Meade lx65 8" (ACF) vs Celestron 8se

[HappySkeptic]

@polymath257
@HappySkeptic

So I went a different direction with this. I just ordered a used Explore Scientific ED102-FCD100 Series Air-Spaced Triplet Refractor OTA, and I am trying to decide on a mount. Eventually, this thing will probably end up with a guide scope, microfocuser, filter wheel, and camera so the weight is going to go up considerably. Since I plan to use it for astrophotography I think I should rule out the 30 lb rated mounts. I am looking at either a Sky-Watcher AZ-EQ6 or a Celestron CGX. The CGX is a little more expensive, but with a 55 lb load rating it should be a lot steadier than the 40 lb rated AZ-EQ6.

Any suggestions?

You've gone up in price!  Yes, this is a better scope for astrophotography.  Hopefully there is a focal-reducer/field-flattener available for it.

Both mounts you mention are very nice.  The Sky-Watcher also works as an ALT-AZ mount, which is nice for visual and quick setup (no polar alignment, and the eyepiece stays in a good position for sitting).  I have considered getting it myself for my 127 mm refractor, but I went another route.

Yes, the CGX is probably a bit more stable.  Again, check Cloudy Nights forums. For photography, the mount needs to be rated at least twice the weight of your tube (more if the tube is especially long). This tube is only 10 lbs. Add another 5 or more for the camera and accessories (and small guide scope).

Some people love astrophotography.  Myself, I love the idea of it, but the not the reality of the setup using a portable rig.  I think astrophotography is better done in a backyard observatory, and visual is best done with something that is easy to setup and take down, somewhere away from city lights.

The reviews of the ED102 seem decent.  It is a fairly big scope as your first astrophotography scope, though.  It will require good polar alignment and a sturdy mount.

Photos of each object will take between 1.5 and 4 hours for RGB or RGB+L work (less on a color camera, but then it won't be as good).  They will take 4 to 15 hours if you do narrow-band photography (which can be done in more light-polluted skies like a back yard).  The time depends on the pixel-size of the camera, and what f-ratio you run when you get a focal-reducer.  That amount of time means you either travel to a dark site and stay up most of the night, or you do it from your backyard.

If you do filtered photography, you will be spending $1000+ on just the filters, plus on ton on the filter wheel and camera.  If you are just using a DSLR, of course the cost is much less (if you have the DSLR), though if it isn't a special one with enhanced red sensitivity for astronomy use, you won't get pictures of emission nebula very easily.

You need hours on the camera.  If you won't put in those hours, you should think more about visual use.  The committed amateurs have backyard observatories that they can run (after initial setup) from their house.  They can watch Netflix while the camera takes pictures.  Of course, that requires expensive mounts that can be remotely controlled, and don't need babysitting.

I don't want to put you off.  I just want you to realize that astrophotography is a completely different thing than visual.  For myself, it is the thrill of seeing detail in a globular cluster or galaxy that connects me to the universe, so I focus on that.  The types of views that give me that experience determines what equipment I own.


P.S. I own an Explore Scientific ED80CF . I bought it for an eclipse, and it did an okay job. It is a good objective, but two things bother me about it. First, the focuser has too much slop in it (it does have a lock, but is everything still square? and there is slop on in/out). That could be bad for astrophotography. Second, the short focal length means that the field curvature for visual use was extreme. I love wide-field eyepieces, and they were a blur half-way from the center of the field. Nothing wrong with the telescope itself -- just the short focal length (without field flattening). This scope is really meant to be used for photography with a field-flattener. In fact, a used one of those could be a good photography scope for you, provided the focuser didn't pose a problem. For visual use, I wouldn't recommend it (plus it is on the small side for visual -- you can't see enough). I will sell it sometime, as my TeleVue NP127is is my dream scope (along with my 16" Dob).