Celestron vs. Meade

Hi Rod,

I'm thinking about Chiefland next weekend (9/20 - 9/24). Don't think
I'll be doing the Fall Chiefland star party, unfortunately. Saving up
my pennies for the Keys in February. I figure that Chiefland in
September, the Haze Gaze in October and the WSP in February should keep
me outta trouble for a bit.

Hope to run into you at one of the events.

Eric



"RMOLLISE" wrote:

Hi Eric:

I was thinking about it, but the way the schedule looks...I dunno. Wish
they'd stayed in Jackon. I will make it up there again one of these
years...but it looks like this time it's DSRSG (Louisiana) and
Chiefland (FL). I'll be coming off a destroyer sea trial, so it looks
like just a few days at Chiefland (Friday - Sunday, maybe).

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


Eric Greene wrote:


Actually, it has, Rod. Usenet has been a cesspit for years.

You going to the Peachstate this year? I have the application sitting
in front of me and still kicking the idea around.

Eric

"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



I would like to thank everyone for their input. I think I still have some
more research to do but feedback I have received here has helped me
tremendously!

Once again Thanks,

-p

Hi,
Probably the very best recommendation I can give, is if you can somehow
see, examine, and view through both brands.

The "Meade vs Celestron" battle has gone on back, and forth for virtual
decades now, and it's been a back, and forth process with Celestron once
said to be a superior scope with better optics, etc, but Meade over the
last many years has been producing very nice scopes with comparable
optics, and very good fit, and finish.

As to the Meade Focuser feel gripes, I know aftermarket Thrust Bearings
are available to alleviate much of the shortcomings of just using thrust
washers. I cannot comment if the latest models now incorporate this
improvement.

I have personally used new LX-200's, and I find they work pretty good.
Truth is, both brands have some Image Shift when focusing to a certain
degree.

As you've stated, you may be traveling to dark sky sites, so on one hand
portability, and ease of transport is one factor to consider.

I'd say that yes, the Equatorial version (With perhaps a Losmandy G-11)
would be the best way to go in many instances, depending on what you may
wish to eventually do in the future.

It will exibit better tracking accuracy for Photo-Use, better
versatility, in that the G-11 can be used-adapted to mount various
different Telescopes you may wish to buy in the future (Let's say a 4"
or 5" Refractor for instance), but also, setting up, and transporting
the EQ Mount will be a bit more complex, with Counterweights, and
Shafts, Brain Box, hand controller, etc, and the Base G-11 model is
about $2,000 all by itself, and this doesn't include the GOTO option.

With the Gemini GOTO, add about another $1300 to the price, just for the
mount. A suitable Dovetail Mounting Plate would also then be needed for
whichever Optical Tube Assembly you choose.

An 8" SCT (especially with GOTO) will easily show you every Messier
object in the Heavens. (Under dark skies of course) But you may find in
time that the 8" will leave you wanting more.

The larger Aperture will show better detail, and nebulosity of Deep Sky
Objects, display better Planetary detail, and split close Double Stars
more easily. One does not require dark skies for very high quality
views of the Planets, but rather steady, stable skies.

Hope my response has helped you some. Mark

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.

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

I just re-read Sky& Telescope's rave review of the RCX-400. How does
the LX200R differ from it? Just curious, not trying to rekindle the
flames. We all know they're not true RC's.

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

I just re-read Sky& Telescope's rave review of the RCX-400. How does
the LX200R differ from it? Just curious, not trying to rekindle the
flames. We all know they're not true RC's.
The -R scopes, have a more 'traditional' SCT design. They have a faster
primary, and then more magnification at the secondary, resulting in a
slower final focal ratio, and more field curvature (like most 'normal'
SCT's). Effectively, they are 'normal' SCT's, with an improved corrector.
The RCX prmary, has more in common with the Celestron C9.25, and they then
use a lower magnification at the secondary, resulting in a slightly
'faster' scope, with a flatter focal field.
The RCX, also adds all the 'frills' regarding how they focus/collimate.

Best Wishes

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