Celestron product QC seems abysmal, anyone privy to the facts?

Reading the Yahoo Celestron mailing lists, I get the idea that
Celestron is today shipping product of such low quality that if the
customer community wasn't a bunch of zealot/nerds they'd be out of
business.

Is anyone in the know (e.g. a Celestron insider willing to comment
with product-return facts) able to step up with numbers to refute
those strong claims?

I think I'm speaking mostly of their new (?) relatively low-cost line
of products similar to the C8-SGT. I've got one of them on order, and
am thinking about canceling the order because of all the chatter.

Celestron offers a limited warranty, of course, but requires the
customer to pay shipping both ways to correct their problems, has
(reportedly) hard-to-reach support, and there are a number of reports
of the replacement being worse than the original. At $150 RT for
shipping (perhaps less if you don't have to return the whole mess)
that can get pretty old right away.

A lot of problems are pita issues like missing parts, alignment
indicaters way off, important screws loose, etc. that can be replaced
or repaired by a technically savvy and willing customer. But there's
plenty of chatter about serious problems, especially with the
electronics.

I note that no one complains about the optical quality, but that may
simply be more difficult to assess. If Celestron's lack of concern in
the other areas is being correctly described, it would be hard to
imagine they were doing a better job with the OTA.

The mailing-list zealot team has at least a few very verbal defenders
who excuse all this mess as perfectly acceptable for such a product.
Personally, I think it's completely inexcusable. But I'd really be
thrilled if the outcome of this posting is some hard facts...

All I can tell you is that people are more likely to post about problems
with a product and complain about it instead of taking the time to
praise a product of service when it is done right.

Do not let negative posts bias your purchasing decision.

BTW I am not a Celestron customer, my stuff is mostly Meade.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew B. Ota
Orange County Astronomers Astroimagers SIG
http://www.ocastronomers.org/
Telescopes In Education (TIE)
http://tie.jpl.nasa.gov/tie/index.html
Jet Propulsion Laboratory Saturn Observation Campaign
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/soc/
--------------------------------------------------------------


JT wrote:
Reading the Yahoo Celestron mailing lists, I get the idea that
Celestron is today shipping product of such low quality that if the
customer community wasn't a bunch of zealot/nerds they'd be out of
business.

Is anyone in the know (e.g. a Celestron insider willing to comment
with product-return facts) able to step up with numbers to refute
those strong claims?

I think I'm speaking mostly of their new (?) relatively low-cost line
of products similar to the C8-SGT. I've got one of them on order, and
am thinking about canceling the order because of all the chatter.

Celestron offers a limited warranty, of course, but requires the
customer to pay shipping both ways to correct their problems, has
(reportedly) hard-to-reach support, and there are a number of reports
of the replacement being worse than the original. At $150 RT for
shipping (perhaps less if you don't have to return the whole mess)
that can get pretty old right away.

A lot of problems are pita issues like missing parts, alignment
indicaters way off, important screws loose, etc. that can be replaced
or repaired by a technically savvy and willing customer. But there's
plenty of chatter about serious problems, especially with the
electronics.

I note that no one complains about the optical quality, but that may
simply be more difficult to assess. If Celestron's lack of concern in
the other areas is being correctly described, it would be hard to
imagine they were doing a better job with the OTA.

The mailing-list zealot team has at least a few very verbal defenders
who excuse all this mess as perfectly acceptable for such a product.
Personally, I think it's completely inexcusable. But I'd really be
thrilled if the outcome of this posting is some hard facts...


--

"JT" wrote in message
...
Reading the Yahoo Celestron mailing lists, I get the idea that
Celestron is today shipping product of such low quality that if the
customer community wasn't a bunch of zealot/nerds they'd be out of
business.

Is anyone in the know (e.g. a Celestron insider willing to comment
with product-return facts) able to step up with numbers to refute
those strong claims?

I think I'm speaking mostly of their new (?) relatively low-cost line
of products similar to the C8-SGT. I've got one of them on order, and
am thinking about canceling the order because of all the chatter.

Celestron offers a limited warranty, of course, but requires the
customer to pay shipping both ways to correct their problems, has
(reportedly) hard-to-reach support, and there are a number of reports
of the replacement being worse than the original. At $150 RT for
shipping (perhaps less if you don't have to return the whole mess)
that can get pretty old right away.

