meade or celestron?

hi all, i am shopping for a new scope and can not decide between the
celestron nexstar 11 gps or a meade 12 lx200 gps. The meade site goes on
about its Zero Image-Shift Microfocuser and mirror lock, i cannot find any
equivalent feature on the celestron.. can anyone shed some light here for
me? what do people recommend as the better scope?

TIA

gluon

Very easy request...

You can not find an equivalent feature on the Celestron because there is
none! Get the LX200 and you will be miles ahead of the game...it's simply a
well built, reliable telescope and is more feature rich than the Celestron.
By the way, the Meade microfocuser is a _very_ important feature, and you
will realize this the first time you take a picture.

Al


"gluon" wrote in message
s.com...
hi all, i am shopping for a new scope and can not decide between the
celestron nexstar 11 gps or a meade 12 lx200 gps. The meade site goes on
about its Zero Image-Shift Microfocuser and mirror lock, i cannot find any
equivalent feature on the celestron.. can anyone shed some light here for
me? what do people recommend as the better scope?

TIA

gluon

Well I will give a dissenting view on this. I think the microfocuser is a
"nice" feature but far from important. With a robofocus or the soon to be
released wireless Starizona focuser you can get focus just as precise as
with a microfocuser without the added weight and light path in the image
train. And of course a microfocuser does not work when you are imaging with
the Hyperstar....oops, that's a feature the Meade does not have and can't be
added.

Mirror lock was an important feature during the days of long integration
film photography. With the amount of image shift and "mirror flop" present
in both the Meade and Celestron scopes today and the fact that just about
everyone is using CCD with much shorter integrations makes the mirror lock
an added mechanical component which doesn't have as much value as it once
would have.

The drive components on the Celestron are much more robust than the
Meade...take a look "under the hood" someday and you will see the
difference. I will give Meade the advantage when it comes to "built in"
electronic features, but all of these features can be had via a laptop which
is what you would be using during imaging anyway. And let's face it...you
are not going to be "visually" searching for those 15th magnitude galaxies
in the bigger Meade database so they just take up useless memory space.

Just my 2¢ worth,
Jeff


"Al" wrote in message
t...
Very easy request...

You can not find an equivalent feature on the Celestron because there is
none! Get the LX200 and you will be miles ahead of the game...it's simply
a
well built, reliable telescope and is more feature rich than the
Celestron.
By the way, the Meade microfocuser is a _very_ important feature, and you
will realize this the first time you take a picture.

Al


"gluon" wrote in message
s.com...
hi all, i am shopping for a new scope and can not decide between the
celestron nexstar 11 gps or a meade 12 lx200 gps. The meade site goes on
about its Zero Image-Shift Microfocuser and mirror lock, i cannot find
any
equivalent feature on the celestron.. can anyone shed some light here
for
me? what do people recommend as the better scope?

TIA

gluon

hi all, i am shopping for a new scope and can not decide between the
celestron nexstar 11 gps or a meade 12 lx200 gps. The meade site goes on
about its Zero Image-Shift Microfocuser and mirror lock, i cannot find any
equivalent feature on the celestron.. can anyone shed some light here for
me? what do people recommend as the

Hi:

The Meade has slightly more aperture, but you pay for that in increased weight
and size. The mirror lock and microfocuser mean little unless you're a
committed imager. Then they are nice to have, certainly, but probably not a
reason to choose one scope over the other. You can, of course, equip the
Celestron with a crayford that does the same thing as the microfocuser.

Me? I chose the NS11 for a couple of reasons. I needed something that could
serve as a portable telescope, at least for the next couple of years until I
can put an observatory up. Frankly, I would not dream of lugging the Meade 12
out into the backyard for a quick 30 minute look at the Moon. The Celestron is
no problem in that regard. The tube passes through the fork, and it is equipped
with superb, ergonomically designed handles. Also, while I think very highly of
the Meade Autostar, I prefer something a little more simple/user friendly in
the dark at 3am...and the Nexstar hand-paddle is very good in that regard.

Don't get me wrong...I think the Meade GPSes are shaping up to be very nice
scopes, and I would love to have the LX200GPS 14 inch as an observatory scope,
but, I'm not even willing to lug the Meade Giant Field Tripod around, much less
the 12 inch scope. YMMV!


Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

In my opinion, they're pretty much neck-and-neck, with advocates on each
side coloring their views on their personal experience, and on occasion the
experience of others. Myself included.

I personally favor Celestron, since their technical department was both
courteous and helpful, whereas the Meade electronic technical help was
neither, and in fact arrogant and stand-offish. This viewpoint was shared
by a former contractor to those guys also, so I have a semi-insider's
viewpoint to back me up. On the other hand, you will find many who will
support Meade and not Celestron, for similar reasons.

