Celestron vs. Meade

Rod,

I have to agree that the Meade Focuser stinks. I prefer the Celestron
Focuser, but I got around that by upgrading my focuser to the Starizon
microtouch 2 speed. This is an amazing focuser and I use that in
conjunction with the zero Image Shift Microfocuser, thought I've
replaced that with a used JMI NGF-S when I put the 10" OTA on the G-11.

Focusing is so much better now.

Also I don't think Meade uses any bearings (thrust or Ball), I recall
from upgrading mine to the Peterson kit that they use nylon washers with
grease. The upgrade kit from Peterson uses thrust washers.

In article . com,
says...
Hi Jim:

Yes, I'd say the Celestrons are better vis-a-vis mirror shift. A little
bit, anyway. Both brands are better in this regard than they used to
be.

That said... Much as I've liked a lot of the Meades I've used, one
thing I've _never_ liked is the focuser. Not so much the shift, but the
feel. I wish they'd use ballbearings instead of thrust bearings. Of
course, the RCX SCT moves the whole corrector assembly to focus, so
there's no mirror shift with it at all.

As for the R/GPS, the Meade troops will chirp right up and say, "With
the included microfocuser, you don't have to use the main focus control
much at all, so there's no focus shift most of the time." Which is
true, I guess. ;-)

I think the 9.25 is a fine scope. Is it better than the Meade 10? If it
is, the differences are pretty subtle. ;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland



Mij Adyaw wrote:
Rod,

What about mirror shift? Aren't the Celestrons better in this regard? Also,
doesn't the Celestron 9.25 perform better than the Meade 10 inch due to the
longer focal length primary? These are the kind of thoughts that run through
folks heads especially if the google-up this newsgroup for information on
this topic. It may be helpful to the original posted if you could shed some
light on these topics.


"RMOLLISE" wrote in message
oups.com...

Pippen wrote:
First off this is not an attempt to start a flame war... I'm looking at
the
Celestron 9.25 CPC and also the Meade LX200R 8 or 10 inch. All would
include
optical coating upgrade.

I have a Meade 10 inch LX200 GPS (sort of) and I am able to just make
it up the stairs with it.

I am certain that in another ten years I will have to go down to 8
inches.

I am totally satisfied with the telescope.

As for Celestron, I cannot give an opinion as I have never owned or
operated a NextStar.


Matthew Ota


Pippen wrote:
First off this is not an attempt to start a flame war... I'm looking at the
Celestron 9.25 CPC and also the Meade LX200R 8 or 10 inch. All would include
optical coating upgrade.

I live in an area where viewing is not that great so I will be transporting
the scope maybe 25 - 50 percent of the time.

Not currently doing astrophotography but would not want my choice now to
hinder the ability later... this would include motors, gears and optics etc.

Durability, I want this scope to last possibly a lifetime...

As far a weight of the scope, not too concerned about that I'm healthy 30
something male who works out on a regular basis. I would want to be able to
assemble by myself (sometimes that is not a function of weight). Is the
LX200R manageable for one person?

Software for each scope, pro's and con's...

Ease of use, I like goto functionality of my ETX and would expect something
better on the next scope.

Please include any other options that you think my fit my situation. I'm
pretty certain I want to go with an SCM or a close variant. I currently have
a ETX - 125 (Mak) that I'm very happy with.

Thanks in advance for your input.

-p

Matthew,

If you buy one of those "pumps" that are advertised in Spam emails, you may
be up to 10 inches within the next 10 years. :-) (sorry, couldn't resist
that one)

"Matthew Ota" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have a Meade 10 inch LX200 GPS (sort of) and I am able to just make
it up the stairs with it.

I am certain that in another ten years I will have to go down to 8
inches.

I am totally satisfied with the telescope.

As for Celestron, I cannot give an opinion as I have never owned or
operated a NextStar.


Matthew Ota


Pippen wrote:
First off this is not an attempt to start a flame war... I'm looking at
the
Celestron 9.25 CPC and also the Meade LX200R 8 or 10 inch. All would
include
optical coating upgrade.