A lot of problems are pita issues like missing parts, alignment
indicaters way off, important screws loose, etc. that can be replaced
or repaired by a technically savvy and willing customer. But there's
plenty of chatter about serious problems, especially with the
electronics.

I note that no one complains about the optical quality, but that may
simply be more difficult to assess. If Celestron's lack of concern in
the other areas is being correctly described, it would be hard to
imagine they were doing a better job with the OTA.

The mailing-list zealot team has at least a few very verbal defenders
who excuse all this mess as perfectly acceptable for such a product.
Personally, I think it's completely inexcusable. But I'd really be
thrilled if the outcome of this posting is some hard facts...
This is where buying from a local dealer wins. These sorts of problems are
easily dealt with by them, rather than dealing direct with Celestron. Mail
order on this sort of item, is popular, because of the price being offered
by some companies, but you wouldn't buy a car, without a PDI inspection from
a dealer, and really should expect to do the same for a scope...
Most of the basic 'missing screw' type issues, are unfortunately explicable
by the transport itself.
There are a couple of possibly software/hardware issues, which have been
leading to a lot of posts on the groups (these are probably what you are
seeing). The latest firmware, was meant to cure one problem, but may have
introduced another. This problem is changing with software versions (there
are versions that sacrifice some of the newer features, and work fine). The
other problem, has not yet had the case 'proven' as to whether it is
software of hardware (the guide lockup). This seems to affect some users
badly, and others not at all, yet does not move with the hardware, possibly
suggesting it is related to the enviroment (power, and the nature of
external connections). Until the actual 'cause' of the problem can be
identified, finding a fix will be very difficult (some users are currently
trying to track down the 'root cause'). For most users though, this problem
won't even appear. The code for the last year, has been good enough, that
you can expect the scope to reliably aim at allmost any object, and track it
for hours. I have taken guided images, with single exposures running over
300 minutes, with peak tracking errors below 0.4 pixels, and RMS below 0.25.
This is twice as good as I ever managed on an LX200...
At the moment, I own two Celestron scopes, and two Meade scopes (plus a
couple of other makes). At present, I would not buy another Meade.

Best Wishes

Matthew Ota wrote:

All I can tell you is that people are more likely to post about problems
with a product and complain about it instead of taking the time to
praise a product of service when it is done right.

Do not let negative posts bias your purchasing decision.

BTW I am not a Celestron customer, my stuff is mostly Meade.

Your point is well taken, Matthew - happy customers have no particular
drive to post a message. But Celestron doesn't seem to have *any*
customers, at least among those who participate in the Yahoo mail
groups, who've popped up and said "mine was perfect out of the box."

Someone asked that very question on one of the lists, and all he got
was a bunch of flames chastising him for expecting too much from what
the respondents characterised as an enormously complicated high-tech
piece of machinery. In fact, it's not particularly big deal technology
at all - basically a motor-drive system, some position encoders, a
database in memory and a simple alignment program.
----

"Roger Hamlett" wrote:

This is where buying from a local dealer wins. These sorts of problems are
easily dealt with by them, rather than dealing direct with Celestron. Mail
order on this sort of item, is popular, because of the price being offered
by some companies, but you wouldn't buy a car, without a PDI inspection from
a dealer, and really should expect to do the same for a scope...
Most of the basic 'missing screw' type issues, are unfortunately explicable
by the transport itself.
There are a couple of possibly software/hardware issues, which have been
leading to a lot of posts on the groups (these are probably what you are
seeing). The latest firmware, was meant to cure one problem, but may have
introduced another. This problem is changing with software versions (there
are versions that sacrifice some of the newer features, and work fine). The
other problem, has not yet had the case 'proven' as to whether it is
software of hardware (the guide lockup). This seems to affect some users
badly, and others not at all, yet does not move with the hardware, possibly
suggesting it is related to the enviroment (power, and the nature of
external connections). Until the actual 'cause' of the problem can be
identified, finding a fix will be very difficult (some users are currently
trying to track down the 'root cause'). For most users though, this problem
won't even appear. The code for the last year, has been good enough, that
you can expect the scope to reliably aim at allmost any object, and track it
for hours. I have taken guided images, with single exposures running over
300 minutes, with peak tracking errors below 0.4 pixels, and RMS below 0.25.
This is twice as good as I ever managed on an LX200...
At the moment, I own two Celestron scopes, and two Meade scopes (plus a
couple of other makes). At present, I would not buy another Meade.

