In defense of the LX50....
If I had stumbled across this thread before I purchased my 8" LX-50
I would have never purchased it. Why? I own one and love it! I am into
astrophotography and the price difference between the LX200 and LX-50
is about $600 + a wedge. Contrary to another post here the LX-50 has a
CCD port and guides excellently with my Pictor 208XT. I live very close
to my nosey neighbors that flip a light on evertime they here a noise in
the backyard, last thing I need is a coffee grinder out here. After all
it really isn't that hard to grab the OTA swing it within 2 degrees of
the
next object, especially when Magellan is telling you exactly where to
move
it. I'm not in any race to view every object every night and am usually
concentrating on just 2 or 3 objects for photography anyway. I also get
the
piece of mind that LX-50's seem to be a bit more reliable electronics
wise.
As far as the Magellan II, I never do more than a 1 star alignment and
objects are put in a 26mm eyepiece everytime as long as I aligned fairly
well.
In response to the person who said it is incorrectly called a
"corrector" I
disagree, a "corrector" as I have seen just means you have some buttons
to
correct for any drift as in manually guided astrophotography. I agree
the LX50
is not an LX200 and it can't be upgraded to one, but it is a good scope
in it's
own class. When I purchased mine I was comparing it to various C-8's,
not
LX200s, or Ultimas. It is in a different class (at least price wise) of
these
scopes. I feel that it is the best in its class, just as I'm sure most
LX200
owners feel the LX200 is the best in it's class (the Ultima 2000, LX200
class).
I thought long and hard about the purchase and if money had been no
object I
may have bought an LX200, I still may not have. The only thing that I
really
think stinks about buying an LX-50 is that crappy 25mm MA eyepiece Meade
feels
is adequate for a large dollar scope. Anyway what I'm saying is think
long
and hard about what you want in a scope, if GOTO capability is a must
forget
the LX50 and keep saving. If that single capability (with its pros and
cons)
is not that important to you then buy an LX50, spend the extra money on
all
kinds of nice goodies and enjoy yourself. Astronomy was still fun before
GOTO scopes were around. I think the real difference was the advent of
DSC's
more than GOTO capability, aiming within 2 degrees is easy, finding it
in the
first place is the hard part! Comparing an LX50 with an LX200 is like
comparing
a Chevy and a Cadillac , one is more expensive and has more fancy toys
that can
break (oh and they do break, just spent $800 to fix "level ride"
suspension on
my Caddy, wish it didn't have this fancy toy!), but both will get you
there.
Speaking of fancy toys someone was mentioning those extra features of
the LX200,
autofocus, automosiac, etc, as far as I know none of these work (at
least properly)
at this time. Before I get a bunch of email from angry LX200 owners let
me just
say the LX200 is certainly a fine telescope, it just isn't the
"ultimate" telescope
for everyone when all factors are considered. For me the 8" LX50 was the
ultimate.
Just like I could have spent that extra $600+ dollars on more aperture,
it wasn't
what I wanted. An 8" scope is the right size for me. Someone once said
the right
scope is the one that will get used, I use mine.



--
Jordan Blessing L1 Master Tech

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: LX-200: f(X)?, William Cunningham
Next message: [M]: PICTOR: Budget Tricolor Imaging, Dave Bair
Next message in thread: [M]: LX50 vs LX200, Guillaume Dubos