C9.25 vs GSO RC 8" vs VC200L vs 8" LX200-ACF

[troypiggo]

Interested in gathering some thoughts on the above scopes, primarily for planterary and DSO imaging with DSLR and/or CCD. As a side-comment, also interested in how they'd go for viewing occasionally as well (planetary and DSO).

They all seem to fall within the same ballpark of price. I know their focal lengths differ. I'd be trying to mount them on my HEQ5PRO for the moment with ED80 as a guidescope. Pushing the limits of the mount, I know, but if I can get away with it I will.

Celestron C9.25 - this has consistently been recommended in many reviews as a great imaging scope. 2350mm focal length, with barlow/powermate certainly capable of planetary imaging. f/10 - too dark for observation?

GSO RC 8" - newish on market. Good first impressions, but read that you need to spend a bit more money on it to improve/correct some distortions or optical errors?

VC200L (or is VMC200L better) - heard this one highly recommended as well.

LX200-ACF - read good reviews on these too.

Can I please have your 2 cents' worth? If you have one of them and were faced with the same dilemma, what made you choose X over Y etc? :)

[rat156]

Never used one or even looked through one. But as it's an SCT it will have coma at the edge of field unless a Focal Reducer/Field Flattner is used. Should be great for planetary work (Bigger aperture means shorter exposure time, longer FL for image scale. For DSO's will be difficult to get effective guiding at long FL, even with a FR in the image train. Will need a better mount. Visually f-ratio is less important than aperture.



See ongoing threads on this scope. Seems to be good for DSO's. Visual and planetary may suffer due to large central obstruction and smaller aperture. Only available in 8" ATM. Light, so won't overtax your mount. Focusser needs upgrading, requires FR for flat field, several have been tried, but none are made specifically for this scope.



Flat field is great for DSO's, not seen too much planetary work done with these, again may suffer from larger CO. Very fat spider so large diffraction spikes and square stars if you don't oversample. Reasonably light so mount should be up to it.



Assume you mean the 10"er OTA. Same arguments as for C9.25" regarding f-ratio and FL. Flat field, so FR shouldn't be a FF as well, although in practice the f6.3 has been used. I would reccomend the AP0.75 FR as it's great on my RCX, Optec 0.5 induces coma at edge of field so off-axis or self guided cameras have problems with this FR. Great visual scope.



In general, one scope can't do all of these things, as usual there will have to be a compromise between uses. Pick which one you are going to concentrate on and pick the best scope for that, then put up with the limitations of the other uses.

For planetary, aperture is king, it gives better image scale as it usually comes with longer focal length. Mount is unimportant, you can even use an Alt/Az fork mount. Collimation of the optics is essential.

For DSO's, the optics are relatively unimportant, the mount is King. You need low PE or consistent PE, other than that f-ratio is important if imaging under light polluted skies. Collimation of the optics is essential.

Visually, the optics are important, aperture rules, image scale is defined by your eyepiece, larger aperture allows more magnification. Again mount is not very important, but pointing accuracy and ease of setup become factors.

Hope this helps, of course other may have different opinions.

Cheers
Stuart

[TrevorW]

A number of these types of threads have been run before on varying sites and in all honesty each scope has their good and bad points and in my opinion at our level there is no such thing as the perfect scope.

A lot of buying a scope is reading what others have said about them, what your main interest is and how much money you have.

A lot is also trail and error, you may purchase something and find it doesn't suite you or doesn't live up too your expectations.

Like a car you'll buy it thinking well if I add this and that will it perform better.

As a purchaser of a GSO RC the only issue appears to be the focuser although some say it's ok but others are changing it but this is not an uncommon thing even on the other scopes you have listed.

Cheers

[troypiggo]

Stuart - thanks for the very detailed thoughts. I realise there will be some compromise. I'll have to mull over this some more, and check out some of the other thoughts.



Thanks Trevor. I have done some reading of individual posts about these scopes. That's how I have narrowed things down to this list.

Regarding the focuser on the GSO RC - do you have one in mind? I've been reading about those moonlite focusers being very nice and with focuser replacement being recommended for that scope wondered if they might be a nice solution?

[JohnH]

Re the VC200L I have used this scope and can confirm it is not great for planetary imaging due to the large central obstruction and fat spider- the resultant images lack contrast, it is ok not but not up there with the C9.25 from what I have experianced.

