Doesn't Celestron and Meade make thier SCT OTAs in their US factories? I have owned SCTs OTAs from both and find the Celestron better in both optics and mechanics. The Celestron focusers have less image shift from my experience and the coatings were slightly more smooth. However, I might have just got a Bad Meade example. Both companies can produce lemons.
From playing with both companies bottom range scopes in Camera stores, I believe they are crap. You have to be suspicious when the boxes have images taken by Hubble on them!!
The last time I was at the ExtraVision warehouse in Capalaba, there were a hell of a lot of boxes with "Made in China" printed on them.
All were in plain view from the service counter.
I was there due to a problem with my C8 OTA.
I'm not sure what the problem was & I don't think they really did either, but they replaced it with a new OTA on the spot.
The last time I was at the ExtraVision warehouse in Capalaba, there were a hell of a lot of boxes with "Made in China" printed on them.
All were in plain view from the service counter.
I was there due to a problem with my C8 OTA.
I'm not sure what the problem was & I don't think they really did either, but they replaced it with a new OTA on the spot.
Has been great ever since.
Hmm didn't those boxes say Meade in China by any chance?
I just got my new Meade 9mm battery powered illuminated reticle eyepiece, and wow, Meade really has taken a high dive into the shallow end of the pool. The LED is on even when the pot is in the off position, there is glue all over the illumination module, and it randomly turns its self off and on. One quick check after assembly at the factory would have caught this, but apparently even that is too much to ask.
I'm sure the vendor will make everything right for me, but he shouldn't have to. I should have just gone for the "cheaper" option to start with.
I had a peek in the LED end and it explains why you need to tap yours - the LED makes contact with half of the circuit using just one of its leads, with no solder connection, just friction. A cleaning of the surface in there may help yours to make better contact.
Unfortunately, the other end is sealed so it isn't quite as quick a "fix".
I imagine quality control is going out the door as competition becomes more fierce
Thats an interesting comment Tony and a valid one. But I would also have thought that as competition gets more fierce and margins getting tighter, I'd be asking myself how can I make my products more attractive than my competitor and better quality control would have to be up there high on the agenda.
Given this hobby relies, expects and uses precise instruments and accessories, you'd think making high end quality gear would be one of their mission statements.
Many companies, not just astronomical ones, cheapen their name these days by selling out and cashing in on the lower end of the market. Some do it well, others have a long way to go.
I have a Meade #647 Flip Mirror which I purchased from BinTel and I think it was made in Japan? It is a very nicely engineered unit and the quality, fit and finish are superb. This unit really does stand out from the other cheaper, mass produced accessories.
Chris Thomas had spent a lot of money on a 4mm plossl from Meade.
We had a show down on Saturn a while back, his good Meade compared to my $5 Astrofest special.
Mine won hands down.
The poor bloke was rather upset.
I just got my new Meade 9mm battery powered illuminated reticle eyepiece, and wow, Meade really has taken a high dive into the shallow end of the pool. The LED is on even when the pot is in the off position, there is glue all over the illumination module, and it randomly turns its self off and on. One quick check after assembly at the factory would have caught this, but apparently even that is too much to ask.
I'm sure the vendor will make everything right for me, but he shouldn't have to. I should have just gone for the "cheaper" option to start with.
No more Meade for me, thanks.
I share your pain, i got one from a reputable eastern sydney telescope supplier and when i received mine i encountered the same problems with the illuminator. It looked like it was a faulty unit (perhaps a recirculated factory 2nd) and someone had tried to repair it and did a really crap job on it, like a kid tried to solder the internal connections, im currently getting a replacement CELESTRON illuminator from Adorama in the US, Its the ONLY Meade product i use and im less than impressed, the reticle is quite ok although sometimes it wont hold the focus of the reticle whilst guiding, my illuminator switch now rotates completely around and i have had to "feel" the switch to make sure its turned off properly, my finder scope on the Celestron Ultima has a very good illuminator, i can switch it on with one finger without bumping the scope at all, and its smooth and reliable! Only problem is it doesn't have a screw fitting to put in the Meade reticle......
I will eventually look at the Celestron 12mm fixed crosshair guiding eyepiece as the microguide one is a bit too expensive, the 12mm eyepiece has the thread to put the optional reticle on.
Don't get me wrong though, Celestron do have issues as well, but mainly from the Chinese manufactured variety of Celestron....but if its Japanese made it won't give ANY hassles!!!
It's heartbreaking to read all all of this negativity toward Meade - which seems to becoming more generalised as it goes on. While it is possibly true that some of their lower-end material is being made in places other than the USA, and that its quality control is probably poor in those countries, let's not tar and feather everything they've made in the past or make now.
Their large telescopes and parts associated with them are, in my opinion, great quality for consumer-grade gear. It isn't ultra-high quality stuff, but then neither is your wallet eight feet thick to pay for it. The only bit of Meade gear that I have is my trusty 12" LX200GPS - and mechanically it has been excellent - nary a single problem with it. With a couple of minor upgrades (RA gear set) it is as smooth as they come and pin-point accurate to boot. Optically it is as good as any SCT I've seen through of similar size. In comparison to my Celestron C8 I'd say the Meade is better built. Just for one example - the corrector plate flange is made of machined aluminium instead of stamped plastic that the Celestron uses. Optically they are both about the same to my eyes. I don't get mirror flop on the Meade yet do on the Celestron - a constant and silly problem that seems to go unpunished.
Not everything Meade makes is bad - please remember that. I gather that their recent financials are probably driving them a road they didn't want to travel, and I hope that they pay heed to peoples' complaints and rectify the quality issues soon.
In comparison to my Celestron C8 I'd say the Meade is better built
I'd agree with that, the fit and finish of the LX200 OTA {assuming the meade SCT OTA's alike} I used was better then the C9.25 that I currently have. The phillip head screws that are used on the Celestron to hold the fore and aft sections to the inner tube look pretty ordinary. Overall the Lx's OTa looked cosmetically superior and sealed better at connection points, dew cap/visual back cap/finderscope and focuser knob are finished nicely. Optics wise thats up for debate
I totally agree with you Chris.
I'd love to own a Meade LX200. I'm sure most people would. It's just a pity that quality control is not as good as it should be on some of their branded products.
I was never unhappy with the quality of the LX200GPS that I had, or the LX200 before it, or the LX90 before that.
However, with the upcoming complete relocation of all production to Mexico and China, I fear those scopes and their related quality control could be a thing of the past, unless Meade takes the necessary steps to prevent that downward spiral from continuing.
The problem is not that the Chinese or Mexicans are inherently sloppy, it is more that the factories are forced to save costs at every corner in order to win the contracts from the US corporations.
