Mobius1
sage
Reged: 08/28/05
Posts: 472
Loc: Madison, WI / Gurnee, IL
|
|
Hello all! I just joined CN today, and I was wondering if anyone can help me out with a little dilemma. My current scope is a Meade LX-90 8in SCT. I have been doing astrophotography for awhile now, and I find the scope rather lacking. I recently observed with a friends' ETX-125 Mak, and the views were superb. I decided I have to move up a notch scope wise. One criteria for my new scope would be GPS, so I looked at the LX-200s. The 7-in Mak cought my eye as I imagined the sharp views it would give. I then consulted my father (from who I would be borrowing $$$) and he seemed pretty lenient on money, and then the thought occurred to me to get an RCX-400. So I am deciding between LX200 7in Mak and the 10in RCX. Money is a bit of an issue, as is wieght. I do not want a scope too heavy to keep me from bringing it out whenever I want. I tried to simulate the LX200's weight by lugging my lx90 around with 20lbs extra, it was manageable. I live in a fairly light-polluted area, so I'm not sure if the RCX is too much aperture. I do want a scope that will last close to a lifetime, and be fully capable of long-exposure astrophotography using a Canon Rebel XT DSLR. I also want to avoid any collimation issues. My observing interests are basically everything. If anyone could help out, firsthand experience greatly appreciated, that would be great. Thanks a million in advance.
Martin
--------------------
Martin
Orion 100ED
Orion 120-ST EQ
PST-Ha
Celestron CGE 1100
Canon Rebel XSI
DSI-IIC
Yerkes Observatory Volunteer
(24" Cass on weekends)
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
The Mak would be a great planetary visual/photo scope, but limited as such. The RCX would be your best all around imaging scope, with some trade-offs, giving the nod to the Mak for planetary viewing. Given the diversity of your interests, I would suggest the RCX. It is a better imaging platform then the LX, and visually can hold its own against the LX.
|
Mobius1
sage
Reged: 08/28/05
Posts: 472
Loc: Madison, WI / Gurnee, IL
|
|
Thanks for your advice. Is the weight manageable on the RCX, though? That's really the biggest thing keeping me from taking it over the Mak.
--------------------
Martin
Orion 100ED
Orion 120-ST EQ
PST-Ha
Celestron CGE 1100
Canon Rebel XSI
DSI-IIC
Yerkes Observatory Volunteer
(24" Cass on weekends)
|
bierbelly
Postmaster
Reged: 01/23/04
Posts: 5443
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
|
Isn't the RCX fork mounted? Aren't they all? That's not exactly the best for long exposure AP. Has Meade accomodated for that in the RCX?
--------------------
12" DSH
8" f/4 Vega MakNewt
6" MN66
TV85
|
Mobius1
sage
Reged: 08/28/05
Posts: 472
Loc: Madison, WI / Gurnee, IL
|
|
The RCX is fork mounted. One can also attach a wedge for equatorial mounting. I actually am a fan of the fork mount for its compactness. I also assume that Meade has redesigned the drive system from that on the LX200's; Ive seen excellent photos done with both types of scope.
--------------------
Martin
Orion 100ED
Orion 120-ST EQ
PST-Ha
Celestron CGE 1100
Canon Rebel XSI
DSI-IIC
Yerkes Observatory Volunteer
(24" Cass on weekends)
|
bierbelly
Postmaster
Reged: 01/23/04
Posts: 5443
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
|
Oh, there's nothing wrong with the fork mount, but it causes image rotation on long exposures, without a wedge. And I hear that the wedges are both expensive and not as stable as they could be.
--------------------
12" DSH
8" f/4 Vega MakNewt
6" MN66
TV85
|
Mobius1
sage
Reged: 08/28/05
Posts: 472
Loc: Madison, WI / Gurnee, IL
|
|
Oh, I forgot to mention: Meade also makes a field de-rotation device to use on long-exposure photographs in the alt-az mount. Looking at some of the pics of the wedges, I wouldn't want one with such a masssive instrument...
--------------------
Martin
Orion 100ED
Orion 120-ST EQ
PST-Ha
Celestron CGE 1100
Canon Rebel XSI
DSI-IIC
Yerkes Observatory Volunteer
(24" Cass on weekends)
|
jrcrilly
Refractor wienie again
Reged: 04/30/03
Posts: 22479
Loc: NE Ohio
|
|
Quote:
Thanks for your advice. Is the weight manageable on the RCX, though? That's really the biggest thing keeping me from taking it over the Mak.
The 10" RCX weighs about 85 pounds, plus about 50 pounds for the tripod. That's about 10 pounds heavier than the 12" LX200, which most folks consider too heavy for portable use (though I did have a 91 pound 12" RCX in the field this weekend). The 7" Mak weighs about 55 pounds, plus 20 pounds for the tripod.
