Flog it all for an SCT?

[russ.will]

Look, I'm going to find myself a few thousand feet up an Alp next month. It's about skiing, but the chalet isn't exactly near a town. The difference this time is that I'm driving, rather than flying, so luggage is less of  limit, so I don't want to waste it.

To be honest, this maybe a case of my restless feet being given a new focus, but even at home I'm finding that the AR127L comes out more often than the 300 Dob. I've found myself wondering that an SCT may fit my duck-and-dive between the clouds/moon/as time allows viewing more often. For instance, I used to avoid that quarter around the full moon, but that's a restriction on available viewing, which annoys me. The AR127L comes out for planetary at this point, whilst I don't get the 300 Dob out unless it looks perfect in terms of darkness/jet stream/moisture, etc. The perfect storm for 300 Dob viewing seems to happen about six times a year. Not enough.

I've been wondering and the prices I'm seeing on the second hand market give me further pause for thought, if a circa 10" SCT might be a better fit with my viewing habits?

I'm seeing 10" LX90, CPC 9.25 and even a CPC 1100 (weight isn't really an issue) crop up at eye opening prices and my current EP collection would work with all of those. The scopes live in an unheated outbuilding, so cool-down times aren't really an issue.

I'm interested in the opinion of anybody who has jumped in that direction, or indeed, done the precise opposite and why.

Cheers,

Russell

[sbooder]

I have had two SCTs and wondered why I got the second to be truthful.  I am not saying they are bad but in my own opinion, they do not have the image quality of a Newt.  I know others will disagree but I can only say it like it is for me.

This is why I have always stuck to a 10" Newt on an EQ.  It is still the best for a non permanent setup.

[nightfisher]

Russ, this is a similar theme that i keep having, i have posted  few times that i get tempted to sell the lot and have "just one" scope, the general consensus seems to suggest a C8 as being a superb scope, so a 925 should be even better, then the meade seems an even better buy as they can be picked up very well prices 

[Mr Spock]

I swapped a 10" Newt for a C925 and have never looked back. I moved because the tube of a 10" is too bulky for me to carry (bad back). Althought the C925 doesn't have as much contrast as the Newt, it's just as sharp, Itdoesn't require constant collimation adjustments like the Newt and being f10 it's easy on eyepieces.

[alan potts]

I have an SC, you probably know this. I would not buy another as they are not good value New in my opinion, secondhand though is another issue. If you can carry the weight and bear in mind mine is bigger than you were thinking, tolerate the smallish FOV thought a 10 inch will be wider. then they are good scopes. I do not feel the image is as sharp as my M/N 190mm or Mak 180mm at like magnifications but this could just be the extra inches being messed about by the air we breath.

I also like the Meade Goto system over the SW one, just a small point.

Alan

[cotterless45]

I think of it like choosing a screwdriver, spanner or a drill bit from a tool kit. Really depends what you want to use it for.

I don't think that there's one ideal scope that does it all. I think that a lot of folk are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I looked at Saturn once through a 9.25, the view wasn't anywhere the quality of a slow frac or Newt view.

And for all this talk of holiday scopes , are folk really going to enjoy their day to the full then be out observing all night ? We like to walk for miles, eat seafood and have a good drink in the wild wet Wild West !

I'd stick with what you know and love to use,

Nick.

[Druid]

I've got a C11 and it's pretty good for what it does, but I really wouldn't want it as my only scope due to the narrow FOV. The best you're going to do without a reducer is ~1 degree. 

I find that for this reason, it's also very goto-dependent under my light-polluted skies, although I guess that with a much better than stock finder that might change. 

[Macavity]

I do sometimes wonder, given the financial outlay, re. sundry ST Achromats, Maksutovs

and budget Fast Newts, I would not have been better investing in a C8 (or better C9.25).

(Just a thought for aspiring VIDEO Astronomers with smaller chips, focal reducers etc.)

