Celestron f/6.3 VS Meade f/6.3 (Focal Reducers Corrector)

[Hiddenpalm]

The Celestron f/63 is selling for $113 and the Meade f/6.3 is selling for $80.

Anyone know if there is any difference in quality between the two? I'm looking for a focal reducer for my Nexstar 8SE, but I dont want to waste extra money if I don't need to. I assume they both fit the 8SE.

 

Edited July 3, 2018 by Hiddenpalm

[MarsG76]

I'd assume that there is none.. I'm using a Hirsch f6.3 FR and it works every bit as good as the Celestron so I'd say they're all from the same manufacturer.

 

[Merlin66]

The Meade and the Celestron reducers should be similar....But

My original Meade x0.63 reducer is "Made in Japan" and has the focal length around 240mm. This works well with all the non-HD SCT's.

I've also tested previously a Meade x0.63 reducer which was marked "Made in China" which had an incorrect focal length, around 88mm - similar to the x0.33 reduce design.......

It is believed an initial production batch when moved to China, was assembled with the wrong lenses. I would double check the actual focal length to be 100% sure.

No issues with the Celestron brand.

 

[Hiddenpalm]

1 hour ago, Merlin66 said:

I've also tested previously a Meade x0.63 reducer which was marked "Made in China" which had an incorrect focal length, around 88mm - similar to the x0.33 reduce design.......

It is believed an initial production batch when moved to China, was assembled with the wrong lenses.

Reading those reviews on Amazon for the Meade f/6.3 is pushing me to get the Celestron. Some people had no issues but a few did and posted pictures of glue still being on the lense and it falling apart right out of the box, etc. I find that suprising being that Meade is a trusted company according to Telescope Talk. I'll probably put in the extra dollars for the Celestron. Really sad. Had I heard that they made a recall and handled the problem, I would go with Meade, but I dont have $80 to gamble.

If this sport was more affordable, I honestly believe we wouldnt be suffering from a rise of flat Earthers. Here's to getting a second job. Cheers.

[red dwalf]

i`ve used the Meade 3.3 and the 6.3, had no problems with either.

[Merlin66]

Yeah,

I'd like to think Meade's "issues" with the x0.63 are a thing of the past.....

[Hiddenpalm]

The Alstar and the Astromania f/6.3 are both going for $90. They both appear to be exactly the same, except for the logo. I guess this what MarsG76 was talking about the same manufactures. No one is complaining about low quality production in the reviews either. I might go with one of these unless Celestron has the better quality product. Not sure yet.

They have the same sample pictures on their amazon pages too .... just with different logos. Hmmmmmm .....

Edited July 4, 2018 by Hiddenpalm

[celestron8g8]

I’m just going to give my personal review and thought . I have a C8 on a German EQ5 mount with tracking motors . I have a friend who had the Meade LX200 also in 8” size . We both had FRs’ for our scopes . One night in the summer back about 2004 we setup side by side and found every DSO in Scorpio and Milkyway . We compared views with both scopes . Sadly to say his Meade never produced any viewing of clarity period compared to my C8 . Not one object was better in his Meade . I have always bragged about my Celestron SCTs being better than Meade ever was . My friend loved my scope ! We made sure corrector plates were clean before hand and tested for collimation and both scopes were even on both . Needless to say i still have my C8 . My friend ......., sold his scope a couple years later and never bought another Meade . Now he’s totally retired from any astro stuff and sold everything astro wise . This test was done with and without our FRs’ and still results were the same . So would i choose a Meade FRs’ over Celestrons FR 6.3 ?? Nope , never will . 

[Merlin66]

We all have had differing experiences....

Most of the SCT optics nowadays are very comparable. A star test (or even a Ronchi star test) will quickly show any issues.

The OP was looking for info on the x0.63 reducers used in SCT's rather than the telescopes themselves......

[celestron8g8]

8 hours ago, Merlin66 said:

We all have had differing experiences....

Most of the SCT optics nowadays are very comparable. A star test (or even a Ronchi star test) will quickly show any issues.

The OP was looking for info on the x0.63 reducers used in SCT's rather than the telescopes themselves......

 

I understood the OP was talking about FR comparisons . My point i was trying to explain was the fact the OPs’ scope was a Celestron and that such items made by Celestron work better and give better results with their own products . Some may not understand or believe that but myself  having Celestron products for 21 yrs now . I have had some Meade parts and don’t like them as well as my Celestron parts . The only Meade part i used alot was a Tele-Extender .  

[JeremyS]

22 minutes ago, celestron8g8 said:

the fact the OPs’ scope was a Celestron and that such items made by Celestron work better and give better results with their own products .

I don't think this is a fact. It might be your impression, but I'd like to see the evidence.

[celestron8g8]

2 hours ago, JeremyS said:

I don't think this is a fact. It might be your impression, but I'd like to see the evidence.

As i mentioned i was expressing my personal opinion and this was in 2004 . I know your professional but why are challenging MPO ? How do i pull up evidence when you know I can’t from 14 yrs ago ? The OP asked for opinions on difference and i merely told my experience and MPO cause i did have the chance for a comparison . But i also know that Celestron has always made their parts to work with their equip better . That’s a factor cause all manufactures do the same exact thing . Me and my friend switched EPs’ also but that’s not in the OPs’ question . I used my scope for example cause how else can you compare FRs’ without a scope ? No way , you can’t. 

[Hiddenpalm]

4 hours ago, JeremyS said:

but I'd like to see the evidence.