It is F9 which with a DSLR on the back and a guidescope on top is going to be a massive ask of your HEQ5, I think you might be in for a lot of frustration. You will be imaging at 0.75" /pixel meaning you will want your mount to deliver +/- 1.5" accuracy. At the very least you will need the VC200L FR which I have also used, unfortunately I found that reduced the image flatness somewhat and meant focus could never be reached visually (ie it is not compatible with the flip mirror or OAG), still I did get some very good results with this setup on a similarly rated SXW mount so it can work out well. The weakest part of the scope is often reconed to be the focuser (because it is R&P) and lock which can cause image shift if not adjusted correctly. The R&P is actually a very good unit but it is a little coarse making critical focus hard to achieve but here the big spider does you a favour as the diffraction spikes soon let you know quickly if you are not on the sweet spot.

The other unusual features you might hear about is the VISAC design - open tube like the R-C which is good as your primary is unlikely to dew up (but your secondary might is really damp conditions) and the corrector/flattener which is in the focus draw tube meaning you cannot use 3rd party focusers/reducers etc. The mirror has a unique figure and can only be re-finished by Vixen. Collimation is more complex than other SCTs due to the need to align the pimary,seconday and corrector not for the faint hearted. Fortunately it seems pretty much set and forget (that industrial grade spider is doing it's job!)- I never touched mine once the shop got it right for me.

Visually the scope works very well and as an all rounder I think it is a good choice. With with a big flat field for AP I recon it is a winner there but I am pretty sure you will need a bigger mount if you are going to enjoy the imaging...and having said all that I must point out that I have not looked through or imaged with the other scopes on your list.

[troypiggo]

Thanks for the details and experiences with the Vixen, John. It's all good info.

[dpastern]

Troy - my honest thoughts - go with a refractor for planetary imaging, and one of the other OTAs for DSOs.

The Celestron 9.25 has an almost legendary reputation for its optical quality, Meade units less so imho. The Vixen also has a good reputation. The GSO is new on the market - looks promising, but the focuser does look insufficient. I'm not keen on the primary mirrors being glued in place and much prefer the costlier implementation by Deepsky instruments with an electric focuser set up on the secondary mirror.

One other thing - from everything I've read, a 4" refractor will provide better quality planetary images than a 4" reflector etc. The same comment can be applied to any size comparison. Obviously a 10" reflector will show more detail than a 4" refractor due to the larger light gathering abilities of the primary objective/mirror.

I'd go with the Celestron myself - it's a proven optical/quality setup.

I don't expect Meade to last much longer to be honest - I predict that they'll go bust within the next 15-18 months. They are showing all of the warning signs already. Meade optics have a horrid reputation for either being good, or well, bad. And getting Meade to fix the problems is both a timely and costly problem.

Dave

[TrevorW]

Moonlite are apparently already making them and should be advertised on their site in 2 weeks

I've heard Moonlite are VG

Cheers

[troypiggo]

Thanks Dave, but aren't the costs of refractors with the focal lengths and apertures required for planetary pretty scary? Surely something like a reflector/SC/Mak is a much more economical way of achieving aperture and focal length?

[troypiggo]

Thanks Trevor.

[Terry B]

I have a VC200L on an EQ6 with a 127mm refractor as a secondary imager/guide scope. It handles it well. I have a reducer but rarely use it.
Not sure about an HEQ5 though to carry 2 scopes.
f ratio is totally unimportant for visual as you vary the magnification with your eyepiece fl. The only difference is that a longer fl eyepiece will achieve the same mag if the f ration is bigger. 8mm eyepieces seem easier to use than 4mm one etc.
Lots of people comment about the spider but for deep sky it is not noticable at all. For planets the VC200L isn't optimised. It is a very well corrected astrograph with a flat field to the edge of a 35mm film frame.
I can't comment on the SCT scopes except that I someimes use our clubs 14".
It has much better light grab but dew is a real hassle- something that rarely affects the VC200L

[TrevorW]

f ratio is totally unimportant for visual as you vary the magnification with your eyepiece fl. The only difference is that a longer fl eyepiece will achieve the same mag if the f ration is bigger. 8mm eyepieces seem easier to use than 4mm one etc.

Terry not quite correct

the F ratio determines the field of view so a scope with a large f ratio will have a narrower field of view and will be useless for wide field views of star fields although perfect for planetary.

This won't change unless you use a focal reducer.

Cheers

[rat156]

I don't think so Dave (to quote a well known computer).

The speculation about the future of Meade Instruments is largely irrelevant. If it goes belly up, the name (and IP) will be sold to a Chinese (or even Mexican) company in all likelihood. They DO have a good name and DO produce quality products, hence their reputation for optics is at least equal to Celestron, which BTW aren't manufactured in the USA either. So we'll end up with Meade made by GSO, which is pretty much the same as Celestron.