The learning process - various scopes / mounts / stuff has been life enriching? (maybe)

[Fish]

I managed to get a very old C8 for a gift, so did not have to sell anything. Only one scope gets all the mount time now and thats the C8, I have had to purchase one new eyepiece which I felt it needed and that was a 38mm panaview . Allso you will want to consider a focuser to improve things but so far the views through my C8 are as good if not better than my 200p and quite a lot better than my 120 fracs . l love it to bits so much so that its going away for a full service. Bobs knobs are allso a must .

Good luck with your choice.

[Chris]

If you can affored to you could try picking up a smaller cheaper C6 or C8 second hand in order to compare them directly to your existing scopes.

I think SCT's have a lot going for them, and on paper I think the C8 in particular has the most going for it as an all rounder.

- Very compact for the aperture and light at around just 5kg! 

- The focal length is a bit shorter than larger SCT's so you can get around 1.4 degrees with a 2" 40mm eyepiece.

- Very kind on EP's not that its stopped me using ES100's with mine.

- Collimation is both super easy as its just the secondary plus they seem to stay put.

- Very binoviewer friendly as there is so much travel on the focuser.

Down sides for me are:

- bit of mirror shift when focusing unless you get a crayford for it, but these are quite cheap for a Revelation one.

- I find that the off axis performance of the standard SCT's a bit lacking (completely rectified by the Edge version and the I think sharper on axis! but expensive).

- Front corrector prone to dewing, probably a bit more so than a Newts secondary even. Does need a good dew shield on damp nights.

Comparing my old 200p Dob to the Edge I would take the Edge hands down, it would be a close call with the standard SCT when comparing like for like magnification, I don't know which I would pick out the two?

[ronin]

Check the weight's first, they are shorter but still heavy and they do not get lighter with time.

I am not insubstantial and can carry an 8" SCT - Meade LX of some variant and they are built chunky, but would not like to have that 8" SCT as my one and only scope.

Like any big scope (300 Dob  ) they eventually get too much.

At one club fairly local just about every scope is a 5" or 6" SCT/Mak and I suspect that is simply down to their very convenient size.

[faulksy]

i did the opposite, i had a brilliant cpc 9.25 and sold it to get a dob, i bought the vx14. i was quite concerned and hoped it would be as good on planets as the sct, and all i can say is wow, massive difference planets are better and dso,s are amazing

[swamp thing]

I used to have an observing buddy that used a CPC 9.25, lovely scope. How convenient was it though in truth...........depends on your point of view. I could have my old 16" light bridge up n running quicker than he could get the 9.25 ready to observe. Small packages aren't always as quick and easy as they might appear. He got quite a shock to see me observing whilst he was still setting up the first time we met up.

[scarp15]

A C8 on a simple alt/az mount will be a nice convenient, portable set up. I used to enjoy mine immensely, an older version Celestar on a fork mount , wedge and clock drive RA motor. Simple plastic dew shield and Id fitted an upgraded feather touch focuser.

However if I were in your shoes, that is on a skiing holiday - where by probably skiing and getting pretty worn out each day, then I would take my 15x70 binoculars and monopod.

[estwing]

im snowboarding in Les Arcs next week...naked eye only for me!

[russ.will]

I've skiied Les Arcs - Stayed at 2000m resort. First lift on a clear bright morning up to Aiguille Rouge at 3200m. Sun searing the eyes and -24c wind clawing the skin and rasping the lungs. 

Best feeling in the world.

But let's take the skiing out of the equation as the scope would be in use long after. As usual, there's some excellent feedback here.

It seems that for some, Newts are the pinnacle of observing. As a blend of maximum aperture, wide fields of view and price, that is undoubtedly the case. Obviously, given my 300 Newt I also realize, that (if pre-cooled) you can be up and running at the EP quicker, but the time spent polar aligning/3 star aligning an EQ mount isn't exactly long and the speed of finding things to observe is quicker thereafter. I struggle to believe a fork mounted SCT would be slower to setup.

Weight isn't an issue, unless you're talking about my waistline..... The all-up weight of a CPC925 is 26kg and that breaks down. The mirror box of my Dob is nearly 19kg and that isn't a struggle. I normally carry it around with the secondary cage and truss tubes attached so it's nearer 25kg. A CPC110 is only 29kg including the tripod.

