Choice between 3 scopes

[Sirius1066]

Hi Guys,

I'm in the market for a new scope. I currently have an Orion 14" truss tube dob with intelliscope, and love it. However I decided to get a second scope which is smaller, easier to manage and a bit smarter, with full goto etc...

I decided that an 8" is a good size for a portable, but useful scope. Any bigger and it is just a bit to much for me to handle. Another thing that is important to me is ease of setup. I like the idea of putting a scope on the ground pressing a few buttons and it is aligned.

At this point in time I am only interested in visual astronomy, but can see myself getting into astro-imaging down the track. With this in mind I began looking at scopes.

My first choice was a Celestron C8-SGT, but on a Sky Watcher HEQ5pro mount as I heard this mount is much better than the Celestron 11026-XLT. I then decided that I probably should spend a little extra and and go for the Celestron HD optics instead. This would certainly be useful when I decide to move into imaging.

The thing I didn't like was the Equatorial mount. While I know that an equatorial mount is a must for any long exposure imaging, I'm not that into it yet and I may not be anytime soon. So the comparably easier setup of the alt-az mount become more attractive. I decided that I could always get an equatorial wedge later if I go into imaging.

By Monday night I had narrowed my choice down to two.

Celestron CPC 800 GPS Series 11073-XLT

Meade LX90 8" ACF W/UHTC

By last night I had decided that I would go for the Meade LX90. I did this for a few reasons. Firstly from what I read (and I know Celestron fans may disagree) the Meade electronics seemed just that little bit smarter. I must admit that the "Astronomer Inside gimmick" has got me a bit. Secondly the Advanced Coma Free Optics will come in handy if i get into astro-imaging later. And finally the price. It seems you get more from Meade for less.

I was ready to buy today but then I took a look at the Meade LX80. It seems like a clever design and would give me the ease of the alt-az, but the abilities of an equatorial for later on. The thing that makes me hesitate on the LX80 is that it is brand new. From what I have read Meade can sometimes rush a new product to market too quickly and often the first few incarnations of a new design have problems. So do I take a risk with the LX80 or go with the LX90 that seems to have ironed out the bugs that were originally in the design.

Any thoughts, feedback or other ideas that might help me make a decision would be appreciated.

Sorry this is so long, I am wanting to give you as much info as I can so that you know what I want, where I am at etc.

Thanks in advance for your advice.

[ollypenrice]

For visual use a computerized alt-az SCT has a lot of charm. It is a nice size, the EP is usually in a sensible place, etc. They are rarely less than very competent visually and the Celestrons can be really crisp.

They are also great for planetary fast frame camera imaging.

However, for deep sky imaging there are problems. In their infinite wisdom Celestron made a flatfield astrographic SCT at F10. Now let's be dead clear, F10 is almost entirely useless. If you use a DSLR it will remain so. If you use a monochrome CCD you could shoot in Bin2 and get somewhere, eventually!

They promised a reducer and eventually it appeared but I don't know what image circle it will provide. There is a Lepus F reducer, fine, but it gives a miserable 22mm image circle. These reducers are very expensive, as well.

The Meade ACF is a better bet because people do get the Astro Physics reducer to work well.

However, in my opinion the 'comfort zone' of the HEQ5 and NEQ6 ends at about a metre of FL. They will certainly cope with more but you will need to be careful and maybe work on them a bit. Some will do it out of the box but I have two and I simply pass on my findings, which is that they won't do so consistently. For longer FL imaging I use two far more expensive mounts.

I would urge you not consider the wedge option since many find they just won't deliver, though some get them to work. However, none of the people I know who did get them to work actually kept them...

I wouldn't buy any mount without seeing its track record. People spending close to £20K on the ASA direct drive found themsleves signed up for a couple of years of unpaid beta testing, for example. Meade seem to have hit on the ploy of refusing to send out parts, insisting that you return a whole mount for repair. Perhaps this reduces the number of returns they have to handle...

Olly

http://ollypenrice.smugmug.com/Other/Best-of-Les-Granges/22435624_WLMPTM#!i=1793644788&k=r8HTK72

[Sirius1066]

Thanks ollypenrice

I should have added that I decided against the Celestron flatfield HD for the exact reasons you spoke about. I wondered if Celestron may have out smarted themselves there. It took them far to long release the focal length reducer, this may indicate that they haven't really got the HD technology exactly right.

[ollypenrice]

Yes, it's hard to know why they didn't go for a larger central obstruction and faster f ratio. Perhaps they wanted to keep visual qales as well.

Olly