Meade R8 Lx70 - 8 Reflector on Lx70 Equatorial Mount Review
#1 
Posted 21 September 2016 - 09:23 AM
I notice that everywhere has them on sale at $529.00, and is started to give me G.A.S.
A Newt on a GEM is something that really appeals to me, and at this cost, it'southward quite tempting. That said, I've been so involved with my LT-viii that I haven't scoped out the other stuff out there (Pun intended!)
I go that the GEM is rated for 20 pounds- and that's what the OTA weighs, and so there'south not a lot of room for growth, there, just it's i of those scopes that's just whispering to me.
Which - in the worlds of guns and keyboards - has cost me a LOT of coin over the years, and then I thought I try to reign in my sloppy impulse command and ask first! 
Thanks,
..Joe
#2
Posted 22 September 2016 - 04:fifteen AM
To my middle, the mountain looks to be a CG-four course rather than CG-5 class mount. Looking at the tripod, they appear identical. I believe there is speculation that these are actually manufactured by Synta. I had an 8 inch F/5 on a CG-5 ASGT that I used for several years. A CG-4 grade mount, it'south not enough to handle the scope.
What is about a Newt on a GEM that you notice appealing? Is information technology the awkward viewing positions? Or maybe the need to fabricate rotating rings so that you tin can actually view through the eyepiece?
Jon
#3
Posted 22 September 2016 - 05:nineteen AM
#iv
Posted 22 September 2016 - 08:38 AM
What is about a Newt on a Gem that you find highly-seasoned?
A lite bucket that tin handle DSO AP if it needs without spending thousands, and ease of tracking when using it for visual. I also have an LT-8 SCT for casual observing.
Not expert if y'all ask me.
Is this based on any bodily evidence?
Thanks to the both of you.
..Joe
#5
Posted 22 September 2016 - 01:38 PM
Well, you'll observe plenty of reviews on this GSO 8" F5 Newtonian sold every bit GSO, Orion SkyView Pro eight, SkyWatcher, LX70 and AVX 8 Newt.
The mount is a Synta sourced unit of measurement that Celestron sold for a decade and a half as the CG-five. Haven't seen one, but I assume it's the aforementioned build as the Avant-garde Serial without the Nexstar organisation.
I had a GSO six" f/5 (a/k/a StarBlast) for a while and enjoyed it a lot. I remember the 8" would exist a great scope and is well mated with the CG-five, err, LX70 for visual and light AP. Put a RA drive on it, go a webcam and have some inexpensive fun.
Aside from different colors, the same OTA.
https://goo.gl/photo...NXHmgTwjSa4S1Y7
Edited by Geo., 23 September 2016 - 09:06 AM.
#6
Posted 22 September 2016 - 01:50 PM
The lx70 is virtually the same as the lxd75 Meade mountain without the go-to capability. This is a cg5 class mountain. My lxd75 has 2" diameter legs. The lx70 may accept the same or 1.75". I don't know for sure. Information technology should be fine for a visual mountain and the 8" f/5 is pretty meaty in length compared to my ar5 refractor. A rotating Wilcox ring tin be hands made with a strip of vinyl and a plumbing strap clench. Very cheap and works well; I have been using them for years. At the lowest leg setting the lx70 sits some inches higher that the older lxd75, however. Shouldn't be a problem though.
#vii
Posted 22 September 2016 - 01:57 PM
The mountain is a Synta sourced unit of measurement that Celestron sold for a decade and a half as the CG-5. Haven't seen ane, but I assume it'southward the same build as the Avant-garde Series without the Nexstar system.
I have to disagree.
Look at the 60-70 tripod, in item the way the legs are attached, and y'all will see it'southward the CG-4, non the CG-v. You tin can also see that the tripod is beefier. With these scopes, the tripod is of import in the stability.
As far as feel: This is my experience with a Synta 8 inch F/5 Newtonian on a CG-5 ASGT, I wouldn't want annihilation less.
I should add the difference is stiffness betwixt a tripod with 1.75 inch legs is and 2 inch legs is significant, somewhere betwixt 50% and 70% only due to the stiffness of the legs.
Jon
#8
Posted 22 September 2016 - 02:17 PM
CG5 clone type mount head with CG4 clone blazon tripod. Just depended on what the manufacturer (Meade in this case) specked out to Synta for a build sheet. Manifestly the CG4 type tripod was used to reduce cost. The CG4 and CG5 type tripods have the same superlative mount reliefs then are interchangeable.
