Gary,

I currently own an F/10 10" LX200 and have owned both the F/10 and the F/6.3
8" LX200.

First the difference between the 8 and the 10: On paper, the light grasp of
the 10 over the 8 is 56%. While this sounds very impressive, in practice
(visually) it really is not. I still prefer the 10" over the 8", but the
difference is not that dramatic. The other part of the 8 Vs 10 comparison
is the extra bulk & weight of the 10...at 58 pounds (fork & OTA), it's 20
pounds heavier than the 8.

Now let's look at F/6 Vs. F/10: If you ask Meade, they are quick to tell
you that the image produced in an intrinsic F/6.3 is better than that
produced with an F/10 and an F/6.3 focal reducer. I really don't agree with
this.

Now let's add to the mix your intention of using this scope to view the
planets: I find that using an F/6.3 for planetary observation is a
disappointment...image is too small (unless you use a barlow). I find that
the F/10 does a better job with planets than the F/6...far more detail. I
suggest that you go for the F/10 and buy a focal reducer for photography.
The choice between the 8" and the 10" is only yours to make.

Al
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 10:20 AM
Subject: [M]: LX200 8" vs 10", f/10 vs f/6


> Ok... boy am I in a dilemma. Here goes.. I have a few choices.. (these are
> likely common questions that people are sick of hearing, but i'd best ask.
> I may feel regretful if I don't).
>
> I am approaching the time when i'm going to buy myself a new LX200. I am
> torn between the 8" and the 10". I want portability and convenience, yet
> at the same time I want to bury myself into astrophotography within the
> next year. If I get the 8" and a bunch of goodies, I'd have some cash
left
> over in the budget to build upon to get my CCD camera. Alternately, I
> could blow that reserve for the 10", be patient, and take quite a bit
> longer before getting the CCD camera.
>
> What my real question is.. when it comes to CCD imaging, really, how much
> better is the 10" in comparison to the 8"? What circumstances would it
not
> be better? (if any). How much better, deep-sky object wise, can one really
> see with the 10" in comparison? Can you see more objects (even with CCD
> imaging) than you would with the 8"? Is the difference really noticable
in
> the crispness or detail of an object in the image? What percentage would
> this improvement be?
>
> Part 2 of this question. I am not only a deep-sky person. I like to look
> at Jupiter just as much as Galileo did.. but I need to figure out if I
want
> an F/10 or an F/6. I want to do photography, yet would I be sacrificing
> planetary/solar observing by going with an F6? Is it suggested to go F/10
> and just get a focal reducer and be happy with it? As I figure focal
> reducers can result in a lower quality image than on an equivalent F/6
> scope, but are we talking 1-2%, or is it more like a 10-15% image
> degradation?
>
> Its a tough call.. but i'm trying my darndest to make the right decision.
>
> This is what I see so far from the reading that I have done..(not sure if
I
> feel comfortable with the statements just yet)
> 1) Safest bet is to go with the 8" F/10, then use a focal reducer if
> necessary.
> 2) If one can stretch a bit more for the 10", to go for the F/6.
>
> I probably just re-opened an old can of worms that has been opened many
> times before.
>
> Phew,
> Gary
>
>
>
>

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: [M]: LX200 8" vs 10", f/10 vs f/6, Email address hidden
Next message: [M]: Re: LX200 8" vs 10", f/10 vs f/6, Al
Next message in thread: [M]: Re: LX200 8" vs 10", f/10 vs f/6, Al
Previous message in thread: [M]: LX200 8" vs 10", f/10 vs f/6, Email address hidden