I live in an area where viewing is not that great so I will be
transporting
the scope maybe 25 - 50 percent of the time.

Not currently doing astrophotography but would not want my choice now to
hinder the ability later... this would include motors, gears and optics
etc.

Durability, I want this scope to last possibly a lifetime...

As far a weight of the scope, not too concerned about that I'm healthy 30
something male who works out on a regular basis. I would want to be able
to
assemble by myself (sometimes that is not a function of weight). Is the
LX200R manageable for one person?

Software for each scope, pro's and con's...

Ease of use, I like goto functionality of my ETX and would expect
something
better on the next scope.

Please include any other options that you think my fit my situation. I'm
pretty certain I want to go with an SCM or a close variant. I currently
have
a ETX - 125 (Mak) that I'm very happy with.

Thanks in advance for your input.

-p

1st off, re you set on a fork mounted scope? If you are, then you are
looking at pretty much a wash. IMO the Meade has a slight advantage on
the hand controller side over the Celestron version, and if you are
familiar with the autostar (as it appears from your EXT exp.) then the
LX-200r is pretty much the same usability with a few extras thrown in.

But this is offset by the slight advantage the C 9.25 has optically.
Many consider it the finest SCT available. I do know those I've looked
through have been superb.

I've owned a Meade LX200 10". I took the scope off the forks and mounted
them on a Losmandy G-11.

If you are looking for a GEM system (has some advantages an some
disadvantages) then I'd get a C9.25 with Starbright XLT coatings and put
it on a Losmandy G-11.

Before you say nything about the weight not being an issue, go to your
local telescope store and set one up. Now imagine doing that everytime
you want to observe. The 10" LX200 is approx 65lbs.

If you do go fork mount and decide to get into imaging then you would
have to buy a wedge.

In article ,
says...
First off this is not an attempt to start a flame war... I'm looking at the
Celestron 9.25 CPC and also the Meade LX200R 8 or 10 inch. All would include
optical coating upgrade.

I live in an area where viewing is not that great so I will be transporting
the scope maybe 25 - 50 percent of the time.

Not currently doing astrophotography but would not want my choice now to
hinder the ability later... this would include motors, gears and optics etc.

Durability, I want this scope to last possibly a lifetime...

As far a weight of the scope, not too concerned about that I'm healthy 30
something male who works out on a regular basis. I would want to be able to
assemble by myself (sometimes that is not a function of weight). Is the
LX200R manageable for one person?

Software for each scope, pro's and con's...

Ease of use, I like goto functionality of my ETX and would expect something
better on the next scope.

Please include any other options that you think my fit my situation. I'm
pretty certain I want to go with an SCM or a close variant. I currently have
a ETX - 125 (Mak) that I'm very happy with.

Thanks in advance for your input.

-p

The OTAs are very similar. Any of the 3 shouldn't be a big problem to haul
around for a fit, 30-something male. The Meade 10" will be the heaviest of
the 3. I think you'd probably be quite happy with any of them.

With that in mind it comes down to price and ease of use. I've never used
the Celestron GOTO controller but I've used a Meade Autostar for years
(LX90). Since you're already familiar with the Autostar from your ETX, I
would give a slight edge to the Meade models. If you are going with the
Meade and the extra weight and expense isn't a big issue, get the 10" model.
More aperture is almost always best until you reach the point where the
scope is too much trouble to use.

Clear skies,
Ray Porter

"Pippen" wrote in message
...
First off this is not an attempt to start a flame war... I'm looking at
the Celestron 9.25 CPC and also the Meade LX200R 8 or 10 inch. All would
include optical coating upgrade.

I live in an area where viewing is not that great so I will be
transporting the scope maybe 25 - 50 percent of the time.

Not currently doing astrophotography but would not want my choice now to
hinder the ability later... this would include motors, gears and optics
etc.

Durability, I want this scope to last possibly a lifetime...

As far a weight of the scope, not too concerned about that I'm healthy 30
something male who works out on a regular basis. I would want to be able
to assemble by myself (sometimes that is not a function of weight). Is the
LX200R manageable for one person?

