>> Could I draw upon your experience? Do you think this comment should push me against the Meade?
Hi Joe,
The last Meade that I bought was the special edition f/6.3 (native, with no reducer, and f/4 with a reducer) 8" SCT back about the turn of the 21st century. Slightly questionable optics (perhaps it led them to give up on f/6.3), but a real light bucket compared to the smaller refractors that I now favor. (Meade might be the only telescope maker that is traded in the US stock exchanges. :-)
William Optics (Taiwan) have definitely *not* abandoned Petzvals, as seen by their RedCat51. Indeed, their Facebook page has hints of upcoming 71mm and 91mm versions of the RedCat51 design.
I have a slight tilt on my WhiteCat51 (white instead of red, but otherwise identical) but only visible if you really pixel peep with an ASI071 (APS-sized sensor). I think that tilt may be a general problem with the RedCat -- indicated by the now built-in tilt adjuster in their second version of the RedCat, and the fact that they are also now selling the tilt adjuster as a retrofit for the original RedCats (I ordered mine, and should get it at the end of the week). The problem with recommending the RedCat51 is not the performance, but the relative pain to adapt a ZWO EAF, since you are also dead set on getting an ASIAIR. With StellarMate and INDIGO Sky, you could have used depskydad's RedCat auto-focuser, but ZWO is hell bent on not supporting third party devices other than some telescope mounts and some DSLR.
If you have deep enough pockets, and the ability to handle slightly heavier OTAs, take a serious look at the Takahashi FSQ series. The prices are not really atrocious for the quality that you get; the Takahashi Baby Q goes for under $4000 in the US, although with an image circle that is only for APS sensors (so it won't handle your full frame DSLR without serious vignetting), and the weight, although heavier than Borgs, are reasonable for most people (the Baby Q comes in at 8 lbs).
The Baby Q is pretty much 2x in price and weight as the Meade that you are looking at, but also has slightly larger aperture. If the astrophotography bug bites you hard, you will probably be moving to APS or smaller, cooled CMOS or CCD sensors in the future, anyway, so an APS image circle may be good enough.
With my Takahashi EM-11 mount, I had been anally reducing the payload for that mount. But now that I am using the RainbowAstro RST-135 mount, I am myself tempted to get an FSQ scope.
The Takahashi FSQ are definitely Petzvals, and advertised as such (I think the "Q" is their Petzval indicator, but not certain). When combined with their custom reducers, my Borgs also take on a Petzval lens grouping, but are not as adjustment-free as my WhiteCat51, which is pretty much a bolt-on-camera-focus-and-go.
You mentioned that you are just beginning with astrophotography, and who knows how long you might continue -- the hobby takes a lot of patience :-) -- so you may be better off starting with a less expensive set up. I think it is better to get something that is simple to set up so that you won't be frustrated with the hobby and giving it up.
If you buy from Agena Astro, I believe they (a "master optician," they claim) can optically inspect the scope before shipping it to you. Check with one of their sales people. Don't tell them you are a beginner, else they might be sloppy with checking the optics out. Refractors tend to hold collimation well, so once collimated by them, the instrument say collimated.
You can perhaps think of a true Petzval as leaving the collimation and backfocus spacings to the manufacturer, instead of having to do it yourself. But you are also stuck if it came poorly collimated to start with, since it is going to be nearly impossible to do it yourself.
Regards,
Chen
