CPC 800 XLT or the Meade LX90 ACF?

[Umar Ahmad]

Dear users,

I was wondering if any one on this forum has had any experience with the Celestron CPC 800 XLT, the Meade LX90 ACF or something similar? I understand they are both fork mounted SCTs with practically identical specifications and both systems feature largely automated GOTO GPS alignment systems. Does anyone have a preference, and if so why?

I am looking for a good all rounder 8" scope for visual astronomy, and an introduction to astro-imaging with room to grow.

Thanks,

[alanjgreen]

I used to have a CPC800 and it was great.

-Mount is rock solid thanks to the dual fork mount.

-Nice carry handles to make it easy to move it around.

-Tripod is same as the CPC1100 so it is over mounted really.

-I can take 1.25 or 2 inch visual back if you want to use 2" eyepieces

-standard focuser is really great. Did not need to upgrade it whereas on the C11 (heavier mirror) the upgrade to feathertouch microfocuser was really needed

 

As its Celestron you can add a Starsense camera for alignment, you cannot with the Meade.

I now have a CPC1100 and its great too.

 

I sold the CPC800 on to a local guy - here is his report

And some more...

You will need the wedge if you want to do astroimaging. CPC800 also has fastar as another way to mount a camera - I know nothing about this as I am visual only.

When I got mine, I was choosing between the 8SE or CPC800 or VX8. Decided the 8SE single fork arm would not hold the scope as stable as dual fork arms. CPC has GPS which 8SE does not.

Research told me that as visual only, I did not want an EQ mount (AVX) as the eyepiece can finish up anywhere and I am not a contortionist!

If you are into photography then an EQ mount may be a better bet for you but watch your back!!

 

Please do ask any questions?

 

[Umar Ahmad]

Dear Alanjgreen,

 

Thank you so much for the advice.

I will be sure to go over the reviews in detail. It seems that at the very least, people on this forum have had more experience with the CPC series versus the LX90 ACF. I had also considered both the SE and VX series. I had ruled out the SE due to it lacking a dual mount also. Regarding the AVX series having an EQ mount vs the CPC series having an ALT/AZ, I was under the impression that adding a wedge to the CPC turns it into an EQ mount. Is this not the case? In any case, I am also primarily a visual observer also which is why I thought I should go for the convenience of the CPC's largely automated GOTO instead of the AVX.

 

I'm interested as to why you've only mentioned Celestron when looking for an SCT. Is there a particular reason why this is?

 

Many thanks,

[alanjgreen]

Wedge does indeed convert to an EQ, thats as much as I know too - whether this gives all same functionality as a true EQ mount I do not know - wait and see if someone replies otherwise post the question in the imaging section in a couple of days...

I never looked at Meade when I was buying so I cannot comment on them, sorry.

 

[brantuk]

I had the CPC800 before the CPC925 I currently own, and I've spent a couple of sessions at a star party comparing the 800 with the Meade 8" Sct. In terms of optics - there's little in it - both superb performers and you have to look hard for any differences. The Meade was perhaps slightly more contrasty, but it's really not a "stand out" difference at all.

The electronics are very similar but I find the Celestron a little more intuitive and user friendly making it a doddle to operate. The thing I didn't like about the Meade was the over involved wedge mounting - the Celestron one is a single piece and very straight forward and simple to mount and set up. You won't go wrong choosing either scope - they're both good all rounders, fabulous on planets, and with a reducer and wedge can be used for dso imaging. Though a faster scope for dso imaging would make more sense. Hth

[Northern Soul man]

HI Ya Umar and a very warm welcome to the SGL.  Alan has made some excellent comments regarding the 2 scopes - I think visually you can't go wrong with either scope - I used to own an 8" LX90 Meade for about 5 years and found it to be an excellent scope, both optically and mechanically. - I bought it second hand - there was a little play in the declination axis which was soon sorted and it performed very well and held its price when I came to sell to part fund the CPC 1100.

I too am mainly visual and have settled with the SCT type scope, so long as you can put up with the slighlty "bloated" stars that the SCT shows ( the Newtonian/Dobsonian stars are much tighter but then you have to put up with the diffraction spikes - so swings and roundabouts with either optics) and a smaller field of view, you will really enjoy it.

The dual fork mount is rock solid - which I much prefer than using my Mak on an EQ mount - In  my opinion, there's much more set up with my EQ mount as opposed to the fork mount and the CPC is well thought out in this regard - I'm usually set up and aligned in around 15 Minutes - the CPC alignment routine for me is very accurate - set up, point the scope at Polaris, align my finder, use Polaris as my first alignment star, auto align to another star and its done for the night - even on objects near to the zenith, the scope is very accurate with all targets well within a 31MM EP.

The Meade I had was very good - I think that now the optics are around the same for either scope - especially when you think they are mass produced - the two I have owned anyway.  Once collimated, my SCT's hold alignment very well and have not been adjusted for some time now - once you can get the tension as well as the alignment of the secondary right - things stay put.

Not sure how the new electrics are on the Meade scopes - there was talk of the electrics letting the scope down - but this was a while ago and I certainly never had problems with them.

Visually the SCT is very good - as said - the small field of view is a minor problem, but I observe under very light polluted skies, never owned a refractor, so probably don't know what I'm missing!! - but 90% of my deep sky can be framed at F10, with a focal reducer at F 6.3 you can tease out a little more FOV - so the inner concentrations of the double cluster in Perseus can be framed.

Where they work best for me are Luna/Planetary - the Moon is absolutely stunning at F10, Jupiter and Saturn at around x 200 magnification when conditions are good are lovely - hit GOTO, centre them and just let the scope track - after a while detail begins to show and when the atmosphere steadies, you can build up a very detailed "map" of each Planet - just a joy to use.

Paul.

[Umar Ahmad]

Dear all,

 

Thank you for helping me make a more informed decision.

The feedback here seems to suggest the Celestron is slightly better thought out in terms of setup and design, so I think I'm inclined towards the CPC. 

Also, thanks for highlighting the potential issues regarding field of view. My location is also very light polluted so I think that all in all, the SCT design's flaws are somewhat mitigated.

I'll be sure to ask if I have any more queries,

 

Umar

 

 

[ollypenrice]

As things stand with the two companies I'd be inclined towards Celestron though I have two Meades myself. The fork SCTs make nice compact visual scopes and they are excellent planetary imagers. Used in alt az mode without the wedge they are a dream of comfort and simplicity and you can get away without the wedge for fast frame camera imaging of moon and planets.

If you want to go into deep sky imaging, though, they would not be my choice. It is hard to polar align wedge mounts and the long focal length makes them very demanding of high tracking accuracy. The focal length is also too long for the small pixels of DSLR cameras. If you read up on pixel scale you'll see what the problem is and even with a focal reducer this will apply. Are you aiming to travel to a dark site? If so, and you want to do deep sky imaging, I would go for a German Equatorial mount every time.

Olly