JJ
#ix
Posted 22 September 2016 - 03:09 PM
What is about a Newt on a GEM that you lot find appealing? Is it the bad-mannered viewing positions? Or mayhap the need to fabricate rotating rings so that yous can actually view through the eyepiece?
Jon
While certainly this is probably the only setback to a Newt on a Jewel, it tin can be dealt with by rotating rings. Although rotating rings with a GoTo mount tin cause bug with cone error, thus reducing GoTo accuracy when not in the exact position that the optical tube was aligned with. The benefits of larger aperture than nearly tin can beget in a refractor, and tracking capability are indeed pluses.
JJ
#10
Posted 22 September 2016 - 03:56 PM
CG5 clone blazon mount caput with CG4 clone type tripod. Just depended on what the manufacturer (Meade in this case) specked out to Synta for a build sheet. Obviously the CG4 type tripod was used to reduce cost. The CG4 and CG5 type tripods take the same peak mountain reliefs so are interchangeable.JJ
Looking at the photos, it looks like a CG-four tripod with a CG-4 mount. In any event, in supporting a telescopic like this the stiffness of the tripod is disquisitional.
While certainly this is probably the just setback to a Newt on a GEM, it can be dealt with past rotating rings. Although rotating rings with a GoTo mount tin can cause problems with cone error, thus reducing GoTo accuracy when not in the exact position that the optical tube was aligned with. The benefits of larger aperture than most can beget in a refractor, and tracking capability are indeed pluses.
Having owned a number of Gem mounted Newtonians, I would say that there are a variety of problems. The eyepiece position can be partically rectified with rotating rings. Just there are still bug, 1 is continually dodging the counterweights and tripod legs. The stability of the mount, the freedom from vibration are important factors, cantilevering a relatively large scope off a tripod is a challenge, that's what they did in the onetime days, with the advent of the Dobsonian, larger discontinuity Newtonians became much more pop. Dobsonians are like shooting fish in a barrel telescopic, GEM mounted Newtonians are not.
Tracking, there are other solutions to motorized tracking for Newtonians, Equatorial platforms which allow one to runway with a diverseness of scopes while maintaining the simplicity and stability of a Dobsonian, GOTO of course.
My ain experience is that on the right mount, an 8 inch F/v is the nigh the largest viable GEM mounted Newtonian. I think an eight inch Dob is more than practical, easier to ready upwards, more stable, only on the correct mount, an viii inch F/five is a reasonable visual musical instrument. Beyond that, the mounting requirements abound exponentially, the eyepiece top and position become more awkward.. Back when Precious stone mounted Newtonians were the standard, a 10 or 12.5 inch was an observatory instrument, a standard visual Newtonian was a half-dozen inch F/8, the classic was the Criterion RV-6. The tube weighed 8 lbs, the pier mount avoidied issues with the tripod, and information technology was pretty darn good telescopic.
My recommendation to anyone interested in a larger Newtonian on a GEM, discover a fashion to use one out in the field, use it, observe through information technology, run across how you like the experience. No need spend money to go back in history and discover only why they call information technology the Dobsonian revolution..
Jon
#11
Posted 22 September 2016 - 04:58 PM
CG5 clone blazon mount head with CG4 clone type tripod. Just depended on what the manufacturer (Meade in this case) specked out to Synta for a build sheet. Obviously the CG4 type tripod was used to reduce cost. The CG4 and CG5 type tripods accept the aforementioned top mount reliefs then are interchangeable.JJ
Looking at the photos, information technology looks like a CG-4 tripod with a CG-four mount. In any event, in supporting a scope similar this the stiffness of the tripod is critical.
While certainly this is probably the just setback to a Newt on a Jewel, it can exist dealt with by rotating rings. Although rotating rings with a GoTo mount can crusade problems with cone mistake, thus reducing GoTo accurateness when non in the verbal position that the optical tube was aligned with. The benefits of larger aperture than most tin can afford in a refractor, and tracking capability are indeed pluses.
