Dirk
newbie
Reged: 11/03/07
Posts: 3
Loc: Victoria, BC, Canada
|
|
I have been debating on buying a CPC 9.25 but am concerned about the weight at 58lbs. I noticed that Meade has a new LX90 ACF 10inch with a weight of 50lbs and the 12 inch has a weight of 60 lbs. Would I be better getting the 10inch meade? Is the CPC a higher quality scope that would make the weight difference irrelevant? I have a bad back so weight is important to me as well as aperature.
Thanks
Dirk
|
Steve Hopkins
sage
Reged: 03/20/07
Posts: 202
Loc: Manitoba Canada
|
|
My Wife’s CPC 9.25 is a great telescope and who ever designed it put a lot of thought into its design.
I’m 52 years of age and reasonably fit and I can lift it with no problems the way the handles are designed are excellent.
I can’t complain about the CPC optics either, visually it’s outstanding.
My own Telescope is a 12 inch Meade LX200R a great Telescope but in all honesty it is very difficult for one person to lift it. (You really need two people).
Meade products seem to have more options then Celestron and there geared more for the advanced individual.
I do prefer Meade products but that just me, my wife prefers Celestron (I argue with her about which is the best until I’m Black and Blue)
Last summer I purchased JMI Wheeley-Bars with 10 inch wheels for both Scope’s no more lifting for me.
If my wife is reading this “Yeh!!!! Go Blue”
--------------------
WinterView Observatory 12'x16'ft Roll-Off
Meade 12" LX200R (His)- Celestron CPC 9.25(Her's)
Meade Series 5000 UWA & Plossl's(Two Complete Sets)
Two sets of Denk 21's and One set Denk 14's
Two sets of Denk II Binoveiwers (His & Hers)
Two Power & Switch Diagonals with Filter Switch
Canon Rebel 450D(XSI)
Meade Series 5000 80 mm ED APO
|
TBerdon
super member
Reged: 05/03/07
Posts: 109
|
|
I was looking at the new LX90 ACF scopes recently. One thing that seemed to stick out to me was the size of the drive base. It is very small. The new ACF optics might yeild better astrophotos, but I doubt the mount and tripod are anywhere near as stable as the CPC.
Also, it might weigh more, buy my CPC 9.25 is easier to carry and set up then both the Celestron C8 and the Meade LX-10 SCTs that I used to own.
Regards,
Tim
--------------------
Why is my Clear Sky Clock never clear?
|
rboe
Reged: 03/16/02
Posts: 47533
Loc: Phx, AZ
|
|
We could get into a bragging match on who's back is worse off - I have two bad spots; one upper and then the classical lower back issues so while I'm pretty fit I have to take care to not over stress either area. And I'm older than Steve. 
With that out of the way; I hump my NS11 with no problem. Lately; with no wheeled base - yet - I've been lifting the scope and the tripod and carrying it from the covered patio to the lawn with no problem.
Assuming all else is equal folks like us are classical Celestron buyers because of the placement of the handles makes it very easy to carry them around and to mount them on the tripod. These scopes have very good ergonomics.
When the first review in Sky & Telescope was writen up way back in 2002 (I think it was '02) they had a picture of the authors daughter - all 60lbs of her - holding the NS11.
Now there are days when I think I should have gone with the 9.25 for the little weight savings. But I think you owe it to yourself to check the 9.25 and the 11 out. Lift them, see what they feel like. You just might decide to go for the larger scope.
But I don't know how bad off your back is so don't push it too far!
Welcome to Cloudy Nights by the way. 
--------------------
Ron
NS11GPS
Pronto
16" dob
15X70 Obies
|
Paul McC
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/03/06
Posts: 984
Loc: Southern NJ
|
|
I found the Meade lifting handles to be extremely difficult to use in lifting and transporting the scope (tried them out a few years ago when I was trying to settle on my scope). The ergonomic design of the lift handles on the CPC line (and Nexstar line before them) make the weight of the CPC scopes seem almost irrelevant (I said "almost"). By this, I mean that my 65 lb CPC 1100 has NEVER seemed to weigh that much. In fact, I found lifting the CPC 800 (about 20 lbs lighter) and the CPC 1100 to feel about the same- I know it doesn't make sense, but it's my observation. Again, this is due to the fact that the lift handle placement on the CPC is so well designed- the weight of the scope is centered on your body. It's almost like you've gained weight rather then you are hauling weight around. (Yes, there's a big difference)
As I've said many times before here- I'd rather lift and move my
65 lb CPC 1100 around then a 50 lb bag of cement mix! (In fact, I'd rather carry my CPC 1100 around more then my old 42 lb Orion 8" newtonian Skyview Deluxe)
The other factor I didn't like about the Meades was the CONSIDERABLE noise level of the motors in both the LX90 and LX200 series scopes. To me, they were very loud. CPC scopes are never loud by any definition- they make their most noise only at high speed slews, but it's never something that makes conversations difficult.
