Pedro Santos wrote:

>Hi Bill.
>
>There is a plain good explanation for that price difference.
>The G11 is a good mount but not for a 14" SCT. The 11" tube is the maximum
>for good astrophotography. For any reason Celestron sells the CG11 with the
>G11.
>I have a friend with a CG-14, and if there is a slight wind forget about
>imaging. Of course if you use it in a wind-protected observatory, thats
>another question.
>On the other side the 16" LX200 is rock solid, either alt-azimuthal or
>equatorial mounted. The mount is monstruous. A truly professional
>instrument.
>Among other unique characteristiqus it remembers its alignement when turned
>on, and have a built in fan for thermal equilibrium.
>Resuming, they are scopes wich have no camparision at all.
>The CG14 wins way ahead in a point, portability. It is even much more
>portable than my 12" LX200, let alone the montruous 16".
>But, if you want to image with the CG14, portability wont do you any good
>because it will only give results if there are absolutely no wind.
>So, if you want the G11 mount (a excelent mount for the money) get the CG11
>scope , if you want the 14" tube get a better mount, either from losmandy
>or Astro-Physics. This mounts, although heavier, split in two (RA axis plus
>Dec axis), maintanig the same portability og the G11. You will only have
>more parcels to carry.


Pedro, you are quite right. The pair of the Celestron 14" OTA (never I have
heard
that optics is poor) and the Astro-Physics 900 (soon will be available with
voice
driven "GO-TO") mount will be nearly unbeatable in the
quality+portability+reliability/price range. And really not too expensive
for so powerful instrument. The portability even better than in 12" Meade.

Regards,

Valery.

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: RE: [M]: Derotator and Flat Fields?, Pedro Breda
Next message: Re: [M]: LX200 features revisited, Abrams
Previous message in thread: RE: [M]: Derotator and Flat Fields?, Pedro Breda