CPC, LX90ACF or EdgeHD?

[casstony]

A couple of other options:

Bintel: 10" ACF on an EQ6 equatorial mount.

Andrews: 11" Celestron standard SCT on a CGEM

Both priced at $5499

The fork mounted scopes are around 65 pounds which is awkward to carry regularly and are not as well suited to imaging. The original C11 is still a nice scope and great for visual; if you're more interested in imaging the Meade ACF would be better, assuming you've done an apprenticeship with smaller scopes.

[issdaol (Phil)]

More Food for thought :

The one thing that always impressed me with my Meade's with a fork mount was ease of setup and alignment.

A 2 star alignment for the Meade units that I owned always put the proper stars in the field of view and kept them there.

Comparatively I found the Celestron fork mount star alignment to be longer and less precise.

Both of my Meade units were older USA Manufactured Systems and also had good Optics.

Cheers

[DavidTrap (David)]

Can I just offer my 2 cents worth, as someone who started out with an LX-90 and then bought a GEM & Refractor for imaging.

I started with an LX-90. I stupidly thought that autoguiding would make imaging a breeze. I have learnt that the quality of your mount is paramount to imaging - you can't making chicken salad from chicken *^$&. A 10inch LX-200 OTA is a 2500mm focal length lens. The accuracy of tracking required for that is almost unfathomable. I have just started imaging at 6-800mm on a high quality mount and am discovering this will be a long road to travel. When I talked to people in my club about imaging they said to cut my teeth at ~800mm before trying anything above 1000mm, let alone 2000mm. (Remember, even with a focal reducer, your 10inch OTA will still be 1575mm - and the standard focal reducers don't work on the ACF optics)

Please don't do what I did, and think that buying a fork mounted LX-90 or LX-200 will let you get into imaging one day. A fork mount is not friendly for imaging. I know people do it, but they must have the patience of a saint. I have kept my LX-90 as a visual scope - it is fabulous for that in Alt-Az mode - the tracking and GOTO are brilliant. The optics are impressive and one day I may defork the OTA and try imaging with it on my GEM.

The suggestion of buying an LX-200 OTA and EQ6 mount would be preferable, but I'd put $2 on the fact that you'd end up with a 3-4 inch refractor when you wanted to start imaging. Unfortunately, there is no one scope that will fill all of your wants and desires.

DT

[gregbradley]

My experience mirrors Davids.

Greg.

[Lost In Space (Blake)]

Originally Posted by DavidTrap

Can I just offer my 2 cents worth, as someone who started out with an LX-90 and then bought a GEM & Refractor for imaging.

I started with an LX-90. I stupidly thought that autoguiding would make imaging a breeze. I have learnt that the quality of your mount is paramount to imaging - you can't making chicken salad from chicken *^$&. A 10inch LX-200 OTA is a 2500mm focal length lens. The accuracy of tracking required for that is almost unfathomable. I have just started imaging at 6-800mm on a high quality mount and am discovering this will be a long road to travel. When I talked to people in my club about imaging they said to cut my teeth at ~800mm before trying anything above 1000mm, let alone 2000mm. (Remember, even with a focal reducer, your 10inch OTA will still be 1575mm - and the standard focal reducers don't work on the ACF optics)

Please don't do what I did, and think that buying a fork mounted LX-90 or LX-200 will let you get into imaging one day. A fork mount is not friendly for imaging. I know people do it, but they must have the patience of a saint. I have kept my LX-90 as a visual scope - it is fabulous for that in Alt-Az mode - the tracking and GOTO are brilliant. The optics are impressive and one day I may defork the OTA and try imaging with it on my GEM.

The suggestion of buying an LX-200 OTA and EQ6 mount would be preferable, but I'd put $2 on the fact that you'd end up with a 3-4 inch refractor when you wanted to start imaging. Unfortunately, there is no one scope that will fill all of your wants and desires.

DT

Thanks for the advice!

The reason I wanted a large aperture was for visual and imaging, but as you said, it will be a pain guiding it for imaging. Maybe it would be best to save money and not buy a EdgeHD or an lx200, but buy a cheaper SCT for visual observing, and piggyback an apo refractor for imaging on an equatorial mount?

You might have just saved me some money and disappointment

[DavidTrap (David)]

The corrected SCT optics are great for visual observing. If you truly want to get into imaging, then get a GEM from the outset - they you can add whatever scope you like onto that mount (within reason!).

DT

[bigbod (Rod)]

Originally Posted by Lost In Space

Yeah the lx200 does look like a better buy if your buying from Australia. have you thought about buying from the US through an agent?

The EdgeHD 1100 is $3499US and the lx200 10" is $3599US, plus the fee for the agent. It's probably better to buy locally however so you get warranty. I'm still comparing prices and deciding what I should do. It's a lot of money, and I want to make sure I make the right choice haha.

Yes, I recently purchased a Coronado DSM mount for my double-stacked PST from Woodland Hills Telescopes via a US agent. The exercise was flawless, but I'm a little gun-shy when it comes to using the service for such a large purchase. Gotta envy those Americans, sometimes!

[bigbod (Rod)]

Originally Posted by DavidTrap

I started with an LX-90. I stupidly thought that autoguiding would make imaging a breeze. I have learnt that the quality of your mount is paramount to imaging - you can't making chicken salad from chicken *^$&. A 10inch LX-200 OTA is a 2500mm focal length lens. The accuracy of tracking required for that is almost unfathomable. I have just started imaging at 6-800mm on a high quality mount and am discovering this will be a long road to travel. When I talked to people in my club about imaging they said to cut my teeth at ~800mm before trying anything above 1000mm, let alone 2000mm. (Remember, even with a focal reducer, your 10inch OTA will still be 1575mm - and the standard focal reducers don't work on the ACF optics)

DT

Thanks for your comments. Do you think that a Celestron EdgeHD/CGEM with Fastar f/2 compatibility makes the Celestron a more versatile scope for imaging? Do you have any opinions of the CGEM mount?

Cheers
Rod

[DavidTrap (David)]

Hi Rod,

I've never seen a Fastar in the flesh, but the results from Marc are impressive. The versatility is seductive, but consider the cost of everything, vs separate scopes for widefield vs narrowfield.

I have no opinion of a CGEM mount - I've detailed my reasons for buying an AP in another thread, but basically:

1. I've skipped the upgrade path - there were a lot of EQ6s being sold when I was tossing all this up. Either people getting out of the hobby or upgraders.

2. I don't have time to fiddle with a mount and tune it like some do with their EQ6 or G-11.

3. I took the advice of others that basically says, "When it comes to astrophotography, the three most import things are: mount; mount and mount!" I saw the AP as essentially top of the line whilst remaining portable.

I went with Meade for many reasons. I had exposure to both Celestrons and Meades at high school - I just liked the Meade stuff more. I also liked the potential for service of Meade gear through Bintel in Sydney with Don Whiteman.

DT