LX90 08 or CPC800

[Karls48]

Sometimes next year I will be looking for new scope. After considering my options decision come down to two scopes. Meade LX90 08” or Celestron CPC800. Thought my first choice would be good 5” or so refractor, it is not financially feasible. I’m turning 60 and I had bad work accident and those two scopes are about maximum weight I can move around and also maximum price I can afford. I do not want another GE mount/ scope combination. At present I’m using 150mm GSO Newtonian on Autostar modified GSO SV1 mount on pier and 102 wideview Celestron refractor on early Celestron NexStar mount. The NexStar mount had to be modified and it is now bypassing hand controller altogether, running NexRemote on the computer. Before modification it would not even track stars in sidereal mode. That says something about the quality of early Celestron software. I also got Meade ETX 105, but I use it very seldom. And I’m building very widefield 136mm f 3.6 refractor.
I do not use scopes for visual observing, as my eyesight is getting bad. I mostly take images in FITs format (mostly gay scale) and occasionally I do observations on computer screen. I’m mostly using GStar EX camera which allows me to see stars about three magnitude fainter then I would see if I was using an eyepiece. I’m slowly working towards to have my telescopes completely remote controlled (wireless), so I can power the scope and go to my room and do all the imagining or observing from there. It is most likely that whichever scope I will get it will be eventually put on pier and it will be used with focal reducer most of the times.
I invite anyone who got experience with above telescopes to comment on – optic quality, tracking, auto-guiding, electronics focusing and cost of it, cost and ease of attaching guide scope and anything else you like or dislike about those scopes.
At present I’m leaning towards Meade LX90 because it integrate electronics focusing on same RS232 connection as Autostar, it can use DSI for auto- guiding without additional cables or software and can do the Drizzle with DSI.
All comments and suggestions welcome

[netwolf]

The CPC range from Celestron is better compared with a LX200 Meade scope. Though it is priced in Australia closer to the LX90 model. I have an LX90 scope and I find it portable around my house and backyard. Its also fairly easy to transport to dark sites and is very quick to setup.
Alt/Az fork mounts will give you some imaging ability but to really take advantage you will need a good wedge. This then introduces polar alignment etc. Also its not as portable with the Wedge. In Alt/az mode I can carry the entire setup from inside the house to outside in one step. With the wedge this is more weight to carry and a bit tricky to carry.

I have a sliding door and this makes it more tricky. If i had a proper double door i might be able to wheel it out using a trolley or something similar. There are number of trolley designs on the MAPUG group website to consider.

If i could have afforded it i would have gone the CPC800 or LX200, but I got a very good deal on a 2nd hand LX90. There are some great deals on 2nd hand gear in Australia at the moment on Lx90's and LX200's. The optics on my LX90 look quiet good.

Remember when you buy used you will get a better deal on accessories. People usually throw in there accessories quiet cheaply in order to sell the scope. It would be best to visit the seller and ask to demo the scope b4 purchase.

Regards
Fahim

[kosh]

The CPC800 is a schmidt Cass OTA while the LX200 is an "Advanced" Ritchey-chretien design. Maybe this is just for the most recent "R" version but from what I can tell, All new 200's are RC designs. So i think I would compare the CPC800 to the LX90.

Maybe the CPC sits somewhere between the LX90 and 200 fahim?

[netwolf]

Kosh,

Sorry to hear about that Kosh.
Wow thanks for the feedback on Airroad, my one experience with them was quiet positive then again not sure what would have happened if the lost it.

I would say the CPC800 compares 1 on 1 with the older LX200 SCT versions. Sorry as i did not mention the R i felt that was implied, perhaps i should have been more clear. But you are correct optically the R design is likely better than the traditional SCT version. Also there is likely improvement in the fork arm performance mechanical/electrical in the R versions. Still the CPC800 also only came out about the same time as the LX200R so i think in the mechanical/electrical performance they might be on par with each other. But you are correct optically the R may be the winner.

All this is based on reviews and information found on the net, i don't have any experience with the CPC, LX200 and LX200R. I have seen my mates LX200R in action and looked through 2 of them I would say in my humble opinion the optics were better than mine. But they were both 10" and mine is a 8" so then again what i saw may have been due to more apperture.

Regards
Fahim

[Karls48]

I agree that Celestron may have better optics (based on reviews I read), but I have to judge both scopes as whole instrument. That’s why I’m seeking opinion about those two scopes. Is it true that LX90 uses plastic drive train on the motors?

[mib]

Interestingly a couple of months ago The Sky at Night Mag had a test that included the CPC800 and the LX90 GPS. The test was about goto scopes and the Celestron got the nod as the better goto scope because of its software. On optics they rated the Meade more highly. Overall there wasn't a lot in it. :shrug:

Ciao
Malcolm

[Zuts]

This is only my opinion but..

The meade lx90 series is the entry range meade. When you compare the lx90 to a lx200 or lx200r there is no comparison regards the strength and stability of the mount/fork arms and the tracking ability.

I think the CPC 800 is more like the LX200 series in this respect. It's just a solidly built scope and so with a wedge would probably be better for astrophotography than the lx90. As far as optics are concerned a good meade is probably as good as a good celestron.

I have a Nexstar 11, but i dont image through it, i use a small refractor instead. Tracking and goto on the Nexstar is fine.

Paul

[kosh]

Fair enough Fahim.

Also I was a bit angry at Airroad when I wrote that, they tell me they found it, but it isn't here yet so time will tell. :screwy:

Anyways on the scope, that's just my opinion when looking at the technical capabilities anyway.
Cheers.

[netwolf]

The LX90 can be tuned up to perform and produce good results, and so far i have not seen any bad optics on the meade's i have looked through. Check out the images produced by 5ash and others with a LX90 on a wedge. However I am lead to believe (in what i have read) that the CPC would perform better mechanically and electronically. The entry level Celestron would be the Nexstar SE series, but this is a single fork arm compared tot he dual fork arm of the LX90. The SE however allows friendly mounting options for other smaller retractors and smaller ota's.

One other point that I have personal experience with is that the LX mounts dont allow for easily removal of the OTA to be mounted on an alternative mount and then remounted on the fork. But I have read the Celestron's come with markings to make it easier to remount the OTA on the fork arms. With the LX its is a quiet a process ensure orthogonal realignment in the fork arms. This may be no issue for a buyer who does not have multiple mounting requirements.

Kosh, glad to hear it. But I went with them simply for price they were 1/3 sometimes 1/4 of prices quoted by others. Also there website made it easy to get a quote and book.

Regards
Fahim

[Karls48]

Well so far it looks like most of you think that Celestron CPC800 may by slightly better instrument. Can any one comment on auto guiding with it. And is it possible to use electronic focuser without running another cable to the computer? In other words does it integrate electronics focusing in same way as LX 90 does?