I think the answer depends partly upon whether you have the remotest hope of doing photography with anything more than your digital camera, or even photography with the digital camera with exposures of over five or 10 seconds. For 1/4-second snapshots of planets, the LX 90 might be fine. If you were ONLY going to do visual observing, I would recommend the LX-90. However, the LX 200 UHTC will do everything the LX 90 would, but the reverse is not true. If some day you want to do more (film or long-exposure CCD imaging), you'll curse yourself for having "saved" money on the cheaper scope. The LX 200 has better drives and a sturdier fork, and it will carry accessories heavy enough to do anything you'll ever want to do. The LX 90 is at best barely good enough to do long-exposure photography. (Remember, photographs of more than a few second REQUIRE an equatorial wedge at an additional cost, even with your digital camera.)
DanielDGJ
Regarding UTHC, in the city it won't do much. In truly dark skies it will give you, in effect, a scope with about 10% greater aperture, i.e. it gives you the light grasp of a slightly larger scope, enabling you to glimpse a few "faint fuzzy objects" that you couldn't otherwise see. Since seeing those faint objects is the very reason for going to dark skies, it's a good investment. Remember, this scope will be with you for a decade, or even a lifetime. If you hope to do any serious photography during the many years to come (and that will involve a lot more expensive accessories--camera, guide scope, counterweights, ring-rail system to hold the guide scope, illuminated reticle eyepiece, equatorial wedge), then get the LX 200 UHTC. If you're SURE, REALLY REALLY SURE that you'll never do more than take snapshots of the planets and moon, then get the LX 90 UHTC--but be REALLY REALLY sure you'll never be more than a dabbler at photography.
DanielDGJ--Daniel Johnson

• Good Advice - gmitchel - September 23, 2002 - 13:45 UTC