| |
Main
Date: 15 Sep 2006 12:00:24
From: Pippen
Subject: Celestron vs. Meade
|
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
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 19:48:03
From: Don't Be Evil
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
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
The LX200R is (sort of) a Ritchey-Chretien. Possibly superior to the
SCT for imaging. Also, most imagers prefer equatorial mounts ovr
forks. Maybe an LX200R OTA on an Orion Sirius EQ mount?
I personally would get a large dob for visual use and an EQ mount for
imaging with your ETX.
Greg
|
| | |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 13:41:16
From: Roger Hamlett
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
"Don't Be Evil" <g626700-gg@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1158374883.207301.211950@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.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
>
> The LX200R is (sort of) a Ritchey-Chretien. Possibly superior to the
> SCT for imaging. Also, most imagers prefer equatorial mounts ovr
> forks. Maybe an LX200R OTA on an Orion Sirius EQ mount?
>
> I personally would get a large dob for visual use and an EQ mount for
> imaging with your ETX.
The LX200R, _is not_ a Ritchie Chretien. Meade should be taken to court
over this at somepoint!.... At least the poster said 'sort of'. :-)
It is a SCT, with an improved corrector, giving about the same _coma_
performance as the RC. It still has the slight chromatic aberration of an
SCT,and despite what some people seem to think, the same field curvature.
_However_, in an SCT' the field curvature depends on how fast the primary
is, and the magnification introduced by the secondary. The C9.25, has a
slower primary, than the traditional SCT, and has less field curvature
than the 'normal' SCT this size. The Meade RCX scopes, also have this
design, taking it slightly further, with less magnification on the
secondary (in line with most RC scopes), to give less field curvature than
a normal SCT, but the LX200R, does not. the 'downside' of a slower
primary, and less magnification, is more central obstruction is needed to
give the same field coverage. The reduced coma, makes the field curvature
a lot more acceptable on the -R scopes, than on the normal SCT.
An equatorial mount, has the big advantage, of splitting the assembly up
into more parts. Takes slightly longer to setup, but the parts are
lighter.
Personally, in the past, I have found myself slightly more 'impressed' by
the Celestron optics than those from Meade. However I prefer the Meade
hand controllers, and a couple of the RC scopes, have had the best Meade
optics I have seen.
A lot depends on whether this is for purely visual use, or imaging is
intended, and whether there is any possibility of wanting to add another
OTA for different applications?. If either of these is 'true', then I'd
suggest considering a slightly more 'up market' equatorial mount, and
putting one of the OTA's on this.
Best Wishes
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 18:22:16
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
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
|
| | |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 16:50:26
From: Eric Greene
Subject: Re: 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 ober 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" <rmollise@hotmail.com > 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.
>>=20
>> Eric
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 14:32:56
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
Vis-a-vis the Celestron HC versus the Meade.
The Celestron is more user friendly, while the Meade tends to have more
features (Celestron is narrowing the gap here with the new
programmable HCs included with current scopes...which, among other
things, include sync (and unsync), much requested features).
One thing I prefer about the Autostar and Autostar II? The red on black
display. It's much easier for my uhhh..."middle aged" eyes to read than
Celestron black on red.
SkyAlign, the new Celestron alignment mode is amazing. Point the scope
at any three bright objects (even the Moon or a planet) in the sky,
push a button, and you are aligned. I've tested this on my Nexstar 11
and it works...amazingly well.
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland >
Ray Porter wrote:
> 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" <not@valid.mail> wrote in message
> news:jr-dnZ4_YNSgd5fYnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > 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
> >
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 17:22:33
From: Ray Porter
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
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" <not@valid.mail > wrote in message
news:jr-dnZ4_YNSgd5fYnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> 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
>
|
| | |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 00:10:33
From: Tom Pendergrass
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
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" <ray_porter@alumni.unc.edu > wrote in message
news:9QEOg.183$VL2.11@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> 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" <not@valid.mail> wrote in message
> news:jr-dnZ4_YNSgd5fYnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> 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
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 21:20:00
From: Craig M. Bobchin
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
1st off, re you set on a fork mounted scope? If you are, then you are
looking at pretty much a wash. IMO the Meade has a slight advantage on
the hand controller side over the Celestron version, and if you are
familiar with the autostar (as it appears from your EXT exp.) then the
LX-200r is pretty much the same usability with a few extras thrown in.
But this is offset by the slight advantage the C 9.25 has optically.
Many consider it the finest SCT available. I do know those I've looked
through have been superb.
I've owned a Meade LX200 10". I took the scope off the forks and mounted
them on a Losmandy G-11.
If you are looking for a GEM system (has some advantages an some
disadvantages) then I'd get a C9.25 with Starbright XLT coatings and put
it on a Losmandy G-11.
Before you say nything about the weight not being an issue, go to your
local telescope store and set one up. Now imagine doing that everytime
you want to observe. The 10" LX200 is approx 65lbs.
If you do go fork mount and decide to get into imaging then you would
have to buy a wedge.
In article <jr-dnZ4_YNSgd5fYnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
not@valid.mail says...
