Meade ETX-125PE

[Valmir]

I started this thread to ask from a range of people should i buy an ETX-125PE.

[jakob]

I bought an ETX105PE 2 years ago and found had a lot of fun with it.
I still am a novice and learned a lot using the scope.
I used it with a Webcam and an DSLR camera but there are severe limitations when trying to use an ETX type scope for imaging. (My Avatar was taken with the ETX105 and a Webcam)

I now 'graduated' to a Dob.

But the ETX gave me good start.

I think nobody can make the decision for you.

Good luck!

[Valmir]

Thanks very much for that

[g__day (Matthew)]

It helps to know a few things. If I said I'm thinking of buying a Volkswagon - what do you think of that - you'd answer it depends on your driving needs doesn't it!

The factors that come into play include:

1. Budget
2. Portability requirements
3. Sky conditions where you intend to use it
4. Viewing targets
5. Desire to at some stage image and if so what targets

etc...

It's a great scope I hear for alot of new entrants. Most informed folk seem to go either an ed80 or a 8" or 10" dob or something like a 5" goto MAK or 6" SCT when they are making their first serious investment. Its a good choice for its intended use. It your desire was Deep Space Objects (DSOs) and you had no imaging intentions a 10" DOB might be more ideal. Atlernatively if you wanted imaging now a ed80 refractor on a EQ5 or 6 would be a great start. The 5" MAK is a good all round scope - especially if you add a "very good" eye-piece or two with it - say a 22mm Vixen LVW and a 13mm LVW (wide angle or a televue or nagler) quality eye piece.

It's not a bad start!

[Miaplacidus (Brian)]

I have an ETX-105, but not a PE. An ETX is seldom recommended as a first scope, but it was my first scope (well, sort of) and I'm still here. And even though I have other scopes, I still use it and I would still be a bit sad to part with it.

Some people do miraculous things, but it isn't a serious imaging scope. I like it because it tracks, which is very nice if you have lots of people sharing the one scope at a star party. It is also my preferred scope for sketching at the eyepiece, especially the moon. Good also for gas giants and double stars, and the sun with an appropriate filter.

But if I was going through the process again and looking at the 125PE, I would look at the equivalent Celestron SE scope, maybe the six inch, and mainly because you can rebalance more easily (for imaging), and because you can swap OTAs (PST, short tube refractor...). I picked one up in a shop and was surprised how light but sturdy it felt. But then, I'm a junky. (Also, no question, a smaller aperture limits what you look at.)

[Valmir]

was the one you had the backpack observatory i hear those a good to.

[okiscopey (Mike)]

As an owner of an ETX125 I'm just seconding all the previous responses.

The ETX125 is good for the Moon, Sun (with solar filter) brighter planets (its 1900mm focal length gives quite a good image size) and bright DSOs. However its 5-inch aperture (with a central obstruction) and f/15 focal ratio (read: 'dim image') limits its use for fainter stuff. As the others have said, an 8-in or 10-in dob is the usual way to go first-off.

The 125ETX was my first 'real' scope purchase as I just wanted to see what the go-to stuff was all about in a portable package. I'd already looked through many other types of scope. I'd also had some previous experience of 'star-hopping' which I found somewhat frustrating.

I've been quite happy with the ETX's optical performance with Vixen LV eyepieces (but the scope does take a long time to cool down), but nervous about how long this one's so-far good electro-mechanical operation will continue, as this aspect of mass-produced go-to scopes leaves a bit to be desired.

If you want to stick to a computerised SCT then the previous suggestion of a Celestron Nexstar SE sounds like a good idea.

http://www.celestron.com/c2/product....=13&ProdID=415

The 6-in 6SE is a similar price the Meade if you shop around and you have the advantage of a slightly bigger aperture and the benefits that Miaplacidus pointed out. I certainly didn't realise you can remove the OTA in the SE range.

Don't forget the cost of add-ons, essential and optional: eyepieces, better finder(?), dew control, external battery power, red torch, planisphere, star atlas (the last two assuming you want to learn the sky by the traditional methods in addition to the scopes' go-to and computerised data).

Hope this info helps. Where are you located? There are no details in your posts.

[Valmir]

what do you mean by cool down im new to computerized ones and would you recommend it a good second scope after the awful tasco galaxiee

[g__day (Matthew)]

Valmir,

Cool down - some scopes exhibit bad (distorted) seeing until the air in their tube reaches the same temperature as its surrounds. Dobs are particularily good as are refractors - SCT and particularily MAKs suffer alot more. A DOB is set up and use - in under 5 minutes air currents die won - viewing is fine. A MAK design may take 25 - 30 minutes to cool down to thermal equilibrium and hit optimal seeing.

If you set up before sun down - and re-visit once its truly dark - should be okay.

To me mount is more important than optics!

[Valmir]

oh now i understand thanks

[Valmir]

so in the end do you think i should buy a dob as a second scope or stick to my old plan of buying an ETX

[g__day (Matthew)]

Depends - what do you wish to see?

Wide field or astro imaging - go for a ED 80mm refractor on a EQ5 goto mount.

Deep space objects and forget imaging - definitely a dob, add Argo Narvis later for great push to pointing.

An all rounder - easy to lug, good planetary - well a 5-6" MAK or SCT would be fine.

So it all boils down to 1) what do you prefer to see, 2) can you forego imaging to concentre your budget on aperature rather than precision of your mount and 3) is weight or portability a must have based on where you wish to use that equipment?

