meade ...... rubbish .....

[hemihaggis]

hi folks just thought i would update you on my ongoing struggle with my meade sn10 ldx75 , i prchased the set up last year second hand , it was in very good condition , having only been used a handful of times before the ra motor burnt out .

so i duly sent the mount off to steve at telescope house, ching ching ,£120 quid to replace .

so theres me all happy thinking the set up would then work and be reliable ..... for first light i could not get the mount to find the two stars to align , it was so far off it was a joke so i persevered and updated the software but it still is aways off every time i do an alignment , rarely puts the first two stars in the fov no matter how perfect you polar align ,

i then realised the polar scope was not in sync with the mount , so i tried to line them up using the tiny grub screws , the heads of which duly chewed up using almost no pressure made of rubbish , swapped them out for four ,4mm screws ,

the slightest nudge on the polar scope puts it out of alignment , putting you back to start , the iluminated reticle is fiddly to use and eats batteries . rubbish .

so after many wasted nights trying to fix the above i had it all working and lined up so i thought .... attatch dslr with the t ring and get some pics of jupiter , cant be too difficult i thought ......especially as the telescope is F4 and as meade says " optimised for astrophotography " imagine my surpise when i could not get enough inward focus to achive a sharp image ... so i took the extension off the focuser, expecting to get get focus ,i attatched the dslr and t ring ,and .......no focus ...agghh ... what is the point of making a telescope at F4 supposedly perfect for AP and you cant even focus a dslr with it ????

about this time i realised the focuser supplied with the scope is complete rubbish , i have saw better on a kids scope , so if i want to use my scope which has been "optimised for AP" i have to buy another focuser , around £ 150++ , which means drilling holes for a new base plate ect .....

next problem was the hand box cable must have had a split in it as it kept cutting the power to the hand box , so every time you input the time/date/location / and align scope , it would cut the power and then you start again ....bought new cable £12 ....all fixed !! the on off switch on the mount then started playing up . fixed that , the then the inpuit for the handbox went loose and cut the signal to the scope !! more cash !!!

tonight i had it all working perfectly .... found m81/82 had a look at some clusters .. m31 looked great , i was all happy and pleased thinking my problems were over , so i preesed the messier list on the handset , enterd m42 , and thought ,"cant wait to see the great orion nebula " in the 10" meade ..... the scope slewed to m42 then kept going ... started pointing down to ground went so far it broke the housing on the motor .. i only stopped it by pulling the power supply out , now it wont power up at all , aggghhh

anyway i moved the scope manually to have a look at m42 just to see the difference between the meade 10" and my last scope ,127 mak sw, and to be honest i remember the view as being better in the 127 mak , you got more of a hint of pale purple more of a shape to the batswing , i cant belive that a 254mm pyrex 1/4 mirror can give such mediocre views ..

combine that with the total unreliablity , the quality of the bulid ,rubbish, the quality of the accesories , rubbish, the aftermarket service (exept steve at TSKP HOUSE) rubbish, and you have an absolutly terrible experiance , i have not had one nights uninterupted viewng ... there has alwasys been some problem .

compared to the mak which was totally reliable , and worked perfectly for me for two years ,

at the earliest oppertunity i will be getting shot of the meade and replacing it with a c11 or similar ,possibly a cpc

i will never have another meade product

[Adrian]

It's stories like this that made me decide, long ago, never to buy Meade electronics.

Fortunately, my Meade SCT had been demounted by the previous owner so I avoided paying for anything other than OTA. It's not bad I wonder why it was demounted

[Mike Hawtin]

I bought a Meade DS114 some ten years ago as my first goto scope, absolute and utter trash, I returned it to the dealer for a replacement assuming I had been sent a lemon. The second scope was exactly the same, I could not believe the complete lack of quality throughout, never bought blue since.

[kirkster501]

I did a lot of research into this and a common theme when referring to Meade was "optics superb, rest of the system so-so". Maybe that's an unfair generalization, but I sure wasn't taking any risks on a £2500 system and went for Celestron who everyone seems to rave about... We shall see!

Steve

[Dave-Ryan]

I bought my Meade 10" LX200gps in August 2004 and have never had a single problem with it.

[Erwin Kats]

that the telescope wont come in focus is not a meade only problem.

lots of other brands have the same, but mostly the stock focuser is also not good enough for astrophotography, and a replacement focuser is then still the best solution.

I have used my meade LX90 8'' for 4 years without any problems, the only pain i had was with freezing conditions the handpad was getting impossible to read ( these days you can get handpad heaters for them )

[hemihaggis]

that the telescope wont come in focus is not a meade only problem.

thanks for all your replys ,

erwin i understand thatr many scopes stock focuser will not have enough inward focus to use with a dslr , the problem with my scope and meade is that the scope was advertised as being "optimised for AP" would that not make you think that it would be able to focus with a camera attatched ?? i think that would be about the first thing you would check if you are building an F4 telescope for AP ??

also friends of mine have the lx seris scope and they seem to fare a bit better than mine , although the aftermarket service is still woeful , ect ect

[ollypenrice]

But if you want a good scope for AP don't be fooled by all the advertizing guff telling you that SCTs, too, are ideal for AP. They are very far from being ideal which is why you see so few images posted with them. You can do AP with them but it is a struggle and you need a lot of add ons. I wouldn't go down that road myself in search of enjoyable imaging.