Software for each scope, pro's and con's...

Ease of use, I like goto functionality of my ETX and would expect
something better on the next scope.

Please include any other options that you think my fit my situation. I'm
pretty certain I want to go with an SCM or a close variant. I currently
have a ETX - 125 (Mak) that I'm very happy with.

Thanks in advance for your input.

-p

Vis-a-vis the Celestron HC versus the Meade.

The Celestron is more user friendly, while the Meade tends to have more
features (Celestron is narrowing the gap here with the new
programmable HCs included with current scopes...which, among other
things, include sync (and unsync), much requested features).

One thing I prefer about the Autostar and Autostar II? The red on black
display. It's much easier for my uhhh..."middle aged" eyes to read than
Celestron black on red.

SkyAlign, the new Celestron alignment mode is amazing. Point the scope
at any three bright objects (even the Moon or a planet) in the sky,
push a button, and you are aligned. I've tested this on my Nexstar 11
and it works...amazingly well.

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland


Ray Porter wrote:
The OTAs are very similar. Any of the 3 shouldn't be a big problem to haul
around for a fit, 30-something male. The Meade 10" will be the heaviest of
the 3. I think you'd probably be quite happy with any of them.

With that in mind it comes down to price and ease of use. I've never used
the Celestron GOTO controller but I've used a Meade Autostar for years
(LX90). Since you're already familiar with the Autostar from your ETX, I
would give a slight edge to the Meade models. If you are going with the
Meade and the extra weight and expense isn't a big issue, get the 10" model.
More aperture is almost always best until you reach the point where the
scope is too much trouble to use.

Clear skies,
Ray Porter

"Pippen" wrote in message
...
First off this is not an attempt to start a flame war... I'm looking at
the Celestron 9.25 CPC and also the Meade LX200R 8 or 10 inch. All would
include optical coating upgrade.

I live in an area where viewing is not that great so I will be
transporting the scope maybe 25 - 50 percent of the time.

Not currently doing astrophotography but would not want my choice now to
hinder the ability later... this would include motors, gears and optics
etc.

Durability, I want this scope to last possibly a lifetime...

As far a weight of the scope, not too concerned about that I'm healthy 30
something male who works out on a regular basis. I would want to be able
to assemble by myself (sometimes that is not a function of weight). Is the
LX200R manageable for one person?

Software for each scope, pro's and con's...

Ease of use, I like goto functionality of my ETX and would expect
something better on the next scope.

Please include any other options that you think my fit my situation. I'm
pretty certain I want to go with an SCM or a close variant. I currently
have a ETX - 125 (Mak) that I'm very happy with.

Thanks in advance for your input.

-p

How does the LX90 compare to the Celestron CPCs? A friend of mine is trying
to decide between these two scopes. While I have a LX200 classic, I've
never used a either of these scopes. He does want to do some CCD imaging.

Thanks,
Tom

"Ray Porter" wrote in message
...
The OTAs are very similar. Any of the 3 shouldn't be a big problem to
haul around for a fit, 30-something male. The Meade 10" will be the
heaviest of the 3. I think you'd probably be quite happy with any of
them.

With that in mind it comes down to price and ease of use. I've never used
the Celestron GOTO controller but I've used a Meade Autostar for years
(LX90). Since you're already familiar with the Autostar from your ETX, I
would give a slight edge to the Meade models. If you are going with the
Meade and the extra weight and expense isn't a big issue, get the 10"
model. More aperture is almost always best until you reach the point where
the scope is too much trouble to use.

Clear skies,
Ray Porter

"Pippen" wrote in message
...
First off this is not an attempt to start a flame war... I'm looking at
the Celestron 9.25 CPC and also the Meade LX200R 8 or 10 inch. All would
include optical coating upgrade.

I live in an area where viewing is not that great so I will be
transporting the scope maybe 25 - 50 percent of the time.

Not currently doing astrophotography but would not want my choice now to
hinder the ability later... this would include motors, gears and optics
etc.