CPC scopes are especially easy to mount to their tripods- another big deal. I find the Meade mounting method awkward at best.
As to the optics, the new ACF IS fascinating. Apparently, Meade has had to change the name of their optics design (we won't get into that here) but the ACF optics are evidently the same in the formerly named LX200R series (now called LX200ACF). The ACF optics claim pinpoint stars without coma across the entire field of view. This is unique in the standard SCT format which usually has some coma at the edge of the field. Curiously, I rarely notice this in my CPC 1100. In most of my work, I'm concentrating on the target at the center rather then the periphery. I don't generally read a lot of comments about coma bothering people using the Nexstar/CPC series, so perhaps it's not as big a deal as it was with older Meade designs? This might be something more important to certain types of astrophotography.
Having said this, it should be noted that the CPC 925 scope has unique optics itself from the CPC 800 and 1100- again, supposedly giving a flatter field of view and less coma. I've never experienced this so I can't reliably comment other then to parrot what other 925 owners have said. Still, this might actually nullify the "advantage" of ACF optics in the Meade scopes.
I love my CPC 1100. I can't imagine you would go wrong in choosing the CPC 925- it will be much quieter, easier to lift and probably perform as well optically as the Meade LX-ACF anything. If I was going for more light gathering- which I always do!- I'd say get the biggest mirror you can afford and lift. The difference in light gathering between the 9.25" mirror and the 10" mirror is probably not as big as a deal as it would in going up to the 11" (CPC) or 12" (LX ACF)mirrors.
Best of luck on your decision.
Cheers,
Paul
--------------------
My Current Time Machine is a
Celestron CPC 1100 GPS XLT
aka - The Time Tunnel
My Celestron CPC 1100 Webpage:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/pmccullough/skyportcpc1100.htm
Latin phrase to live by: "Illegitimis nil carborundum"
|
BlueRidge
sage
Reged: 01/12/07
Posts: 288
Loc: Blue Ridge Mtns., VA
|
|
Expanding on Paul's thread, several months back we had two scopes side by side: a friend's 10" Meade LX200R (ACF) and my Nexstar 11 - head to head as it were. Seeing was decent in moderately light polluted skies in SE PA.
The ACF optics are sharper at the edge, no question. The NS11 shows a bit of coma around the edges - but the Nexstar certainly did not disappoint in comparison views of M38, M37 and M42.
In fact, we noticed a difference in light gathering on M42 with the 11" versus the 10". Motors (slewing) are very noisy on the Meade - way quieter on the NS11.
I left still impressed with the NS11. And the owner of the Meade felt the same way about his scope.
Bill H.
Syria, VA
--------------------
Celestron Skymaster 15 x 70's, Miyauchi BR-141's
Celestron Nexstar 11 GPS, SkyAlign upgrade
Celestron 9.25 XLT OTA, CG-5 Mount
Stellarvue SV90TBV
Denk II Binoviewers/#S2 Power/Filterswitch
21mm and 14mm Denk EPs
|
Tim A.
professor emeritus
Reged: 09/19/07
Posts: 663
Loc: 40 30'N 105 3'W
|
|
Quote:
As I've said many times before here- I'd rather lift and move my 65 lb CPC 1100 around than a 50 lb bag of cement mix!
Right. But then, toting a 50 lb. bag of cement means "work ahead", whereas toting a 65 lb. scope means "recreation ahead". 
Meanwhile, I also toss and turn on the question. I have a CPC800, which I enjoy a lot. But I have a touch of aperture fever. I want to stay with a Cassegrain design. So I've been mulling a move to the CPC925, CPC1100, or 10" LX-90ACF.
