Meade LXD55 (10") or Meade Starfinder (12.5") ??

All,

We've wanted to acquire a high quality, general purpose telescope for
a while, but with the Mars approcah we've decided that timing is now.
Budget is $1,000-$1,500 and "goto" is a must. We're comparing a Meade
LXD55 10" UHTC coated Schmidt-Newtonian with a Meade Starfinder 12.5"
Dobsonian + Magellan goto system. Both street for roughly $1,200,
though the LXD has a $650 eyepice deal right now.

The immediate use is Mars viewing, but ultimately the scope will seek
out both deep sky and solar system. Astrophotography is not something
we'll do (if we want photos, we go to the Hubble site!). We like the
idea of American optics and build, better resale if necessary, etc..
We live in rural N. California at 3,000' about 50 miles from a major
city and have very dark N/E/S skys. West sky glares a bit from the
city. Climate is dry.

Scope will be used here at home, not really concerned about
transportability. On paper, the 12.5" reflector seems a little better
than the 10" SN. Comparing these two under the criteria given, which
do y'all think would be a better choice for us, and why? Or perhaps
there are other options we should consider within our budget?

Thanks for your thoughts,
Paige

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 14:15:35 GMT, "Al"
wrote:

If you want reasonable quality and GOTO in the same package, you must be
prepared to spend a few more bucks...the LXD55 will give you a lot of aggravation! Take my
word for it, I've been there.

Al


Al,

Thank you for your thoughts. I've done more chat room research on
"goto" scopes and have found some consensus that the Celestron NexStar
goto electromechanics are smoother, quieter, and more durable than the
Meade LX. Is this you're experience? Anyone?

We're now leaning towards larger aperture. Stretching the budget to
around $3,000, it's looking like either a Celestron Nexstar 11" GPS or
the Meade LX200 10" GPS, both with "special" coatings. Are there any
other larger aperture SC GPS scope mfrs in the $3,000 price range? I
can't find any.

I also can't find consensus on optical quality comparison between
these two scopes. Plenty of divergent opinions around. Anyone here
have experience with both? Are they close enough in optical quality
that a decision really boils down to mount and electromechanics?

I also can't find consensus on optical quality comparison between
these two scopes. Plenty of divergent opinions around. Anyone here
have experience with both? Are they close enough in optical quality
that a decision really boils down to mount and electromechanics?

There's a good reason, in my opinion, why you can't find a consensus of
opinion. The reason is that these scopes are so close in quality that there
almost is no difference. You will not go wrong which ever you
select...Meade or Celestron.

I own a 10" LX200 and also own a Celestron 14" SCT. In my opinion,
Celestron has the better optics and Meade has the better mechanicals. Be
advised, however, that this statement is really splitting hairs. If I were
you, I would go with the C-11, if only for the extra aperture.

Al


"Paige Turner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 14:15:35 GMT, "Al"
wrote:

If you want reasonable quality and GOTO in the same package, you must be
prepared to spend a few more bucks...the LXD55 will give you a lot of
aggravation! Take my
word for it, I've been there.

Al


Al,

Thank you for your thoughts. I've done more chat room research on
"goto" scopes and have found some consensus that the Celestron NexStar
goto electromechanics are smoother, quieter, and more durable than the
Meade LX. Is this you're experience? Anyone?

We're now leaning towards larger aperture. Stretching the budget to
around $3,000, it's looking like either a Celestron Nexstar 11" GPS or
the Meade LX200 10" GPS, both with "special" coatings. Are there any
other larger aperture SC GPS scope mfrs in the $3,000 price range? I
can't find any.

I also can't find consensus on optical quality comparison between
these two scopes. Plenty of divergent opinions around. Anyone here
have experience with both? Are they close enough in optical quality
that a decision really boils down to mount and electromechanics?

"Paige Turner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 14:15:35 GMT, "Al"
wrote:

If you want reasonable quality and GOTO in the same package, you must be
prepared to spend a few more bucks...the LXD55 will give you a lot of
aggravation! Take my
word for it, I've been there.

Al


Al,

Thank you for your thoughts. I've done more chat room research on
"goto" scopes and have found some consensus that the Celestron NexStar
goto electromechanics are smoother, quieter, and more durable than the
Meade LX. Is this you're experience? Anyone?

We're now leaning towards larger aperture. Stretching the budget to
around $3,000, it's looking like either a Celestron Nexstar 11" GPS or
the Meade LX200 10" GPS, both with "special" coatings. Are there any
other larger aperture SC GPS scope mfrs in the $3,000 price range? I
can't find any.

I also can't find consensus on optical quality comparison between
these two scopes. Plenty of divergent opinions around. Anyone here
have experience with both? Are they close enough in optical quality
that a decision really boils down to mount and electromechanics?
Lets put it this way, I sold a Meade 12", to get a Nexstar-11, and reckon
the Celestron is better both mechanically and optically (the 12", is too
heavy for the mount - the 10", is better in this regard). In 'controller'
terms, the Meade is the 'nicer' unit to drive, but the tracking is better on
the Celestron (now the motor controller bug is fixed). The Celestron
'standard' tripod, is really inadequate for the scope, for imaging (the
Meade GFT, is great). I kept the Meade GFT, and use the Celestron on this
when I want to go 'mobile'. However the Celestron is now available with a
larger tripod as an option. The Celestron is _much_ easier to handle than
the Meade (they actually put the handles in useful positions!...). The 10"
Meade is still harder to handle than the 11" Celestron. Internally, the
assemblies inside the Celestron, have a much better mechanical finish than
those on the Meade, and run smoother.
Personally, I would not go back to the Meade, unless they launched something
really 'revolutionary' (though I still have two smaller Meade scopes). So
I'd buy the Nexstar-11, but get the heavier tripod option.

