The phrase was "virtually useless" not "useless". Have you ever tried prime
focus astrophotography with an LX-50? I know several who gave up in disgust.
And of course I'm not suggesting that in past years most amateur telescope
equipment was more primitive. My cheap $15 scientific handheld calculator
works much better than the $200 (in today's money) slide rule I had at Ga.
Tech in the 50ties! :-) Don't use the slide rule much anymore though--I'm
not a glutton for punishment. Wouldn't now use an LX-50 for astrophotography
either.


----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 1:14 PM
Subject: [M]: Re: LX-50 vs. LX-90


. The LX-50 is virtually useless for astrophotography. That is
> not
> > true of the LX-90--see the article in the new July Sky and Telescope.



>
> I wouldn't call the LX-50 useless -- most serious amateur astrophotography
> was done with instruments in that league until quite recently! But I'd
> still prefer the LX90; and an LX200 with free eyepieces or a credit
bringing
> it down to the same price would be better yet.
>
> Prediction: There will soon be a telescope with LX200 mechanics and LX90
> software, plus PEC.

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: [M]: Re: Re: LX-50 vs. LX-90, Andy Wallace
Next message: [M]: Re: LX-50 vs. LX-90, Michael A. Covington
Next message in thread: [M]: Re: LX-50 vs. LX-90, Michael A. Covington
Previous message in thread: [M]: Re: Re: LX-50 vs. LX-90, Andy Wallace