Meade 14in SCT vs Celestron C14 SCT for planetary

Robert_T · #1 24-06-2006, 01:15 PM

this is one of "those" questions, but I've got to ask it since seeing what Lester's Meade 14 can do on Jupiter. I've been salivating over a C14 for as long as I can remember, but the best price I've been quoted on the OTA is $8700AU

and I just can't stomach it. Now I just looked up 14inch Meade OTA on the Bintel Web-site and its going for "just" $4865AU.

What gives here, that's nearly $4000AU difference for two brands of SCT of the same aperture (C14 is an F11 whearas Meade is an F10).

I'm thinking that even if the C14 does have an edge (Hard to know), it's not going to be a $4000 edge

the Meade's gotta be a serious contender at that price

thoughts?

anthony2302749 · #2 24-06-2006, 01:36 PM

Hi Robert

I nice question which has been ask a couple of time IIS. One of the discussion I have been involved in was about best camea/telescope for planetary imaging (see link) were the virtues of the Celestron over Meade for planatery imaging was discussed.

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=10511

Anyway as Lester provide the Meade 14" works equally well as the Celestron in the right hands. Apart from equipment, Technique is the critial element in all astrophotography endeavours.

P.S We need someone to scour IIS and find all the really good tips and bits of information in one hand spot for people to look at. Like a Best of IIS discussions.

davidpretorius · #3 24-06-2006, 02:41 PM

yes, each time I open AS&T and see the meade LX200R OTA 14" for $6999, I think that is what I want, and then I see a C14 and I think that is what I want..

anthony2302749 · #4 24-06-2006, 03:06 PM

I have the same problem when it comes to the Obsession Telescopes

g__day (Matthew) · #5 24-06-2006, 03:18 PM

WoW, what a price differential. Slight hijack but I was thinking of a Carbon Fibre C9.25 circa $2,800 and now thanks to your link I see a 10" Meade f/10 is $2,085.

It gives a bit to think about when you are only shopping for a 9 - 11" OTA.

Decisions, decisions! Still I hear the C9.25" is great for astro-imaging, wonder how the 10" Meade SCT compares?

davidpretorius · #6 24-06-2006, 03:27 PM

paul haese had a lx200 10" and reckons his new c9.25 is easily better than that. He really likes his new mirror!

He is mainly into planetary, but i did look thru it at orion with a 24mm pano and it was the best i have seen of any dso!

anthony2302749 · #7 24-06-2006, 03:57 PM

I have been looking at the difference between both the SCT on the market to day and I am not convinced that one is better then the other yet. I have seen fantastic work done my, you guest it, D Peach. But I also have seen excellent work done by others using a range of brand name telescopes.

I am still in the belief that technique is the critial element. I would be nice to line up a range of telescopes in Barbados and let Damian have a go at them and see which one is the best.

Robert_T · #8 24-06-2006, 04:38 PM

thanks Guys, we're getting a bit off topic though. Its not a question of whether Meade is better than or the same as or worse than a Celestron SCT or vice versa (and I'm only interested in planetary imaging performance), the point is we have two 14inch SCT's, one costs $8700AU (best price) and the other $4865AU, and like, what gives?

How can such a price differential be justified? I doubt there'd be many who'd claim the Celestron is TWICE as good as the Meade (any takers?). But if money's your measure it would need to be to justify.

cheers,

davidpretorius · #9 24-06-2006, 04:48 PM

spot on i reckon, not twice as good, money no object then the c14 over the 14" lx200r.

value for money, then meade???

Shawn · #10 24-06-2006, 07:42 PM

Ive just procured a 14R, full with tripod, wedge , not much change out of 13k....optically its great, assembly is rather dubious, but if you buying just the OTA, assy is not such of an issue, see my thread for my trials and tribs.
Not all beer and skittles...

Lester · #11 24-06-2006, 08:12 PM

Hi,

My two cents worth.

The only way I can think of to test this is get the two scopes together at the same place, same everything, (cooling, attachments, imaging at the same time and processing)

Even visual with same eyepieces for one person to look through one scope and then the other, can vary with seeing conditions, but you could pick up if there was 10% improvement.

To some people an extra $4000 is a life time away to spend on a Hobby, and to others it is nothing. To the former like myself get a Meade, to the latter perhaps get Celestron.

Shawn · #12 24-06-2006, 08:15 PM

Lester

Love the way you put things, blunt and straight to the point, a contradiction in terms i realise, none the less, I agree...

Robert_T · #13 24-06-2006, 09:57 PM

reckon I'm with you on this one Lester

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lester

Hi,

My two cents worth.

The only way I can think of to test this is get the two scopes together at the same place, same everything, (cooling, attachments, imaging at the same time and processing)

Even visual with same eyepieces for one person to look through one scope and then the other, can vary with seeing conditions, but you could pick up if there was 10% improvement.

To some people an extra $4000 is a life time away to spend on a Hobby, and to others it is nothing. To the former like myself get a Meade, to the latter perhaps get Celestron.

asimov (John) · #14 24-06-2006, 10:51 PM

Yes, in my mind the C14 was the way to go....until I saw that first 3/10 jupiter image come from the Meade & the neximage a month or so ago

Give the Meade Barbados conditions; it has the potential for Barbados images.

GrampianStars (Rob) · #15 25-06-2006, 08:08 PM

Isn't the Celestron C14" more in line with the Meade RCX ? not 200R ?
just a thought

Robert_T · #16 26-06-2006, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrampianStars

Isn't the Celestron C14" more in line with the Meade RCX ? not 200R ?
just a thought

no mate, the C14 is an SCT like the Meade, just F11 instead of F10...

cheers,