| |
Main
Date: 24 Jul 2007 08:36:44
From:
Subject: Meade 10" Starfinder - opinions wanted
|
I'm looking to buy my first scope. I had planned on getting an Orion
XT8 as a Dob of this size seemed the best tradeoff between cost,
performance, and practicality for me. However, I may have the
opportunity to purchase a Meade Starfinder 10" in excellent condition
for under $400. This seems to be a good price for a scope of this
quality, but I'm concerned about the size of such a scope. Now I
doubt I'll be taking many weekend excursions with it, and I have a
vehicle (minivan) that can easily transport it if I ever decide to
take it on a trip, but I'm still a little hesitant about the sheer
size of this scope.
I'm also concerned about how well this scope would work in my
backyard. I live on the outskirts of Metro Phoenix, and I'd say we
have light to moderate light pollution. Given that one of the primary
advantages of a 10" over an 8" is the ability to view deep-space
objects, am I going to have to lug this thing into the deep desert to
take advantage of the additional light-gathering ability, or will I
still see improvement over an 8" Dob even in the suburbs?
Finally, I know that no one can make the decision for me about how big
is too big, but can anyone give their opinion about the ease of moving
a scope of this size? Mostly, I'd simply move it ten feet from inside
the garage to the carport. I'd say I wouldn't travel with it more
than a couple times a year. I admit, the idea of having a scope this
powerful is pretty alluring, but I don't want to be stuck with
something I won't use.
Thanks in advance for any help.
Aaron
|
|
| |
Date: 31 Jul 2007 09:12:22
From: Gil
Subject: Re: Meade 10" Starfinder - opinions wanted
|
My 10" Starfinder is on a german equatorial, that's not the issue with
planetary observing. The issue is magnification, even with a 9mm
eyepiece I am only getting about 127x.
That is why I would recommend a slower (F/8 minimum) scope for
planetary, and the best planetary viewing I ever had was with an 8"
SCT.
Gil
|
| | |
Date: 31 Jul 2007 13:08:11
From: Dennis Woos
Subject: Re: Meade 10" Starfinder - opinions wanted
|
"Gil" <gilbertviolette@sbcglobal.net > wrote in message
news:1185898342.236736.225350@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> My 10" Starfinder is on a german equatorial, that's not the issue with
> planetary observing. The issue is magnification, even with a 9mm
> eyepiece I am only getting about 127x.
>
> That is why I would recommend a slower (F/8 minimum) scope for
> planetary, and the best planetary viewing I ever had was with an 8"
> SCT.
>
> Gil
>
If eyepiece selection is the issue, then I can recommend some possible
solutions. A good barlow (like the Orion Shorty Plus, for instance) will get
you higher powers without compromising the good eye relief of longer focal
length eyepieces. There are also short focal length eyepieces that are very
comfortable to use, such as the TV Radians and Naglers, and the BO/TMB
Planetaries.
Dennis
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 02:27:44
From:
Subject: Re: Meade 10" Starfinder - opinions wanted
|
On Jul 27, 4:23 pm, "Dennis Woos" <dpw...@gmavt.net > wrote:
> Is the current owner knowledgeable enough to provide you with an accurate
> assessment of its optical quality? If not, and unless I was willing and able
> to have the mirror refigured, there is no way I would buy this scope without
> star testing it first.
Meade 12.5 Starfinders have long been know to have excellent
optics. . .
Ask me.
Ask Rod Mollise.
Ask most anyone who has or does own one.
--Martin R. Howell
Moderated sci.astro.amateur
www.moderatedsciastroamateur.org
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 10:49:41
From: Dennis Woos
Subject: Re: Meade 10" Starfinder - opinions wanted
|
<martinhowell@bluebottle.com > wrote in message
news:1185589664.632468.204130@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 27, 4:23 pm, "Dennis Woos" <dpw...@gmavt.net> wrote:
>
>> Is the current owner knowledgeable enough to provide you with an accurate
>> assessment of its optical quality? If not, and unless I was willing and
>> able
>> to have the mirror refigured, there is no way I would buy this scope
>> without
>> star testing it first.
>
>
> Meade 12.5 Starfinders have long been know to have excellent
> optics. . .
>
> Ask me.
> Ask Rod Mollise.
> Ask most anyone who has or does own one.
>
All very fine folks, I am sure, and very knowledgeable about all kinds of
astro stuff, except of course this particular scope ;) My intent is to
caution the op against buying a pig in a poke, made by a company that has,
in general, a less than perfect track record. This is not a knock on Meade
specifically, as some qc problems are to be expected from any company that
largely competes in the low-to-middle end of a market. There is a reason
that AP, TV etc. charge more for better equipment. It would be a shame to
read a later post that the scope performs wonderfully, except for the small
fact that powers over 100x are unuseable. I advise testing the scope before
buying it, and I don't see that this is advise that any reasonable person
should have a complaint with.