Durability, I want this scope to last possibly a lifetime...

As far a weight of the scope, not too concerned about that I'm healthy 30
something male who works out on a regular basis. I would want to be able
to assemble by myself (sometimes that is not a function of weight). Is
the LX200R manageable for one person?

Software for each scope, pro's and con's...

Ease of use, I like goto functionality of my ETX and would expect
something better on the next scope.

Please include any other options that you think my fit my situation. I'm
pretty certain I want to go with an SCM or a close variant. I currently
have a ETX - 125 (Mak) that I'm very happy with.

Thanks in advance for your input.

-p






--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Pippen wrote:
First off this is not an attempt to start a flame war... I'm looking at the
Celestron 9.25 CPC and also the Meade LX200R 8 or 10 inch. All would include
optical coating upgrade.

I live in an area where viewing is not that great so I will be transporting
the scope maybe 25 - 50 percent of the time.

Not currently doing astrophotography but would not want my choice now to
hinder the ability later... this would include motors, gears and optics etc.

Durability, I want this scope to last possibly a lifetime...

As far a weight of the scope, not too concerned about that I'm healthy 30
something male who works out on a regular basis. I would want to be able to
assemble by myself (sometimes that is not a function of weight). Is the
LX200R manageable for one person?

Software for each scope, pro's and con's...

Ease of use, I like goto functionality of my ETX and would expect something
better on the next scope.

Please include any other options that you think my fit my situation. I'm
pretty certain I want to go with an SCM or a close variant. I currently have
a ETX - 125 (Mak) that I'm very happy with.

Thanks in advance for your input.

-p

The LX200R is (sort of) a Ritchey-Chretien. Possibly superior to the
SCT for imaging. Also, most imagers prefer equatorial mounts ovr
forks. Maybe an LX200R OTA on an Orion Sirius EQ mount?

I personally would get a large dob for visual use and an EQ mount for
imaging with your ETX.

Greg

"Don't Be Evil" wrote in message
ups.com...

Pippen wrote:
First off this is not an attempt to start a flame war... I'm looking at
the
Celestron 9.25 CPC and also the Meade LX200R 8 or 10 inch. All would
include
optical coating upgrade.

I live in an area where viewing is not that great so I will be
transporting
the scope maybe 25 - 50 percent of the time.

Not currently doing astrophotography but would not want my choice now
to
hinder the ability later... this would include motors, gears and optics
etc.

Durability, I want this scope to last possibly a lifetime...

As far a weight of the scope, not too concerned about that I'm healthy
30
something male who works out on a regular basis. I would want to be
able to
assemble by myself (sometimes that is not a function of weight). Is the
LX200R manageable for one person?

Software for each scope, pro's and con's...

Ease of use, I like goto functionality of my ETX and would expect
something
better on the next scope.

Please include any other options that you think my fit my situation.
I'm
pretty certain I want to go with an SCM or a close variant. I currently
have
a ETX - 125 (Mak) that I'm very happy with.

Thanks in advance for your input.

-p

The LX200R is (sort of) a Ritchey-Chretien. Possibly superior to the
SCT for imaging. Also, most imagers prefer equatorial mounts ovr
forks. Maybe an LX200R OTA on an Orion Sirius EQ mount?

