Telescope Reviews: RCX 400 Information. Very Indepth.

Though I own a dob, I am a fan of GoTo SCT's. I think they're fine scopes for multi-purpose usage (visual, film, CCD), even though the secondaries are larger than what you would prefer for the best contrast and resolution.
I have followed the "hot air" posts from everyone (since no one owns one and I haven't seen any user reports, the posts we've read are, indeed, "hot air"), I feel obligated to throw my comments into the soup.

Most of the features of this scope are of way more importance to an astrophotographer than a visual observer. If Meade has created an RC primary with the combination of a corrector plate and sperical primary, then great for them. But the RC design is NOT a visually-optimized design. It sacrifices tightness of the on-axis star images to produce better images elsewhere in the field. Photography is less stringent than visual use where it comes to spot size in the center of the field of view.
I therefore have come to the conclusion that this is an IMAGER's scope, and not really intended for the visual observer. That seems to be the way of technology in telescopes, anyway--video cams, CCDs, and computer processing of images--and it really is pushing the amateur into what used to be considered professional territory.
Meade's RCX series will be excellent for that purpose, and if that is your primary interest, then go for it, because they're bargains for that kind of scope.
But if you are a visual observer, and your interest is in the kinds of features that enhance visual observing, then these scopes are not for you, in my opinion.
Will they be usable visually? Sure.
But they will be outperformed by simple dobs with high quality optics, aperture-for-aperture.
So OK, the dob requires a Paracorr to achieve the flat field. That still leaves me enough money to buy a bag of expensive eyepieces.
The point is, as a visual observer, I find the features on this scope to be interesting and progressive. But the optical design is so obviously oriented to photographers that I simply do not understand why any visually-oriented observer would contemplate one. An SCT would be a better choice, for a lot less money. And a good Dob would be an even better choice for a LOT less money.
I keep seeing questions about how they are visually. I think that's the wrong question entirely. The right question is: How good are the photographic images? If they're good, Meade will have managed to significantly slash the cost of owning a high-end astrograph.

--------------------
Don Pensack
12.5" Truss Dob, 5" Maksutov
Sustaining Lifetime IDA member, TeleVue junkie