--------------------
John C
Urban Observatory
Tele Vue Pronto
A&M/Astreya 76mm F/6 APO
TMB/LOMO 80mm F/7.5 APO
Tak FSQ-106N F/5 APO
Meade 152ED F/9 "APO"
152mm F/10 achromat
Tak CN-212 8" F/12 classical Cass/ F/4 Newt
Teeter 20" F/3.8 truss Newt w/ServoCat
LXD750, EM-200, CI-700
ST-10XME
|
Mobius1
sage
Reged: 08/28/05
Posts: 472
Loc: Madison, WI / Gurnee, IL
|
|
Not sure how able I'll be to take on the 85lbs out on a nightly basis...
--------------------
Martin
Orion 100ED
Orion 120-ST EQ
PST-Ha
Celestron CGE 1100
Canon Rebel XSI
DSI-IIC
Yerkes Observatory Volunteer
(24" Cass on weekends)
|
jrcrilly
Refractor wienie again
Reged: 04/30/03
Posts: 22479
Loc: NE Ohio
|
|
Quote:
I also assume that Meade has redesigned the drive system from that on the LX200's;
Not really; they've incorporated the minor drive change that was made when the 14" LX200GPS was introduced and the fork arms are a little beefier but that's about it. The PEC algorithm also seems to be a little different.
As you comment, both the LX200 and the RCX are reasonably capable imaging platforms. There's a big price jump to get to the next level.
--------------------
John C
Urban Observatory
Tele Vue Pronto
A&M/Astreya 76mm F/6 APO
TMB/LOMO 80mm F/7.5 APO
Tak FSQ-106N F/5 APO
Meade 152ED F/9 "APO"
152mm F/10 achromat
Tak CN-212 8" F/12 classical Cass/ F/4 Newt
Teeter 20" F/3.8 truss Newt w/ServoCat
LXD750, EM-200, CI-700
ST-10XME
|
Rusty
Postmaster
Reged: 08/06/03
Posts: 16419
Loc: Brooker, FL
|
|
You might want to consider also the Celestron Nexstar 11" (67 lbs) or 9.25" (60 lbs.), or a Meade Lx200 10" (~72 lbs., IIRC). The latter is a bit more awkward to handle than the two Celestrons, however...
I don't know how well the Meade wedge would handle the RCX 10"; the Celestron wedge doesn't have the beef for either the 9.25" or 11". A Mitty/Milburn/APT wedge for the Celestrons (also for the Meades) will cross the $500 threshhold...
--------------------
N11GPS Fastar
TOA-130S
MK66 Std
Vintage C5
Megrez II 80mm ED Triplet APO
SolarMax 40
NJP Temma II
Sirius EQ-G
ST8XE/CFW-8(LRGBHa)/AO-7/DF-2/STV Dlx/ST237a/350D (Unmodded)/Mallincam Color Hyper Plus/DSI III Color/DSI II Pro
Two not-spoiled Golden Retrievers - Maggie and Casey
Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea is quite staggering. - Arthur C. Clarke
|
Starman1
Vendor - Scope City
Reged: 06/24/03
Posts: 10962
Loc: Los Angeles
|
|
The 10" RCX, with a suitable wedge (Milburn or Ultra) will exceed 100 pounds. If you mount the scope fully assembled on a set of WheelyBars, you could roll it in and out of a garage every night. Otherwise, it'll be a few trips to transport each sub-assembly. I wouldn't contemplate picking up and moving the whole thing.
Nonetheless, the f/8 of the RCX will much better both visually and photographically than the f/15 of the Mak.
There is an alternative, though:
The 8" LX-200, which is f/10 and has a lot of photographic "upgrades" over the LX-90, like mirror lock and micro-focusing. With a heavy wedge it may still be under 100 lbs, the wedge is more stable with that size of scope, and you already know it's fine visually.
The RCX is definitely an upgrade for the photographer, but if your interests tend to part visual/part photo, the LX200 is a better choice due to its smaller secondary.
Another alternative is the Celestron CGE, which is photo-appropriate right out of the box, and may weigh a little less (though I wouldn't count on it--the tripod is very beefy).
It has its quirks (tracking past the meridian is one), but it would be a fine photo/visual instrument.
--------------------
Don Pensack
12.5" Truss Dob, 5" Maksutov
Sustaining Lifetime IDA member, TeleVue junkie
|
Mobius1
sage
Reged: 08/28/05
Posts: 472
Loc: Madison, WI / Gurnee, IL
|
|
Thanks for the input everyone. I'll soon be going to my local scope shop hopefully to get some hands-on with the LX200 and the RCX. If by chance I do end up with an SCT, I think it will be the Meade LX200 10", which is only 9lbs heavier than the Mak. The main reason I have the Mak as one of my serious choices is the sharpness and contrast it provides (plus no need to collimate). If I will be able to lift the 85lb scope onto and off of the tripod- then I will try (budget willing) to get the RCX. I would simply wheel it out, only having to lift when attaching it to the tripod. The trips wouldn't bother me; as long as I can get a full night of observing in. I would not be able to mount the scope fully assembled to move out of the garage every night, as there is no view from the front of my house. I would just cart the scope and tripod separately out the rear door to my patio. Now to get those weights out..........
