Meade 10" LX200-ACF or C9.25 which would you buy.

[White Rabbit]

Hi Guys.

I'm wondering which of the two I should buy. I'll be looking at making a purchase in the the next couple of weeks so I'm doing a bit of home work before I make the plunge.

From what I see the Meade is the better buy as it has more aperture but they both cost around the same. Am I missing something? Actually the Meade is about $105 cheaper and has a mirror lock built in.

https://www.bintelshop.com.au/welcome.htm
http://www.andrewscom.com.au/site-co...-celestron.htm

I'll be putting this on an HEQ5, I know most people think that the mount is to small but I don't intend on doing any photography for a while and if I do want to branch out in that direction I'll upgrade the mount when I'm ready. I'd rather have something to grow into than out of.
I need my rig to be as portable as possible so I'm not looking at Newt's but if anyone can suggest something better than these two for around the same money I'm all ears and I'm only looking at new not second hand.

Thanks
Sandy

[aworley (Alex)]

Hi,

I personnally find the meades really good. I have LX90 8" and it is a really good scope - I can't speak for or against the Celestrons. Various posts around the traps say that the LX 10" is the 'sweet' spot for the Meade LX's as the 12" are a bit too large to carry around and the 8" needs more aperture(always more!!). I have found my 8" to be 'on the money' in terms of cost, portability, results for what I want....

Mirror lock is good to have if you are doing astrophotography. I use my LX90 8" for astrophotography and I am a rank beginner..., (see http://tinyurl.com/6jf7wh). A wedge is essential for photography (especially in a light polluted site - city, I did use alt/az and so have others but I could not get colour to combine properly because of field rotation and my light pollution), but that would be a bit later for you. The key restriction with the LX90s is the fork clearance. I don't have an electronic focusser or a camera cooler. I do have a focal reducer and a DSI camera and that is all that will fit. I get good focus with a diffuse focuser ring and I use dark subtracts to eliminate the hot pixels, so it doesn't bother me at all....

What are interested in looking at?......I am really interested in galaxies, so I moved away from visual because of my light polluted site and you need more aperture than 8" for visual.... Had I known that I would be doing more astrophotography than visual at the start, I may well have saved up a bit more and bought an LX200 - better mount, more fork clearance and the cables plug into the mount not the scope so less cable havoc (especially in polar with a wedge). But having said that, the LX90 has been really good to learn on and it is smaller and thus more portable - a really important point - you will be lugging it around a lot as you learn. Also, most things are more expensive for the LX200 eg wedge etc, I have been really happy with my LX90 8". I still have the standard focusser and the standard clutch - others have replaced the focusser and clutch with the Petersen ones.....

So, just my experiences with the LX90, I am sure others will have a different experience and will know about the Celestrons for a good comparison. Either way, they are both very good scopes.....

Clear skies

Alex

[rat156]

Hi Sandy,

I also would go for the 10" Meade, it has at least three things going for it:
The ACF optics are superb, much better than your typical SCT
More aperture
Better mount for visual work

To explain:
The ACF optics are the next step for SCT's, they look great edge to edge and are better suited to Astrophotography, when you make that step (as you intimated you are going to).

More aperture is best for visual, and the 10" is the biggest step up in terms of light gathering power (i.e. comparing 8 with10, 10 with 12 etc.). It's also easily managed by one person, as long as you don't have a smallish car (like mine) it'll travel in it's box with you.

The Meade fork mount may be derided by some here, but it's a good compromise between visual and astrophotography (with a wedge). Visual in Alt/Az is a breeze and unless what you want to look at is at zenith, then it's easy on you back as well. When the time comes and you want to go into photography, it's still OK for planetary, and the wedge makes it OK for all the other stuff. Much easier than a GEM to learn how to use as well.

Cheers
Stuart

[matt]

It depends on what you want to image.

IMO...Celestron scopes produce the best planetary images of the two brands.

I frequently read comments from Meade scope owners that their scopes are OK for DSO...but produce 'soft' planetary images.

Now, that might have as much to do with individual seeing conditions and processing abilities as the instrument itself. However, I seem to see more great planetary images produced from Celestron SCTs than Meade. Also, note that a large percentage of the best planetary imagers around the world (who use SCTs) are using Celestron SCTs, rather than Meade.

I'm not looking to start another C Vs M war...that's just my opinion/observation.

And I'm not taking Newts and other optical configurations into account here, since the question asked in the original post did not ask for this consideration.

Both the LX-200ACF and 9.25 are good scopes and I'm sure either would serve you well

[White Rabbit]

Hi guys.

Thanks for the replies, I'm only going to be buying the OTA and I'll be mounting it on my HEQ5, It's a bit heavy for the mount in terms of photography but I'm mostly into visual at the moment.

At the moment I'm leaning towards the meade.

Thanks for the input guys.

Sandy

[Poita (Peter)]

How much more light does a 10" let in vs a 9.25" scope?

[Shano592 (Shane)]

I talked with the guys at Bintel, with similar questions. In the end I chose the 10" LX-200, and I am really happy with my choice.

You'll find that each scope has it's own unique positives and negatives. I upgraded the focuser, so that it has bearings now instead of nylon washers. It is incredibly smooth, when previously it was very jerky. That was definitely a negative for a while!

Having said that, I have looked through some Celestrons, and in the same conditions, I like them for planetary as Matt has mentioned. They seem very clear.

There were a couple of things that Michael @ Bintel mentioned that steered me to Meade, however. They are my preferences, for what I was looking for in a scope. Michael confirmed them for me, by answering my questions honestly.

I will do what you are doing soon, and ditch the Alt/Az mount for something like a HEQ6. For the time being, it is serving me well as I am happy zigzagging across the sky, looking for interesting things.

[Gem (Grant)]

If you are comparing the 10" Meade OTA to the C9.25 OTA and putting on an HEQ5 mount... then pick the C9.25. I am not saying that because I have a C9.25, but because of the weight. Celestron OTA are always lighter than Meade for the same aperture.
I believe the C9.25 is about 9kg and the Meade 10" is 13kg. 4kg is alot of difference in weight on an HEQ5 if you want to image!!

[Merlin66 (Ken)]

The 10" has 20% more light grasp than the 9.25"
I had and used the 8", 10" and still have the 12" Lx
The 8" fitted nicely on the HEQ5pro and the 10" a bit too heavy.
The 10" went well with the HEQ6pro.
I sold both the 8" and 10" and went for the lighter C9.25. Although it worked OK on the HEQ5pro, it was much happier (with all the gear) on the NEQ6pro.
I have no regrets about going to the C9.25 after almost 15 years of using Meade Lx scopes.