I personally would get a large dob for visual use and an EQ mount for
imaging with your ETX.
The LX200R, _is not_ a Ritchie Chretien. Meade should be taken to court
over this at somepoint!.... At least the poster said 'sort of'. :-)
It is a SCT, with an improved corrector, giving about the same _coma_
performance as the RC. It still has the slight chromatic aberration of an
SCT,and despite what some people seem to think, the same field curvature.
_However_, in an SCT' the field curvature depends on how fast the primary
is, and the magnification introduced by the secondary. The C9.25, has a
slower primary, than the traditional SCT, and has less field curvature
than the 'normal' SCT this size. The Meade RCX scopes, also have this
design, taking it slightly further, with less magnification on the
secondary (in line with most RC scopes), to give less field curvature than
a normal SCT, but the LX200R, does not. the 'downside' of a slower
primary, and less magnification, is more central obstruction is needed to
give the same field coverage. The reduced coma, makes the field curvature
a lot more acceptable on the -R scopes, than on the normal SCT.
An equatorial mount, has the big advantage, of splitting the assembly up
into more parts. Takes slightly longer to setup, but the parts are
lighter.
Personally, in the past, I have found myself slightly more 'impressed' by
the Celestron optics than those from Meade. However I prefer the Meade
hand controllers, and a couple of the RC scopes, have had the best Meade
optics I have seen.
A lot depends on whether this is for purely visual use, or imaging is
intended, and whether there is any possibility of wanting to add another
OTA for different applications?. If either of these is 'true', then I'd
suggest considering a slightly more 'up market' equatorial mount, and
putting one of the OTA's on this.

Best Wishes

Meade should change the decal on the LX200R to read "LX200R*"
With a disclamer in the manual and catalog, elaborating on the RC
claim.

Matthew Ota

Roger Hamlett wrote:
"Don't Be Evil" wrote in message
ups.com...

Pippen wrote:
First off this is not an attempt to start a flame war... I'm looking at
the
Celestron 9.25 CPC and also the Meade LX200R 8 or 10 inch. All would
include
optical coating upgrade.

I live in an area where viewing is not that great so I will be
transporting
the scope maybe 25 - 50 percent of the time.

Not currently doing astrophotography but would not want my choice now
to
hinder the ability later... this would include motors, gears and optics
etc.

Durability, I want this scope to last possibly a lifetime...

As far a weight of the scope, not too concerned about that I'm healthy
30
something male who works out on a regular basis. I would want to be
able to
assemble by myself (sometimes that is not a function of weight). Is the
LX200R manageable for one person?

Software for each scope, pro's and con's...

Ease of use, I like goto functionality of my ETX and would expect
something
better on the next scope.

Please include any other options that you think my fit my situation.
I'm
pretty certain I want to go with an SCM or a close variant. I currently
have
a ETX - 125 (Mak) that I'm very happy with.

Thanks in advance for your input.

-p

The LX200R is (sort of) a Ritchey-Chretien. Possibly superior to the
SCT for imaging. Also, most imagers prefer equatorial mounts ovr
forks. Maybe an LX200R OTA on an Orion Sirius EQ mount?

I personally would get a large dob for visual use and an EQ mount for
imaging with your ETX.
The LX200R, _is not_ a Ritchie Chretien. Meade should be taken to court
over this at somepoint!.... At least the poster said 'sort of'. :-)
It is a SCT, with an improved corrector, giving about the same _coma_
performance as the RC. It still has the slight chromatic aberration of an
SCT,and despite what some people seem to think, the same field curvature.
_However_, in an SCT' the field curvature depends on how fast the primary
is, and the magnification introduced by the secondary. The C9.25, has a
slower primary, than the traditional SCT, and has less field curvature
than the 'normal' SCT this size. The Meade RCX scopes, also have this
design, taking it slightly further, with less magnification on the
secondary (in line with most RC scopes), to give less field curvature than
a normal SCT, but the LX200R, does not. the 'downside' of a slower
primary, and less magnification, is more central obstruction is needed to
give the same field coverage. The reduced coma, makes the field curvature
a lot more acceptable on the -R scopes, than on the normal SCT.
An equatorial mount, has the big advantage, of splitting the assembly up
into more parts. Takes slightly longer to setup, but the parts are
lighter.
Personally, in the past, I have found myself slightly more 'impressed' by
the Celestron optics than those from Meade. However I prefer the Meade
hand controllers, and a couple of the RC scopes, have had the best Meade
optics I have seen.
A lot depends on whether this is for purely visual use, or imaging is
intended, and whether there is any possibility of wanting to add another
OTA for different applications?. If either of these is 'true', then I'd
suggest considering a slightly more 'up market' equatorial mount, and
putting one of the OTA's on this.

Best Wishes