--------------------
Martin
Orion 100ED
Orion 120-ST EQ
PST-Ha
Celestron CGE 1100
Canon Rebel XSI
DSI-IIC
Yerkes Observatory Volunteer
(24" Cass on weekends)
|
LLEEGE
Running out of Oxygen
Reged: 03/03/05
Posts: 6859
Loc: Cloud-chester,NY
|
|
A MAK or RCX will satisfy your "No Collimation" need. I feel you shouldn't put yourself in debt for a hobby. At least not 5-6k.
You are lucky to have a parent who is willing to finance your scope for you. To minimize the "Credit" I would recommend a used LX200 8"GPS. They can be found on AM for reasonable prices and will offer both visual and photo uses.
Although, you will need to collimate on occassion, it is not the end of the world. 
--------------------
AP900,LXD75
AP140EDF, TSA102, ZS80EDII
SN6-OTA, C8-OTA
Canon 20D, 350Hutech
PST, Lunt LD60T/DS (on order)
|
Mobius1
sage
Reged: 08/28/05
Posts: 472
Loc: Madison, WI / Gurnee, IL
|
|
(*sigh*)... OK, I guess I will have to pass on the RCX. Though of course I would have just adored it, I dont think I'll be able to take it out much. I just got my LX90 and added 56lbs (a Mak, LOL) to it, and I could lift it, but not high enough to get it on the tripod. Plus that was in the comfort of my own home. In winter with my patio iced over, I think it will get a little more difficult. I may still go for a 10" SCT, if it can beat out the Maksutov.
--------------------
Martin
Orion 100ED
Orion 120-ST EQ
PST-Ha
Celestron CGE 1100
Canon Rebel XSI
DSI-IIC
Yerkes Observatory Volunteer
(24" Cass on weekends)
|
Mobius1
sage
Reged: 08/28/05
Posts: 472
Loc: Madison, WI / Gurnee, IL
|
|
I just returned from the Camera/Scope shop, and I took a look at some of the equipment. They told me that I'd only get $900 for my LX90 and Hard Case; a $1750 value. Maybe I'll keep the '90, or find a friend who will give me say $1300 for the set. I looked at the LX200 10" SCT, and it looked quite appealing. I'm keeping that as a second choice (still a bit heavy, and the collimation thing), and will probably go with the Mak. I will be photographing more than visual observing (due to LP) and long exposures will bring out faint DSO's. So the contrast is my friend. I will also get a 3.3 focal reducer with the Mak. Thanks again to all who helped.
Martin
--------------------
Martin
Orion 100ED
Orion 120-ST EQ
PST-Ha
Celestron CGE 1100
Canon Rebel XSI
DSI-IIC
Yerkes Observatory Volunteer
(24" Cass on weekends)
|
Gaz O'C
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/02/05
Posts: 1265
|
|
Quote:
Oh, I forgot to mention: Meade also makes a field de-rotation device to use on long-exposure photographs in the alt-az mount. Looking at some of the pics of the wedges, I wouldn't want one with such a masssive instrument...
I've read 'mixed' opinions on this product, it might be worth you digging around if you intend to use it.
--------------------
14" f4.5 Dob
10" Meade SCT
180mm f15 Mak/Cass
127mm f12 Mak/Cass
150mm f5 refractor
ED100
EQ6 Skyscan
HEQ5
EQ2
http://stargazerslounge.co.uk/
|
LLEEGE
Running out of Oxygen
Reged: 03/03/05
Posts: 6859
Loc: Cloud-chester,NY
|
|
It will.
--------------------
AP900,LXD75
AP140EDF, TSA102, ZS80EDII
SN6-OTA, C8-OTA
Canon 20D, 350Hutech
PST, Lunt LD60T/DS (on order)
|
Mobius1
sage
Reged: 08/28/05
Posts: 472
Loc: Madison, WI / Gurnee, IL
|
|
Yeah, I'll check up on it first. The field de-rotator was more for if I had decided (LOL, had the strength for) to get the RCX. With the Mak, or even 10" SCT I'll probably get a wedge.
--------------------
Martin
Orion 100ED
Orion 120-ST EQ
PST-Ha
Celestron CGE 1100
Canon Rebel XSI
DSI-IIC
Yerkes Observatory Volunteer
(24" Cass on weekends)
|
LLEEGE
Running out of Oxygen
Reged: 03/03/05
Posts: 6859
Loc: Cloud-chester,NY
|
|
Yeah. I haven't seen any pics from a de-rotator. I bought a used Milburn wedge on AM on the cheap! Actually, I just bought an RCX, too. LOL  Hasn't got here yet!
Can't wait though! You won't see me here for a while when it does   
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 