On the comments on the quality of Meade optics, I say show me some proof. I have had two Meade scopes (including the problem child RCX) and have never had a problem with the optical quality. I can't remember seeing too much negative on the forums about optical quality. Support could be better, and may become so once the company goes through renewal. The ACF scopes are generally regarded as one of the best bang-for-buck visual scopes on the market. These aren't SCT's, they are better, don't just take my word for it, ask Theo.

There's only one comparison between a 4" refractor and a 10" reflector, and that's price. In order to get the same light gathering power from a refractor you're up for the price of an RC, not a GSO RC either.

In summary;


Meade optics aren't rubbish, infact they may be superior to the Celestron equivalent.
If you have dewing problems, buy a dewshield! (another thread)
Comparisons between refractors and reflectors for imaging aren't valid, refractors for widefield, reflectors for long FL (unless you have a large bank balance)

Cheers
Stuart

[Alchemy]

vixen vc200l, lightweight probably the lightest of the four (unless the gso offering is light), supposed to have tight flat field, at f9 or thereabouts the DSLR uses will struggle on faint stuff unless they are cooled. not much chop for planetary.... ive had one. and the FR didnt fit even though it had vixen written all over it.

gso rc, new kid on the block, first results from paul heases shot of eta look promising, problem is that a bright object and so far no-one else has really produced the goods that make me say yes ill buy one. time will tell ( but id want the 10 inch) focuser probs easily rectified. same goes for the dslr at f8, i will wait for those that have one and a DSLR to realize this, then there might be a cheap one available.

meade rcx well i leave that to rat he has produced exeptional results with his... but he does use an adaptive optics thingy which helps too. plus FR readily available which helps dslr users

celestron 9.25 proven performer and does a reasonably good job of deep sky AND planetary. again FR available. at the moment this is the one i would choose... but watching closely the RC

Rats comment of widefield... refractor , long focal length some kind of reflector is fair comment.

[PeterM]

Hi Troy,
Thank goodness someone else is sticking up for Meade here. I will follow suit with my experiences. Too many people have based opinions over the years on what they have read - largely service issues - not the 'scopes optics and not always from ownership or use and perhaps they used them not well collimated, I just dunno. I have used Meade SCTs & now "R" telescopes for many years. I have looked at side by side comparisons with other 'scopes and the Meades are always equal/superior to other SCTs. The ACF once setup well (ie good focuser), will outclass its competition completely and the ACF is bang for buck no doubt about it.
So before anyone starts asking for my images to prove it, I will just let it rest on my 2 Supernova discoveries at mag17.5 & 17.6 using a Meade 12inch LX200R (ACF) each with a single 25 second image (sure great camera also in the Starlight Xpress SXVH9). The optics are sharp and that's a proven fact. Meade going bust "soon", hmmm that was supposed to have happened a year ago and then a year before that and ... As far as repairs go you have a couple of the best techs in Australia working at a store in Sydney - they know these inside out, there is little that can go wrong with an OTA - unless you drop it.
It is getting close to Astrofest, if you can wait until then go along and do some comparisons most people are very helpul.
See you at Leyburn again soon.
PeterM.

[TrevorW]

Pete good one, I think Meade, Celestron and the rest all come out of China or Taiwan nowadays so all the lens will be done by machine, some will be good, some will be average the same goes for the GSO RC.

Clive this is a link to Centaurus A taken by me with my RC, this is uncropped

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/attachment_browse.php?a=57379

it's a lot dimmer than Eta amd IMO has potential

Regards

[troypiggo]

Thanks again for your input, all.

I must say that before I posted this thread, I had in my mind that the C9.25 would be a good "all rounder" and probably top of the list, with the Meade being second - based on my criteria.

I have not attempted planetary stuff, obviously, with the gear I have. But I do want to get into it eventually, so the capability of it is important to me. I will always want to do DS stuff - I love nebulae and galaxies.

I'm gonna be up for a mount upgrade, aren't I...

@PeterM - I'm planning on going to Astrofest at least for a couple of days. And Leyburn is definitely on the cards in the next few months, depending on work.

[Paul Haese]

Some interesting comments to be had here. From my perspective.

C9.25 - great planetary scope, crap for DSO imaging. Not a flat field nor coma free. The stars end up being too blobby when using a reducer. Main strength planetary.

GSO RC - DSO imaging telescope only. Not designed for viewing and is likely not to have the goods for planetary. The optical design is just not setup for planetary imaging. Contrast and sharpness is likely an issue.

VC200L - never owned one, but a confirmed performer for DSO imaging. Design does not lend itself to planetary imaging.