JeremyS, I'm a new guy, so I don't really have any evidence, except consumer reviews on Amazon. Go to this link Meade f/6.3 Focal Reducer and scroll down to the customer reviews and click on "see all customer images". Read all the one star and two star reviews and even the 3 star reviews. It's pretty bad.

People say Meade makes quality products, yet they are currently selling an item that is defective half the time for $80 which really makes the entire company's reputation pretty questionable. Some of the bad reviews are very recent. A responsible company is supposed to make a recall and pull the item off the shelves. One of the reviews suspects Meade is selling returned items that are defective. Is it true? I am not sure. But I do know, it's not cool. $80 may not seem allot in the world of Astronomy, but it is allot. Most people don't just throw $80 out there to gamble. And when people do gamble, they know they are gambling for the chance to win something rather than to get what is being marketed.

Allot of people who have been doing astronomy for decades see Meade as a trusted company. But then there is this going on.

In the end I went for the $90 Astromania f/6.3.

Even though the Meade is selling for $80, they charge a $7 tax, so its actually $87. Yet the other companies (Celestron, AlStar, Astromania) selling the same product aren't charging a tax. Another peculiar business practice from Meade that makes you go hmmmm. Keep in mind, I am a new guy, who just looked at his very first Meade product online and saw a significant amount of bad reviews as my first impression. What are the odds?

Edited July 4, 2018 by Hiddenpalm

[JeremyS]

4 hours ago, celestron8g8 said:

As i mentioned i was expressing my personal opinion

The claim that Celestron accessories are optimised for Celestron scopes is significant and would be of great interest to the astronomical community if true. I'd certainly be interested to know and I'm sure others would too. 

I'm quite prepared to believe that the Meade 8 SCT was inferior in your test to the C8, but that does not tell us much about Meade and Celestron accessories.

For what it's worth, I am a Celestron fan. I currently use a C11 and a C9.25 and for many years I used a C8. 

Edited July 4, 2018 by JeremyS

[JeremyS]

2 hours ago, Hiddenpalm said:

JeremyS, I'm a new guy, so I don't really have any evidence, except consumer reviews on Amazon.

My question was whether there is any evidence, as per the claim by celestron8g8, that Celestron optimises its accessories to its scopes, not whether Meade FR's are any good or not.

As I said in my other post, I am a fan of Celestron scopes

[Hiddenpalm]

Yeah it would be nice to see a test done with images and videos. But it doesn't seem like Celestron8g8 and his boy took any pictures of the differences back in 2004.

[celestron8g8]

Personally I don’t think i need pictures anyway as proof . But i think anyone that has been owner of three of Celestrons best scopes should speak for itself ? Otherwise they could all be Meade scopes . 

[JeremyS]

18 minutes ago, celestron8g8 said:

Otherwise they could all be Meade scopes .

No, they were definitely Celestron scopes. In fact I was using the C9.25 and C11 last night - the C11 with the Celestron f/6.3 FR. Wonderful!

[newbie alert]

I'm quite happy with my celestron 6.3 version

[Hiddenpalm]

I just wanted to update folks. Pay the extra money for the Celestron f/6.3. People haven't complained about it. I was trying to save some money which is why I found the Meade price appealing, but the customer reviews with pictures showed it to be cheaply made. So I went for the Astromania f/6.3 for $90. It just arrived. Besides the delivery service being atrocious with an actual bootprint on the package .... it looks cheap. There was no glue on the lens (thank the Gods), but you can still see a bit of the glue on the inner side. The threading looks cheap too. It attached well, the lens looks fine but I haven't field tested it yet. The Alstar is probably the same too. If you look at both them on Amazon, they have the same exact pictures, with the logos photoshopped on them. That right there should of been my alarm. I'm just starting out, and I want to do this right. I'm not really happy adding a cheap looking item to my baby. I'm hoping it works fine. It should.

I learned a valuable lesson here. If something is priced cheap, it's probably for an undesirable reason. In a world where it all feels overpriced, you still can't cut corners. Anyways, thank you everyone for contributing to this thread. I really like it here. You guys are cool.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Hiddenpalm

[celestron8g8]

Is there any chance you can return and exchange for the Celestron f/6.3 ?? If so I’d do it before i used the one you already received . 

[Hiddenpalm]

Yeah, I'll probably do that.

[Hiddenpalm]

Yeah definitely returning. Already set up the refund through Amazon. I'm getting the Celestron version for $112.

This is Astromania's F/6.3 focal reducer, right out of the box, labeled "new".

The lens looks ok, it might work, maybe. But I'm not accepting this for $90. You can see the glue, a mystery substance and what appears to be a metal tool scratch on the threading. It looks like it's been refurbished by a guy who really hates his job. Is that mystery white substance even safe for humans? It was also seen in the Meade version, but on the actual lens. What confidence should a customer have in a company selling a product like this at such a high price? ?

Someone call Ralph Nader!

Edited July 6, 2018 by Hiddenpalm

[Merlin66]

Hmmm

"No name brand" v's Commercial established vendors - Celestron/ Meade etc. (Could be they are using others rejects? or what?)

I'd like to think that the branded product (with original warranty) would be much better.

 

[Hiddenpalm]

Right? I'm getting the feeling that some manufacturer bought or took all of Celestron's defects and then refurbished them and then resold them to Meade, Astromania and Alstar. They do all look alike. But who really knows.

I think we can safely conclude, Celestron won this one. Oh by the way, Celestron sneaks a $10 tax at the end, so on Amazon, the Celestron f/6.3 is actually selling for $122.