Is Meade really the Daddy?

[Minotaur]

Hi everyone. I've recently been looking at scope options (5" maks) and I get the distinct impression that Meade is at the top of the tree in terms of reputation (certainly in terms of price - ouch).

My question is this: Do you get what you pay for with Meade? Is a Nexstar 5SE as good as an ETX 125 PE? Is the Skymax 127 SupaTrak Auto less than half as good as the Meade as it's price would suggest?

Ok so that was three questions but you get the idea....can Meade really justify their hefty price tags at this end of the market?

[Paxo]

Minotaur,

That is actually quite a complicated question you have asked. I am the very proud owner of a 12" LX200R scope (amongst others) so I feel relatively qualified to speak. The believed 'top of the tree' impression IMHO opinion is probably more down to the marketing budget than the pure quality of their telescopes. Don't get me wrong the scope I have is an excellent bit of kit but has required so much refining and tuning (such as upgrading the focusing mechanism and re-aligning the gears) to get it that way, optically though, I get an extremely flat field which is needed for imaging. There is so much more Meade could do to make their scopes better. They are mass produced optical aids and lack the refinements you get with some of the other high quality brands. I, for example, own two William Optics scopes, both of these are engineered to a very high quality, no corners have been cut which is the impression I have got from my Meade Instrument.

More people will follow with their opinions, it will be interesting to get their views. I don't particularly find the Meade scopes expensive. Yes when you are talking research grade optics and large sizes the prices are high, but just take a look at some of the other high quality hand crafted ranges.

Steve..

[centroid]

Hi Rick

When it come to optical performance, there's nothing to choose between Meade and Celestron (I've owned both).

IMO, Meade has a definite edge when it comes to technical innovation. I'm only speaking with regard to SCTs, as these are what I've had first hand Meade and Celestron experience of.

As is very common practice many refractors, and other models, Meade, Celestron, Skywatcher etc etc etc, are made in China, painted different colours, and sold under a variety of brand names. Nothing wrong with this at all, as some of these scopes are excellent, and competitively priced too.

However, as with many things in life, it can very much a case of 'you get what you pay for', and sometimes 'buyer beware'.

I'm sure someone on the forum, will be able to answer your qusetion regarding 5" Mak models.

As for the Meade price tag, I can only say that I'm on my second Meade SCT, and have no complaints about the way it performs, but buying it was painful.

Dave

[AndyH]

Best 5" Mak on the market, has to be the Intes Micro M500 . Russian. Had one. Twas fantastic. Doesn't answer your question though :oops: , as I have never had any dealings with scopes from Meade or Celestron.

Hopefully others will soon pitch in to help.

Andy.

[EA2007]

I have always been told to swerve Meade as much as possible, not only are they priced quite heavily but I think for the same amount of money you can get better equipment from other manufacturers.

That's only my opinion though, the best thing to do is to test a scope at a store and see which you think is best, after all it comes down to user preference.

Having tried Celestron, Bresser, Skywatcher, TAL, Pentax and Televue I can safely say that Pentax have the best optics, followed by televue, then its a decider between the remainder.

[MartinB]

I have used 2 etx scopes before and they were both awful - sloppy, flimsy mounts. The optics were ok but the focusers matched the quality of the mount. I have a Meade 10" LX200R SCT but it seems reasonably well put together apart from some white dust inside the scope and a horrible focuser (compared with the Celestron SCT).

Meade is not a happy company at the moment and their quality control is renowned for being iffy. Celestron on the other hand seem to be getting it right.

[NickH]

I would say, that you should garner as many opinions as you can from trusted sources (friends, astro society members etc), and also, try to attend star parties, or local viewing nights. See what others use, try them out for yourself, and make a judgement.

Buying a telescope, you should factor in ease of use (if it's goto or not), optical quality, weight (lugging out and then packing up when the clouds appear is not fun!). build quality, and after sales support and service. If something does go wrong, what is the backup?

I've owned and tested many scopes, from many companies, some great, some great with caveats, some just great, some awful...but then the ones I found awful, others have enjoyed, so it's a matter of personal choice.

Also you need to decide what it is you want to see/image/do...

Deep sky/planets/solar/viewing/imaging...all factors which will determine the scopes you use, as well as budget.

I think one thing consistently does bear considering, and that is the mount. A good mount will pay dividends no matter what scope you choose...invest in a good solid mount, and you can put any number of different scopes, big or small on it.. oh, and aperture, take a look at some images which people take with 66-90mm refractors, some of which are almost Hubble like. Big does not always mean the best results...a big scope looks great, but if it gets less use than the smaller ones, it's not as good an investment. My most used nighttime scopes are two 80/102 mm refractors, not the C11...and my most used scope full stop is a 50mm Solar one..