Meade ACF - older meade scopes with the exception of the rare f6.3 were utter crap, star were blobby and not good for planetary at all. The ACF version is however very sharp and flat fielded. A DSO performer but I have read that the central cone of light which is important for planetary imaging is not as sharp as the Celestron SCT's. Nearly all the great planetary images come from a Celestron SCT. Lester is the only person I have seen planetary imaging with a Meade LX200 and producing very good results. Must be an aberration. The ACF is king for DSO imaging though. RCX is probably better still.

Refractors for planetary imaging (standard sized models) - not in a million years. These telescopes have no where near the light grasp nor the focal length to gain the same image scale or resolution. Only if you were very rich could you afford a 12 inch apo which would equal a 14 inch SCT. Having said that, refractors are superb for DSO imaging.

So to rap up each design has it strengths and weaknesses. A telescope that will work for you on all levels is just not really possible. If I had to pick out of all of them, I would hedge my bets by going with the ACF. It will be great for DSO and could potentially be very good for small scale planetary imaging (not certain but I have seen some good views of the planets through them). If I were just interested in Planetary and wanted to just dabble with DSO I would go with the C9.25. The other telescopes are just for DSO imaging really. So what do you want to use it for the most? That is what you need to ask yourself.

[rat156]

Shameless plug...

BTW my RCX is for sale...
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=41192
Only so I can buy Theo's bigger one!

/Shameless plug

Stuart

[coldspace]

I will second Pauls comments on the various scopes.

Troy, you need to look through a few more scopes and decide if there is one major area you want to pursue or a couple of different uses.
I will second Peter M's comments in that there is a few of the best scope tech's here in Aust.that know the ACF's inside and out. Meade is a too valuable trade Mark that won't be thrown away if the company sells or winds up. There is soooo much Meade gear out there in this world someone would love to take over with parts and patents.

Alot of the negativity of the service issues came about mostly in the USA where most warranty work had to be sent back direct to Meade which caused alot of back issue problems then it became a bashing company game between what seemed like only a few individuals on the forums. The service with Meade gear here from my experience over the years have been first class. Meade has changed alot in the way they do things in the states and if you follow the forums there they have made big improvements in customer service now there is very little bashing going on.
Alot of people make comments about products that they know nothing about or have never used for along time to make a fair judgement about. So be carefull when reading forums here and overseas about things untill you are sure they are correct. I nearly been caught out sometimes from misinformed comments.

I own a 12 inch 200R ( same as ACF) and let me say when it is colimated properly and cooled for an hr or two the views through it both planetary and DSO are very sharp. I used a nice sharp 5 inch Mak on the planets for awhile which gave almost refractor like views but always ran out of light when the magnification was cranked up where the 12 r never ran out of light on the planets and the image was as sharp as the Mak.
I used this same scope to follow up PeterM's first S/nova discovery at over Mag 17.5 in my light polluted back yard suburban Brisbane with a 28 second intergration using a Mallincam video all this was through thin high level cloud. This scope performs the way it was designed and intended for.

Great alround scope for the $ and with a dew strap no problem ever with dew allnight.

You will never get 1 total alrounder as each scope serves a design requirement but the ACF scopes come close for the money.

I may be taking it out to Leyburn either end of June or July with the Mallincam to put it through its paces in pure dark sky. Talk to PeterM and he will let you know and you are welcome to come to Leyburn and have alook through the scope with eyepieces or with the camera on the monitor.
You will see most of these scopes up at astrofest but if you are like me it took about 6 months to take the plunge and I am very happy with what I got.
Good luck deciding which way to go.

Regards Matt.

[PeterM]

Hi Trevor,
I have no problems whatsoever with any of the scopes noted by Troy, I think all are proving to be wonderful scopes in their own right and Paul sums it up very well (I might agree to disagree on the early Meades). We are fortunate to have such a great variety of equipment available. Pauls comments are absolutely spot in in relation to what you want to use the scope for and I think as many have found through trial and error when it comes to planetary and DSO you will probably end up with several scopes or you will specialise in a particular area. I just take exception to bagging Meade constantly gets for no valid reason. I am very happy with what I have, as I know many many other Meade owners are who don't post. It does the job I have it for exceptionally well. Sure, I am not a planetary imager nor even on the same planet when it comes to the likes of great DSO imagers here on IIS. The GSO RC from what I have seen of Pauls images has absolutely wonderful potential and you may recall that was bagged not long ago on this site. I nearly became a victim of what I read and was almost convinced from that they were crap, then I see Pauls first images and nearly fall of the chair. Can't wait until the Orion ones arrive in Jul/Aug...
PeterM.

