Re: RCX400 review ?


Dennis Woos wrote:
> >There's a fairly in-depth review at <cloudynights.com>.
>
> I don't think it is an awful review, but I wouldn't call it in-depth, at
> least vis-a-vis optical performance. I would want to hear from someone who
> has spent some time doing a side-by-side comparison with a couple of scopes
> of known quality/performance. I mean, it splits Epsilon Lyrae and Polaris?
> So does my Astroscan.
>
> Dennis

HI Dennis:

Frankly, I think the place to get this knowledge is probably not a
review, but a user group. The Yahoo RCX group has been around since
before the scope has been released, and going through its archives and
reading the normal traffic should give you a good read of the optical
quality. My opinion based on talking to folks who've used these scopes
(and that's all it is unless/until Meade ships an RCX my way ;-))?

>>From what I've _heard_... Pretty good, consistent optics within the
limitations of the (non Richey) design Meade chose. Like any SCT, the
RCX can benefit from a field flattener. The f/8 speed is nice. USB is
very nice. Once Meade gets all the bugs out of its focusing/collimation
system, that will be a substantial improvement over cheaper SCTs. The
mounts are more robust than those on the LX200 GPSes, but hardly an
order-of-magnitude improvement.

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm>

Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user>

See: <http://journals.aol.com/rmollise/UncleRodsAstroBlog/>
For Uncle Rod's Astro Blog.

.

Loading