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.
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.
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).
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
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...
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
Even more are taken with RCOS, don't mention APOD and SBig as well...
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
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.
- 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/
- 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.
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) 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.
@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.
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.
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
Last edited by rat156; 13-05-2009 at 08:23 AM.
Reason: Added more pics
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.
This would be a boring thread if everyone agreed on the same scope, wouldn't it.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
) 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.