Olly

[swamp thing]

Very interesting.

Meades QC strikes again.

I do think however you may be recalling your Maks ability with rose tinted specs.

On DSO like M42 a 10" mirror will always perform better than one half it's size. The only way the Mak could be giving a brighter Image is if the 10" was dewed up or the surface of the mirror was seriously tarnished ( I think you may have noticed this at the time of purchase).

The 10" mirror, even if figured woefully badly as to make planetary images appalling still has 4x the area of a 5", and for observing diffuse nebula this is what is needed.

A low quality 10" mirror will outperform a brilliant 5" one simply because of the size.

Regards Steve

[dave_galera]

But if you want a good scope for AP don't be fooled by all the advertizing guff telling you that SCTs, too, are ideal for AP. They are very far from being ideal which is why you see so few images posted with them. You can do AP with them but it is a struggle and you need a lot of add ons. I wouldn't go down that road myself in search of enjoyable imaging.

Olly

I have to agree with Olly (dare I dis-agree!!) as I have just been through a similar exercise. After trying (without sucess) with my C8 attached to a large chip CCD I came to the conclusion that SCT's just can't give the quality of image as the flatteners just don't do what the manufacturers say they will do and the coma, as little as it is, is just intollerable. For this reason I have changed to a refractor, and my C8 will be used for visual only.

[Cleetus Van Damme]

Sorry to hear of your problems – this sounds like a nightmare!

I don’t think when you choose alignment stars that they are “supposed” to be in the field of view. If they are then all well and good but mine are never in the field of view of the finder, let alone the telescope and my pointing accuracy is almost perfect (different scope).

You don’t think you’re being unfair on Meade do you? You bought the telescope second hand so, although the seller may have told you “It’s working great”, you don’t really know how it has been treated. The focusser is “rubbish”, there would appear to be an issue with the hand box cable, and the general quality of the finish is also “rubbish”. I’ve come in late here so apologies if I’ve missed something relevant but did you not put it through its paces before you bought it?

Another thing, how do you know that when the motor was swapped by TH everything was working as it should. I know you live many miles from them and it probably wasn’t possible for you but I would have been eager for a demonstration that everything was working properly. Perhaps the runaway slews, damaged cable, and the fact that the polar scope was not in sync may have been spotted at this stage? Is it not a bit like taking your car in for a service and being told that there’s an issue with something you may not be aware of?

I don’t know how TH operates so maybe it just a question of swapping out one component for the other and paying little attention to anything else which is, I suppose, fair enough.

[damnut]

Hi HemiHaggis,

Have a 10 year old LX 200 10" that is built like a tank, no issues with it. For those who have difficulty taking pictures with SCT's, this used to belong to Pete Shah. He seemed to have no problems with imaging!!.

However there is significant feedback now in the less sturdy models and the longevity of the electronics\hand controllers. I bought a new spare controller which I have not had to use!.

Cheers

[LeeB]

Friends lightbridge 10" was v poor and he asked me to have a look. Could not believe what i found spider vanes upside down meant proper colli was impossible, when removed they had been bent at factory after fitting to allow secondary enough travel. Loads of inline metal was shiny white and the main mirror was that tightly clamped it also caused pinching problems. After adressing all issues I have to say the optics are good and the scope performs well. A shame that in its original state it was a disappointment.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

But if you want a good scope for AP don't be fooled by all the advertizing guff telling you that SCTs, too, are ideal for AP. They are very far from being ideal which is why you see so few images posted with them. You can do AP with them but it is a struggle and you need a lot of add ons. I wouldn't go down that road myself in search of enjoyable imaging.

Olly

This was not an SCT, this was a Schmidt Newtonian. Very different beast, much more suitable for AP (Mak-Newts may be better).

[hemihaggis]

thanks for all your contributions guys , im just honestly fed up with it , a ten inch reflector from a top company like meade should be just about all the scope i will ever need , but i have never had a nights fault free viewing , they were not a cheapo basment scope, a few a few years ago they were retailing for around £2000 .

we all love this as a hobby but im not enjoying it at the moment , finding time between work commitments , family and children , and everything else these days is difficult , so when i eventually do get a dark clear night (like saturday) i would like to make the most of it , instead the meade has failed once more .

thanks for all your comments , much apprecitated

[ollypenrice]

In warning the OP to beware of SCTs for imaging I was referring to his earlier comment that he was thinking of buying 'a C11 or similar.'

As for Peter having had an SCT for imaging, I dare say he has. So have many other serious imagers on here, myself included. The significant fact is that many of us no longer have them! (Or in my case I just don't use it.)

As I said above, you can image with an SCT but is hard work and expensive. You need a mount that can handle the focal length (we always hear about the weight but long FL demands accuracy.) You need a flattener for the standard versions and even with it the coma is considerable. In the Edge models (the OP won't be buying a Meade!) the corrector is still an issue. You need an aftermarket focusser... and so on.

