Meade UHTC vs Aperture

Looking for some advice here...
It seems that a Meade Classic LX-200 sells (used) for about the same as the next size smaller LX-200 with UHTC.
For example, a 10" LX-200GPS with UHTC is about the same price as a 12" Classic LX-200.
So, which is shows a better, brighter image for the buck?
If someone has some first hand observing comparisons to share, that would be great!
Thanks
Trevor

1. No coating could ever make up a 2" aperture handicap.

2. No coating can ever "enhance" planetary contrast unless the inferior coating is old, worn and full of sleeks and scratches. A multilayer AR coating may have minor ability to enhance visual deep sky contrast under certain situations where there is a lot of local light pollution. At a dark sky site it will have no effect on deep sky contrast. For imaging, a multi-layer AR caoting may reduce or eliminate ghost images from bright stars in the field.

3. No coating will ever provide a "better" image, since this is strictly a function of how well the optics are made. However, a good mirror coating will not detract from the image, whereas an old worn coating with sleeks, scratches and pinholes will degrade the image. Two new mirror coatings, one enhanced and the other not enhanced, will look the same to you visually.

Rolando

Is the coating the only difference? Is the UHTC GPS equipped? Does it come with the microfocuser?

Alex

When Meade first came out with UHTC there was a lot of discussion about how well it improved performance. It was generally agreed that it made virtually no difference for purely visual observation and only a minor difference for astrophotography. You may want to check the Astromart forums. I think there was also a S&T review that pretty much came to the same conclusion. On the other hand, a 2" increase in optics can make a significant difference.

Thanks all for the input... Than Roland for your expert advice.
My goal is for the best visual telescope I can afford. I'm not too interested in astrophotos yet, the learning curve is a bit too steep.
Thanks Again!
Trevor

The fact that Meade used an oversized mirror made more difference to me than the UHTC. I woild spend my money for more aperture than UHTC if it were me. The condition of the coating is more important than whether or not it has UHTC. UHTC is of more importance photographically than visually, and will NOT increase resolution, which is mainly an aperture function.

To make a BIG difference visually, light gathering needs to double. 20% increase is important in photo speed, but of almost no consequence visually. A jump from 8" to 12" is substantial, but from 10" to 12" not worth your money visually, unless other factors come into play.