What makes Celestron better than Meade? - Page 3

TheDecepticon · #41 22-09-2010, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackWidow

Well still sticking to my guns... I agree you get what you pay for, unless its stolen or a gift

.. However we all expect the item will work, and competition forces manufactures to compete on equal ground for the better share of the market.. It's fair to assume when it comes to Meade and Celestron this situation is fierce, and like products are pretty much the same. I think they both make great products and no matter what you have, you have got some good gear. In fact better than most pro's had only a few birthdays back. We live in a great time!

But once they have got your money the measure is at what level that your purchse was appreciated. Having had problems with products from both Celestron and Meade the proof for me was simple.. Celestron has a distributor here in Australia. They have many parts and can repair onsite. However Meade does not. Parts are hard to get and need to be shipped from the USA. Been waiting 7 months for a part for my hand controller (still waiting). Meade use dealers to give us the support and some are next to useless (not all). The dealer here in my state know less than I do and i'm new to the game. He is a Camera Dealer and that's what I think he's best at, but Meade are happy with him. You are not even able to get past the dealers with Meade and contact them as they have NO E-Mail contact, co's talking with your Customers is just to hard and Expensive. Total loss of of contact with the most important part of your business and market research tool.

I don't get newsletters or product updates from Meade, but I do from Celestron. It seems one company values their customer base better than another, and that alone leads me to a no 1 rating for Celestron.

Just remember I own mainly Meade products, but would think twice about it if I was to spend my money today. I don't want to be waiting months to get my scope up and running. I have been waiting 5 months for my 1220 Field De-Rotator to be replaced under warranty back from Meade, and they still don't have any stock to replace it.. Sigh!

Best Price?
Best Features? (Hmmm sometimes)
Best overall value for my money? (Wins Every Time)

We Meade to see better customer support here in Australia!

You have made me vent again

Mardy

As a couple have suggested, try Bintel. Although they are a lot further away than the dealer in Adelaide, who, by the way, IS useless, you will get much better service. I order all my stuff from the eastern states now because of this problem. Even the dealer on Henley Beach Rd, who is knowledgable, has never got anything in stock and is way too dear.

marki · #42 22-09-2010, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hypnotist

Hi Mark,
I get your point, however please tell me why a Celestron Cge 1400 HD is 10,000 bucks and a Meade 14" LX200ACF is only $7,000? I think it's either (probably) the quality of the OTA or the missing German equatorial mount . (Check out this article I posted earlier and tell me what you think of it: http://www.universetoday.com/34925/a...estron-edgehd/)

All the best

Bart

Hi Bart. The person who wrote the article has a definate celestron bias (thats not to say they are bad). I think H answered your question in one go. They will fall in price as the "new factor" wears off. The tube will not be of a better quality but the EQ mount is a definate bonus but only if it is capable of carrying the tube for AP (if visual use only then alt/az mount is better for both comfort and ease of setup). Now EQ mounts that can carry that size tube (F11 @3910mm focal length

) with the precision needed for AP usually have names like Paramount ME, or Tak EM500 or 10 micron or Astro physics GTO900/1200 .......... These mounts alone cost more then the whole celestron package. Go figure.

Mark

mozzie (Peter) · #43 22-09-2010, 08:03 PM

theres one thing thats missing in this thread the weight of these scopes as im about to order a 14"acf its going to be perminately piered and if your going to set it up each night your in for a shock there heavy 14"scopes are big ive a mate with one and it takes two to lift onto tripod!!!!!! best of luck on your own

marki · #44 22-09-2010, 08:23 PM

Peter I could not find a weight listed for the 14"HD on celestrons site so I assume it must be a heavy bugger.

Mark

asimov (John) · #45 22-09-2010, 08:49 PM

20.41KG or thereabouts.

mozzie (Peter) · #46 22-09-2010, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marki

Peter I could not find a weight listed for the 14"HD on celestrons site so I assume it must be a heavy bugger.

Mark

no i dont know there weight either but 14"sct,s are still big and heavy,trying to balance them and put them on a tripod it aint easy

DavidTrap (David) · #47 22-09-2010, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sejanus

Hypnotist, whats with the flood of cge14 threads all over the place?

You say it is your first real scope and have mentioned you want portability which is not what a 14" will give.

I'd take a punt and say you've never seen or used a cge14 or probably any 14" sct - really I think you are going to a world of hurt buying a 14" sct as a first real scope.