Jumping up to the CPC1100 means a third more weight than I lift today (65/42). Oof. But the CPC925 is only 7 pounds lighter than the CPC1100, and I'm not sure moving from 8" to 9.25" is worth the trouble anyway. At a dainty 50 lbs., the 10" LX-90 sounds like the answer, but I really dislike the whine of a Meade, and I also wonder where they're shaving materials to get it down to 50 lbs.
I am attracted by the apparently superior optics in the CPC925 and the Meade's ACF. But frankly, coma is only a big issue if it's severe (like an f/4 Newtonian), or for astrophotography. I'm not sure it matters that much when you're just plain observing with an SCT.
I'm kind of circling in on the CPC1100, and if it weren't for the weight, I'd order it tomorrow. I need to hoist one up onto the tripod a time or two. I think that will tell me if I'm on the right trail.
Unfortunately, nobody in my astronomy group has a CPC1100 for me to try out. So for now, I'm at kind of an impasse.
If anyone with a CPC1100 lives within 100 miles of Fort Collins, CO, let me know! We can enjoy an evening under the stars, and maybe I can get the hands-on experience I need to make this decision.
|
rboe
Reged: 03/16/02
Posts: 47533
Loc: Phx, AZ
|
|
He meant a 75lb beer keg..... 
--------------------
Ron
NS11GPS
Pronto
16" dob
15X70 Obies
|
Graham0778
member
Reged: 03/07/08
Posts: 53
Loc: Chattanooga TN
|
|
Get the 1100 and leave it setup on a buggy if you can...? And dob't drink and pull
|
Bob Griffiths
Getting Grouchy
Reged: 10/10/05
Posts: 7279
Loc: Frederick Maryland
|
|
I finished my backyard observatory 19 months ago
and mounted my old faithful 35 pound on the tripod Nexstar 8i on the pier inside...
I am in my mid 60's and normally I would say I was reasonably fit.. But with the observatory I just had to buy a bigger scope... Weight etc did not factor into my decision at all since it would be mounted in the observatory.
I belong to two local clubs and last summer attened just about every Star party either held..
Compared every 9.25 CPC, the 10" 200R the CPC 1100 and the 12" 200 R scopes every chance I had...
I ended up with buying a CPC1100 ...
I really did not feel that I would be spending money wisely upgrading my 8i to the CPC9.25 just not that much difference visually between the 2
BUT what did surprise me is that there was not a heck of a lot difference between the 9.25 and the
10" 200R and the CPC1100...really almost nothing between he 9.25 and the 10" 200R..when comparing the 10" 200 R up against the CPC1100 I also could not see any real difference..nor could I see much of a difference between the CPC1100 and the 12" 200R...Guess the best way to discribe it is that Yes aperture does rule but the small steps between the 9.25 to the 10 and the 10 to the 11 and the 11 to the 12 were Not dramatic going from the 9.25 or 10 up to the 12 very apparent.. .
Now I am the type of person who never has had problems making decisions, nor have I ever questioned any deccision I made once I made it. BUT I really had some difficulties. on this purchase..
Tossed out the CPC925 as too small a difference from my 8i to even think about buying it...so That left me with comparing the 2 Meades against the CPC1100 ..
The optics in the Meades ..especially at the edge of the FOV were I admit very very slightly better then the CPC BUT with my eyes the difference just did not "pop" right out at you ..took a lot of walking back abnd forth between the scopes and scratching my head...
If the price difference between the 10R CPC11 and the 12 R was not so darn great I honestly would have wrote the check for the 12R and smiled as I brought it home...
Now let me say when I retired I never even calculated my Social Security checks in the equation so my SS checks have become my "Mad Money" used only to enjoy life a little better and to fund my 3 hobbies (cars,Woodworking, and astronomy ) The CPC1100 was 800 bucks cheaper
then the 10R and 1800 bucks cheaper then the 12R
So economically the clear advantage went to the CPC and since I already had a lot of experience using Celestrons Hand Control and was very satisfied with how well it worked with the 8i (both original North and Level and the newer SkyAlign versions) It also made no sense to switch to a Meade..Why even try to teach an old dog any new tricks..
I have had the CPC1100 out exactly once time since I purchased it... After setting it up I was glad I would have it on a permanent mount because it is HUGE in comparison to my other scopes.. Quick down and dirty alignment went well Gotos were "ok" but since I did not even try to center my alignment stars very well I was satisfied..Optics were spot on Bobs Knobs will not even be installed until I
need to see just how good this scope really is..