Whatever you pick...enjoy it though...some great people out there who will be more than willing to help.

[GazOC]

Hi everyone. I've recently been looking at scope options (5" maks) and I get the distinct impression that Meade is at the top of the tree in terms of reputation (certainly in terms of price - ouch).

My question is this: Do you get what you pay for with Meade? Is a Nexstar 5SE as good as an ETX 125 PE? Is the Skymax 127 SupaTrak Auto less than half as good as the Meade as it's price would suggest?

Ok so that was three questions but you get the idea....can Meade really justify their hefty price tags at this end of the market?

Of the scopes you've mentioned (5" Maks) there isn't much in it optically, as someone else has mentioned the best affordable Maks tend to be Russian and come from Intes or one of its sister companies.

The reason the Skywatcher is a lot cheaper than the other two is that is doesn't have a GOTO computer as standard like the Celestron and Meade. IMHO the Meade is overpriced compared to the Celestron as that is a better "apples and apples" comparision.

Meade are one of the more innovative of the main telescope manufacturers, but in this case a 5" Mak on a GOTO mount is not cutting edge stuff, its a tried and tested design that all 3 companies you mentioned can just 'knock out' at will.

Personally I think Meade cannot justify the price point of their Mak in todays market, its very overpriced for what it is IMHO.

[Starflyer]

A chap I know was trying to sell his etx105 and I borrowed it for a couple of weeks to get a feel for it and decide whether I wanted it.

I had a chance to try it on 3 nights over a 2 week period; the goto was terrible, the mount was sloppy and the red dot finder was terrible. The views were sharp with good contrast, the moon was stunning as was the dumbell nebula, so the optics are good. In the end I didn't buy it, I thought it was overpriced (even second hand) and too flimsy / fiddly for me.

I wouldn't buy a small Meade 'scope, I've heard too many bad things about the engineering quality and general durability.

Ian

[palefire]

I've got a C5 (celestron) on an SCT mount and know a number of people with ETX 125s.

First point I should make is that we're all happy with our kit.

The meade bods like their scopes but do seem to grumble a lot more about "fine tuning" and "servicing" the mount etc. The SCT mount works really well as far as a cheap GoTo mount is concerned and I believe that the nexstar mount is slightly better. I think in terms of cheap GoTo mounts the Celestron wins out there.

I doubt you'd be able to see much difference between the C5 and the ETX 125 in terms of optics. The ETX might be a bit sharper, but with a smaller field of view ('cos of the longer f/l), but there really wouldn't be much in it. The Celestron has more accessories available 'cos of the standard visual back. Honours fairly even, maybe edging towards the Meade.

Value for money - the celestron nexstar 5 was always a fair bit cheaper than the meade (to the extent that a few months back meade were giving away eyepiece kits with the scopes to try and narrow the gap). Celestron wins out there.

Side note on the Skymax SupaTrak - It's not a GoTo scope - it's a tracking scope. You point it at what you want to see and the mount will (when it's been setup) keep the object in view. The skymax is excellent value, however.

Another good (cheap) option might be to go for one of the SLT scopes:

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/products.php?cat=38

they are still pretty portable, but not as compact as the ETX or Nexstars.

You can get a 5se for sub 500 quid.

An 125 ETX is 700 quid, but comes with an eyepiece kit.

In that budget, I'd decide if I needed goto, if I did I'd get a 5se and pick up the accessories that i actually wanted.

If I wasn't so fussed on Goto I'd get the skymax and EVEN more accesories.

the extra 200 quid could get you some fab gear especially if you buy secondhand (and is pretty much what I have done) - I've picked up a power pack(new), Hyperion Zoom (new), televue 32mm plossl - UHC-S filter - 2" dialectric diagonal & 6mm orthoscopic for around the difference in price between the systems and these have immeasurably improved my enjoyment of the telescope.

[Minotaur]

Thanks to everyone for all the help.....I think it's great that people take the time to give advice.

The thing with the Skywatcher not having GoTo........I totally missed that :oops:

I took a quick look at the Intes model range, I guess they are optically fabulous given that an M500 is about £600 just for the OTA.

I do want GoTo cos I'm so lazy, but also to shallow the learning curve a bit and help me find my way around.

I have a feeling it might be a 5SE - which I just noticed is a Schmitt not a Mak.....is there no limit to my Faux Pas?

BTW palefire - what is an SCT mount?

