what is the pro's and cons of having an f/6 lx200 vs. an f/10 lx200. what optically does it do for you and why did they make both scopes? just a novice question I suppose?
F/6 vs. f/10 lx200
Started by drodda777, 01/13/2003 07:31PM
Posted 01/13/2003 07:31PM
Opening Post
Posted 01/13/2003 11:43PM
#1
With the f10 and available reducer correctors, you have the following reduced focal lengths available with small variations..and of course you can easily double your focal length with both scopes by using an appropriate apo barlow.
f10, f6.3, f3.3, f5 (optec)
With the f6.3 scope you have f6.3, f3.9(limited visual), f1.9(photgraphic/ccd only)The f6.3 is optimized for the UW 40 mm lens..which allows one to cover a great swath of sky..
The larger central obstruction of the f6.3 is a non issue photographically(there are astrocameras..i.e.schmidt/slevogt with 50% obstructions)...and probably not an issue visually to a mere mortal. Probably a 3% drop in contrast at most with the f6.3 vs. f10.
The f6.3 has more field curvature, the f10 a flatter field. Some of this field curvature can be corrected for by utilization of the above reducer/correctors.
Because of it's wider field of view and faster exposure speeds then the f10, the f6.3 scope is better suited for deep space objects..large nebula, open clusters..the f10 better suited for planetary viewing.
The f6.3 is probably a better bet if you ever plan on imaging with ccd cameras, it is easier to find and place an object in the field of view and easier to find and keep a guide star located on the very small guiding chips (SBIG) with the f6.3 scope.
Other option, with Celestron is the Hyperstar system, (which is a more usable vesion of the Faststar lens assembly) which allows one to image with Celestrons Faststar compatible SC telescopes at f1.9 also.
Neither system can be used visually at f1.9.
A properly & perfectly collimated f6.3 Meade can be an excellent all around performer. I've used a Celestron 14 @f11 right alongside a Meade f6.3. They compliment each other very well. There are plenty of objects that won't fit into the field of view of an f10 scope without scanning.
The real solution is to have 5-6 telescopes..heh heh.
If your planning on doing ccd work, get the f6.3 model.
f10, f6.3, f3.3, f5 (optec)
With the f6.3 scope you have f6.3, f3.9(limited visual), f1.9(photgraphic/ccd only)The f6.3 is optimized for the UW 40 mm lens..which allows one to cover a great swath of sky..
The larger central obstruction of the f6.3 is a non issue photographically(there are astrocameras..i.e.schmidt/slevogt with 50% obstructions)...and probably not an issue visually to a mere mortal. Probably a 3% drop in contrast at most with the f6.3 vs. f10.
The f6.3 has more field curvature, the f10 a flatter field. Some of this field curvature can be corrected for by utilization of the above reducer/correctors.
Because of it's wider field of view and faster exposure speeds then the f10, the f6.3 scope is better suited for deep space objects..large nebula, open clusters..the f10 better suited for planetary viewing.
The f6.3 is probably a better bet if you ever plan on imaging with ccd cameras, it is easier to find and place an object in the field of view and easier to find and keep a guide star located on the very small guiding chips (SBIG) with the f6.3 scope.
Other option, with Celestron is the Hyperstar system, (which is a more usable vesion of the Faststar lens assembly) which allows one to image with Celestrons Faststar compatible SC telescopes at f1.9 also.
Neither system can be used visually at f1.9.
A properly & perfectly collimated f6.3 Meade can be an excellent all around performer. I've used a Celestron 14 @f11 right alongside a Meade f6.3. They compliment each other very well. There are plenty of objects that won't fit into the field of view of an f10 scope without scanning.
The real solution is to have 5-6 telescopes..heh heh.
If your planning on doing ccd work, get the f6.3 model.
Funding Member