On that last point if imaging is a permenant set up in your back yard - or a carry out each night versus a lug to the top of a mount 5 miles away when you go camping each week - well a small refractor will win that battle!

[Miaplacidus (Brian)]

Originally Posted by okiscopey

Don't forget the cost of add-ons, essential and optional: eyepieces, better finder(?), dew control, external battery power, red torch, planisphere, star atlas...

Yes, you'll definitely get fed up with buying/recharging/changing batteries. An external battery pack is pretty essential if you're using the scope enough to justify the initial outlay, even though that adds to the cost.

Cheers,

Brian.

[Valmir]

do you know what eyepieces come with it?

[Greenswale (Wren)]

I am a newbie to astronomy, and purchased a Celestron Nexstar 6SE about 10 months ago, as my first scope. I had looked at the 5" Meade, but the extra inch in the Celestron was the clincher. My decision (aided by the many super contributors to this Forum) was to have a scope that was:

• Easily portable.
• Reasonably rugged.
• Smart (It had to know stuff, so I could learn....!)
• Able to give the best possible views.
• Good track record.
• Under $2k.

I have been quite impressed with the scope. It takes minutes to set up, gives great views and 'knows' heaps of stuff. Apart from using the tour and go-to known objects facilities, its pretty cool to be able move around the sky and spot something interesting, to 'ask' the scope to identify the object and have the info presented. Great learning. And it tracks beautifully - its great to keep your eye in the eyepiece for ages, without having to think about moving the scope - and others love being able to do the same!

Accessories have made life easier. First up was an inexpensive jump starter type of battery, to remove the need for 8 rechargeable AA batteries. Then 10mm Pentax XW and 32mm Televue eyepieces to provide ripper images, an illuminated crosshair 12mm Meade eyepiece to ensure precise set up, and a couple of polarising filters to tame bright solar system stuff. Coming next week are a solar filter and a UCH-E filter. I have gone for quality (often expensive!!) accessories when sensible, to obtain the best results from the system. And of course, they will be useful with my next scope?!

Have a look at the current Australian Sky and Telescope for a review on this scope.

The future? More apeture and fine optics - seems to be a well trodden route.... Its a delight researching the market - the decision will take a while!

Will I keep the Celestron? Yep! Portability and ease of use ensure that. And then there are techno-freak children and grandchildren who may just discover an enthraling interest?

Good luck with your choice!!

[g__day (Matthew)]

Valmir - are you determined not to answer what is needed to advise you?

1. Is portability a must have or not?
2. Is your viewing prioritiy visual or a starting platform for astro-photography?
3. Do you wish to observe deep space objects or bright - wide field objects and planets?

Thus hangs our advice patiently awaiting your preferences!

[g__day (Matthew)]

PS

Much better idea http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=27742

[Valmir]

Well Meade makes much bigger and more powerful telescopes like the max mount but in terms of portability it comes to a serious floor unlike Celestron which makes more stable telescopes that are light and easy to lag around unlike Meade. Although Celestron makes rough scopes Meade has allot more power to it's products, so it's your choice power or portability for example if you were in a metropolitan area you would much rather buy a Celestron simply because if you wanted to get away from the lights you would have to travel rural but if you where county you would much rather have a permanent strong scope such as a Meade.

[Miaplacidus (Brian)]

I'm not sure what purpose is served by this poll. Surely the only people who are qualified to give an informed opinion are those who have owned both brands. As far as I can see, Meade and Celestron have been going neck and neck for years, each mainly trying to trump the other. Like cars and guitars and operating systems, once you've discounted personal prejudice, surely you're left with the obvious answer "the best scope is the next scope". At any given moment there is never a lot in it. (I don't think Celestron's are any "rougher" than Meade's: what do you base that on? Optically I think they are pretty much identical, and mechanically I suspect Celestron's presently have a slight edge... Basically, if the prices and portability were much the same, then I'd base my decision on aperture alone.)

In the end, if you want the best scope, then wait forever. Otherwise buy one and prove everyone else wrong by using it and getting the most fun out of it.

[g__day (Matthew)]

Sigh,

One last attempt - as you asked for advice...

What are you preferences in those 3 specific needs? Is it really so hard to answer?

* * * * * * * * *

Reading through your last post I'd advise you to check your initial research:

"Well Meade makes much bigger and more powerful telescopes like the max mount" - the Max mount is a mount not a telescope

"Well Meade makes much bigger telescopes" - they are pretty similar in size at most price points

"Well Meade makes much more powerful telescopes" - powerful how - do you imply some part of the optical train or body or optics are price point better?

"Unlike Celestron which makes ... telescopes that are light and easy to lag (sic) around" - I wasn't aware Meade and Celestron were wildy varied in OTA weight - design and composition determines that.

"Unlike Celestron which makes more stable telescopes" - stable in what sense?

"Although Celestron makes rough scopes " - do you mean rugged and durable or poor performance - neither is true above the toy price point - they perform but you'd better not drop them.

"Meade has allot (sic) more power to it's products" - what is this magic power Meade gives you?

"So it's your choice power or portability" - power - no idea what you mean - capability for a class of viewing object or pointing or viewing ability maybe? portability - really stems from mass to carry I'd guess.

"For example if you were in a metropolitan area you would much rather buy a Celestron simply because if you wanted to get away from the lights you would have to travel rural but if you where county you would much rather have a permanent strong scope such as a Meade." - that made no sense to me, did it truly make any sense to you?