Agreed - not sure if Bart is really listening to the high quality advice being offered. I wish I'd sought the wise counsel on offer on ISS before I bought my first scope.

DT

Hypnotist (Bartholomew) · #48 23-09-2010, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sejanus

Hypnotist, whats with the flood of cge14 threads all over the place?

You say it is your first real scope and have mentioned you want portability which is not what a 14" will give.

I'd take a punt and say you've never seen or used a cge14 or probably any 14" sct - really I think you are going to a world of hurt buying a 14" sct as a first real scope.

Gavin,

I want to know as much as possible about this rather big scope before I get it on my 16th birthday, so I know what to expect form it. I'm sorry not to have told that I've had a small (and bad) Meade ETX 70

for about eight years now. I know how to work with a scope. And even if it's a 14" OTA there won't be much of a difference. You ought to take a look at this youtube movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBawz69qo_A and this one too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwVg1...eature=related (tell me what you think of them).

Bart

sejanus (Gavin) · #49 23-09-2010, 07:37 AM

dude, you are 15? You have next to no hope of handling a 14" SCT unless it is permanently mounted - you are really underestimating the weight and size. For gods sake go look at one in person before you buy it.

It's cool that you have money & all, but biggest is not necessarily best.

Omaroo (Chris Malikoff) · #50 23-09-2010, 07:49 AM

LOL! This is one of the funniest threads I've read in a while. How to tell someone to doesn't want to hear... that's 15 for you I guess.

Hoiking a 14" SCT onto a mount (albeit eqatorial, so without the weight of the fork arms) is still not like tossing a 20kg sack of beans onto your shoulder. You have to lift it to well beyond the full height of the dovetail in order to slide it on. It's a delicate instrument that cannot be jarred, bumped or dropped. By yourself? Don't think so. The reason you don't see many 14's in the field (can't remember the last time I have) is because in my opinion it's completely impractical. I base this on having insisted that my "little" 12" SCT was a field scope for 6 months. Never again. It's amazing how quickly your enthusiasm drops when you have to lug it out into your back yard again and again. It becomes a chore, not a pleasure. Put it on a pier in an observatory? Brilliant. Different story - it's what they're built for.

On the quality front, I've had both high-end Celestron and Meade SCT's (not ETX-70 class, these are low-cost "family" consumer models, & basing your judgement on Meade as a whole because of this single experience is downright silly), and I'd say that the Meade mechanics slightly overshadowed the Celestron's in each case (eg. aluminium corrector plate flange washer ring on the Meade vs. flimsy plastic on the Celestron, geartrain quality, etc), and the optics were much of a muchness. I don't lend much credibility to most comparisons I find on the net because you're guaranteed to encounter bias and agenda-pushing. Go physically look at a 14" Meade ACF - they are somewhat different to your little ETX, and there will be very little difference in quality compared to your Celestron, if any. Compare both of these to the high-end scopes such as the AP's, Taks, RCOS, PlaneWave et al., and you'll see just how close the Meade and Celestrons are to each other. They are both great value scopes and are both well built for the money. They are still both mass-produced, and as such you will encounter one every so often that is problematic - and be sure to read all about it in some rant posted on a forum.

You're in the States, so service on either should not be a problem for you.

astroron (Ron) · #51 23-09-2010, 07:54 AM

I hate to sound cynical, but is this guy for real or is he having everyone on

The stuff being presented by this guy gets more Bizzare by the day

issdaol (Phil) · #52 23-09-2010, 08:31 AM

I wish I had been able to afford somthing like a Edge1400 and astrophotography setup when I was 15

Quote:

Originally Posted by astroron

I hate to sound cynical, but is this guy for real or is he having everyone on

The stuff being presented by this guy gets more Bizzare by the day

DavidTrap (David) · #53 23-09-2010, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omaroo

LOL! This is one of the funniest threads I've read in a while. How to tell someone to doesn't want to hear... that's 15 for you I guess.