Dennis
|
| |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 21:16:46
From:
Subject: Re: Meade 10" Starfinder - opinions wanted
|
On Jul 27, 1:57 pm, "Dennis Woos" <dpw...@gmavt.net > wrote:
> > I just went and looked at the scope today and it turns out it is
> > actually the 12.5" version of the Starfinder. The seller had
> > mistakenly marked it as the 10" version. There are no markings on the
> > scope that I can find that specify the model, but just from measuring
> > the tube size, it's obvious it is the 12.5" version. There It's
> > huge, but not so huge that I couldn't handle it.
>
> In case you didn't notice it or couldn't tell from looking into the focuser
> end, the tube is usually wider than the mirror (in this case 2" or more) so
> a 12.5" mirror would require at least a 14.5" diameter tube. Also, is it a
> dob or is it the EQ? Are the primary and secondary mirrors in good shape -
> no chips, scratches, or failed coatings? Does the focuser work
> well/smoothly?
The tube measures a little over 15" diameter. It's definitely a 12.5"
scope. It's a Dob mount and the mirrors appear to be in good shape.
Everything looks pretty good from a cursory inspection.
> A big scope is great, but only if it is a good scope including good optics,
> and if it is good for you in that it matches your observing interests and
> you can handle the size.
The Starfinders seem to have a pretty good reputation for optical
quality, so I'm not too concerned there. I'd love to do some deep-sky
observing, so this scope seems like a good match for that.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 19:23:23
From: Dennis Woos
Subject: Re: Meade 10" Starfinder - opinions wanted
|
> The Starfinders seem to have a pretty good reputation for optical
> quality, so I'm not too concerned there. I'd love to do some deep-sky
> observing, so this scope seems like a good match for that.
Is the current owner knowledgeable enough to provide you with an accurate
assessment of its optical quality? If not, and unless I was willing and able
to have the mirror refigured, there is no way I would buy this scope without
star testing it first.
Dennis
|
| |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 19:20:30
From:
Subject: Re: Meade 10" Starfinder - opinions wanted
|
On Jul 27, 9:12 am, "Dennis Woos" <dpw...@gmavt.net > wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 11:28 am, "Dennis Woos" <dpw...@gmavt.net> wrote:
> >> > My 10" Starfinder EQ is my primary scope, and it's a good one.
> >> > Excellent optics, and a light bucket if there ever was one.
>
> >> > Only downfall is that it's not the best planetary scope, being F/4.5
> >> > and all, but it's not a bad tradeoff for being able to see the Veil
> >> > from my suburban backyard.
>
> >> A major problem in using a f4.5 newt for high-power planetary observing
> >> is
> >> coma off-axis, and since this scope is on a GEM which should keep a
> >> target
> >> centered in the eypeice, I don't see that this should be a problem. Also,
> >> collimation needs to be very accurate, but if the ota is well made then
> >> this
> >> shouldn't be too much on an issue either, and if the seeing doesn't allow
> >> for a quick star test then good planetary observing is precluded as well.
> >> So, if it has "excellent optics" why isn't it an excellent planetary
> >> scope?
>
> > This scope is a Dob, not a GEM. I think that's why Gil stated it
> > wasn't a good planetary scope.
>
> Gil says he has a '10" Starfinder EQ' - note the EQ part of the name, which
> means that it is equatorially mounted, and Meade supplies them with a German
> Equatorial mount.
>
> Dennis
Ahh. Gotcha. Sorry about that.
I just went and looked at the scope today and it turns out it is
actually the 12.5" version of the Starfinder. The seller had
mistakenly marked it as the 10" version. There are no markings on the
scope that I can find that specify the model, but just from measuring
the tube size, it's obvious it is the 12.5" version. There It's
huge, but not so huge that I couldn't handle it.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 16:57:01
From: Dennis Woos
Subject: Re: Meade 10" Starfinder - opinions wanted
|
> I just went and looked at the scope today and it turns out it is
> actually the 12.5" version of the Starfinder. The seller had
> mistakenly marked it as the 10" version. There are no markings on the
> scope that I can find that specify the model, but just from measuring
> the tube size, it's obvious it is the 12.5" version. There It's
> huge, but not so huge that I couldn't handle it.