[Paul Haese]

Peter, my thoughts towards Meade have changed markedly since I looked through a LX200R that a mate of mine owns. I had a LX200 10" 4 years or so ago and I must have got an average one. At first I thought it was fine but as time went on I discovered it had a few flaws that did not work for me. I noted this same problem in a few others I got to look through. The ACF ones are from what I have seen exceptional.

Certainly a good point about being talked into or out of a any particular telescope. Always go with what you can see, and do plenty of research before you buy. Look for hi res images of any particular telescope. They will give you clues as to waht is gonna work for you.

[troypiggo]

Thanks so much for all these discussions, guys. Great to hear all the different, and similar, experiences.

[dpastern]

Oh well, I must have a good nose for seeing when companies go bust. I've already noted 2 companies that use our ISP as going to go bust several months before they actually had liquidators appointed and told us. I saw the writing on the wall and didn't rely on wishful thinking. Sure, the Meade trademark will be sold, as well as IP etc, that happens when any business selling products goes bust. It's a way of getting money to pay your major creditors.

I've heard enough horror stories about Meade optical quality and service to know well enough to stay away.

My comments about refractors weren't trying to say that a 4" refractor is better than a 10" reflector, etc. Re-read my original post. Per inch, refractors are better quality instruments optically - generally flatter fields, better contrast, etc. Obviously, large aperture refractors are outrageously expensive and beyond the ability of mere mortals to own.

A larger f ratio will always give higher magnifications, and that is handy when imaging planets I suspect ;-) Of course, said images will be fainter. Since a lot of better quality astrographs seem to be trying to get f6 etc, they're more suited to wide area DSOs imho, than imaging objects that require high magnification. There's no reasons why refractors cannot image just as good as RCs etc, the main problem will be that subs need to be longer due to less light gathering ability. Optical issues might be very much different ;-)

Out of the scopes that you've mentioned, I'd be inclined to go with the Vixen, although I haven't used it. Followed by the Celestron. I'm surprised at Pauls' negative comment about the c9.25, since I'm yet to see a bad review of one of these in a fair bit of reading over the years. I've seen far more negative stories/reviews of Meade gear than Celestron gear, considerably more and that is why I have placed Celestron above Meade.

I guess each to their own. I know several amateurs who've been around for a while who have privately warned me to stay away from Meade for exactly the same reasons as I've read, and they've previously owned Meade gear I might add. *shrugs*, it's your money Troy, do as you please with it (well, as s.w.m.b.o lets you do).

Dave

[5ash]

I have owned a meade lx90 for 5 yrs now and cant fault it , however i have noted over the years that far more astropics found in the popular astronomy magazines seem to be taken through celestron telescopes rather than meade telescopes.
philip :shrug:

[rat156]

Still yet to find the hordes of people complaining about meade optics...

Since the invention of the internet I have found that if people are sold something that's bad, they post about it (usually loudly), rather than mention it quietly.

I'm not questioning your information, I'd just like to read about it, so we can present a balanced argument...

Cheers
Stuart

[rat156]

Even more are taken with RCOS, don't mention APOD and SBig as well...

Cheers
Stuart

[marki]

Dave I currently own 3 meade scopes of which all have excellent optics (even the chinese made refractor). In my experience meade tubes are very good value for money and the R/ACF series deliver a flat field which the SCT scopes do not. I cannot comment on the quality of the celestron scopes simply because I have never looked through one. I can however comment on the meade QC on their fork mount production, in fact I could write a book on the blue printing I have completed on both my ETX and LX200 to get them to where they should have been in the first place. I have also had no problem with after sales support as both Bintel and Astro Optical have been fantastic when a fault has occurred. I have noticed that the US people on a certain site have lots to say about this but they are trying to deal with meade directly. You cannot do this in OZ, you must go through the retailer. In any case it has never taken more than 2 days to recieve parts needed to fix the problem which I might add have been very rare in the past 5 or so years.

Peter, as for us Meade owners staying quiet, I guess we are just so used to reading all the meade bashing that goes on that we just switch off. Some of it I can relate to whilst a large amount is either hearsay or just someone venting because they don't have the necessary skill to set the thing up properly. I would happily have anyone look through my scopes and critque the quality of the optics. They are not perfect but their not half bad either.

Trevor, meade have setup in Mexico. Some of their products e.g ETX fork mounts have been made there for some time although they claimed all the optics came out of the US. I think only the lightbridge and refractors are made in Asia.

Mark

[RobF]

I guess I'm biased, but......

- It sounds like you need a scope design that many of the top planetary imagers here use (albeit BIG ones)
- A scope that can be easily modified to give a relatively flat coma free field (with corrector)
- A scope with big enough aperture to allow observing and imaging of DSOs without oversized central obstruction
- A scope that isn't too heavy for a HEQ5Pro
- A scope that's great value for money

I'm just saying why leave out the humble 8" Newt from the equation? I don't have any experience with 10" ers - probably going to need EQ6 with an additional ED80 hanging off the side.

