http://www.meade.com/catalog/lxd55/lxd55_sc8.html OR http://www.meade.com/catalog/lxd55/lxd55_series.html The ten inch one for the link directly above. They are about the same price So its an 8" Schmidth-Cassegrain VS a 10" Schmidth-Newtonian. Opinions? Later TPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Both scopes are on the same mount, and feature the same electronics and mechanicals. By most peoples' standards, aperture is king -- buy the biggest scope you can afford. SCT pros: The SCT is physically smaller. SCTs are also sealed tubes, and thus require (less) maintenance than Newts. Newt pros: The much faster focal ratio of the Newt will show you wider fields of view than the SCT. The larger mirror will greatly increase the number of objects you can detect. If space is a concern for you (say, in your car or living quarters), go for the SCT. It's easier to move around, and a little easier to care for. On the other hand, if space is not an issue, get the 10" Newt -- aperture is king. - Warren
Well I dont have a car yet but it will have room for my scope. If I clean out my closet, I could probably fit it in there. Hehehe. So how bout this, I want to do astrophotography with it. So now which one do you think is better? Later T
Once again, there really probably isn't a "better" of the two. The Newt will show you much wider fields than the SCT, which will make taking photos of extended nebula much easier. In addition, the Newt will require shorter exposure times. The Newt, however, may end up showing some coma or spherical aberration that the SCT won't. If you enjoy photographing galaxies or very large extended objects, the Newt will make things easier on you. If you plan on taking pictures of smaller objects, like planetaries and clusters, the SCT will do great. Both the Newt and the SCT are sensitive to collimation, so you'll have to learn to collimate whichever you buy. Overall, I'd say the extra 2 inches of aperture and fast f-ratio would make the Newt the better astrophotography scope. The mount is actually the more important consideration for real astrophotography. Since they're the same mount, it's not an issue. However, when you purchase a mount, you need to consider the following things: 1) Stability. Wind, people's footsteps, etc. can all destroy photographs. The mount must be stable and damp vibrations quickly. I believe the LXD55 mount is "acceptable," but by no means "great." "Great" mounts will end up costing you $8-$10k. 2) Polar accuracy. Since it's an equatorial scope, you're going to have to polar align it. For visual observation, that may mean just setting down roughly pointed north -- I think the AutoStar computer can deal with a pretty bad alignment. Photography, however, cannot. A mount which facilitates easy polar alignment will be a good investment. It should have a sight-tube or unity-gain finder, and good, easy-to-use alignment controls. 3) Tracking accuracy. All mounts have periodic error, and the extent to which the mount eliminates that error is important. In addition, look into the mount's ability to be autoguided by a computer/CCD combo. There are a surprising variety of homebrew autoguiders made out of webcams and such for very cheap. 4) Weight limits. As you become a more proficient photographer, you will find reason to stick and hang all sorts of things to your optical tube. You'll need to counterbalance, of course, and the mount must have the capability to drive the weight of your optical tube + accessories. - Warren
Well... Very interesting. I knew the mount would be important as far as astrophotography goes. See I dont know much about telescopes. I mean I know a little but need to learn more, which will come to me owning a scope of my own. Descisions, Descisions. There has got to be a deciding factor between the two scopes. I just havent found it yet. The search continues..... Later T p.S. Take a look at THIS and tell me what you think
The decision is actually pretty easy -- you're picking an 8" slow telescope versus a 10" fast telescope. The mount's the same, the optical quality is probably the same, etc. The only difference is that the 10" is substantially less portable. I myself come down to decisions like a TeleVue 101 3" apochromatic refractor or a Celestron 11" SCT. Now THERE'S a tough decision. Aperture wins, ultimately. The bigger, faster Newt will be easier to use for a new observer (wider fields of view are very nice). If portability is not a concern, get the 10"! You may also want to check out reviews on sites like www.cloudynights.com and www.scopereviews.com. They don't include the brand-new LXD55 series, but you can get a general feel for Meade's products by looking at the other SCT and Newt scopes listed. - Warren
It's actually pretty common for commercial scopes to have optics pinched by their mountings. Quit often, people loosen the screws that hold the primary cell in refractors, or modify the mirror cell in reflecting telescopes. You may never notice any diffraction spikes or other effects of pinched optics -- in which case my advice is to leave well enough alone. I would say to wait at least six months or so, and get very comfortable with your scope, before you consider such modification. - Warren