Best Wishes

I wish it were that easy. The C8-SGT in particular seems to be pretty
much "fixed price" at $1299 (B&H wants $1275, but that's not really
significant) so the only particular price break you might get from a
non-local buy is sales tax, probably eaten up by shipping.

I ordered mine from the Sun River astronomy store because they in fact
promised to set it up and check it out, and the fellow who does that
got some pretty good word of mouth. That's one reason I'm hanging in
at the moment - I have high hopes that at least the initial setup
problems will be fixed before I see it.

In any case, I'm not sure what even the friendliest local dealer is
willing to do. I think the bottom line is that you own the thing, and
your recourse is with Celestron, and the dealer will work with you to
a point, but his interest ends where he starts losing money supporting
you. Maybe someone has a magic dealer who goes to the ends of the
solar system, at least, to make stuff right?

JT wrote in message . ..
Reading the Yahoo Celestron mailing lists, I get the idea that
Celestron is today shipping product of such low quality that if the
customer community wasn't a bunch of zealot/nerds they'd be out of
business.
[...]
A lot of problems are pita issues like missing parts, alignment
indicaters way off, important screws loose, etc. that can be replaced
or repaired by a technically savvy and willing customer. But there's
plenty of chatter about serious problems, especially with the
electronics.

I note that no one complains about the optical quality, but that may
simply be more difficult to assess. If Celestron's lack of concern in
the other areas is being correctly described, it would be hard to
imagine they were doing a better job with the OTA.

The mailing-list zealot team has at least a few very verbal defenders
who excuse all this mess as perfectly acceptable for such a product.
Personally, I think it's completely inexcusable. But I'd really be
thrilled if the outcome of this posting is some hard facts...

I agree with your assessment 100%. Note that if you repost what you wrote
above in, say, the "nexstar" group you, too, will be banned as I was. Big
deal. :-)

I almost purchased a CGE mount from a local dealer on a whim, but this time
I got smart and decided to read others' experiences first (in the CGE Yahoo
group) and discovered I was fortunate not succumbing to an impulse purchase.

From what I'm reading and seeing many places I receive the distinct impression
Celestron has zero QA. It'll be a cold day in hell before I ever buy anything
with the Celestron logo on it again.

"JT" wrote in message
...

Someone asked that very question on one of the lists, and all he got
was a bunch of flames chastising him for expecting too much from what
the respondents characterised as an enormously complicated high-tech
piece of machinery. In fact, it's not particularly big deal technology
at all - basically a motor-drive system, some position encoders, a
database in memory and a simple alignment program.

True. Computerized telescopes have an excuse for being mildly inaccurate,
if they are made with cheap mechanical parts. They do not have an excuse
for being erratic or irreproducible.

The ETX-90 manages to do pretty well even though built at (apparently) very
low cost. The software includes a lot of compensations for mechanical
quirks, and the software is, in my experience, reliable.

(Thad Floryan) wrote:


I agree with your assessment 100%. Note that if you repost what you wrote
above in, say, the "nexstar" group you, too, will be banned as I was. Big
deal. :-)

I almost purchased a CGE mount from a local dealer on a whim, but this time
I got smart and decided to read others' experiences first (in the CGE Yahoo
group) and discovered I was fortunate not succumbing to an impulse purchase.

From what I'm reading and seeing many places I receive the distinct impression
Celestron has zero QA. It'll be a cold day in hell before I ever buy anything
with the Celestron logo on it again.

Okay, now that it's starting to look like the thoughtful response is
reinforcing my worries, the question becomes what to buy that is
responsibly put together and marketed, without busting the bank. I'd
really like an 8" goto decent enough to mess around with ds
photography.

$1300 didn't seem too little to pay for what was on offer, given the
economies of Chinese manufacturing, but I suppose casual management of
a company's domestic operations can add a lot of overhead to each
sale. And for companies other than Meade and Celestron, I imagine the
market is *really* thin, so each sale has to generate an extrordinary
amount of profit. But that's all surrounded by "wtfdik".

Anyway, suggestions for well-made stuff would be much appreciated.