Having endemic a number of GEM mounted Newtonians, I would say that there are a multifariousness of issues. The eyepiece position can be partically rectified with rotating rings. But in that location are still issues, 1 is continually dodging the counterweights and tripod legs. The stability of the mount, the freedom from vibration are important factors, cantilevering a relatively big scope off a tripod is a claiming, that's what they did in the old days, with the advent of the Dobsonian, larger aperture Newtonians became much more popular. Dobsonians are like shooting fish in a barrel telescopic, Gem mounted Newtonians are not.
Tracking, there are other solutions to motorized tracking for Newtonians, Equatorial platforms which allow i to track with a multifariousness of scopes while maintaining the simplicity and stability of a Dobsonian, GOTO of form.
My own experience is that on the right mount, an 8 inch F/5 is the about the largest viable GEM mounted Newtonian. I retrieve an eight inch Dob is more than applied, easier to prepare up, more than stable, but on the right mount, an 8 inch F/5 is a reasonable visual instrument. Beyond that, the mounting requirements grow exponentially, the eyepiece meridian and position get more awkward.. Back when GEM mounted Newtonians were the standard, a 10 or 12.5 inch was an observatory instrument, a standard visual Newtonian was a 6 inch F/8, the classic was the Benchmark RV-6. The tube weighed 8 lbs, the pier mount avoidied bug with the tripod, and it was pretty darn good telescopic.
My recommendation to anyone interested in a larger Newtonian on a Gem, find a way to use i out in the field, utilize it, find through it, meet how you lot like the experience. No need spend money to go back in history and detect merely why they telephone call it the Dobsonian revolution..
Jon
Whatever.
JJ
#12
Posted 22 September 2016 - 05:36 PM
Have you fifty-fifty looked at the mountain head besides the colour? Yeah, the tripod is a CG4 grade. The mount head is identical to the not-gt CG5.
#thirteen
Posted 22 September 2016 - 07:33 PM
My recommendation to anyone interested in a larger Newtonian on a GEM, detect a style to use ane out in the field, employ it, detect through information technology, come across how yous similar the experience. No need spend money to go back in history and discover just why they call it the Dobsonian revolution..Jon
A Dob is not going to piece of work in my case- I have no fashion to transport information technology, unless I disassemble the base every fourth dimension. One of the reasons I Exercise like a GEM is because the tripod/caput folds and tin get in the trunk, with the OTA on the rear seat.
Distressing- should have mentioned that.
But that said, I exercise believe that this is going to exist under-mounted, which seems to be the elephant in the room with most scopes today. It appears that the tripod is the first place they cut down to keep costs competitive.
That's okay- at that place'southward two other scopes I'thou looking at and both of them would be less than this: the Virtuoso 90mm Mak and the AWB Onesky Dob. (Which IS small plenty for my car.) I lose the bigger light bucket, but I all the same get an imager, and the Onesky, well, only because everyone should down one!
..Joe
#14
Posted 22 September 2016 - ten:09 PM
Not to pile information technology on but this is definitely an GP/EQ5 class mount with the smaller steel tripod.
#15
Posted 23 September 2016 - 08:55 AM
Upper photo early CG-5 Great Polaris clone, lower, Smashing Polaris DX clone: http://www.astronomy...v/old_new.shtml
CG-4: https://s3-us-west-2...6348723_614.jpg
The features that distinguish the two mounts are the CG-v's overall beefiness, specially in the area of the latitude axis. As well note the ribbing on the December housing of the five that is absent from the 4.
As for the LXD75, it was made by Jinghua, which sold information technology in the USA for a while through Explorer Scientific as the Bresser EXOS-ane EQ Mount. http://www.telescope...964000-yard.png
It appears to have been pulled in favor of the EQ-3/CG-4 like Bresser EXOS-two and the ES / LOSMANDY G-11.
Heres' the LXD-75: http://www.cloudynig...-1428850550.jpg
#16
Posted 24 September 2016 - 08:05 PM
A Dob base of operations that disassembles is achievable. Commercial dob bases are generally larger than they need to be.. Truss dob make transportation doable.. My 12.5 inch has a 19" x 20" footprint and is 28 inches alpine when nested, it takes up almost the seating space of one passenger.
But truss Dobs are more costly and modest ones are rare...
Jon
Source: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/550987-whats-the-concensus-on-the-meade-lx70-r8-newt-and-gem/
0 Response to "Meade R8 Lx70 - 8 Reflector on Lx70 Equatorial Mount Review"
Post a Comment