Up until a few weeks ago I had pretty well decided that next year I was going to grab myself a 12" LX200GPS, and get back into astronomy as past-time. I mainly decided on the lx200 gps for the goto ability, and that it seemed to be the best choice for deep sky and planetary imaging in that price range (not to mention the endless shining reviews and comments I have read). I also saw it as an advanced scope that I could grown into, so to speak, as I developed my knowledge of astronomy. The cost of one in Australia is about $11,000.
I had all but excluded the Takahasi refractor because of their cost, but I've just been advised that the 4" FSQ106UH is the same price as the 12" LX200 GPS. I must say I've been pretty impressed with the images I've seen posted from the 106, but I'm a little confused.
I understood that large apeture was key when doing deep sky images, yet the 4" 106 seems to be able to do high quality deep sky images (this is one example:-
I also see that the images of the lunar surface, in particular, are absolutely crystal clear. Unfortunately I don't think the 106 has goto, so no doubt it would be a far more expensive proposition to get up and running than the 12" LX200.
My question is this. Has anyone who uses a LX200 seen one of these takahasi refractors in action? Can you give me an objective opinion on image quality as opposed to the LX200? I ask this because after seeing the images on a number of websites taken with the 106, I'm seriously thinking about changing my purchasing decision.
I specifically wanted to get the LX200 as a 'jack of all trades' type scope, so I could decide what I wanted to spend more time doing. Invariably, like most newer people, I will concentrate a lot on the moon and major planets first before I try deep sky. I'm just unsure if the 106 will prove as versatile as the LX200 at the end of the day, given its small apeture.
Thanks in advance to anyone who replies.