Thanks again - Rick

[frogbmth]

There's plenty wrong with the ETX 125 - I have owned one and will never buy another. I had fun with it, took some pictures through it that pleased me at the time, and spent lots of time fixing the mount. You will get fun from one, but I agree you can get a better scope for the same money such as the NexStar 6SE. Take a look over the info on Mike Weasner's site for lots of talk about fixing the ETX shortcomings and decide for yourself if you want to spend so much on a small scope and then have to work on it so that the mount does it's job.

Andy

[Doc]

I have found that most scopes especially Dobs you buy need work. Thats a part of the fun making your scope perform better or adding creature comforts to it. The Meade Lightbridge is a prime candidate for what I said.

[palefire]

BTW palefire - what is an SCT mount?

it's a typo.... oops

I've got it on an SLT mount....

[Casus belli]

I'm an ETX 90 owner and its a case of nice optics, shame about the mount. It was my first scope and to be fair, it really awakened my interest in astronomy. But had I known then what I know now I wouldnt have bought it.

However the lightbridge that I now own is a cracking scope. Meade deserve kudo's for that bit of kit.

[steviejasp]

I had a etx125 a few years ago. It was my second scope after a Konus reflector i was given as a present. The konus showed me the planets and the moon but i couldnt find anything else. It awakened an interest in astronomy in me though. I bought the etx as it seemed just what i needed at the budget i had. It did everything i wanted it to. I saw planets, clusters and a couple of galaxies. It never let me down and when i sold it, never even lost much money.

[Minotaur]

Thanks for that Stevie. I guess at the end of the day, we are talking about mass produced equipment which will suffer from a greater degree of quality variance than the upper reaches of the telescope ranges on offer. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the use I will put the scope to will determine the choice of instrument but that is a catch 22 at the moment. I'm considering my first wobbly steps into a new field of interest and as such I have no idea which aspect I will find more satisfying, although I'm sure that staring through a 16" Lightbridge would be amazing, it's difficult to justify that kind of outlay right off the bat. I think the problem is that I need to get considerably richer, move to Hawaii and rent some Keck time...........a man can dream.

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

[part timer]

To be honest I think the only meads I would consider as a first scope would be one of the smaller light bridges (8 or 10 inches). Even then there are equal or better alternatives at a lower price.

The etx range is and always was vastly over priced. The various LX90/200r's are essentially instruments for astrophotography mounted on dedicated visual mounts thus forcing a massive outlay in accessories which are often inferior to simply putting the thing on an equatorial mount in the first place!

The LXD series again tend to be optically suited to wide field photography. The majority of these mounts are horribly overloaded and so astro photography is virtually impossible.

Meade have a huge marketing department and IF you know what you want to observe and how you want to do it then the optics are usually good. The price is usually high (exept the 16" lightbridge which is cool!) and the mounts cause no end of problems.

So my opinion (for what it's worth) is that Meade is to be avoided until such time as you really know what your getting into.

[narrowbandpaul]

I have not seen through any of the ETX scopes, but I believe that they get mixed reviews. To be expected though, what with meades lack of quality control. I ave used the 16" LX200GPS at the uni observatory...it has the worst optics I have ever seen in a telescope. There is a huge amount of mirror slop, the focuser has plently of backlash, and I am convinced they didnt make the schmidt plate properly. Even though i have a 12" Lightbridge, and am quite pleased with that, they experience of the 16" has put me off ever buying a Meade again...in my honest opinion they are never worth the money

My opinion though...otheres may disagree

[centroid]

Sounds like a Friday afternoon model Paul.

I had a 10" LX200GPS for five years, no problems , and no complaints.

Based on that experience, I bought a 12" LX200R, which I've now had for some 9 months. Again, no problem and no complaints.

Although both models have a primary mirror lock, the degree of mirror flop without it, is about the same as the 8" Celestron SCT, that I had prior to going over to Meade.

Coarse focuser backlash on all three scopes, was not excessive, and equally as smooth in operation.

Optically, I challenge anyone to factually argue that Meade SCT optics are better or worse than Celestron, or visa versa. IMO, they are both equally as good, based on my experience with both.

The only reason I changed from Celestron to Meade, was that IMO, Meade are more innovative in their technology. By that, I mean the Meade SCTs have a primary mirror lock, so if my scope crosses the meridian during imaging, there is no mirror flop to worry about, and a motorised microfocuser is fitted as standard.

I am discounting the coma free feature of the LX200R's optics, which Celestron have yet to introduce, so it would unfair to compare the Meade and Celestron optics on this basis.

If Celestron added a primary mirror lock, micro focuser, and coma free optics to the C11 say, I'd be delighted to own one, as there would be nothing to choose between the manufacturers, except price perhaps.

Dave