review wanted: celestron vs mead

[catweazel]

hello
i'm after a large cat
has anyone any experiance with both a Celestron C11 and a mead 10-12" goto ?
i've read lots of review on each, but no direct comparisons between the 2.
primary use will be visual (may look at photography in the future), looking at galaxies, planets and nebulae.

I'm a beginner, but want to start with something respectable and fairly easy to setup.

thanks

[blink138]

i think they are much of a muchness, i personally have a c11, but it is not that comfortable being taken in and out, a bit of a drag really!
if portability is a high priority then the 8 inch of either model will be much easier
you can get both either fork mounted (great for visual) or on a GEM (german equatorial mount) which is a great visual and astro photo platform
pat

[Merlin66]

I've been using the 10" and 12" Lx200 on a wedge for years.
De-forking the 10" and using on the NEQ6 was great.
Unfortunately this is almost impossible with the 12" - far to heavy!
I recently got a C11 (to fit the NEQ6 mount) and I'm very impressed with it. Far lighter OTA and excellent optics.
IMHO I'd go with a C11.

[Poita]

I can't comment on the Goto, but I have a Meade 10" ACF that I am currently selling, and have had it side by side with a standard C11 (not the edge HD) and everyone on the night preferred the view through the 10".
But it is hard to say, mine may have been collimated better, or reached temp earlier or many other factors could have been at play. The Coma Free optics do work as advertised though.

The 10" Meade weighs about the same as the C11 though, so they are both heavy at around 12KG, the ACF optics really did seem a step up from the standard SCT, plus the mirror lock is great for imaging.

I wil be able to compare a Celestron 9.25HD to the Meade within a week or so, weather permitting, as I will have both in house.
I'm only selling the Meade as I am wanting to do some Hyperstar imaging and that isn't available for my 10", otherwise it would have stayed with me.

[Allan_L]

I had a Celestron CPC1100 for three years and my viewing mate had a Meade 10" (not sure what flavour).

Everyone who saw both (I believe) thatoght the optics on ths Celestron were superior.
I think the Meade weighs a little more, but they are both a bit hefty.
Having said that I found the Celestron very quick and easy to set up (and I am sure the Meade was just as easy, if a little heavier).
However, the 12inch Meade is getting a little too heavy for one person.

If you want to add a wedge, thats a different story.
I was warned off doing that so I never tried, but I hear it is difficult.

The Celestron had very good mirror stability, in that moving the focuser did not move the image out of centre FOV. I understand this is not the case with Meade. And what I have seen confirms this. So much so that they need a "mirror lock" to avoid mirror flop, which is something I never experienced with the CPC1100 (even under high magnification).

One area the Meade does shine in (IMHO) is in the Hand Controller and Menu system. I found the Celestron menu system a little cumbersome and not as easy to navigate as the Meade. But you get used to it.

My money is on the Celestron.
(But maybe I was just lucky)

[catweazel]

Thanks for the input guys.

gives me some more to think about :)

[Poita]

The only times I've seen the Meade SCTs suffer badly from mirror flop is when the grease hasn't been applied correctly, it is a pretty quick and easy fix, the Celestrons sometimes have the same issue, and the fix is the same.

[marki]

I have had my Meade LX200R 10" (ACF optics) setup next to a 11" Celestron and the meade optics were far better on my example. We swapped between 10, 13 and 17mm ethos ep's and the Meade delivered round stars to the edge with better contrast bringing out fainter detail. Not so with the Celestron SCT which showed visable coma from about 2/3rds the way out. You need to be aware that these scopes can vary widely in optical quality from one example to another due to a close enough is good enough culture that seems to prevail at both factories. I always keep mine very well collimated and the optics clean. I have found the mirror lock to be unnecessary for most applications only needing to be used for AP and image shift is a non event in general. I have replaced the original focusing setup with a feather touch micro focuser and this helps in removing mirror flop which can be dialed out using the original setup but the focusing action becomes very heavy. I also have a Moonlite crayford attached which I use for AP only. As stated the meade scopes are much heavier then the Celestron and although its easy to mount Alt/Az, it is not possible for a single person to mount the 10" on a wedge let alone a 12" or bigger. The problem with these scopes (forks) is that they are a pain to move and setup due to weight and tend not to get used as much as they should because of it. If you are buying from scratch consider either the Meade 10" OTA on a EQ6 or a 11" HD Celestron tube on one of their EQ mounts as you will be able to setup with much less pain. If you go Celestron be prepared to pay big bucks when buying new from the Oz supplier.

Mark

[Poita]

I find the 10" ACF pretty easy to lift on and off the EQ6, I agree they are a good combination.

My experience with the Meade 10" ACF side by side with the C11 is pretty much the same as yours.

These days I wouldn't bother with a Non ACF meade or Non HD Celestron, especially as the Meade is really affordable in the 10".

[casstony]

I thought I'd drop the C11 sooner or later, holding it in one arm to open doors or tripping over the dog, so I recycled an old booster seat to provide luxury transport - quick and easy to wheel out to the mount. I don't use the lower strap or foam anymore.

[casstony]

If you're going to observe with others a 10" dobsonian will show you just as much as a 10" fork mount Meade and be much easier to set up and move. The lack of goto wouldn't be missed if other observers are there to help with finding objects.

If your heart is set on a schmidt cassegrain, take the 12" off the list - too heavy. If you're fit and strong the fork mount C11 is an easy scope to use (optical tube and fork weigh ~65 pounds). Next choice would be the Meade 10"LX90 at about 50 pounds for the fork and optical tube.

The Meade and Celestron goto systems are both easy to use. The Meade acf optics show much nicer stars towards the edge of the field of view but the image in the middle of the field of view is the same. I'd go with the largest aperture (widest scope) that you are comfortable carrying. I wouldn't recommend a goto equatorial mount for a beginner.