Not impossible but hard work, expensive and frequently rather ordinary in terms of final result, though certainly not always. Ironically, in view of the subject of the thread, I have seen only three SCTs at my place taking good images and all were Meade ACFs with (I think) AP flattener-reducers. They were all on serious mounts, Gemini, AP and Losmandy G11.

Olly

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

In warning the OP to beware of SCTs for imaging I was referring to his earlier comment that he was thinking of buying 'a C11 or similar.'

As for Peter having had an SCT for imaging, I dare say he has. So have many other serious imagers on here, myself included. The significant fact is that many of us no longer have them! (Or in my case I just don't use it.)

As I said above, you can image with an SCT but is hard work and expensive. You need a mount that can handle the focal length (we always hear about the weight but long FL demands accuracy.) You need a flattener for the standard versions and even with it the coma is considerable. In the Edge models (the OP won't be buying a Meade!) the corrector is still an issue. You need an aftermarket focusser... and so on.

Not impossible but hard work, expensive and frequently rather ordinary in terms of final result, though certainly not always. Ironically, in view of the subject of the thread, I have seen only three SCTs at my place taking good images and all were Meade ACFs with (I think) AP flattener-reducers. They were all on serious mounts, Gemini, AP and Losmandy G11.

Olly

Fair enough.

I do note that the OP wanted to take an image of Jupiter. In that case, an SCT is one of the best choices (and do not use a DSLR, or F/4 for that matter, F/20 is closer in many cases). For deep sky, it is definitely not the top choice (which is one reason why I got myself a 80mm APO).

[ollypenrice]

Yes indeed, the SCT is a formidable planetary photographic instrument. I should have specified that I was talking about DS imaging. and in visual use the SCT has a lot going for it.

Olly

[Erwin Kats]

I think the 10'' f4 should be good for imaging, look what Emiel Kempen is getting with the 6'' meade snt.

with small modification.

Google Vertaling

[todd8137]

sounds like it was duff to start with i have a meade ds2090 it works a treat and has done for nearly three years the scope as to be level and face in north as you no ,the mistake people make is pointing the scope at polaris and all it needs is pointing north put the scope to zero on the up and down put a sprit level on the tube and then move the legs in and out use two stars that are on the east and west if not when you do the two star align it picks two close together no good hit the mode button till it selcts a star miles away from the other ,or it will only be any good at finding stuff in the initial alinement area thats what i do and it works for me choose two stars that are ,one in the east and one in the west

[earth titan]

Can I speak in support of meade scopes (not mounts). I have a US made 8" Ldx55 which I use solely for planetary work. The build quality is fabulous, it mounts on my EQ3 (not fork mounted), the views are stunning and it was a bargain (second hand off the bay).

I have to point out however, I bought it unmounted - purposely because of the reviewed quality of Meade mounts. I'll never part with mine and if you see a similar one for sale, I would strongly recommend.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

As for Meade optics, I have looked through a 10" SCT, and it looked very good. The Series 5000 14mm UWA I have is excellent.

[ollypenrice]

Yes, to be fair, my 10 inch Meade also has good optics for visual use.

Olly

[hemihaggis]

hi folks ,

just an update on my meade 10" schmit/newt ... done a quick easy alignment tonight , ran thriugh a few usual suspects to check the alignment ,m42 ,m45 , pollux , ect , never put any of them in the fov , asked it goto m45 , the mount swung round the other way , stretching the cable that powers the second motor to breaking point , i had to pull the cable out of the battery pack to stop it !! **** !!

so i started again , (as usual) , easy align , find stars ...... align succseful , still cant put m42 in fov .... ??? so persevered for 30 mins ... then the handbox started going really slow ... until it eventually stopped working , just went blank and dull red ...

the temp outside is 0 degrees , not exactally artic conditions ,( my skywatcher handset i had a few years ago worked down to at least -18) , i stay in ayrshire ,scotland . the temp regularly drops well below 0 here , and has been as low as -20 last year ,

so now i have a scope that is unreliable , which cannot put an object in the fov , that does not like working below 0 degrees

what is the point i ask myself ???????

[BigMG5]

I am another member of the ex-Meade owner/user club. I used to rely on a Meade DS2090 refractor. The tripod was far from the best (but easy to set-up), the Goto system was easy to setup and worked pretty well for me, the red dot finder worked, the set of five eyepieces gave me a good range. All looking good. For the first couple of years the only fly in the ointment was a less than brilliant focuser. Eventually the focuser lost too many teeth from the rack and pinion drive to be of much use. No problem I thought - big company like Meade, it should be easy to locate spare parts. 6 months later and I still can't find out where to get spares from. I now have a nice Skywatcher Explorer 150P and am really happy with it...BUT my old Meade DS2090 (OTA, tripod and mount with control box and all cables) fitted into an archery bow case that was easy to transport - unlike the new SKywatcher. Does anyone know where I can get a replacement focuser tube or a reasonably priced replacement?