Help !!!!!!!!!!!
#1
Posted 15 February 2005 - 01:35 PM
Can i ask what the problem is with the LXD75 6" refractor ?
I've always wanted a refractor as ive only every owned reflectors but every forum seems to steer me away from this model why ?
For the money it looks great and sounds good value, i only look at the planets, moon and bright DSO and i might dabble in CCD work at some point.
More people then not advise on a Schmidt Cassegrain system but thats a little more money then i had in mind.
Is there any one out there with a LXD75 6" ? are you pleased with it, do you wish you had bought something different ?
So many questions i know, sorry, but i want to buy the right scope first time.
Thanks for any help or advise.
Best regards
Lee.
#2
Posted 15 February 2005 - 02:03 PM
For planets and the Moon the 5" version will have less chromatic aberration but on deep sky the 6" gets the job done very nicely indeed.
Between the weight and the long moment arm the 6" is pretty demanding of the mount, but when properly set up and adjusted I've found it to handle the load well.
#3
Posted 15 February 2005 - 02:27 PM
Which would you pick given the choice,
The refractor or the Schmidt Cassegrain ?
Weight isnt an issue for me, the right system is.i can live with chromatic aberration, there are filters for that.
Regards,
Lee.
#4 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Posted 15 February 2005 - 03:22 PM
I just purchased my first scope in December. After months of looking at various scopes, I also settled on a 6" refractor - in my case a C6R-GT. I am very happy with the scope - the CA can mostly be handled by a Fringe Killer, the weight is very manageable and the views are excellent.
Some of the concerns people may have about the LX-75 are likely related to problems with the prior version of the scope - the mount was wobbly and I read that there were a number of problems with the electronics.
And with any 6" refractor, they are large - it takes 3-4 trips outside to get them setup - and you have to willing to make the effort. I found that I don't mind - I can be out the door and viewing in 10 minutes or less.
Have fun,
#5
Posted 15 February 2005 - 03:26 PM
#6
Posted 15 February 2005 - 03:35 PM
Thanks John,
Which would you pick given the choice,
The refractor or the Schmidt Cassegrain ?
Weight isnt an issue for me, the right system is.i can live with chromatic aberration, there are filters for that.
Regards,
Lee.
Hi, Lee.
That's a tough one; each has its strengths.
The SCT is easier on the mount (shorter and lighter) and its longer focal length is an advantage for planet imaging - and no CA issues. It'll go a little deeper visually due to greater aperture. The refractor looks cooler (to me!) and its shorter focal length is an advantage for DSO imaging. The one class of object where you would quickly notice a difference is star clusters - the refractor will show them in a more esthetically pleasing way - pinpoint stars, dark background, vivid star colors.
Some folks will prefer one, some will prefer the other.
#7
Posted 15 February 2005 - 03:37 PM
Thanks for your advice.
Schmidts do intrest me though but i'm not sure about the dynamics although there will be plenty of people out there correct me...check my post "how do they work it out"
Keep it coming guys,
Cheers,
Lee.
#8
Posted 15 February 2005 - 03:39 PM
#9
Posted 15 February 2005 - 06:00 PM
My friend has a Celestron C6-R on a CG-5 GOTO mount and I have a Celestron C-11 SCT on a CG-5 GOTO mount. When we can, we head out into the dark country and set up. He can have his scope set up about 10 minutes faster than I can because he has two counterweights to my three. His OTA is longer, but lighter, and he can put it on quickly. I have to carry mine out in a padded bag, put it on, and then check balance (even though I mark the balance spots, I still double-check it everytime).
We often select the same object and view through both scopes. He's into astrophotography, so we can view through mine when he's doing prime focus shots.
As John Crilly said, it really depends on what you are looking at with either scope. For some objects the refractor gives great views, but on DSOs the SCT really shines. I would love to have both!
Good luck on your decision. A 6" refractor should work well.
By the way, my friend has not purchased a MV filter for his C6 yet. Other than the moon, it has not shown hardly any C.A. It's a good scope for the money. One thing he doesn't like, however, is the OTA's balancing point can be awkward and the EP position when viewing near the Zenith can also be. He is getting a Right Angle finder after looking through mine! He is looking into an external balancing weight and an extension to overcome the viewing awkwardness. These are all things that you have to consider (budget-wise also) when purchasing a scope. You may find that the Pollux-recommended W.O. MV filter is necessary depending on what you view (I would have mentioned a couple of other available MV filters, but I'm saving Pollux from having to recommend the W.O. version).
#10
Posted 15 February 2005 - 06:16 PM
You've got me on W.O. ? call me green as grass but what does that mean ?
Also there seems to be plenty of people with the C6R-GT
scope, is this because Celestron are better opticaly or is it just a preference thing as the LXD75 is quite new !
Should i expect as good views through the Meade ?
I think i am sold on the refractor system but as much info as i can aquire is apprieciated.Who does the best MV filters ? Broardhurst clarckson and fuller here in the UK make one claiming to limit chromatic aberration and its quite cheap !
Regards,
Lee.
#11
Posted 15 February 2005 - 06:21 PM
Sorry, I foget that not everyone knows all the nomenclature.
W.O. stands for William Optics. C.A. for chromatic aberration. Their VR-1 minus violet (M.V.) filter is highly recommended to deal with C.A. in the achromatic refractors.
I'm not sure if it's price or the previous mount on which the Meade was mounted. Hopefully some others can answer that. I've seen some good reviews about the Meade 6" refractor OTA (achro) on the Web. There is a Cloudy Nights review that compares three mounts (CG-5, LXD75 Meade, and one other Meade) by John Crilly. You may want to go to the review section and check it out. See this link:
review link
#12
Posted 15 February 2005 - 07:03 PM
I have decided to go with the LXD75 6" AR so maybe i will be able to give advice on its performance myself very soon.
Wishing you clear skies
Lee.
#13
Posted 15 February 2005 - 08:01 PM
#14 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Posted 16 February 2005 - 01:49 AM
I choose the Celestron based on the better mount, and better availability at the time. I think the OTA's are pretty similar, so that didn't really figure in.
I've been very happy with my decision since that time. It is a great scope, and with a few upgrades, only gets better.
The size is a bit of a downside, but once you get the assembly down, it can be setup pretty quickly. I have marked the dovetail and the weight bar, so I know where everything should be positioned. When I'm viewing at home, I leave the tripod and mount assembled, and carry it out as one piece. That only leaves the OTA, weights, and the 1,000 lbs of other junk I end up dragging out.
If you travel with it though, a decent case for the OTA is good investment. I have a JMI, which was pricey, but very well made, and still cheaper than my OTA.
Good luck with your decision.
--Mike