Hoiking a 14" SCT onto a mount (albeit eqatorial, so without the weight of the fork arms) is still not like tossing a 20kg sack of beans onto your shoulder. You have to lift it to well beyond the full height of the dovetail in order to slide it on. It's a delicate instrument that cannot be jarred, bumped or dropped. By yourself? Don't think so. The reason you don't see many 14's in the field (can't remember the last time I have) is because in my opinion it's completely impractical. I base this on having insisted that my "little" 12" SCT was a field scope for 6 months. Never again. It's amazing how quickly your enthusiasm drops when you have to lug it out into your back yard again and again. It becomes a chore, not a pleasure. Put it on a pier in an observatory? Brilliant. Different story - it's what they're built for.

On the quality front, I've had both high-end Celestron and Meade SCT's (not ETX-70 class, these are low-cost "family" consumer models), and I'd say that the Meade mechanics slightly overshadowed the Celestron's in each case (eg. aluminium corrector plate flange on the Meade vs. flimsy plastic on the Celestron), and the optics were much of a muchness. I don't lend much credibility to most comparisons I find on the net because you're guaranteed to encounter bias and agenda-pushing. Go physically look at a 14" Meade ACF - they are somewhat different to your little ETX, and there will be very little difference in quality compared to your Celestron, if any. Compare both of these to the high-end scopes such as the AP's, Taks, RCOS, PlaneWave et al., and you'll see just how close the Meade and Celestrons are to each other. They are both great value scopes and are both well built for the money. They are still both mass-produced, and as such you will encounter one every so often that is problematic - and be sure to read all about it in some rant posted on a forum.

Very well put Chris,

DT

gregbradley · #54 23-09-2010, 08:57 AM

I had a Meade LX90 8inch SCT as my first scope - it was great, loved it.

I later I had a Celestron Nexstar 11GPS carbon fibre - it was great - I loved it.

Both were great. Obviously aperture rules there.
Both had their pluses. Both performed flawlessly.

I got the Meade through Bintel. Fabulous support and service.
The Celestron was 2nd hand through Astromart and the US.

Greg.,

Paul Haese · #55 23-09-2010, 09:30 AM

Real men can lift a C14 endlessly!

Love my C14 and yes while it is heavy if you are a big lad you can lift it easily over your head.

sejanus (Gavin) · #56 23-09-2010, 09:32 AM

This is a picture of Paul ;

http://www.famous-people-search.com/...negger_002.jpg

AstralTraveller (David) · #57 23-09-2010, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sejanus

This is a picture of Paul ;

In his observing gear????

Something else to consider about a 14" SCT. The focal length of this scope is about 3500mm which makes it really comfortable for medium to high power viewing. However wide-field viewing is not possible. Even with a 31mm Nagler, which has the widest field of view possible in a 2" eyepiece, the magnification is about 113x and the true fov is 0.74 degrees. This is wide enough for most objects but some celestial show-stoppers like M42. etc carina, NGC3532, M7, M13 etc will not fit in the fov and so cannot be seen at thier best. One thing I like about my 6" refractor is that I can get a 2 degree fov and this nicely frames this class of object. This won't be possible with my new 16" Lightbridge. With my eps the max fov is about 1.2 degrees - still respectable - but of course it goes deeper and has better resolution.

asimov (John) · #58 23-09-2010, 03:25 PM

I'd have to agree with Paul here to an extent. Sure, if your sitting in an office all day lifting no more than a pen for years & you don't work out in your spare time, then a C14 ain't for you.

I know plenty of 15 yr olds capable of lifting a lot more than a mere 20 kilos above their heads, & keeping it there.

Weather or not the OP is capable of this or not, no idea.

mozzie (Peter) · #59 23-09-2010, 04:48 PM

holly smokes!!!! some of the iis people here know me through star parties on the east coast im a strong person also i brickie and there is no way id lift a 14"sct on and of tripods that while im permanetly pier!!!
and at 16 mate im going to sell my 12"lx90 and youd still struggle tripoding it there bloody heavy

Hypnotist (Bartholomew) · #60 24-09-2010, 06:23 AM

Hey guys,

yeah I'm 15, so what? Aren't 15 yr olds allowed to be interested in astronomy? What makes me incapable of lifting a 14" OTA? I'm 6 ft! That's probably taller than a number of you!
Enough of that! How would y'all transport a 1400 HD and the rest of the mount?

Bart

Quote:

Originally Posted by astroron

I hate to sound cynical, but is this guy for real or is he having everyone on

The stuff being presented by this guy gets more Bizzare by the day

Ron,
I'm completely for real man! I'm getting this scope to my b-day! What makes the stuff I present so bizzare?

Bart