Nexstar GPS or LX200 GPS

I'm looking into the 8" versions of the Nexstar GPS and LX200 GPS. Is one of these scopes more capable than the other in goto and tracking accuracy, mount stability, optics, features, etc...? Which would you recomend? I would like to try astrophotography with the new scope, but it is not a priority. The vast majority of use will be visual. Thanks for the help!!!

I've owned the Nexstar 11GPS and then the Nexstar 8GPS and now the Nexstar 9.25GPS. I traded the first two for more expensive scopes and received the 9.25 from someone locally who wanted my TV85 more than the unused 9.25. I've also owned other Celestron and Meade products. I agree with the poster who said it's like Ford and Chevy. If you are a Meade guy, you will probably prefer Meades, if like me, you are a Celestron guy, you will prefer Celestrons. That said, all my Nexstars have worked great, are very user friendly with a minimum learning curve and have all had very good optics. Celestron does not have the quality of Takahashi, the optics of Carl Zambuto or the service of Rick Singmaster (Starmaster) but they are pretty darned good. The Nexstar GPSs are really fun to use and my Nexstars are always a hit at public observing sessions.

Best wishes with your selection. You will probably be happy either way.

Randy--Ok,the truth. Get the Nexstar 8GPS. It is so darned cool!!!

With its carbon fiber optical tube, the Celestron is about 15 pounds lighter than the Meade, which you may want to consider, especially if you'll be moving the scope in and out of a garage.

One thing no one has mentioned yet is that the Celestron is much quieter than the Meade when slewing. All other things being pretty much equal, this issue was important enough to me that it would have been the deciding factor.

Mark Salvetti

WOW! I decided to check back in on my post, thinking that it had probably run its course, and find soooo many more helpful comments! Thanks, all of you!!!

I have one more question, which is not of any real importance, but more of a curiousity. It's my understanding that a carbon fiber tube is not going to have the expansion and contraction characteristic that aluminum tubes have, thus making the need for less focusing corrections( I read that somewhere, but can't seem to find where I read it at.) My question is how does it affect cool down times? I've had some experience building aluminum block race engines and am fully aware of how quickly this material transfers heat, expands and contracts, and cools down compared to other metals. But, I have absolutely zero experience with carbon fiber other than with the rotor blades on my RC helicopters, and they seem to hold daytime temperatures pretty well. I'm wondering if the use of carbon fiber will cause longer cool down times in exchange for what may be more precise alignment due to less expansion and contraction? I know an aluminum OTA is not going to expand as much as an aluminum 765 cubic inch race engine( I have actually seen this block grow a full 1/2 inch from start up to operating temp!), but am interested in how it affect the alignment of the scope, and, is this part of the balancing act during cool down between thermal activity and mechanical expansion/ contraction? Like I said, it's of no importance to my decision, but I am curious.