Meade scopes - nice ad's pity about the quality?

[gurney]

Hi there,

as I've mentioned elsewhere I haven't got myself a scope yet, and will be saving up for something nice - hopefully a 10"-12" reflector of some sort.

Obviously I've seen the very impressive Meade adverts in just about every astronomy magazine for the last decade or more, and they look wonderful. As I've been looking at a few observatory sites I see the top of the range ones make an appearance more often than not.

However, I've read elsewhere (on the cloudyskies forum I think it was) that Meade's are known for having poor tracking capabilites with poorly made mounts, making imaging a rather hit and miss affair.

Is this a fair comment - or just some misplaced gripes?

My first impression on here, glancing at a few people's signatures, seems to be that Meade's aren't that common among you lot (but I could be wrong as I've not been here long). So was just wondering if you all know not to trust the ads.

Any advice happily received.

[Ant]

My 2p worth is the Celestron is a better bet than Meade.

Steve (FLO) brought a CPC1100 to Kelling last year. That was damn impressive to say the least.

I also really like the C9.25.

But I'd be putting it on a EQ mount though - Don't like forks.

Ant

[gurney]

Thank Ant,

can you elaborate a little on what it is that makes Celestron better than Meade?

Agree about the EQ mount!

[Helen]

I'm biased. I have a Meade ETX125 which has never done what its supposed to do, despite being quite an expensive scope. Meade cut corners on the parts and design of the mount (may have improved more recently, don't know) and as a result its a nightmare to try to correct too. Mine has been in for service and still slips, wobbles, and doesn't GOTO properly Optics are fine though.

My Celestron just does what its supposed to do - had very few problems with it, and the mechanics are very solid.

Helen

[gurney]

Thanks Helen. That's sort of what I'd heard elsewhere really.

Seems such a pity - because they have such a great range of scopes - and they look so gorgeous!

I'd also been reading about financial ups and downs for Meade over the last decade or so. Maybe things have changed. Who knows.

[barkis]

Well it's not all doom and gloom for Meade scopes Gurney. Have a look in the Imaging Deep Sky Section, and look for Dave's (Centroids) images, taken through his Meade LX200R telescope.

I wish mine was as useless. I own a LX90 12", and I hope it will do the business for me. If not, I shall remove the OTA, and put it on to a EQ6 Pro mount, which has a proven record as a dependable tracking mount.

Ron.

[GazOC]

To be fair, Helen is comparing a reasonably high end Celestron scope to a low-mid range Meade scope that has had corners cut on it to make the price attractive to the casual observer (ie poor motors/ mount).

Obviously that doesn't excuse the Meade not working but its somethink to take into consideration, the Meade counterpart to Helens scope is the LX200 which does have a pretty good rep. Also traditionally Meade used to sell a lot more scopes than Celestron so you tended to get more problems cropping up on internet forums, whether this accounts for all the extra complaints is anyones guess...

That said, I'd still go with a Celestron.

[barkis]

Celestrons look a lot prettier than Meades, but I'm not sure that is a qualifying quality. :?

Ron.

[anthony]

Got 5mins guided through my F7 80ed piggy backed on my fork mounted lx200 8" before I knew anything about the whole imaging lark. I fancy I'd get better performance now if I was to do the same thing.

My 8" OTA was removed from the forks and kept when I moved onto a GEM. Good optics and a nice mirror lock feature. Still have it, (my first scope) and I have owned 8 different OTAs in total.

Not a perfect scope/mount by any means but not bad either. A great all rounder and I guess that quality can vary from scope to scope.

Anthony

[SteveL]

I`ve had a torrid time with Meade equipment:

- EXT90 - worked OK, then blew up 2 weeks after I sold it on SGL (gearbox related I believe)

- 2 x Meade Illuminated eyepieces failed (one DOA, replaced, then second one died 3 weeks later)

- Meade f/6.3 Focal reducer had one of the elements in back to front, replaced.

Hence why I will actively go out of my way to avoid Meade kit now.

Love my Celestron NS8GPS... zero hassles, handset went a bit screwey (LCD display) but replaced quickly. Also love the C11 (on the two occasions I`ve had to look through it so far!)

[russ]

Had a few Meade scopes and had mixed results.

ETX90 went Pete Tong. Ditched the fork mount/Autostar and now use as an OTA only. The Optics are first class, hard to imagine another 90mm Mak beating it.

LXD75 very noisy and some play in RA that couldn't be tuned out but on the whole i liked the LXD. I preferred it to the Celestron ASGT. Mainly because Meade offered a quiet slew mode and Celestron didn't.

LX90 wasn't working when i first got it. Autostar switched itself on/off intermittently, GOTO was awful and it didn't track. Turned out to be the Autostar cable breaking down. After that it worked fine except, like the LXD, it was very noisy. And the forks couldn't cope that well with the 10" OTA, poor damp down time. Awesome tripod and razor sharp optics. Image shift was well controlled and focus smooth.

There is a common theme to Meade instruments. Cheap noisy motors, fragile electronics and poor cables.

Russ

[RichieP]

It looks like a common theme - decent optics, suspect mounts. I own an Meade AR5 refractor which I am very happy with, but I bought the OTA only as I had heard so many bad things about the lx75 mounts. I also own a second hand ETX-70 which I have taken to bits. Again, decent enough optics but rubbish mount - this thing actually has plastic gears!!!

Richard

[daz]

Our societies 16" LX200 is fine, but I find Autostar clunky.