Portability, size for transport and ease of transport I suspect are key requirements as well as optical performance from the scopes you have described.

Might be worth looking over some of the work Eric Lo has done with reflectors (Ezystyles on IIS).
http://www.ezystyles.com.au/

[marki]

They are big, ungainly, need a ladder to get to the focuser when on an EQ mount (OK my legs are too short on one side:D) and the very thing you have listed as an advantage (small central obstruction) limits the size of chip that can be fully illuminated. Thats why RC's have such a large central obstruction. Its all about getting a large flat well illuminated imaging field at the cost of contrast. Also with all that tube sticking out at both ends you will test the resolve of any mount when it comes to damping vibration. I know people do it and very well I might add but there must be an easier way.

Mark

[Alchemy]

just quickly whipped up some pics from each scope in question

pic 1 by terry B vixen 200

pic 2 by tamtarn celestron 9.25

pic 3 by Rat meade 10 rcx (note 10 inch not 8)

pic 4 by paul GSO RC 8

hope they dont mind, they are all good pics , you can find the original thread by doing a search of threads started by these people.

[troypiggo]

@RobF - I meant to mention earlier about Newts and why they weren't in the original list. Peter (peter_4059) has many times recommended these to me, and I'm not disregarding them or his advice. I just wanted to stack up the 4 mentioned here against one another.

This would be a boring thread if everyone agreed on the same scope, wouldn't it. :)

[Satchmo]

An 8" or 10" fast Newt with a coma corrector on an Eq6 is an excellent choice for CCD astro-photography. It is unlikely even a 8" Cass would be satisfcatory on an Eq5. You can use a 2" Barlow for F7 to F9 ratio.

[rat156]

Please note that mine's a 10" RCX, which is f/8. The focal length is equivalent to an 8" f/10 LX200ACF type scope, but of course the light gathering power is greater.

I've also attached a Jupiter pic I took last year, during the one moment of good seeing I got, taken @ f/24. Also added an M104 pic and an Eta Carina Nebula pic taken at f/8.

Cheers
Stuart

[dpastern]

I never meant to say Meade wasn't good value for money, or innovative for that matter. Anyways, I've said my peace, don't have much more to say, so I'll keep quiet for now.

Dave

[rat156]

Yep, sure would be, but this shows that each type of scope has its strengths and weaknesses. There is a lot of "horses for courses" in this hobby.

The only thing that should be attenuated is the Meade bashing, because that just leads to a contradictory argument, which is not constructive in this case.

Oh, it also shows it's cloudy...

Cheers
Stuart

[Satchmo]

One advantage of the Meade ACF `RC's' is the shorter tube as the primary mirrors are around F1.8 to F2 compared to a traditional RC more like F3 to F3.2.

Mark

[rat156]

No, you just questioned the quality of their optics, then showed no proof by way of written words to back this opinion up. I don't want you to shut up, but show us the reviews etc, so we can at least read the points they've made and make a balanced judgement.

I'm not going to say that Meade always make good optics. I'm pretty sure that they don't, and over the last couple of years the QC at Irvine has been pretty much non-existent, so it wouldn't surprise me to find out that a couple of duds got out. But I'm sure there's other brands where things get pear shaped every now and then.

Cheers
Stuart

[dpastern]

Stuart - Google is your friend. Use it. You'll find lots of complaints about Meade optics and quality of service.

True, you'll probably find complaints about other manufacturers as well. It seems that Meade users are a bit like Apple users - they just can't seem to like criticism of their iconic brand.

Anyways, that's it for me.

Dave

[Alchemy]

looks like its a planetary scope as well as a deep sky instrument.

[rat156]

I did use google, looked for "Meade poor optics", Several pages of stuff, none until the bottom of the sixth page actually mentioned poor scope optics, infact many of them were lauding the R scope optics. Some were complaining about mechanical issues with the mount (fork), but you specifically mentioned the optics were rubbish. Any mount problems are a mute point in this discussion as the question was about the OTA. Again I ask you to post some links to the (numerous) complaints about Meade's optics. Quality of service is a completely different issue, but in Aus we have some of the best techs in the world, others have already covered this aspect.