> 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
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 13:28:41
From: Matthew Ota
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
I have a Meade 10 inch LX200 GPS (sort of) and I am able to just make
it up the stairs with it.
I am certain that in another ten years I will have to go down to 8
inches.
I am totally satisfied with the telescope.
As for Celestron, I cannot give an opinion as I have never owned or
operated a NextStar.
Matthew Ota
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
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 19:20:32
From: Mij Adyaw
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
Matthew,
If you buy one of those "pumps" that are advertised in Spam emails, you may
be up to 10 inches within the next 10 years. :-) (sorry, couldn't resist
that one)
"Matthew Ota" <otakenji@bigvalley.net > wrote in message
news:1158352121.497519.200840@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>I have a Meade 10 inch LX200 GPS (sort of) and I am able to just make
> it up the stairs with it.
>
> I am certain that in another ten years I will have to go down to 8
> inches.
>
> I am totally satisfied with the telescope.
>
> As for Celestron, I cannot give an opinion as I have never owned or
> operated a NextStar.
>
>
> Matthew Ota
>
>
> 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
>
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 12:19:23
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
Thomas Mickleman wrote:
> screw off with this. You're never going to get a definitive answer.
Ah...the joys of s.a.a. in the 21st century.
Refresh my mind, guys. Has it _always_ been like this?
;-)
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland >
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 19:15:59
From: Mij Adyaw
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
No, it used to be better several years ago. All of the kooks came on the
scene in the past several years, It is a real menagerie. It is best not to
feed the animals, especially the liberal ones! :-)
"RMOLLISE" <rmollise@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1158347963.549704.237000@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> Thomas Mickleman wrote:
>
>> screw off with this. You're never going to get a definitive answer.
>
> Ah...the joys of s.a.a. in the 21st century.
>
> Refresh my mind, guys. Has it _always_ been like this?
>
> ;-)
>
> Peace,
> Rod Mollise
> Author of:
> Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
> and
> The Urban Astronomer's Guide
> <http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland>
>
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 19:12:59
From: Eric Greene
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
"RMOLLISE" <rmollise@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
>Thomas Mickleman wrote:
>
>> screw off with this. You're never going to get a definitive answer.
>
>Ah...the joys of s.a.a. in the 21st century.
>
>Refresh my mind, guys. Has it _always_ been like this?
>
>;-)
>
>Peace,
>Rod Mollise
>Author of:
>Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
>and
>The Urban Astronomer's Guide
><http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland>
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=20
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 12:18:06
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
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.
>
Hi:
Frankly, these are two very similar scopes. I've consistently bought
Celestron and been very pleased with their products, but I _also_
purchased 8 Meade SCTs for use with my university astronomy students 8
years ago and have just been very happy with them. Oh, and I regularly
use a 14-inch LX200GPS.
One thing? After all these years, I am pretty much _over_ fork mounts.
But that is just me.
If you'd like to discuss this in detail, feel free to email me at
<rmollise@bellsouth.net >,
but, again, these are two very similar beasts.
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland >
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 19:18:54
From: Mij Adyaw
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
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" <rmollise@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1158347886.383880.272580@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.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.
>>
>
>
> Hi:
>
> Frankly, these are two very similar scopes. I've consistently bought
> Celestron and been very pleased with their products, but I _also_
> purchased 8 Meade SCTs for use with my university astronomy students 8
> years ago and have just been very happy with them. Oh, and I regularly
> use a 14-inch LX200GPS.
>
> One thing? After all these years, I am pretty much _over_ fork mounts.
> But that is just me.
>
> If you'd like to discuss this in detail, feel free to email me at
> <rmollise@bellsouth.net>,
> but, again, these are two very similar beasts.
>
> Peace,
> Rod Mollise
> Author of:
> Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
> and
> The Urban Astronomer's Guide
> <http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland>
>
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 19:00:32
From: Thomas Mickleman
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
"Pippen" <not@valid.mail > wrote in message
news:jr-dnZ4_YNSgd5fYnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> 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.
>
screw off with this. You're never going to get a definitive answer.
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 06:24:17
From: David Nakamoto
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
In my opinion, you can't go terribly wrong with either one. I
personally favor Celestron due to highly favorable past experience with
their equipment, and poor experiences with Meades, but this was with
their old line of CCD cameras, and with the poor attitude their
technical help people gave me concerning the same.
--- Dave
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
>
>
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 19:19:19
From: Pippen
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
"Pippen" <not@valid.mail > wrote in message
news:jr-dnZ4_YNSgd5fYnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> 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
|
| | |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 21:58:57
From: Mark D
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
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
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 10:45:44
From: Matthew Ota
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
Meade should change the decal on the LX200R to read "LX200R*"
With a disclamer in the manual and catalog, elaborating on the RC
claim.
Matthew Ota
Roger Hamlett wrote:
> "Don't Be Evil" <g626700-gg@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1158374883.207301.211950@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.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
> >
> > The LX200R is (sort of) a Ritchey-Chretien. Possibly superior to the
> > SCT for imaging. Also, most imagers prefer equatorial mounts ovr
> > forks. Maybe an LX200R OTA on an Orion Sirius EQ mount?
