New Celestron CPC scopes dissapointing?

Anyone else find the new Celestron series of scopes
(http://www.celestron.com/prod_pgs/tel/cpc_index.php) somewhat of a
letdown after the Meade announcement and the new optical design of the
RCX400?

The Celestron CPC series seems like just another plastic budget line of
scopes that emphasises form over function.

www.customopticalsystems.com

Ian Anderson

Peter [astro.mp] wrote:
Anyone else find the new Celestron series of scopes
(http://www.celestron.com/prod_pgs/tel/cpc_index.php) somewhat of a
letdown after the Meade announcement and the new optical design of
the
RCX400?

The Celestron CPC series seems like just another plastic budget line
of
scopes that emphasises form over function.
You've examined/used one?

Peace,
Rod

My thoughts also. ;)

You've examined/used one?

Uh... no, and they could turn out to be wonderful scopes. I'm just
saying that, in comparison to the new Meade scope line, the new
Celestron CPC scopes don't seems to be in any way innovative or
particularly new, just a rehash of their current SCT line. I was
hoping for something more, maybe an affordable version of their Dall-
Kirkham C20 Astrograph:
http://www.celestron.com/prod_pgs/tel/c20_index.htm

Peter [astro.mp] wrote:
You've examined/used one?

Uh... no, and they could turn out to be wonderful scopes. I'm just
saying that, in comparison to the new Meade scope line, the new
Celestron CPC scopes don't seems to be in any way innovative or
particularly new, just a rehash of their current SCT line. I was
hoping for something more, maybe an affordable version of their Dall-
Kirkham C20 Astrograph:
http://www.celestron.com/prod_pgs/tel/c20_index.htm

Hi:

I agree with most of that. What I disagreed with was the need to invoke
"plastic."

I believe Celestron's goal with these scopeswas to get out from under
the North and Level patent royalty payments necessitated by Meade's
court victory.

As for the scopes themselves, I'd speculate (nothng more than that),
that they are the way they are to allow "room" for the price/options of
another and more advanced line of fork mount scopes.

On the face of it, yes, they are a step BACKWARD from the Nexstar GPS
series.

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:_Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

On 29 Jan 2005 08:05:14 -0800, "RMOLLISE" wrote:

On the face of it, yes, they are a step BACKWARD from the Nexstar GPS
series.

In what particular areas, Rod? Just curious...

Also, I still don't see an INTEGRATED ANTI-DEW HEATER around the
corrector. Will we ever see that most useful and necessary feature?
;-)

Skip all GPS functions and give me an anti-dew heater!

---
Michael McCulloch

Michael McCulloch wrote:
On 29 Jan 2005 08:05:14 -0800, "RMOLLISE" wrote:

On the face of it, yes, they are a step BACKWARD from the Nexstar
GPS
series.

In what particular areas, Rod? Just curious...

Also, I still don't see an INTEGRATED ANTI-DEW HEATER around the
corrector. Will we ever see that most useful and necessary feature?
;-)

Skip all GPS functions and give me an anti-dew heater!

---
Michael McCulloch

Well I sure hope it's not a step backwards. I'm considering putting off
buying a NexSTAR 8i SE to buy the CPC version instead.

"Peter [astro.mp]" wrote in message
oups.com...
Anyone else find the new Celestron series of scopes
(http://www.celestron.com/prod_pgs/tel/cpc_index.php) somewhat of a
letdown after the Meade announcement and the new optical design of the
RCX400?

The Celestron CPC series seems like just another plastic budget line of
scopes that emphasises form over function.


The only major differences I can see between the CPC and the Nexstar GPS
from this webpage is:
1)Aluminum vs. carbon fiber tube.
2)Several hundred dollars cheaper. (9.25, w/XLT: $2499 vs. $3019)

I am sure there are other differences but nothing else whacks me in the
face.

-Banjo

Michael McCulloch wrote:
In what particular areas, Rod? Just curious...



HI Michael:

--No carbon fiber tube.

--No Fastar secondary.

--An alignment routine that, while it may prove to be a good thing in
some ways (other than just saving Celestron money), seems on the face
of it less elegant than North and Level, and one that makes GPS just a
frill.

--Even the little fork arm holder for the handpaddle is gone. It was
really a great place to put the paddle when you were controlling the
scope via RS232.

--Trivial, I suppose, but this is an ugly _looking_ scope IMHO compared
to the NS GPS. The Nexstar GPS always looked like it belonged on the
bridge of the starship Enterprise...this one looks like it would be
most at home in a 1979 disco! ;-)

--Those chrome tripod legs...what's the first thing you notice on a
chrome Meade tripod at a star party? RUST! ;-)

Maybe I'm just disappointed in that I expected "New and Innovative"
instead of just "New and Cheap."

Keep in mind that I HAVE NOT SEEN NOR USED A CPC. This may turn out to
be _the_ classic Celestron...I _doubt it_, but you never know! :-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:_Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html