New Scope Advice Required - Meade vs Celestron

[quattrorings]

Hi

As a kid I was into astronomy with a trusty Tasco 60mm refractor my Dad bought me. I now want to get a good quality scope that will last some time for my own growing family. My budget is up to £3k.

My primary concern is image quality and reasonable portability - although I will only be transporting it to the garden. For this reason I am looking in the 8 - 10 inch aperture range (no aperture fever here - yet !).

My list is pretty diverse:

- Meade LX200 10" (or 8")

- Meade LX90 10" (or 8")

- Celestron C9.25 SGT XLT (CG5)

- Meade LT 8"

I have heard the Meade ACF optics are excellent and that the C9.25 is the star of the range.

Second part of my question relates to mounts - I have seen several of the mounts in the shops and seen them in action on youtube.

I have to say that the mounts supplied with the Meade LX200 and LX90 sound really loud when slewing - not great in terms of neighbour relations !

This also seems to be the case with the Celestron mounts.

However I saw a video of the skywatcher EQ6 Pro mount and it was positevely silent in comparison - do my observations reflect anyone else's experience ?

Any advice appreciated.

Andy

[dweller25]

Hello Andy, welcome to SGL.

What will you be using the scope for ?

Imaging / visual ?

Deep sky / planets ?

[garethmob]

as dweller said the scope you choose will be dependent on what you want to use it for

for imaging in AP a mount with a EQ is king with the range of HEQ5 and EQ6

i have tried valleyman's 200p (8")(before he sold it) on a HEQ5 and it was fantastic scope tracking was as quiet as it cud be,

iv got the 3-2 which its motors are really loud but i asked the neigbours if they heared me an they couldnt

[quattrorings]

Thanks David - principally planets and the major DSO's - M31, M51, M63, M101 etc. Good resolution and sharpness is key.

Although I have done photography actively for 20 years I don't think I would have time at the moment for astrophotography - especially with 2 pre-teen children - but may in a couple of years time look towards this. I know this pushes me towards a GEM but not an over-riding factor.

Thanks

Andy

[JamesM]

From own observations of Meade mounts and from owning a NEQ6, the latter is very much the quieter mount. Being equatorial, it will be great for imaging and of course it is easier to further control this mount's tracking/movements through a software program called EQMOD. This program facilitates linking the mount with planetarium software, it can monitor and help improve tracking accuracy, allows you to program the mount to perform mosaic image taking on an object like the moon. These mounts are so popular that a number of maintenance manuals have been written for them (e.g Astrobaby's), there are various Yahoo groups and of course on this very forum there is so much help and experience available should anything go wrong or if you have any questions regarding alignment, updating handset catalogue etc.

Apart from the fact that the mount is pretty accurate, good value for money and its payload capacity allows you attached a whole variety of scope and sizes, it is its popularity and the resulting advice, help and innovation that this generates which persuaded me that this was the mount to go for.

Hope this helps your decision.

James

[ronin]

Where about are you?

Leith Hill have an astro night on tonight.

Should be a number of scopes there if your location was close enough would suggest paying them a visit.

Really think that a general location should be mandatory on forums like this it would help a lot.

[dweller25]

Thanks David - principally planets and the major DSO's - M31, M51, M63, M101 etc. Good resolution and sharpness is key.

Although I have done photography actively for 20 years I don't think I would have time at the moment for astrophotography - especially with 2 pre-teen children - but may in a couple of years time look towards this. I know this pushes me towards a GEM but not an over-riding factor.

Thanks

Andy

If you want the best views then an 8/10" Newtonian is the way to go....

A Dobsonian with high quality mirrors and good wide angle eyepieces will be easy to move, quick to setup, will cool quickly and be relatively inexpensive.

SCT's need thermal management (primary mirror need to be cool but corrector needs to be heated) and have high central obstructions (around 35%) which reduce contrast which is essential for the planets.

A Skywatchers 10" Dob (23% central obstruction), a quality 20mm Pentax XW low power eyepiece (x60) for DSO's and a 5mm Pentax XW (x240) for the planets will costs you £445+£255+£255 a total of £995 - you will be very hard pressed to beat this combo in terms of value for money and the views it will show.

Here is a drawing I did last November of Jupiter with a Skywatcher 10" Dobsonian and a 7mm Pentax XW.......

[quattrorings]

Thanks Ronin

Bit of a distance for me but thanks for the offer. Profile suitably updated with location now !

[quattrorings]

thanks JBM 1165 and dweller25 - all useful points

The skywatcher mounts do seem pretty quiet and are obviously more flexible.

I have considered the Dob and Newt option but SCT's are obviously more compact, but I agree you sacrifice quality.

Much difference between Celestron standard SCT optics (none HD) and Meade ACF optics.

Interestingly have spoken to a few dealers who have told me there is a definate difference in sharpness between the Celestron C8 and C9.25 - the latter being sharper.

[26Left]

I wouldn't dare use a Meade mount in my back garden. They are very loud when slewing compared by Skywatcher mounts.

But, optically, Meade scope are great IMO.

[quattrorings]

I wouldn't dare use a Meade mount in my back garden. They are very loud when slewing compared by Skywatcher mounts.

But, optically, Meade scope are great IMO.

Thanks perhaps the best combination might be a LX200 ACF on an EQ6 plus forums seem to mention frequently reliability issues with meade mounts/drives - but as you say the optics are fine.

Any recommended Celestron combo's to consider ?

[ollypenrice]

Meade have been particularly obnoxious of late regarding guarantee work, insisting that unrealistically large instruments go back to them for repair when sending out a small spare would be the intelligent thing to do. Personally I feel they should be punished by losing out on sales but that's just me. I doubt that FLO customers buying Celestron would have this problem.

