Advice - Aperture fever - LX200/LX90

[Telescope40]

Hi. Looking for some help, advice and observations on my current situation. Suffering from a little aperture fever. Currently own a Meade LX 200 8 in classic scope (no wedge). I find it easy to use, set up etc etc. I use for visual work only so far but am beginning to think of astrophotography. I have light polluted skies as only a dozen of so miles from Manchester but can make short trips to "dark" spots quite easily. MY query is - getting tempted to upgrade to a 10 inch LX 200 or LX 90 but looking for comments with the pros and cons of this. EG - much heavier than my current scope. Do I need to be a weightlifter to handle a bigger piece of kit and would I see a large gain in what i can see when compared with my 8 inch ?? 50% gain in light collection ? Have scanned the web and seen many pros and cons. Any advice more than welcome especially if anyone in the Manchester area able to reply re posssible meet to discuss if you happen to own a 10 inch Meade SCT. Please PM me if so. Many thx in advance for the help.

[Dangerous-Dave]

I don't own a 10" Meade SCT, but I've owned an 8" LX90 and looked through Ken's 10" LX200 (when it belonged to the previous owner) and the 10" is much bigger than the 8", a two man lift to get the fork/OTA onto the tripod. If I were you I'd consider a C9.25 or C11 plus equatorial mount as they will break down into fewer, lighter and more manageable parts.

[roundycat]

I've just had my dinner so here are a few dozy musings while it settles.

I have had a 10" LX for about seven years and I used to lump it out into the backyard and lift it onto the tripod with every use. At 63lbs it is not out of the question and I managed it single handed all the time. The real problem is when you have 2500mm focal length there is not much you can do except photograph small objects or look at small bright ones. At f10 you don't see much. Well I don't. I compare mine to my 6" TMB which seems sharper and brighter (f8).

You may like the idea of a fork mount but I believe most competent GEM's will outperform the Meade. Maybe you could benefit from something like an Astrotech (I think) 8" Ritchey Chretien which may be a more agreeable weight, you can look through it and you will be the envy of everyone when it comes to taking a few snaps through it.

Depending on the chip size in your camera always budget for a good focal reducer.

Dennis

[SteveP]

TS40

It's a dilemma when you get aperture fever! I'm not sure there is always one simple answer

I've had both an 8" LX90 and a 10" LX200. My own experience is that Meade have very good optics and there's nothing like looking through a big SCT when the viewing is good. For visual, I'd recommend going bigger so long as you feel confident handling the bigger scope. I rarely set the 10"er up in the dark on my own ... it was just a little too big to do it confidently.

However if you really want to get into AP I couldn't recommend either unless you had a permanent mount. If you go down the SCT route you will need a wedge and the better more sturdy (and heavier) ones don't come cheap. The LX200 has certainly a much sturdy set of forks than the LX which you probably already know but is still not ideal

So for visual, go for the 10" so long as you're OK handling the extra weight. For predominantly imaging without a permanent set-up, I'd stick with the LX90 for the time being whilst you get some experience of how easy or otherwise an SCT can be.

Hope that helps you

Steve

[acey]

I'm a dob man so all I can comment on is aperture. Going from 8" to 10" will let you see half a magnitude fainter. It'll make a difference but won't be a "wow". Going from 8" to 12" would give you 0.9 mag extra. It's often said that a 2" jump isn't really worth it and you should make a "double step" instead - but that doesn't sound like it's an option for you.

If you've got a set-up that works for you then my advice would be to change it only if there are particular things you want to see/do that you can't at present. You can take the 8" to dark sites, you might not manage with a bigger scope, in which case you wipe out the advantage of the extra aperture. A case of measuring up the cost of petrol against telescope.

Just my penn'orth - if your heart's set on upgrading then go right ahead and do it. You only live once, etc.

Andrew

[adamsp123]

I would check this scope out,

http://www.astrobuysell.com/uk/propview.php?view=23510

the specs and design look good and it has been upgraded including the electric focuser which are wonderful and the price is silly. Plus due to the design one person could handle it.

Seriously thought about it myself but I already have a 10" SNT so not big enough leap in size for me.

[Telescope40]

Hi All. Many thanks for the feedback and comments. Looks like it really comes down to the weight of a 10 inch SCT -is it a killer of a lift ( I do have a scopesaver modification to my field tripod ) to make it outweigh the increase in lightgain from the bigger aperture. Plus will I see much more at my light polluted backyard site with a 10 in, compared with my current 8 in by tripping to a dark ISH site ??? Thx John

[RobH]

Hello John.

I owned a 10 inch LX200 classic for a while, before I got my current 14 inch.

I'm 5'9 and 11 1/2 stone, so no giant, but physically fit, and had no trouble carrying it. I did replace the standard carrying handles with the Peterson engineering 'easy grip' ones though, which make lifting it much easier.

From a dark site, the views were breathtaking, and TBH I rather regret selling it as the big 14 certainly isn't portable, but the 10 was.

Cheers

Rob

[Telescope40]

Thanks Rob. I'm about your height and weight and I am now more inclined to give a 10 inch a go, given your comments. Think the weights go from somewhere around the 43 lb mark for the 8 inch to over 60 lb for the 10 inch. I'm physiclly fit so think I'd be able to mange as you did. Appreciate your advice. Thx John