Clint wrote:

> Anyway, according to the Meade catalog they say the 12" has 44% more
> light gathering power than the 10", and that the limiting visual magnitude
> is only 0.5 better on the 12", same goes for the limiting photo magnitude.
> The resolving power is 0.45 for the 10" and 0.38 for the 12". And of course
> the visual power is higher on the 12", 750X vs. 625X.

I would suggest that these numbers are rather meaningless in actual use. The
resolving power is generally limited by the atmosphere and is rarely better than
1 arc second. The power is limited by the seeing as well. I have never heard
of anyone using more that 300 power and that mainly for planets. If you are
going to do CCD imaging, I suggest that the more important number is the field
of view you will get with the CCD chip you are going to use. That is determined
by the focal length. If you wish to image extended objects, a 3000 mm focal
length is not a good choice, in my opinion.

Look at the list of nice objects and the discussion about the appropriate focal
length to use for extended objects on my web site. See: Imaging/CCD Imagers/A
list of nice objects.

Doc G <http://www.mailbag.com/users/ragreiner>


> The new LX200 will be used primarily used for CCD.
>
> I currently have the LX50 10" and I'm pleased with the optics, (I think
> the optics and scope are basically the same on the LX50 and LX200, correct
> me if I am wrong). I also have the super wedge for the LX50, and understand
> it can be used on the LX200.
>
> So my question to those that have had or used both the 10" and 12" LX200,
> is the price difference (about $1300) worth going all the way with the 12"?
> Any advice will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Clint

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: LX200 Pointing Insanity!, Robert Preston
Next message: Re: [M]: 416/6.4 Success!, Chris Heapy
Next message in thread: Re: [M]: LX200 10" vs. 12", ken milburn
Previous message in thread: [M]: LX200 10" vs. 12", Clint