were differences in the overall performance in the two instruments, in general he could not choose one over the other.

I know the Meade was a bit noisy on fast slewing, so, that might upset neighbours if you are viewing or imaging late at night early morning.

He reckoned the Meade was a bit more accurate in the Goto aspect, in as much as, it seemed to have the target more in the centre of the field of view. However, I am sure you need more information than I am providing to make a decision.

For myself, if the prices are much on a par, I would probably go with the larger aperture. But then, I have had aperture fever for years.

I will try to get the link for you, and post it later this evening

Ron.

[centroid]

Hi Ray

Having owned both a Celestron SCT (8") and now a Meade SCT (10" LX200GPS), IMO, the optics are equally as good, and its 'six of one and half dozen of the other', with regard to Celestron's XLT or Meade's UHTC coatings.

For imaging purposes, the difference between a 10" and 11" scope, is minimal in terms of exposure time.

What is important is the mount, it's stability, Periodic Error (and whether it accepts Periodic Error correction), and ability to accept 'guiding pulses'. My LX200GPS meets all of these requirements, but I don't believe the LX90 will 'guide' without adaption.

The LX90 doesn't have the Microfocuser and Primary Mirror lock of the LX200GPS, but then neither does the C11 to the best of my knowledge.

An equatorial wedge is essential for a Fork Mounted SCT, if imaging is your 'aim'. For the Meade, a 'Field De-Rotator' is available, but IMO, this is very much a compromise compared to using a 'wedge'.

I bought a Meade Superwedge at £500, and it was pretty 'Rubbish' in terms of rigidity and precision adjustment. As such, in common with many Meade Super Wedge owners, I carried out substantail engineering improvements, and its now a pretty good wedge.

There are several other alternative 'wedges' around, and I'm positive that these will be far better than anything that Meade or Celestron have to offer.

Dave

[MartinB]

Ray,

I have an NS8 GPS which was the forerunner to the CPC. I find the goto very accurate and the scope slews beautifully quietly. From everything I've heard the CPC is best compared with the LX200GPS in terms of quality (although the LX200GPS may have a flatter field for large format imaging). I don't think the LX90 is made to the same quality and is likely to cause problems as an imaging scope. Certainly the LX90 at our astro soc doesn't inspire confidence. The CPC is likely to perform well for long exposure imaging on a wedge although not as well as a high end equatorial mount

[barkis]

Ray, here is the link I referred to earlier. Make of it what you will.

Ron.

http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/reports-c8.htm

Having read the previous two posts, it would appear I may be looking forward to some disappointment when I finally get my

LX90 into service. Perhaps all the wonderful images the guy I bought it from showed me, were not taken using the telescope he sold me. I would be very upset indeed If I were to have bought one brand new, and it turned out to be a Turkey. I would expect at the price one could take decent images. Of course I may be should have done a bit of homework first perhaps. I have heard more than once, that the LX200 Is more conducive to astro imaging. Well, if it takes some engineering to thrash it into shape, then so be it. I will go and warm the lathe up.

[Jeff RV]

HI all,.

Trouble is the LX200 is a lot more expensive,but the optics are the same in either.

Theres a lot of people who seem to have great success with an LX90, and some fantastic images have been resolved on just this forum alone http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/lx90/ by some well known image-rs Without even looking at (Cloudy Night) etc.

Yes you may have to buy a micro focuser etc.

But as the old saying goes "you only get what you pay for" certainly true with Meade!!

Cheers all.

Jeff

[psychobabbler]

Hi

I have owned the CPC 11" Celestron for 6 months now, and am delighted with it. I have no experience of the Meade of course, but here is a list of my opinions and views on the CPC.

1. Very quiet when slewing, and very accurate for my needs which have been observing and webcam use for planet imaging.

2. Don't sweat the extra weight. The handles on the CPC are so cleverly placed the 65Ib weight is easily manageable even by someone like myself who had little or no upper body strength. Just don't ask me how they do that.

3. Tripod is also easily moveable and wonderfully sturdy.

4. Iron tripod support with eyepiece holes.

5. Goto easy to use. GPS makes aligning stupidly easly.

6. Focuser not so good. Lots of image shift. Perfectly ok, but consider electric focuser in future.

7. Supplied diagonal not good - get 2" diagonal ASAP.

8. It's big. Wife says too big. I say beautiful black creation from heaven.

Hope this is of use and of course purely subjective. Let me know if you need other info. Off to source a good wedge.

Psychobabbler

[tom.yates]

I Have owned a meade 12" lx200 and found it to have excellent optics

[rayman]

I would like to thank all of you for your comments and advice. What I have learned is that I need a scope with a good equatorial mount if I want to do deep sky imaging. The problem with that in the 10" or higher range is cost, weight, and it seems like many GEM's lack GPS so I may end up buying a fork mount for now. I also learned some acronyms like GEM and OTA (haha).

I think that I have also learned that Meade vs Celestron is like Ford vs Chevy and most people are biased to what they own. It seems like there are more Celestron users in these forums and I was wondering if Clestron sells more scopes than Meade. Thank you again!

[daz]

There's nothing like learning a few TLA's