Let's burrow down into which SCT. Meade LX90 10" v C9.25 v C11.

Meade seem to get a bit of a rough ride round these parts, but my Exos 2 Goto IS an LXD75 Goto (even says Meade on the handset) and operationally, I prefer it to my old HEQ5. it certainly took a LOT less adjusting out of the box - just a tweak to the worm end float.

Optically, the Meade ACFs and XLT CPCs seem to pleasure their owners and all have mirror flop. So has anybody moved from one to the other and what were the relative merits/drawbacks?

Thanks in advance,

Russell

[ronin]

Meades have always seemed to get a rough ride, I have had 3 for over 12 years and all are going well. They often seem to be the preferred scope for clubs and of the 2 clubs I know of with club scopes both have Meades - big Meades that supposidly do not make it out of the packaging before they seize up and grind to a juddering halt.

Odd when you read the number of electronics failures on the SW scopes that appear here on a more then regular basis. I do not own a Skywatcher but I know what at least 3 or 4 of the error messages displayed mean has gone wrong.

Mind you I would probably buy a CPC, I really like the appearance of them and they have few reported hiccups.

[Chris]

I had the pleasure of using several Meade 16" LX200's at Uni back in the day, in my final year I clocked up quite a few hours with one of them doing a photometry project.

I'm trying to think back 12 years to remember exactly what they where like? I did curse them a bit for mirror flop adding uncertainty to my data, but I think any massive 16" mirror that moves to focus will do this. I don't think they broke down too much, I seem to remember just a couple of times when we couldn't use them. They where mainly hooked up to ST7 CCD's so we didn't get to use eyepieces often

I must have liked them though because I went out an bought a baby Meade, the ETX90, that was a cracking little scope on the Moon! 

[jetstream]

I heard, but don't know, that C9.25's are among the best SCT's out there and are highly regarded by current and former users. If I were going to buy an SCT it would be a Celestron for sure, C8 or C9.25, depending on how portable I needed it.

[John]

I used to live near a chap who reviewed scopes for a living and did a lot of work for Sky & Telescope and Astronomy Now over the years. I got to know him reasonably well. His view was that the Celestron SCT's that had been through his hands over the years had generally been optically better than their Meade equivalents.

Thought I'd share that for what it's worth.

[Telescope40]

Hi Russ.  Used to have a standard, fork mounted, Meade LX90  10 in.  As noted, Meades get a bit of a beating here and there.  I could not disagree more when I had mine.  It ran as sweet as a nut for me.  Sold it to fund an NEQ6 and the spare dosh on a nice refractor.   Meade handset  much better than a Skywatcher IMHO

Since then have been able to go back to the future and bought 2nd hand  C9.25 OTA.  Due to poor weather, there's a novelty, not had too much time with the C 9.25 but can only say not much difference between the two.  I have binoviewers.  Love the fact no issues re in focus etc. 

Just need to point out i'm a Mk 1 eyeball guy. No imaging apart from a bit of webcam.  Used the LX90 for this and got some decent results on Jupe and Saturn.   Never went DSO ing.

Hope this helps.    John  

[russ.will]

I really like the Meade handset too. Nicer buttons, more intuitive menu structure and how handy is the red torch on the top?

Russell

[Laurie61]

Just regarding the OTA's I have found that the Meade scopes take longer to cool than the 'C' s, not sure why this should be. I owned a 12" lx 200 for three years and cooling it was my biggest headache and this from an outside store. My C11 is noticeably better and cools at a similar rate to my 10" meade, maybe a fraction faster ? Have not tried a 9.25. 

[Charic]

I wouldn't let the  Astronomy distract you from your skiing holiday. Take some binoculars, after-all it could be snowing all night  for your pleasure off Piste during the next Day and when your Piste at night, could you handle a scope?

Have a good holiday.

[russ.will]

You mean you observe sober? 

Russell