.:DISCUSSION::IS MEADE OVERPRICED?:.

[DAVPPK]

title says it all.

meade and celestron are virtually identical, apart from the shocking price differnce...

what do you think??

David

[GazOC]

What models are you referring to?

[kev 102 42]

How is it ,you cant buy Astronomy gear on H P ?..............kev

[adamsp123]

Unfortunately I suspect it is to do with Celeston being owned by Synta who make Skywatcher and Meade who probably still use USA based manufacturing or if not assembly.

The bottom line on any product the cost to manufacture is normally a fraction of what you pay - but there are all the adders, transport, tax, profit margins, limited production runs, capital equipment costs (CNC equipment etc doesn't come cheap) and of course the dreaded extra you pay as it is a hobby .

For example I was told a few years ago that a certain ski that retailed in the UK for about £300 a pair cost £9 to actually make.

[DAVPPK]

for example GazOC;

8" Meade LX90: 1,779; LX200 2,639

8" Celstron NexStar SE : 1,099

Also, the ETX PEs are a bit overpriced too...ETXPE125 = 679!!!!

ETXPE90 = 589!!!

[arad85]

for example GazOC;

8" Meade LX90: 1,779;

8" Celstron NexStar SE : 1,099

You are making the classic assumption that the only thing that matters is aperture. The LX90 has a different design scope and a sturdier mount, GPS built in etc...

At the end of the day, if you don't want to pay Meade prices, don't buy them (all my scopes are Celestron BTW...).

[DAVPPK]

suppose so....although I would still go for celestron (when I upgrade), they appeal to me more than meade

[GazOC]

I'm not too well up on the current range of SCTs but I think most of them are that "reduced coma" design. How big a deal this is or how much extra cash its worth I don't know....

[RobH]

As Gaz says, the current Meades are the 'ACF' (advanced coma free) scopes, which doesn't make a lot of difference visually, but is a big thing when it comes to imaging, as they have a very flat field.

Older Meade scopes, the earlier LX 90 and 200 series, were of Schmidt Cassegrain design, as are the Celestrons, which are rather prone to coma.

Cheers

Rob

[barkis]

As Gaz says, the current Meades are the 'ACF' (advanced coma free) scopes, which doesn't make a lot of difference visually, but is a big thing when it comes to imaging, as they have a very flat field.

Older Meade scopes, the earlier LX 90 and 200 series, were of Schmidt Cassegrain design, as are the Celestrons, which are rather prone to coma.

Cheers

Rob

Blimey, I would expect coma at f4.5 or 5, but not f10. I thought Meade optics were excellent.? Was coma a problem with your old 14" LX200 Rob.?

Ron.

[RobH]

It was indeed Ron, I learned an awful lot about star shaping in post-processing from using that Meade

Admittedly, it wasn't bad at all at F10, but at F5/6 it was very noticeable, and I used it at those sort of ratios most of the time.

Cheers

Rob

[DAVPPK]

hey, is the f/ how bright the image is (so the lower nubers give brighter images)??

also could you please see :

http://stargazerslounge.com/beginners-help-advice/82856-crayford-focuser-any-good.html#post1245619....I need your expert help please !!

[brianb]

Blimey, I would expect coma at f4.5 or 5, but not f10

Don't forget that the coma in SCTs comes from the corrector plate (there's no coma in the spherical surfaces of the primary & secondary mirrors). The effect of the light passing through the plate, rather than being reflected in the paraboloidal mirror of a Newtonian, is to multiply the coma by the refractive index of the glass. Approx. 1.5. So a f/10 SCT will have about the same coma as a f/6.7 Newtonian ... Theoretically. And practically, by my experience.

The Meade ACF optics have aspherical components (other than the corrector plate) which reduce but don't eliminate coma - there is a much more marked effect on the flatness of the focal plane, which may be useful if imaging with large format cameras (though the focal reducer often used with SCTs also flattens the field effectively). A side effect of the ACF design is that SCT focal reducers do not work well, also although the design is more tolerant of miscollimation the symmetrical star images make collimation more difficult to achieve. Swings & roundabouts, as usual.

As for pricing strategies .... IMO the major manufacturers are all incredibly cheap these days; personally I'd rather pay more for better quality control. The last major purchase I made (Celestron CPC 1100) the choice was not based on cost or optical quality but on ergonomics - the biggest I could lift; the Meade LX90 12" is, I believe, undermounted whilst the LX200 10" is considerably more awkward to carry than the CPC 1100.

[MartinB]

The ACF design delivers a very flat fully illuminated field across a QHY8 chip. Can't comment on how it performs across the biggest chips but I have heard that it does very well.

