Meade RCX400 Versus A Real RC (anyone)?

I've looked around the web for a review comparing the Meade RCX400 RC to a real Ritchey Chretien. While it's public knowledge that Meade is in trouble for calling their new RCX400 a Ritchey Chretien I would like to know how it stacks up against someone like RC Optical or similar companies.

Is it really comparable or even superior to the standard RC scopes in optical and CCD performance? Or just a slightly better designed Schmidt-Cassegrain that will fail in comparison to a real RC system..

The following link should just about cover what you need. Mind you that this is from the company that makes RC optic sets and is suing Meade, so interpret this as you will. However, I think their discussion of optical science in this article is sound.

http://www.star-instruments.com/comparisions.html

-Josh

It's probably better to talk about what the RCX does better than the other SCTs, which it resembles much more than the R-Cs. It's got a faster f/ratio, a lot of cool doo-dads (which I hope Meade is now committed to gettin' working), and a very good field edge. The gurus may tell you that this aplantic SCT doesn't deliver images that are quite as sharp at the field center as a standard SCT, but the fact is that stars are tighter at the edge and that the field looks better to the eye and the camera.

What would convince me to buy one? Other than getting the bugs out, offer the f/8 RCX as an OTA only.

I have tested the 10"LX200R version of Meade's new "RC" line of SCTs. I woudl not say that it was fully comparable with an RC. It has sphero-chromatism (over and undercorrection at blue-violet and red wavelengths). This defect is approximately twice what you would see in a standard SCT, so for visual and planetary use it is not as good. Bu then neither is an RC particularly good for planetary work. Visually a well made Mak-Cass will walk all over the both of them, as will a Newt with a good mirror.

The Meade design has outstanding field characteristics. The stars are free of coma and astigmatism, so in that regard it is a step ahead of a true RC. It has field curvature (field is not flat) but then so does any RC without a field flattener.

Can you take good astrophotos with this scope? Yes indeed you can. Take a look at the attached M33 image, which I took with the 10" LX200R at F7.5 and an SBIG ST10XE using the AP .75x telecompressor. The scope was mounted on a Mach1 mount. Exposure was limited to about 30 minutes, taken in severe light polluted conditions here at my observatory in the city.

The advantage of this LX200R is that you can mount it on any good GEM and be imaging without having spent a whole lot of money. You can have a first class astrographic outfit of serious aperture for a fraction of what it costs for other types of scopes. Will you have the highest resolution possible for any given aperture? Probably not. Can you do better imaging with other types of scopes? Yes, but it will cost ya.

Rolando

Attached Image: