[M]: RE: What about LX-200?
| Subject: | [M]: RE: What about LX-200? |
| From: | Richmann, Michael |
| Date: | Tue Mar 24 07:52:29 1998 |
Ive had quite good success with my 8" LX200 so far. There
were the usual collection of minor problems caused by
less than stellar quality control at the Meade end (a misaligned
leveling bubble on the equatorial mount was a huge pain in the
butt). Based on the star testing I performed to Suiters specs
in his book, Id rate the quality of the optics as very good to
excellent. The High Precision option combined with the
GOTO capability allow me to put the target in the center
of the cameras field every time whether I can see it or not.
The periodic error correction (which is permanent, unlike the
Celestron) is an invaluable aid to minimizing the amount of
effort needed to keep a guide star centered during the
exposure. The automated polar alignment routine, with a couple
of personal modifications, allows me to get right to the point
where I can drift align within a few minutes of setup.Now, as
far as things Ive found very helpful for astrophotography: 1)
a camera with mirror lockup, removable focusing screens and
one that doesnt need a battery to keep the shutter open (in
this case, the trusty old Olympus OM-1), 2) the Spectra
Astro Systems Sure-Sharp, 3) a short (less than 12 inch
long) shutter release cable, 4) a good off-axis guider
(Celestron Radial Guider, not the Meade OAG), 5) a good
autoguider (SBIG, not Meade) and 6) an illuminated reticuled
eyepiece (Meade 9.7 mm corded version). Number 2 is quite
handy, incorporating the Foucault knife-edge focusing
technique into a convenient to use package. Others have
also found that finding an old trashed-out camera body
of the same type as your good one and using that as the
point for placing the razor-blade/knife works just as well.
Your choice. (4) is important. I recommend the Celestron
over the Meade due to the much greater adjustability and
the much better quality of construction. Theres also the
Lumicon offering but I dont have any experience with it.
(5) is a thorn in my side. I ponied up for the Meade 201XT,
which is certainly sensitive enough but which does not
like the typically aberrated star images produced by an
OAG. In short, not very useful unless you use it with a
separate guidescope. The SBIG ST-4 OTOH, which is about
$200 moe expensive, is said by many users to work like a charm.
Now, as far as astrophotography itself is concerned, be
prepared to sweat. However, the good things in life dont
always come easily. Id start with the easier subjects
first (bright ones like the Moon, M42, the globular clusters)
and then start working your way down to the dimmer ones.
Spend some time practicing your polar alignment and
guiding. If you live in the light polluted burbs like I do,
you can still use those skies for practice purposes.
Go forth and enjoy...
Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Ng [SMTP:piperjeremy@geocities.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 6:36 AM
> To: Mapug Mailin List
> Subject: [M]: What about LX-200?
>
> Hi,
> Remember me? Well I have recieved some bad reviews about the
> LX-50.
> Well, I was thinking, what about the LX-200? Someone pls give some
> advice on which telescope and accessories to buy.
>
> Thanks
> Jeremy Ng
were the usual collection of minor problems caused by
less than stellar quality control at the Meade end (a misaligned
leveling bubble on the equatorial mount was a huge pain in the
butt). Based on the star testing I performed to Suiters specs
in his book, Id rate the quality of the optics as very good to
excellent. The High Precision option combined with the
GOTO capability allow me to put the target in the center
of the cameras field every time whether I can see it or not.
The periodic error correction (which is permanent, unlike the
Celestron) is an invaluable aid to minimizing the amount of
effort needed to keep a guide star centered during the
exposure. The automated polar alignment routine, with a couple
of personal modifications, allows me to get right to the point
where I can drift align within a few minutes of setup.Now, as
far as things Ive found very helpful for astrophotography: 1)
a camera with mirror lockup, removable focusing screens and
one that doesnt need a battery to keep the shutter open (in
this case, the trusty old Olympus OM-1), 2) the Spectra
Astro Systems Sure-Sharp, 3) a short (less than 12 inch
long) shutter release cable, 4) a good off-axis guider
(Celestron Radial Guider, not the Meade OAG), 5) a good
autoguider (SBIG, not Meade) and 6) an illuminated reticuled
eyepiece (Meade 9.7 mm corded version). Number 2 is quite
handy, incorporating the Foucault knife-edge focusing
technique into a convenient to use package. Others have
also found that finding an old trashed-out camera body
of the same type as your good one and using that as the
point for placing the razor-blade/knife works just as well.
Your choice. (4) is important. I recommend the Celestron
over the Meade due to the much greater adjustability and
the much better quality of construction. Theres also the
Lumicon offering but I dont have any experience with it.
(5) is a thorn in my side. I ponied up for the Meade 201XT,
which is certainly sensitive enough but which does not
like the typically aberrated star images produced by an
OAG. In short, not very useful unless you use it with a
separate guidescope. The SBIG ST-4 OTOH, which is about
$200 moe expensive, is said by many users to work like a charm.
Now, as far as astrophotography itself is concerned, be
prepared to sweat. However, the good things in life dont
always come easily. Id start with the easier subjects
first (bright ones like the Moon, M42, the globular clusters)
and then start working your way down to the dimmer ones.
Spend some time practicing your polar alignment and
guiding. If you live in the light polluted burbs like I do,
you can still use those skies for practice purposes.
Go forth and enjoy...
Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Ng [SMTP:piperjeremy@geocities.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 6:36 AM
> To: Mapug Mailin List
> Subject: [M]: What about LX-200?
>
> Hi,
> Remember me? Well I have recieved some bad reviews about the
> LX-50.
> Well, I was thinking, what about the LX-200? Someone pls give some
> advice on which telescope and accessories to buy.
>
> Thanks
> Jeremy Ng
