Question about the Meade ETX-125

Hi All,

I am on the brink of purchasing a Meade ETX-125, but I am interested in
using it primarily for viewing the planets in our Solar system and then for
other things such as stars and nebula. I see on Meade's website that they
have some pretty cool pictures of Jupiter and Saturn, and I am really
excited about that but I would like to know from real users how well you can
see other planets such as Neptune and Uranus and if its possible to see
Pluto to any extent using the Meade ETX-125? also how well does the point
and click software work?


Thanks,
Pete

"PG" wrote in message
ink.net...
Hi All,

I am on the brink of purchasing a Meade ETX-125, but I am interested
in using it primarily for viewing the planets in our Solar system and
then for other things such as stars and nebula. I see on Meade's website
that they have some pretty cool pictures of Jupiter and Saturn, and I am
really excited about that but I would like to know from real users how
well you can see other planets such as Neptune and Uranus and if its
possible to see Pluto to any extent using the Meade ETX-125? also how
well does the point and click software work?
Pluto, is only ever going to be seen as a 'star'. Even the largest
telescopes can only just resolve something of this. To a slightly lesser
extent (they are about double, and four times the angular size), the same
is true for Neptune and Uranus, but Neptune, can at times just begin to
show a disk on high magnifications.
Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Venus, are at the right times, very visible
objects, and _on occasions when the seeing is good_, significant detail
can be seen (on the first three). Seeing a planet 'well', depends on
multiple things:
The observer (it is suprising how much 'better' you can get at seeing
detail, after a time).
The 'seeing' (this is the big 'killer', with nine nights out of ten,
unless you are at some exceptional site, the views being significantly
degraded.
The scope (modern scopes, for the money, are exceptionally good, and
though the central obstruction on scopes like Maksutov's, and SCT's,
degrades the image contrast a little, they are far better than the scopes
that were used by early observers, who saw a lot of features).
Images, tend to 'mislead' to some extent about what can be seen by a
scope. Unfortunately, even on 'good' nights, when the seeing is superb,
the best detail is only seen momentarily. Images 'capture' this (and your
eye can as well to some extent), but these are only moments, and for the
rest of the time, far less is visible.
Modern goto systems, can work quite well. However really good accuracy,
does require you to be a bit more careful about how you aim the scope,
than the advertisements may suggest. If you take the time, to accurately
center the alignment stars (rather than taking a 'near enough' approach),
possibly using a reticule eyepiece, the units can locate objects really
very well. However the large image scales needed for planetary observing,
will show up just how small the tacking gears are, and you will need to
'help' the system, to keep objects well centred... Also, though this
feature sounds great, remember that the money spent on this, is money that
is not going into the optics.
There are a lot of 'balancing acts', that apply with scopes. Price
(obvious one), focal length (a long focal length scope, will give higher
magnifications for a given eyepiece, but generally lower maximum FOV's),
mount (in many cases, this is less 'competent' than the optics, and is the
limiting factor of many smaller scopes), and then the optical
'limitations' of the designs (coma, chromatic aberration, field curvature,
etc. etc..). For what you can actually 'see', there is then the golden
rule 'aperture is king. Then against this, there is "better a small scope
that is used, than a large scope that stays indoors".
Now (fortunately), many of the optical problems only become major for
imaging. The Maksutov, is a 'good' design, giving little chromatic
aberration, nice 'flat' fields etc.. It's limitations, are (when it comes
to 'deep space' objects), a relatively small maximum FOV (about 1.2
degrees), and the central obstruction, which (in common with SCT's),
limits contrast a little. However in general, the Maksutov, is slightly
'preferred' to the SCT, by many users. An 'APO', will beat this scope, but
at a very large price.... Provided you only want to work 'visually', the
mount may be considered 'OK'.
I really would suggest though, seeing if there are any astronomy clubs
within reach of you, and if any of them are doing a 'star party', going
along, and actually looking through some scopes, before spending your
money. Some parts of the selection process will also depend on your own
circumstances. A 5" scope like this, which is small enough to take to a
'dark' site, may well be more usable than a larger scope. Goto, is not (in
many people's eyes), a great advantage, but in sites wih significant light
pollution, can be a 'godsend'...

Best Wishes