Probably would find complaints about other manufacturers, but didn't go looking. Meade users, like Apple users (yep I'm one of those as well), and Alfa Romeo owners (four of them...) don't like UNFOUNDED critisism of the products. I'll happily watch Jeremy Clarkson slam old Alfas because of the poor electrics, usually noting that I have had similar problems, and yes Toyotas and BMWs usually don't suffer from similar problems, but then he usually goes on to say why he'd still buy one and I understand that as well. Same goes for Macs and Meades, if there's something wrong with them I'll acknowledge that, but when people just say "Macs are toys" or "Meade's optics are rubbish" as a blanket statement I'll get on my high horse and ask for proof of the statement, is this unfair? Am I getting my knickers in a twist? I think not. So I'll continue to stick up for the brand, but will always admit if there's something wrong with the scope/computer/car, there's no point in deluding yourself.

Cheers
Stuart

[TrevorW]

Ok people read this about Meade very interesting

http://www.meade.com/nasdaq/pdf/2008_10k.pdf

Cheers

[rat156]

Sevety four pages Trevor, is there a summary?

From my brief readings it sounds like Meade have paid off their debts and have $9M in the bank, but are operating at a $17M/annum loss.

Hardly GM, why doesn't Obama bail them out?

Cheers
Stuart

[coldspace]

Very nice images there Stuart.
I rather like the Jupiter shot.
I can't wait to finish my observatory so I can get my LX200R 12 out more often.
Back on service in Australia,
My Meade diagonal had a very slight rattle in the mirror in it after it was about 14 months old after I had been lugging it around the SEQ and my back yard many times so it probally just got knocked or something,
I packed it in a box sent it down to Michael and Don in sydney Bintel via post and 2 days later it arrived fixed with new ring around the tube free of charge even though it was out of warranty, they even covered the $20 express post cost. Thumbs up to top notch service.

But they are smart, because I am about to spend another 5K with them now I am about to start my observatory.

Regards Matt.

[Nifty]

Hello all
One question
Is Meade the Microsoft of astronomy?
I intend to by a LX200 OTA anyway and mount it on my EQ6 PRO

Cheers
Nev

[troypiggo]

No.

[rat156]

No their CEO isn't a multi-billionaire!

There are some parallels though...

Cheers
Stuart

[rat156]

Yeah Matt, an observatory should be second on anyones astronomy list.

First you need a scope or maybe bino's.

Next on the list for scope owners should be a permanent setup if possible.

Cheers
Stuart

[Paul Haese]

Just a suggestion here. Maybe we should get back to the intent of the thread and talk about which scopes are best for Troy??

I think the point has been well made about the Meade optics. If we want to discuss that, why not start another thread on that particular topic?

[rat156]

Agreed Paul, though I think the discussion on Meade quality of optics and service in Australia is valid for the original intent of the question i.e. which one of these scopes do you recommend and why?

The discussion on observatories should probably wait until AFTER he's bought a scope.

Cheers
Stuart

[troypiggo]

Thanks for reeling it back in, Paul. I was about to suggest the same thing.

I'm not buying in the very near future. Still researching, so happy for this discussion to chug along and more opinions to float in :)

BTW I have had a very kind offer from a very kind IIS member to borrow his C8 to see what it can do. What a great community.

[RobF]

Cheer Troy. Glad you're considering all possibilities at this stage.

I forgot to mention I like PCs more than Macs too...:P
(where's the emoticon for throwing petrol on fire...!)

[coldspace]

Agreed, and trying to stay on topic look at all options and make the best choice for you and your needs.

Alot of people buy a certain scope use it for a little bit then find it does not really suit their needs so you can just sell it and buy another one if this happens.

Its always holden versus ford :poke: when this starts up, but it usually brings up some really good facts on things.
Good luck with your research.

Matt.

[Bolts_Tweed]

Gday Troy

You make a really good point re the loan of the C8 (exceptionally kind of the gentleman or lady and what amateur astronomy should be like). If you get the chance to get to Leyburn on one of the new moon weekends my mates & I can offer yu the chance to put your DSLR on a lot of the scopes you are considering and physically see how they go photographically and what you prefer. As far as I know there is no Vixen to try but all the others are there as well as a wide range of Apos from 80 to 127 and i am sure most people will let you take an image (most of the guys and girls have Canon set ups so it wont be too much drama).

I notice you are in Brisbane - Leyburn is 45 minutes south west of Toowoomba. The only problem is that my 10" ACF is on order - hopefully will be here by next moon but if not you may have to wait till next month. I have a couple of good Apos and a C8 on an EQ6 available now but you might want to wait to try the Meade as well.

PM me if you are interested.

MB

[CometGuy]

As a matter of interest, does anyone know what the weight of the Meade 8" ACF OTA is?

I'm going through a similiar comparsion for a relative at the moment.