"Thad Floryan" wrote in message
om...
JT wrote in message
. ..
Reading the Yahoo Celestron mailing lists, I get the idea that
Celestron is today shipping product of such low quality that if the
customer community wasn't a bunch of zealot/nerds they'd be out of
business.
[...]
A lot of problems are pita issues like missing parts, alignment
indicaters way off, important screws loose, etc. that can be replaced
or repaired by a technically savvy and willing customer. But there's
plenty of chatter about serious problems, especially with the
electronics.

I note that no one complains about the optical quality, but that may
simply be more difficult to assess. If Celestron's lack of concern in
the other areas is being correctly described, it would be hard to
imagine they were doing a better job with the OTA.

The mailing-list zealot team has at least a few very verbal defenders
who excuse all this mess as perfectly acceptable for such a product.
Personally, I think it's completely inexcusable. But I'd really be
thrilled if the outcome of this posting is some hard facts...

I agree with your assessment 100%. Note that if you repost what you wrote
above in, say, the "nexstar" group you, too, will be banned as I was. Big
deal. :-)

I almost purchased a CGE mount from a local dealer on a whim, but this
time
I got smart and decided to read others' experiences first (in the CGE
Yahoo
group) and discovered I was fortunate not succumbing to an impulse
purchase.

From what I'm reading and seeing many places I receive the distinct
impression
Celestron has zero QA. It'll be a cold day in hell before I ever buy
anything
with the Celestron logo on it again.
So lets see, you are saying that Celestron has no QA, without ever having
purchased one of their scopes (you say 'again', yet never bought the
unit)...
It is easy (as you are in fact displaying), on usenet, to go to a group, and
post bad experiences of a product. There is no 'entry qualification', or
indeed any proof that the poster has any experience of the product. I have
over the last few years had four Meade scopes, three Celestron scopes, a
Takahashi, and an Orion (the UK company, not the US one). I have had the
following 'issues':
Takahashi. None.
Orion. Wiring fault in the cable for the cooling fans.
Meade. Appaling optics on two units (the latter ones bought - they would
_just_ scrape through as '1/4 wave', but had very severe zones, these were
the ones proclaiming 'UHTC'...). One motor failure. Two screws loose inside
units when delivered. One complete failure of the hand controller. One
complete mechanical failure of an arm, soon after delivery.
Celestron. One motor controller failure.
I have also helped three friends, who unfortunately bought LXD55 models. One
had the drive completely seized on arrival. The second worked, but behaved
as though the gear was finshed with sand (lapping, and re-greasing, improved
this massively). The third had a faulty AutoStar. The first fault could have
been the result of a severe impact in shipping (though the packaging showed
no sign of this), but the others are QA issues.
Currently I have one of the two better Meade scopes, the last Celestron, the
Tak, and the Orion.
The actual 'goto' accuracy, of the Celestron, 'runs rings' round the
LX200GPS, and the tracking when polar mounted, rivals my G11.

Best Wishes

On 11/24/03 20:24 +0900, Roger Hamlett wrote:

So lets see, you are saying that Celestron has no QA, without ever having
purchased one of their scopes (you say 'again', yet never bought the
unit)...

Actually, Thad wrote that he didn't buy the CGE mount, he didn't
write that he'd never owned a Celestron product. You're jumping
to conclusions.

It is easy (as you are in fact displaying), on usenet, to go to a group, and
post bad experiences of a product. There is no 'entry qualification', or
indeed any proof that the poster has any experience of the product. I have

If I recall correctly, Thad has had considerable experience with
the 114 GT and its issues. As such, I'd say he's as qualified to
poo-poo Celestron's quality as anybody.

Celestron. One motor controller failure.

My 4 GT suffered from a drive failure, persistent drive
"stalling," an occasional personality disorder (it thought it was
a StarGuide), and the typical GT quirks (runaway-, incomplete- or
incorrect slews).

The actual 'goto' accuracy, of the Celestron, 'runs rings' round the
LX200GPS, and the tracking when polar mounted, rivals my G11.

The tracking and goto performance of the GT series of scopes is
by no means impressive. Goto isn't so bad (object is usually in
the FOV at the end of a slew). If I'm lucky, I can track an
object for a minute before I need to adjust centering. The scope
is currently broken and in for repair.

Obviously, one 4 GT doesn't represent the entire product catalog,
but without doubt, this is the last GT I'll buy.

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
// http://mp3.com/trane_francks/