>
In case you didn't notice it or couldn't tell from looking into the focuser
end, the tube is usually wider than the mirror (in this case 2" or more) so
a 12.5" mirror would require at least a 14.5" diameter tube. Also, is it a
dob or is it the EQ? Are the primary and secondary mirrors in good shape -
no chips, scratches, or failed coatings? Does the focuser work
well/smoothly?
A big scope is great, but only if it is a good scope including good optics,
and if it is good for you in that it matches your observing interests and
you can handle the size.
Dennis
|
| |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 15:59:28
From:
Subject: Re: Meade 10" Starfinder - opinions wanted
|
On Jul 26, 11:28 am, "Dennis Woos" <dpw...@gmavt.net > wrote:
> > My 10" Starfinder EQ is my primary scope, and it's a good one.
> > Excellent optics, and a light bucket if there ever was one.
>
> > Only downfall is that it's not the best planetary scope, being F/4.5
> > and all, but it's not a bad tradeoff for being able to see the Veil
> > from my suburban backyard.
>
> A major problem in using a f4.5 newt for high-power planetary observing is
> coma off-axis, and since this scope is on a GEM which should keep a target
> centered in the eypeice, I don't see that this should be a problem. Also,
> collimation needs to be very accurate, but if the ota is well made then this
> shouldn't be too much on an issue either, and if the seeing doesn't allow
> for a quick star test then good planetary observing is precluded as well.
> So, if it has "excellent optics" why isn't it an excellent planetary scope?
This scope is a Dob, not a GEM. I think that's why Gil stated it
wasn't a good planetary scope.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 12:12:24
From: Dennis Woos
Subject: Re: Meade 10" Starfinder - opinions wanted
|
> On Jul 26, 11:28 am, "Dennis Woos" <dpw...@gmavt.net> wrote:
>> > My 10" Starfinder EQ is my primary scope, and it's a good one.
>> > Excellent optics, and a light bucket if there ever was one.
>>
>> > Only downfall is that it's not the best planetary scope, being F/4.5
>> > and all, but it's not a bad tradeoff for being able to see the Veil
>> > from my suburban backyard.
>>
>> A major problem in using a f4.5 newt for high-power planetary observing
>> is
>> coma off-axis, and since this scope is on a GEM which should keep a
>> target
>> centered in the eypeice, I don't see that this should be a problem. Also,
>> collimation needs to be very accurate, but if the ota is well made then
>> this
>> shouldn't be too much on an issue either, and if the seeing doesn't allow
>> for a quick star test then good planetary observing is precluded as well.
>> So, if it has "excellent optics" why isn't it an excellent planetary
>> scope?
>
> This scope is a Dob, not a GEM. I think that's why Gil stated it
> wasn't a good planetary scope.
>
Gil says he has a '10" Starfinder EQ' - note the EQ part of the name, which
means that it is equatorially mounted, and Meade supplies them with a German
Equatorial mount.
Dennis
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 08:19:34
From: Gil
Subject: Re: Meade 10" Starfinder - opinions wanted
|
My 10" Starfinder EQ is my primary scope, and it's a good one.
Excellent optics, and a light bucket if there ever was one.
Only downfall is that it's not the best planetary scope, being F/4.5
and all, but it's not a bad tradeoff for being able to see the Veil
from my suburban backyard.
Highly recommended scope, and also no longer manufactured, if memory
serves me.
Gil
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 21:58:08
From: shneor
Subject: re: meade 10" starfinder - opinions wanted
|
test
gil <gilbertviolette@sbcglobal.net > wrote:
>My 10" Starfinder EQ is my primary scope, and it's a good one.
>Excellent optics, and a light bucket if there ever was one.
>
>Only downfall is that it's not the best planetary scope, being F/4.5
>and all, but it's not a bad tradeoff for being able to see the Veil
>from my suburban backyard.
>
>Highly recommended scope, and also no longer manufactured, if memory
>serves me.
>
>Gil
>
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 14:28:05
From: Dennis Woos
Subject: Re: Meade 10" Starfinder - opinions wanted
|
> My 10" Starfinder EQ is my primary scope, and it's a good one.
> Excellent optics, and a light bucket if there ever was one.
>
> Only downfall is that it's not the best planetary scope, being F/4.5
> and all, but it's not a bad tradeoff for being able to see the Veil
> from my suburban backyard.
>
A major problem in using a f4.5 newt for high-power planetary observing is
coma off-axis, and since this scope is on a GEM which should keep a target
centered in the eypeice, I don't see that this should be a problem. Also,
collimation needs to be very accurate, but if the ota is well made then this
shouldn't be too much on an issue either, and if the seeing doesn't allow
for a quick star test then good planetary observing is precluded as well.
So, if it has "excellent optics" why isn't it an excellent planetary scope?