[jcm]

With mass produced scopes/mounts there is always likely to be a variation in optical/mechanical quality. The A&M APO I bought was perfect and the HEQ5 Pro mount performed without problems. The new EQ6 Pro broke down the first day I turned it on !! This was easily fixed - got a new replacement - seems to work fine. The problem comes when you have a scope that performs not as well as you expect , but is difficult to get a replacement in these situations. Often the only way forward is to sell it and decide to tell / not to tell the buyer you think optically it is substandard.

John

[RichieJarvis]

Hi Gurney,

I own a 10" LX200R (the first one to hit the UK as a matter of fact), an ETX105, a Meade LPI and Meade DSI-C amongst my equipment list.

I brought the LX in order to do astro-photography, as the ETX is not up to the task. The ETX has plastic gears, and cannot handle the additional weight of a camera.

The LX is a great all-round scope, plenty of aperture, etc. If I was doing it all again, then I must confess I would buy OTA only though, as for the same money, I could have had a nice Vixen GPD2 with Goto, and the OTA.

I have tuned the drives with Bucks gears kit, and added the dry-clutch to it, which helps, but I really think that I shouldn't have had to do so.

As far as the OTA goes, I am currently considering getting it completely overhauled, as it is not able to maintain collimation both in front and behind the point of focus, which I believe is due to mirror slop as it slides up and down the central tube. I've been pretty happy with it overall though, its just a case of knowing how to get round the problems.

I have been told by Nik Szymanek and Ian King that really the best route into Astrophotography is using small aperture refractors, and that is something that I've been pursuing with my photography, using the LX to guide, and imaging through my ZS66, which does make guiding alot easier!

I think its just one of those things - the SCT design is a compromise, it allows planetary AND Deep-sky imaging. And, as usual, it all depends how much you want to spend.

Cheers,

Richie

[GazOC]

It looks like a common theme - decent optics, suspect mounts. I own an Meade AR5 refractor which I am very happy with, but I bought the OTA only as I had heard so many bad things about the lx75 mounts. I also own a second hand ETX-70 which I have taken to bits. Again, decent enough optics but rubbish mount - this thing actually has plastic gears!!!

Richard

You get what you pay for. To make a GOTO scope for less than £200 is going to mean corners are cut.....)

[DanDare]

I have the ETX105 and agree that its build quality is not the best. Its not suitable for long exposure deep sky photography as the tracking is just not accurate enough. I've just started imaging with a webcam and have had fairly good results with the Moon and Saturn.

If Meade had not used so much plastic it would be a much better scope.

[GazOC]

You've got to be realistic regarding what you are going to get when you are deciding how much to spend on those scopes.

[gurney]

Well, I'm thinking of spending a few thousand. I think for that I can realistically expect it to track objects steadily! that's my primary concern - good optics and steady tracking. What I've heard about Meade's many times now is that even on some of their more expensive scopes the mechanics leave a lot to be desired, whereas the optics are very good.

[GazOC]

As I said, when you are spending £200-£300 and getting a telescope, GOTO computer, motors, encoders and mount then something has to give. If you are going to spend a couple of thousand then that gives you options on set-ups where Meade hasn't had to cut corners. I'm not saying get a Meade over a Celestron, just that its unfair to say just because a £1000+ Celestron setup has less issues than a £300 Meade setup that Celestron are inherently 'better' than Meade.

[gurney]

Oh yes - not disagreeing with you there at all Gaz. It's a very fair point.

[scotastro]

On a near like for like basis the Celestron 6SE has good optics and accurtae GOTO. The ETX125 may have good optics but I have met 3 people who have tried out 7 scopes between them and still don't have a properly working scope. There are plenty more out there too as Helen's post shows.

Celestron seem to get it right more often.

Scotastro

GAC

Galloway Astronomy Centre

www.gallowayastro.com

[Helen]

Gaz is right that you should compare like with like for the comparison to be fair. In my case, I bought an ETX125 4 years ago. It cost just under £1,000 at the time for the scope, and when I added accessories, case etc my bill was £1,300. So I expected it at least to do what it said in the blurb. It didn't, and even after sending it to Telescope House for full servicing, it still didn't. That's why I feel hard done by, and I can't sell it on and recoup some of my investment because it doesn't work well enough to do so.

My Celestron isn't perfect either, but much more so. It is a a more expensive bit of kit to buy new - although ironically I bought it second hand with a load of bits and it cost me less than the ETX!!

What I'm clear about now though, is that I have much more knowledge, and access to loads more knowledge on here so that if I bought any scope and it did the things the ETX did (or didn't) do then I would know what was kit problem and what was me. I'd therefore be in a better position to follow up with the dealer and get any problems resolved.

HTH

Helen

[Astroman]

Kitt Peak had a 16" Meade LX200 with all the bells and whistles for their public outreach program, and I do mean all the bells and whistles. They sold it after spending several thousands in repairs over the course of a year or three, and being forced to cancel public programs on many occasions. The optics were decent, but not amazing, as you'd maybe expect from a place like Kitt peak. They now have a 20" Ritchey from the people that sued Meade for infringement and false advertising.

I've not owned, but have observed through several dozen 10" LX200's and have never been impressed. My simple non-goto C8 has blown the doors off all of them, and it's quiet, too.

I'll take a Celestron any day.

[Jeff RV]

Here's a link to a good side by side comparason for the "C-11 vs 10" Meade LX200R" optics only.

http://www.mikesastro.com/equipment/lx200r/C11vsLX200R.html

They both seem to have good & bad points.

Jeff.