|
Thought I should post here as I absolutely love SCT's.
In my opinion Meade has a clear advantage with the ACF and I can confirm that my 10" LX200R works way better than standard SCT, this is why I have upgraded from LX90. The Meade also has a mirror lock missing in Celestron design.
I would disagree that SCT coma is only an issue with astro photography, I find it really annoying in visual observing, the LX200R does address this problem very well indeed.
The collimation of my LX200R is no more tricky than standard SCT and it holds collimation very well. The collimation is actually easier to perform on Meade ACF as star testing can be performed off centre - standard SCT would introduce coma off axis.
My 8" LX90 was better in terms of mirror slump - it had none (not noticeable in visual observing), LX200R does have some, this is probably due to the increased weight of 10" mirror as opposed to the 8".
One has to also think about local support for the products and from that standpoint I am definitely staying with Meade.
Joe
|