Dennis
|
| |
Date: 25 Jul 2007 08:47:26
From: Dennis Woos
Subject: Re: Meade 10" Starfinder - opinions wanted
|
> I'm looking to buy my first scope. I had planned on getting an Orion
> XT8 as a Dob of this size seemed the best tradeoff between cost,
> performance, and practicality for me. However, I may have the
> opportunity to purchase a Meade Starfinder 10" in excellent condition
> for under $400. This seems to be a good price for a scope of this
> quality, but I'm concerned about the size of such a scope. Now I
> doubt I'll be taking many weekend excursions with it, and I have a
> vehicle (minivan) that can easily transport it if I ever decide to
> take it on a trip, but I'm still a little hesitant about the sheer
> size of this scope.
>
I would want to know how the optical quality compares to an 8" Orion before
deciding, as I would rather have an optically good/excellent 8" than a
mediocre/good 10".
Dennis
|
| |
Date: 25 Jul 2007 07:41:00
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: Meade 10" Starfinder - opinions wanted
|
aaron.ginn@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm also concerned about how well this scope would work in my
> backyard. I live on the outskirts of Metro Phoenix, and I'd say we
> have light to moderate light pollution. Given that one of the primary
> advantages of a 10" over an 8" is the ability to view deep-space
> objects, am I going to have to lug this thing into the deep desert to
> take advantage of the additional light-gathering ability, or will I
> still see improvement over an 8" Dob even in the suburbs?
Hi, there, and I'll try as the owner of a 20cm Dob (a tad less than 8",
which would be 20.3cm) to give at least a theoretical answer -- with
more experienced people invited to amend, correct, or elaborate.
Certainly, all things being equal, you'll have more light-gathering
ability in a given setting with 10" of aperture than with 8" -- often
a not-so-dramatic difference, but sometimes a telling one in revealing
a bit more detail. For example, I've been reading a French guide to
the deep sky (a way to learn a bit of the language in the process) which
sometimes notes a distinction between a 200mm and a 250mm telescope --
essentially 8" vs. 10".
As Tony Flanders (who has a great astronomy site) and others have pointed
out, aperture can be beneficial for deep sky objects in an urban,
suburban, or dark-sky site. At the same time, a dark sky has its own
advantages distinct from those of aperture -- specifically, permitting
the viewing of objects with low surface brightness which could be from
very difficult to impossible in an urban setting even with the help of
larger aperture telescope because light pollution overwhelms the object.
A point to consider is that while the 8" vs. 10" difference can lead
to tangible distinctions with some objects, it might be a rather nuanced
distinction in many situations.
If we assume all things equal (e.g. the quality of the two mirrors),
then to calculate the light-gathering ability of 8" vs. 10" we take
the squares of these apertures or diameters -- 64 vs. 100, or 16:25.
It's a bit more of a difference in mirror area than 2:3.
Now a difference of one magnitude is about 2.512, or the fifth root
of 100 -- while 25:16 is about 1.563. Thus the difference between
an 8" and 10" mirror of the same quality would be rather less than
a full magnitude -- but still helpful.
Some people say that to get a _dramatic_ improvement from 8", you
should really go to 12". Here the difference in light-gathering
power would be 144:64 or 9:4, a factor of 2.25, close to a full
magnitude. However, this doesn't mean that the more moderate
improvement of going from 8" to 10" wouldn't be desirable -- and
you might find a 10" scope still more manageably portable than a
12" scope, budget considerations aside.
That's a newcomer's crude understanding, but more experienced people
might be able to give more confident guidance.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
|
| |
Date: 24 Jul 2007 11:08:33
From: Ben
Subject: Re: Meade 10" Starfinder - opinions wanted
|
Aaron,
I've been using a 10" Starfinder almost exclusively for about
ten years now and it's not too difficult to transport at all. The
OTA
fits comfortably across the back seat of my compact and I can
secure it by crossing the safety belts when I cinch it in. (ie hook
the right belt into the left buckle and vice versa)
Mine is on a GEM and although I have to remove a leg from
the pier to place it into the trunk that doesn't proove to be much
of an inconvenience. That GEM is also quite nimble, combining the
bets features of the GEM abd Dob mounts. You just push it to
where you want it and when you turn it loose it tracks. (IF it's
in balance.)
The mirror is not great but mine is well above average. Where
the 10" Starfinder stands out is that it's mounted in a 12" tube.
This acellerates the cooldown time significantly and I have never,
ever had a problem with distorted images.
It's a "largish" scope but you can learn to manhandle it in
in no time at all. Sounds like you're onto a good deal .
Ben, 90.126 n 35.539
|
|