Optically, they're practically the same; same quality, same lack thereof
for some people.

Electronically I thought Celestron was better, particularly with their
quieter mounts, but I've not heard the noise of recent Meade mounts, so I
don't know if they're finally gotten the hint. Software wise, the last I
heard a few years ago, Meade still hasn't figured out what regression
testing means, if they even know what testing means, so every software
update should be viewed with skepticism. My personal experience is that
Meade uses the end-user as their ONLY tester.

I'm sure you'll get other opinions, similar or different from mine. The
only advice I'd give is go out and try both types, preferably by joining a
local Astronomy club and visiting a star party and trying the scopes, then
go with what you feel is correct, and not pay attention to all of us.

Good Luck !

"gluon" wrote in message
s.com...
hi all, i am shopping for a new scope and can not decide between the
celestron nexstar 11 gps or a meade 12 lx200 gps. The meade site goes on
about its Zero Image-Shift Microfocuser and mirror lock, i cannot find
any
equivalent feature on the celestron.. can anyone shed some light here
for
me? what do people recommend as the better scope?

TIA

gluon

"David Nakamoto" wrote in message
...
In my opinion, they're pretty much neck-and-neck, with advocates on each
side coloring their views on their personal experience, and on occasion
the
experience of others. Myself included.

I personally favor Celestron, since their technical department was both
courteous and helpful, whereas the Meade electronic technical help was
neither, and in fact arrogant and stand-offish. This viewpoint was shared
by a former contractor to those guys also, so I have a semi-insider's
viewpoint to back me up. On the other hand, you will find many who will
support Meade and not Celestron, for similar reasons.

Optically, they're practically the same; same quality, same lack thereof
for some people.

Electronically I thought Celestron was better, particularly with their
quieter mounts, but I've not heard the noise of recent Meade mounts, so I
don't know if they're finally gotten the hint. Software wise, the last I
heard a few years ago, Meade still hasn't figured out what regression
testing means, if they even know what testing means, so every software
update should be viewed with skepticism. My personal experience is that
Meade uses the end-user as their ONLY tester.

I'm sure you'll get other opinions, similar or different from mine. The
only advice I'd give is go out and try both types, preferably by joining a
local Astronomy club and visiting a star party and trying the scopes, then
go with what you feel is correct, and not pay attention to all of us.

Good Luck !
I think that optically, and mechnically, Celestron are slightly ahead (the
actual mechnics of some of their new mounts are excellent). At present some
versions of their software show problems. Historically, Meade software had a
lot of bugs, but the current releases seem good. In terms of 'responses' to
users, Celestron win. They appear to be having some 'QA' issues on
individual models at present (as do Meade, but historically, Celestron was
'better' here, and this seems to have slipped in recent months).
The microfocusser on the Meade, is a little 'sad' really. It is not
mechanically that solid, and has no position feedback. It is 'adequate', but
not 'good'. The mirror lock, works quite well, but does _not_ completely
cure image shift. In the past, Meade had more image shift than most
Celestron models. This probably 'forced' the decision to add the fix, which
now makes the Meade scopes better in this regard.
I sold a Meade to get a Celestron, and have not regretted the change.
It really is a bit like 'Ford', versus 'GM', with individual scopes being
particularly 'good' from the different manufacturers. The LX90, is a great
scope, in terms of value for money. In larger models, the Celestron 9.25,
has a very good optical reputation (it's slower primary, makes it larger,
but also slightly more forgiving of some errors). The NS11GPS, has the big
advantage of being easier to lift and handle, and tracks more accurately
than either the Meade LX200/10", or 12". The LX200/14" (too large to be
'mobile', the 12", is generally 'borderline' in this regard), appears to
have better mechanical strength than the older models, and seems to track
better.
The 'try the scopes' advice is the best way to go, but don't really worry
about the optics when doing this (look at the convenience, and portability).
The reason is that both makers optics are now very good, and even a good
scope can be made to look bad by slight collimation errors, or conditions.

Best Wishes

"gluon" wrote in message
s.com...
hi all, i am shopping for a new scope and can not decide between the
celestron nexstar 11 gps or a meade 12 lx200 gps. The meade site goes
on
about its Zero Image-Shift Microfocuser and mirror lock, i cannot find
any
equivalent feature on the celestron.. can anyone shed some light here
for
me? what do people recommend as the better scope?

TIA

gluon

thank you all very much for your prompt and well informed replies...

gluon

what do people recommend as the better scope?

TIA

I suggest looking and in this case lifting each one. These are big scopes,
especially the 12 inch LX200GPS. I have helped set one of these up a time or
two and they are quite a handful for even a 200 pounder, seems to be done best
with 2 people.

I think Celestron's thinking was to make the largest SCT that was manageable,
use a Carbon Fiber tube etc.

jon isaacs