The ACF and Edge options, of which the Edge is optically superior, score in terms of flat field for deep sky imagers. In visual use I wonder if the difference matters much? I don't know, it is a genuine question.

If I were aiming to do DS imaging at some point then trying to do so beyond 1.5 meters of focal length would worry me a lot unless I had a premium mount, and that does not mean a proprietory fork or an NEQ6. But in visual use I find a 10 inch SCT on an NEQ6 very pleasant. It would also do planetary imaging easily.

As an imager I'd have an Edge if I had a mount that I knew for certain could track at the required focal length.

Olly

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The Meade ACFs are better in terms of coma correction compared to the standard Celestron. Go for an "Edge-HD" from Celestron for the same level of correction. In my opinion, the C8 I have is a great all-round scope, doing very well on planets indeed (many of the best planetary photographs are taken with SCTs), and allowing me to pick up very many DSOs in the last year (down to mag 13 galaxies). The newer Edge and ACF designs are a clear improvement for wider-field use, less important for planetary stuff.

One advantage of the SCT/Mak design is its compact build, allowing you to take a big scope to a dark site easily. Some dobs like the flex-tubes also allow this. A C9.25 or C11 on something like an NEQ6 mount would be awesome. For DSO photography, you would need to look at a fast refractor, or use the (expensive) Fastar of Celestron Edge-HD or SCTs.

[cgarry]

SCT's need thermal management (primary mirror need to be cool but corrector needs to be heated) and have high central obstructions (around 35%) which reduce contrast which is essential for the planets.

As a SCT fan I feel I have to reply to the central obstruction issue stated here. 35% is more or less correct if you calculate it by diameter, but it is not the diameter that matters it is the area that matters. When you calculate by area SCTs come in at around 13% for central obstructions.

I personally find my C9.25 to be perfect for planets, with excellent contrast. The long focal length that gives great magnification without needing to buy expensive EPs and it holds its collimation really well too.

Cheers,

Chris

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

As a SCT fan I feel I have to reply to the central obstruction issue stated here. 35% is more or less correct if you calculate it by diameter, but it is not the diameter that matters it is the area that matters. When you calculate by area SCTs come in at around 13% for central obstructions.

I personally find my C9.25 to be perfect for planets, with excellent contrast. The long focal length that gives great magnification without needing to buy expensive EPs and it holds its collimation really well too.

Cheers,

Chris

Totally agree. Besides, storing your scope in a cool shed or garage as I do reduces cool down time to no more than that required for a Newtonian of the same diameter, and in my case a dew shield has kept the corrector plate clear for 6 - 6.5 hours on very humid nights. A dew strip may be needed in even more humid conditions or for even longer observing times.

[quattrorings]

Thanks - this advice is really helpful. I have heard good things about the C9.25 and it is good to know an 8 inch can give excellent results as well.

Just one other thing is it worth investing in a 2 inch diagonal and eyepieces - have heard they are a great improvement over the 1.25 inch.

On a separate issue I have just listened to the meade mounts again on youtube and they do sound LOUD. I have a reasonably big garden but the noise could be an issue.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Thanks - this advice is really helpful. I have heard good things about the C9.25 and it is good to know an 8 inch can give excellent results as well.

Just one other thing is it worth investing in a 2 inch diagonal and eyepieces - have heard they are a great improvement over the 1.25 inch.

On a separate issue I have just listened to the meade mounts again on youtube and they do sound LOUD. I have a reasonably big garden but the noise could be an issue.

I added a 2" diagonal (Williams Optics Dielectric, 99% reflection) and it has totally transformed the scope. My 40mm Paragon and 22mm Nagler are the workhorses for DSOs and so much wider views than the old 36 and 26 mm Plossls I had. Well worth the investment. I got the usual "2" plug-in" kind, rather than a specific SCT-thread type, as I already had a Baader 2" visual back (required for the Vixen flip-mirror I use for planetary stuff).

[quattrorings]

Thanks - useful advice. I think I have norrowed the choice down to either:

LX200 10 Inch on an EQ6 (Expensive Option)

C9.25 on a CG-5

I see the meade scope has a good offer at the moment on LX200 with a free 2 inch diagonal and 5000 series eyepiece.

[Rossco72]

Celestron over Meade every time i'm afraid.

For me it would be a 9.25 Edge HD and an EQ6 Mount (even a second hand one!)

Cheers

[ollypenrice]

The larger Meade OTAs come up at incredibly low prices second hand. Either that or I'd go for the C9.25, ideally the Edge, on an EQ6. I doubt I 'd get 400 pounds for our 10 inch Meade OTA. On axis, for visual use, it is pretty good. Lots of coma though.

I believe that the field of the Edge is flatter than that of the Meade ACF but am not sure about this. Anyone?

Olly

[Mr Spock]

I can't help but recommend a C9.25 on an EQ-6. Best cash I ever spent

It will leave you loads of money to get some decent eyepieces.

[quattrorings]

Thanks for all your advice on this - very useful.

In the end I saw all the telescopes "in the flesh" (they look much bigger in real life).

In the end I went for the Meade LX90 10 inch. Although large, the weight is considerably less than the LX 200's. The Celestron's are great scope's but the weight of the CPC1100 would have prevented me from taking it out regularly.

I have to say as well the guys at Harrison Telescopes and Telescope House were great - nothing was every too much trouble and they spent time explaining the pro's and con's of each.

Just got the purchase in time for the meade offer. All in all a good deal.

Once again thanks for all the advice.