MEADE 8"LX10 DELUXE VS. 8"LX200
shi...@my-dejanews.com
I found 3 main differences:
1. the fork mounting that is more rigid for the lx200.
2. The LX10 has no tripod
3. different software?
but these doesn't worse 1500 $ more money to spend...
Does the lx10 has GO TO capability?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
RMOLLISE
>I found 3 main differences:
>1. the fork mounting that is more rigid for the lx200.
>2. The LX10 has no tripod
>3. different software?
>but these doesn't worse 1500 $ more money to spend...
>
Hi:
Let's approach this from the opposite direction...
Q. What do the LX-10 (basic or deluxe) and LX-200 have in common?
A. The OTA (the 'tube'--'Optical Tube Assembly')...
Everything else, drive base, fork arms, tripod, etc. are different. The
software is different because the LX-10 really doesn't have any. The only
'computer' option is adding the Magellan I digital setting circles, which will
give you the position of the scope and lead you to objects (you'll have to move
the scope by hand...this does not give the little LX-10 goto capability by any
means!).
The LX-10 is a nice little scope, but far removed from an LX-200. If you want
goto choose the LX-200. If you are interested in photography or CCDing, again,
choose the LX-200. The LX-10 is a nice little general use SCT, though. I like
it.
BTW...unlike the Celestar Basic and Deluxe, the LX-10 Basic and Deluxe are
really exactly the same scope with the addition of a bigger finder, etc.
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Mobile Astronomical Society
http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index7.html
The Home of _From City Lights to Deep Space_:
Rod's Guidebook for the _Urban_ Deep Sky NUT!!
*********************************************************
Philip C. Farnam
check for LX-200. Many who buy LX-10 wish they'd gone the extra. Nobody
who goes with the LX-200 regrets it. Better, more convenient, more fun.
You'll use it more and share it more. Even without GOTO capability the
better mounting is a considerable upgrade.
-**** Posted from RemarQ, http://www.remarq.com/?c ****-
Search and Read Usenet Discussions in your Browser
MrSchmeltz
>I found 3 main differences:
>1. the fork mounting that is more rigid for the lx200.
>2. The LX10 has no tripod
>3. different software?
>but these doesn't worse 1500 $ more money to spend...
I agree with the others, get the lx200, but save a lot of $ and find a used
one on astromart.com People are upgrading or for whatever reason and you can
get a good deal, if you are willing to go that save money route. I did and got
a great 8" lx200 for $1,700 (after a lot of looking)
Happy hunting
Greg
NEWS
just with a gem mount) I sold the mount and bought a lx10 mount, and I
could not be happier. Its very stable at high mag.( almost no vibration)
<shi...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7gi7md$a6m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> What is the difference between these two telescopes models?
> I found 3 main differences:
> 1. the fork mounting that is more rigid for the lx200.
> 2. The LX10 has no tripod
> 3. different software?
> but these doesn't worse 1500 $ more money to spend...
>
jupiterlander
> Ive got the lx10 and im very happy. I started out with the 203sc/500 ( same
> just with a gem mount) I sold the mount and bought a lx10 mount, and I
> could not be happier.
How did you fit the 203sc on a LX10 mount? I got a 203sc/500 and I want a fork
mount for it. thanks dan
Alistair Symon
with its performance. It has the same optics as the 8 inch LX200 but an
inferior mount and RA drive. It is best suited to visual observation but I
have used it successfully for CCD imaging (it just takes more work than the
LX200 to guide out the RA drive inaccuracies). You can see the images I
have obtained with it on my website. I recently purchased a 10 inch LX200
which as a more accurate RA drive as I wanted to be able to take long
exposure CCD images with less guiding effort (plus the GOTO on the LX200 is
very nice!). If you just want to do visual observation the LX10 may be all
you need. If photography is your long term goal and you can afford it then
the LX200 would be a better bet.
--
Alistair Symon
Visit my website at http://www.gushie.demon.co.uk/
<shi...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7gi7md$a6m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> What is the difference between these two telescopes models?
> I found 3 main differences:
> 1. the fork mounting that is more rigid for the lx200.
> 2. The LX10 has no tripod
> 3. different software?
> but these doesn't worse 1500 $ more money to spend...
>
> Does the lx10 has GO TO capability?
>
Don in Dallas
The previous posts already express the differences between the two.
If you have the resources, buy the LX200. Hands down, it is a much
better telescope and will allow you to grow into it, as opposed to
growing out of the LX10. My recommendation - buy the best and cry
only once.
Who me? I have a 10" LX200. I considered an LX50 with the Magellan
for a while, until I found a great deal on a used LX200. Soooooo glad
I did!
Don in Dallas
lo...@swordmicro.com
I can easily recommend visiting Alistair's web site.
Informative and well done.
kevin
Michael A. Covington
Clear skies,
Michael A. Covington / AI Center / The University of Georgia
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
(1999 edition delayed due to manufacturing problems; see web page for
details.)
http://www.mindspring.com/~covington/astro <><
NEWS
I am very happy with the LX10. It will be all that I need for some time.
Of course I dont have time to get into astrophotograpy, if that were the
case then I would buy an lx200. My next purchase will be the magellan 1.
That will give me all I need for years to come.
<shi...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7gi7md$a6m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...