The suggestion that SCT focal reducers don't work well with the ACF design is a moot point. Celestron and Meade both make 6.3 reducers which are supposed to be field flatteners. The reality is that they do very little flattening even with the correct spacing. They don't even deliver 0.63 focal reduction! With spacing correct to the nearest millimetre using a 10" LX200 ACF plate solving shows an F ratio of 7.2.

I have attached a graphical representation of field flattness using CCD inspector across a KAF 3200 chip using a Celestron 6.3 reducer. This is better field flatness than I ever got with a Celestron Nextar 8" using the same set up! Note the collimation btw!

Having used a Celestron 8" Nextar and a 10" LX 200 ACF OTA I would go for Celestron every time (better focuser, lighter, ?cheaper) unless I was imaging with larger CCDs or DSLRs

[canuck]

For example I was told a few years ago that a certain ski that retailed in the UK for about £300 a pair cost £9 to actually make.

I would be very nervous when attached to a pair of skis which the maker had valued at only £9.

[DAVPPK]

LOL, quite true richard

[brianb]

I would be very nervous when attached to a pair of skis which the maker had valued at only £9.

Aw, c'mon, a pair of skis is only a plank sawn in half down its length.

If you want to get on to rip-offs where the retail price ticket bears no relationship to the production cost, try music CDs (a £15 discs cost about 10p to produce, and typically less than 5p goes to the artists) or software (the production cost of Adobe Photoshop CS is about 50 cents, or zero if you download it, yet the retail price tag is over £600).

A bar of Pears soap - 86p in Sainsburys - costs less than 1p to produce, in India. The cardboard box it comes in costs twice that to produce.

Same applies to practically everything these days - you're paying for development costs, advertising & the freeloading lifestyle of fat cat company directors, not the product itself.

Telescopes are different, there is still manual craftsmanship in every one, quite honestly I'm amazed they're anything like as cheap as they are.

[SteveL]

A product is only worth as much as people are willing to pay for it. If you dont like the price, chose a product that you do like the price of, and buy that instead. Moaning about it wont help, but voting with your wallet will.

[canuck]

Aw, c'mon, a pair of skis is only a plank sawn in half down its length.

My knees are worth much more than £9.

If you want to get on to rip-offs where the retail price ticket bears no relationship to the production cost, try music CDs (a £15 discs cost about 10p to produce, and typically less than 5p goes to the artists) or software (the production cost of Adobe Photoshop CS is about 50 cents, or zero if you download it, yet the retail price tag is over £600).

Music is a difficult one, and not as black and white as it may seem sometimes. While some artists receive a low royalty rate, others receive a very high rate which can skew the numbers overall.

If you look at a new cd from a newly signed band which hits it big and sells a truckload, the margins will be large. But shortly afterwards, when contract re-negotiation time comes around, their royalty rates wil go up. On well-established bands that are consistantly high sellers, royalty rates will be much higher, yet the retail price of their cd's remains more or less unchanged.

Making a cd is not as straightforward as simply burning a disc, there are other business costs that must be considered. I imagine it would appear less of a rip-off when you look at a particular music company department (or label) overall, and all costs across the board are taken into account.

[ollypenrice]

If a telescope doesn't do its job it is overpriced. Mirror flop, image shift, vignetting, poor focus, lousy tracking. There's your answer. A plague on both your houses, then, as far as SCTs go.

Olly.

[SteveL]

Olly, step away from the coffee

[arad85]

My view:

cost = what it costs to make

price = amount someone is willing to pay for something that they are happy paying

value = perceived worth to the purchaser of the product.

Normally, cost << price and price <= value but not necessarily so

[MartinB]

If a telescope doesn't do its job it is overpriced. Mirror flop, image shift, vignetting, poor focus, lousy tracking. There's your answer. A plague on both your houses, then, as far as SCTs go.

Olly.

[barkis]

It was indeed Ron, I learned an awful lot about star shaping in post-processing from using that Meade

Admittedly, it wasn't bad at all at F10, but at F5/6 it was very noticeable, and I used it at those sort of ratios most of the time.

Cheers

Rob

That would seem to preclude using the f3.3 reducer altogether then Rob.

Would be like an Image of a comet swarm.

Ron.

[DAVPPK]

suppose so....although I would still go for celestron (when I upgrade), they appeal to me more than meade

I also think meade is very smart whereas celestron is much more...casual. I hate things being smart (which is why I occasionally hate myself [im the cleverest MALE in my yeargroup, no joke:rolleyes:])