> >
> > I personally would get a large dob for visual use and an EQ mount for
> > imaging with your ETX.
> The LX200R, _is not_ a Ritchie Chretien. Meade should be taken to court
> over this at somepoint!.... At least the poster said 'sort of'. :-)
> It is a SCT, with an improved corrector, giving about the same _coma_
> performance as the RC. It still has the slight chromatic aberration of an
> SCT,and despite what some people seem to think, the same field curvature.
> _However_, in an SCT' the field curvature depends on how fast the primary
> is, and the magnification introduced by the secondary. The C9.25, has a
> slower primary, than the traditional SCT, and has less field curvature
> than the 'normal' SCT this size. The Meade RCX scopes, also have this
> design, taking it slightly further, with less magnification on the
> secondary (in line with most RC scopes), to give less field curvature than
> a normal SCT, but the LX200R, does not. the 'downside' of a slower
> primary, and less magnification, is more central obstruction is needed to
> give the same field coverage. The reduced coma, makes the field curvature
> a lot more acceptable on the -R scopes, than on the normal SCT.
> An equatorial mount, has the big advantage, of splitting the assembly up
> into more parts. Takes slightly longer to setup, but the parts are
> lighter.
> Personally, in the past, I have found myself slightly more 'impressed' by
> the Celestron optics than those from Meade. However I prefer the Meade
> hand controllers, and a couple of the RC scopes, have had the best Meade
> optics I have seen.
> A lot depends on whether this is for purely visual use, or imaging is
> intended, and whether there is any possibility of wanting to add another
> OTA for different applications?. If either of these is 'true', then I'd
> suggest considering a slightly more 'up market' equatorial mount, and
> putting one of the OTA's on this.
>
> Best Wishes
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 10:41:51
From: Matthew Ota
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
David:
Meade has ben berry berry good to me for techinical help, going above
and beyond what they do for regular customers. Granted, I have been
using their products at many public outreaches, so they get free
promotion of their products by my "advertsing" my blue tube SCT.
But I must state that as an 8 year customer of Meade, they have
treated me more than fairly. In particular, component repair, free
upgrades, free shipping, and a quick factory tour. These are perks not
granted to typical Meade consumers.
As for Celestron, I have limited experience with their product line
so I cannot make a valid opinion on them. However, I have talked to a
few Celestron owners and they are quite satisfied with thier equipment.
The TIE program that I was involved in at Mt WIlson used a C14 OTA at
Mt. Wison and in Chile and Australia, and I never heard of any problems
with them.
Matthew Ota
Meade consumer
David Nakamoto wrote:
> In my opinion, you can't go terribly wrong with either one. I
> personally favor Celestron due to highly favorable past experience with
> their equipment, and poor experiences with Meades, but this was with
> their old line of CCD cameras, and with the poor attitude their
> technical help people gave me concerning the same.
>
> --- Dave
>
> 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
> >
> >
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 10:27:53
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
Hi:
Hmmm...I'd say it ain't an RC of _any_ kind. Which does not mean the
optics ain't nice. I suppose you could do some imaging with an ETX, but
you'd probably want to put it on a new mount. By the time you do that,
you've probably at least spent what you'd spend on an LX90. And those
ETX optics are pretty dang slow for deep sky picture takin'.
All in all, unless somebody just wants to look and nothing else, the
best course is probably a good SCT on a good mount perhaps supplemented
by an inexpensive Synta or Meade dob when it's "aperture time." ;-)
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland >
Don't Be Evil wrote:
>
> The LX200R is (sort of) a Ritchey-Chretien. Possibly superior to the
> SCT for imaging. Also, most imagers prefer equatorial mounts ovr
> forks. Maybe an LX200R OTA on an Orion Sirius EQ mount?
>
> I personally would get a large dob for visual use and an EQ mount for
> imaging with your ETX.
>
> Greg
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 10:24:05
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
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" <rmollise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1158347886.383880.272580@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.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.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Hi:
> >
> > Frankly, these are two very similar scopes. I've consistently bought
> > Celestron and been very pleased with their products, but I _also_
> > purchased 8 Meade SCTs for use with my university astronomy students 8
> > years ago and have just been very happy with them. Oh, and I regularly
> > use a 14-inch LX200GPS.
> >
> > One thing? After all these years, I am pretty much _over_ fork mounts.
> > But that is just me.
> >
> > If you'd like to discuss this in detail, feel free to email me at
> > <rmollise@bellsouth.net>,
> > but, again, these are two very similar beasts.
> >
> > Peace,
> > Rod Mollise
> > Author of:
> > Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
> > and
> > The Urban Astronomer's Guide
> > <http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland>
> >
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 17:00:44
From: Craig M. Bobchin
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
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 <1158427445.728117.157950@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
rmollise@hotmail.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" <rmollise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1158347886.383880.272580@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.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.
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2006 05:27:28
From: Don't Be Evil
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
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
|
| | |
Date: 21 Sep 2006 13:18:56
From: Roger Hamlett
Subject: Re: Celestron vs. Meade
|
"Don't Be Evil" <g626700-gg@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1158841648.759989.245650@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.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
|
|
