[M]: RE: LX200s: 12" vs. 10"
| Subject: | [M]: RE: LX200s: 12" vs. 10" |
| From: | Nikolidakis George |
| Date: | Tue Jun 06 14:05:00 2000 |
Jacob
You have to add a new parameter to your choice
It is the weight and the size
I have the 12" and I can tell you it is a monster.
I am 90 Kgr and I can tell you I can manage it
with a lot of effort .
Optically you will have a small gain than 10" but
dont you think that it will be so noticeable.
Yes the mount is less stable than the 10"
and I think 12" is a little oversized for the mount.
but 12" comes with the giant tripod which add advantage in
stability.
12" comes only in F/10 and if you have in you mind
just the CCD imaging or film photography the 10" F6.3
will be more suitable for you since it will reduce
significant the exposure time you need.
George Nikolidakis
http://www.crosswinds.net/~geonik
-----Original Message-----
From: Jacob Thumberger [mailto:jthumber@fuse.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 11:34 PM
To: mapug@shore.net
Subject: [M]: LX200s: 12" vs. 10"
Hello all. You may remember a post of mine from a while back about the 12"
LX200s. Well, Im getting close to being able to purchase my scope and have
some further questions before I actually make my purchase.
1) I was told in my last batch of questions that the 12" has a larger
central obstruction than my 10" Newtonian and would therefore be of little
gain optically from my 10". Is this true? If so, would I be better off
getting the 12" instead of the 10" (because if the 12" is of little or no
gain, then that 10" would be a lose....correct?).
2) I was also told that as you increase in size in the LX200s, the mounts
become less stable. Is this really true? If so, would it be wise of me to go
down to the 10" for CCD imaging since mount stability is important? Or is
the difference in scopes hard to tell?
3) I notice that the 12" LX200 comes in only f/10. Since the 10" comes in
f/10 and f/6.3, would I be better off getting the 10" f/6.3 for CCD imaging
than the 12" f/10? Also, if I get the 10" f/6.3, can I still add the f/6.3
focal reducer to get an even lower f/ ratio?
Also, if anyone has any other info on helping me decide between the two I
would greatly appreciate it. Im sure I will have more questions later, but
Im late for a doctors appointment so I will leave it at this for now.
Thanks a million in advance!!
Jacob Thumberger
jthumber@fuse.net
http://home.fuse.net/cbparts/index.htm
Gone out of business....school taking too much of my time.
Free replacement parts for cookbook cameras with paid postage.
http://home.fuse.net/cbparts/index2.htm
1999 advanced astronomy camp picture page.
http://home.fuse.net/cbparts/index3.htm
Is there a black hole at the center of the Milky Way?
You have to add a new parameter to your choice
It is the weight and the size
I have the 12" and I can tell you it is a monster.
I am 90 Kgr and I can tell you I can manage it
with a lot of effort .
Optically you will have a small gain than 10" but
dont you think that it will be so noticeable.
Yes the mount is less stable than the 10"
and I think 12" is a little oversized for the mount.
but 12" comes with the giant tripod which add advantage in
stability.
12" comes only in F/10 and if you have in you mind
just the CCD imaging or film photography the 10" F6.3
will be more suitable for you since it will reduce
significant the exposure time you need.
George Nikolidakis
http://www.crosswinds.net/~geonik
-----Original Message-----
From: Jacob Thumberger [mailto:jthumber@fuse.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 11:34 PM
To: mapug@shore.net
Subject: [M]: LX200s: 12" vs. 10"
Hello all. You may remember a post of mine from a while back about the 12"
LX200s. Well, Im getting close to being able to purchase my scope and have
some further questions before I actually make my purchase.
1) I was told in my last batch of questions that the 12" has a larger
central obstruction than my 10" Newtonian and would therefore be of little
gain optically from my 10". Is this true? If so, would I be better off
getting the 12" instead of the 10" (because if the 12" is of little or no
gain, then that 10" would be a lose....correct?).
2) I was also told that as you increase in size in the LX200s, the mounts
become less stable. Is this really true? If so, would it be wise of me to go
down to the 10" for CCD imaging since mount stability is important? Or is
the difference in scopes hard to tell?
3) I notice that the 12" LX200 comes in only f/10. Since the 10" comes in
f/10 and f/6.3, would I be better off getting the 10" f/6.3 for CCD imaging
than the 12" f/10? Also, if I get the 10" f/6.3, can I still add the f/6.3
focal reducer to get an even lower f/ ratio?
Also, if anyone has any other info on helping me decide between the two I
would greatly appreciate it. Im sure I will have more questions later, but
Im late for a doctors appointment so I will leave it at this for now.
Thanks a million in advance!!
Jacob Thumberger
jthumber@fuse.net
http://home.fuse.net/cbparts/index.htm
Gone out of business....school taking too much of my time.
Free replacement parts for cookbook cameras with paid postage.
http://home.fuse.net/cbparts/index2.htm
1999 advanced astronomy camp picture page.
http://home.fuse.net/cbparts/index3.htm
Is there a black hole at the center of the Milky Way?