In the end (bot only with one short evening under the stars I'm happy and that is all that matters to me.. I do thank all you guys who have Social Security taken out of your paychecks.,.At least you get the pleasure of knowing some old geezer like me spent your money wisely...
Bob G.
--------------------
CPC1100
Nexstar 8i + GPS & Rays Brackets
Denk S1 power switch
Orion 100 mm Refractor
Meade LXD 55 ...AR-5 127 mm Refractor
Exploradome Observatory S.I.E. (Smiling Irish Eyes)
Gerbring Heated Motorcycle clothing in the winter
39*21'03" N
77*28'12" W
The sky over my head....
|
Paul McC
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/03/06
Posts: 984
Loc: Southern NJ
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
As I've said many times before here- I'd rather lift and move my 65 lb CPC 1100 around than a 50 lb bag of cement mix!
Right. But then, toting a 50 lb. bag of cement means "work ahead", whereas toting a 65 lb. scope means "recreation ahead".
--------------------
My Current Time Machine is a
Celestron CPC 1100 GPS XLT
aka - The Time Tunnel
My Celestron CPC 1100 Webpage:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/pmccullough/skyportcpc1100.htm
Latin phrase to live by: "Illegitimis nil carborundum"
|
Paul McC
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/03/06
Posts: 984
Loc: Southern NJ
|
|
Of course, you could also buy the 12" LX-90 ACF (most mirror for the buck!) and spend some more $$$ on parts from Peterson Engineering to get rid of most of the shortcomings (except probably the dueling can-opener noise) of the Meades I mentioned a few posts ago. I actually truly considered this for a few days when I was closing on my decision.
But then I came to my senses and decided I'd rather not "repair" the faults that Meade builds into their systems- imho- that Celestron wisely avoids. The CPC scope design is ready out of the box... you don't need to "fix" it's design. 
Again, best of luck! If you do buy the Meade though, in all seriousness, I'd get the Peterson Engineering "Get a Grip" handles. They improve the lift ergonomics (well, the pictures on their site are pretty convincing). I'd also get their landing-pad like mounting assistant. For the noise, a loud personal mp3 player is a great idea (with headphones that cancel all other noise).
Cheers,
Paul
OK- to be perfectly fair, a Meade is only really noisy during it's fast slews. And to throw them another bone, they do slew more then twice as fast as CPCs... on the other hand, that can be dangerous.
--------------------
My Current Time Machine is a
Celestron CPC 1100 GPS XLT
aka - The Time Tunnel
My Celestron CPC 1100 Webpage:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/pmccullough/skyportcpc1100.htm
Latin phrase to live by: "Illegitimis nil carborundum"
|
Petewp
super member
Reged: 12/04/06
Posts: 185
Loc: Connecticut - central western
|
|
Get a dolly for your SCT - which ever you get. I have a 150lb. reflector - Im building a dolly for it. Amazing how much weight you can handle when its handled properly.
Pete
--------------------
SEEKING LUNAR/PLANETARY NEW ENGLAND OBSERVING NIGHT - all welcome. Contact me at tidalid@aol.com
8" F/9 Parks Reflector
70mm TeleVue Ranger
Previous owner of Parks 10"F/5,
|
ricketsia
newbie
Reged: 06/20/08
Posts: 2
|
|
Hi. My name is Rick. I read you post and was hoping you might help me with my decision on purchase. I've narrowed it down to the Meade LX90 10" and CPC925. I have a bad back and want to keep the weight down. I have a Meade LX90 and was crazy about the quality of the unit, although it was mad 10 years ago. i am worried that with Meade moving manufacturing to Mexico and just starting up again, I may run into another quality situation. Anyway, I worked withe the CPC 925 today and was impressed with the ergononics. Your help is as follows: Since you have both the 925 and a 12", I think you mentioned there wasn't much difference.
I don't want to regret not getting the LX90 10" versus the CPC925. Do you think I would regret it by getting the CPC925?
|
Mike Rapchak
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/17/06
Posts: 568
Loc: Indiana, USA
|
|
Rick,
No. 3/4" difference in aperture is negligible. Go with the Celestron 9.25. Better all-around 'scope. 
Mike Rapchak Jr.
|
ricketsia
newbie
Reged: 06/20/08
Posts: 2
|
|
Thanks Mike
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 