Best Wishes

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:01:27 +0100, "Roger Hamlett"
wrote:

Lets put it this way, I sold a Meade 12", to get a Nexstar-11, and reckon
the Celestron is better both mechanically and optically (the 12", is too
heavy for the mount - the 10", is better in this regard)..... However the Celestron is now available with a
larger tripod as an option.....Personally, I would not go back to the Meade, unless they launched something
really 'revolutionary' (though I still have two smaller Meade scopes). So
I'd buy the Nexstar-11, but get the heavier tripod option.


Thanks for the advice. I'll let you know what we decide.

Are Meade and Celestron the only companies in the $3k price range
making a 10-12" goto catadioptric? I can't find anyone else.

"Paige Turner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:01:27 +0100, "Roger Hamlett"
wrote:

Lets put it this way, I sold a Meade 12", to get a Nexstar-11, and reckon
the Celestron is better both mechanically and optically (the 12", is too
heavy for the mount - the 10", is better in this regard)..... However the
Celestron is now available with a
larger tripod as an option.....Personally, I would not go back to the
Meade, unless they launched something
really 'revolutionary' (though I still have two smaller Meade scopes). So
I'd buy the Nexstar-11, but get the heavier tripod option.


Thanks for the advice. I'll let you know what we decide.

Are Meade and Celestron the only companies in the $3k price range
making a 10-12" goto catadioptric? I can't find anyone else.
Realistically, probably yes.
They are the only people doing a 'bundle' as such. There are several
companies who would sell you an OTA, but in most cases, the cost would
allready be more than the complete Meade/Celestron assemblies, and the
mount/controller will then go way beyond your budget.
However that having been said, are you 100% confident that the SCT, is the
way you want to go?. SCT's, are in some ways great compact telescopes, but
are not the 'be all and end all' of astronomy. If you look at 'professional'
observatories, they are probably the least common design around! (possibly
now, the Ritchie Chretien is the commonest scope, with many older
observatories having refractors, modified Newtonians, or the pure 'Schmidt'
camera). The SCT, offers a compact package, but a focal length that tends to
be high for wide field observation, while low for planetary work. Field
curvature is relatively high (this is because of the very short focal length
of the primary). The sizes you give, are quite large scopes, making these
combinations that though it is fully possible to go 'mobile', will not be a
'casual' mobile systems. Be sure that you understand, both the abilities,
and the 'limits' of the SCT before 'taking the plunge'...

Best Wishes

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:01:41 GMT, "Al"
wrote:

Also, whoever told
you that Celestron GOTOs are more durable is _not_ giving you the truth.
Quieter...yes, smoother...not so sure, durable...definietely not.

An all metal gear train isn't preferable and more durable than plastic
gears?

http://www.scopestuff.com/ss_buckg.htm

---
Michael

Keep in mind that Meade was the pioneer of GOTO scopes, having built and
sold the first one in the early 90s (almost 10 years before Celestron).
This gives Meade the advantage of a _lot_ of experience. Also, whoever told
you that Celestron GOTOs are more durable is _not_ giving you the truth.
Quieter...yes, smoother...not so sure, durable...definietely not.

Al

Hi Al:

Well...not exactly. Celestron was there _first_ with goto with the
Compustar series. Celestron couldn't seem to produce these at popular
prices, however, and lost interest. Meade picked up this design (by a
third party) and used it for the basis of the original LX200s a few
years later.

Peace,
Rod

An all metal gear train isn't preferable and more durable than plastic
gears?

The only plastic gears that I know of in the LX200 are in the DEC mechanism,
and then it's only one or 2 parts that are made of plastic (nylon, which
happens to be very strong). I've owned 6 LX200s since 1991 and _never_ had
a failure due to plastic gears, so they must work. BTW, did you know that
some automotive engines use plastic (nylon) gears in the gear train between
crankshaft and camshaft?

Al


"Michael McCulloch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:01:41 GMT, "Al"
wrote:

Also, whoever told
you that Celestron GOTOs are more durable is _not_ giving you the truth.
Quieter...yes, smoother...not so sure, durable...definietely not.

An all metal gear train isn't preferable and more durable than plastic
gears?

http://www.scopestuff.com/ss_buckg.htm

---
Michael

John La Grou wrote:

One thing I notice is that NexStar and LX200 scopes have 1.25"
eyepieces. Why don't they put 2" eyepieces on scopes of this quality?


Then they would have to provide a 2" star diagonal, too. I'm sure it's
money. The provided 1.25 EPs are not particulary good either.

We're definitely leaning towards a Celestron NexStar 11 GPS with fancy
coating (and maybe the heavy-duty tripod that Roger suggests). I'm
checking to see if we can pick up the scope at the factory.

I suspect not. They are two miles from me and definitely not set up
that way. I've been there four times in the past two months to drop off
and pick up scopes I own for service.

Phil