Terry

[dpastern]

OT - why should the public monies be used to bail out failed businesses? Sorry, but I'm completely against this. No one bails out the average guy when life gets tough for him. Certainly not governments and businesses.

What the current US government has done is horrendous - it's basically sent a huge message to the banks etc that it's OK to screw up, we'll bail you out. Sorry, but it's morally apprehensible imho. One word covers it all:

responsibility

Dave

[dpastern]

Mark, Troy knows about Leyburn and has been out there before (his avatar was taken out there), I'm yet to get out there to the dark skies though.

The C8 (and offers to test other scopes) are damn good ideas.

Dave

[TrevorW]

Dave it's all well and good to take a simplistic view however it's about jobs and the big picture

Social and economic outcomes of such decisions

Meade only has 250 full time employees so they've got buckley's of being propped up

Bank of America 16500 Citicorp 25000 GM 111000

Agreed it sucks but when so many jobs are at stake and the lives of potentially quadtriple that number taking is associated businesses that would also fail and the family member affected and the potential for welfare recipients, crime, domestic violence, alcohol and drug related issues what else morally can they do

[Bolts_Tweed]

Ahhhh now I think I know who it is. Thanks Dave. You've got hate these usernames - I just want to shout my name's Mark Bolton and I live at .......... - joking.

Offer stands but and I hope to meet you out there one day mate


MB

[marki]

Wow Troy so far you have offers to play with a C8 and a LX200 10". All you need now is to buddy up with a vixen and GSO owner and your set :thumbsup:. If you can try them all in the context with which you want to use them you will soon find out which suits your purposes best. Somehow think in the end that you may want one of each :D.

Mark

[rat156]

We all want one of everything don't we?

Well, maybe 2, just in case...

Cheers
Stuart

[troypiggo]

Thanks for the offer Mark! Not sure when I'll get out to Leyburn next, but I'll touch base if/when I do plan to. I am planning on going up to Astrofest at least for a couple of nights.

[dpastern]

Mark, was this directed to me, or another Dave? I'm having trouble recognising your name etc.

Dave

[Paul Haese]

My preference Troy is for many different telescopes. I like to think of them as tools. You cannot think of them as just one doing all the work you need. However with finances being tight, then you need to just pick one. And each will have its bug bear to deal with.

I still stand by my recommendations. Either the C9.25 or the ACF. Both good general purpose telescopes.

Terry, Meade does not supply information about the weight of the OTA, but I would rind Bintel in Sydney and they could help.

[troypiggo]

Thanks Paul. I do realise that, even more so now. I only have a limited budget for this next purchase and will have to wait for my wife to buy something really expensive again before I can purchase another, if you catch my drift... :)

[Bolts_Tweed]

Dave

I meant I think I know who Troy is now.

Sorry mate - I am the silly old fool that owns the site at Leyburn but I haven't had much to do with astronomy in Bris for a while (clubs etc) since I bought the property (10 yrs now) and as such I know the people that come out there by sight but my brain is a sieve with names.

MB

[troypiggo]

G'day Mark. Sorry, I didn't pick up on your name either. You're no "silly old fool". You're a very generous soul making a wonderful dark site like Leyburn available for all to enjoy. I've only been there once - this February. I'll definitely be back... if you'll have me :)

[dpastern]

Ah cool. Then my memory isn't failing me then ;-)

I'd love to get out to Leyburn one day, it sounds like an awesome site.

Dave

[Bolts_Tweed]

Please do visit Dave.

I know this is starting to draw a long bow from Troys original question but since thinking about this can I suugest that letting astrophotographers try scopes (ie put thier own camera on them and take 1 or 2 quick pics) would be a great marketing ploy by an astute astro supply company. I know people like Bintel and Sirius support gatherings like Astrofest here in Qld and that is why I support both of them but if say a new imaging scope was to be released and I had the chance to stick a DSLR on one to try it out it would go a heck of a long way towards me buying one if I was in the market (Im not :)). Sure some co's might beat them a little on price but I would definately support the companys that helped me the most if the price differential wasnt too big.

Of coure this doesnt include limited top markets markets like RCOS etc but arent skywatcher releasing a mak-newt soon;)

You would get a lot of tyre kickers but if properly adverrtised at larger dark sky gatherings I am sure they would get results.

My 2c anyway

Im sitting in the observatory control room at Leyburn waiting for it to get dark to do some nb imaging (SII filter arrived today) so thats it for me tonight on the web.

MB

[dpastern]

Thanks for the invite Mark - when I get a car, I'll be sure to get back in contact with you and check it out - that's provided I ever manage to get polar alignment and drift alignment down to pat...

Dave

[marki]

8.5kg

Mark