Jump to content

740427863_Terminatorchallenge.jpg.2f4cb93182b2ce715fac5aa75b0503c8.jpg

meade v nexstar


Recommended Posts

hello all ,

just been given a few quid for my birthday .

and just wondering which scope is the better to buy the meade xtx 125 or the nexstar 5se the local shop says thers not much difference but i am tempted to go for the meade just because it looks good ,so just looking for the pro's and con's for each scope on a non biased opinion thanks, martyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nexstar, all the way....

The Meade ETX optics are great, but there have been a lot of people who have experienced problems with the mount, myself included (there will be a queue of people along shortly, all explaining their own issues with the ETX mounts....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a meade etx 90.Had a few problems with the goto/mount at first but now i find it good and it is doing what it says on the box ,optic,s are very good for the price ,it does eat battries, which does cause problems with the goto as it need a god power supply so i would go for a power station.

But as ive become to get used to the sky lay out iam looking to upgrade so i can see more .;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the Celestron 6SE which is virtually the same thing as the 5SE. Excellent scope - was very pleased with it - a few minor problems to start with - the AA battery compartment is hopeless and it also eats batteries - had to play with it to get all the batteries to make contact - also, the DC input socket was faulty - easily replaced for less than £2 from Maplins. Worked very well from the mains or from a power tank. Otherwise, I couldn't fault the optics and the goto. Levelling the scope was absolutely vital for the goto to work well. The provided spirit bubble was useless so I got a small 2 plane level from B&Q and fitted and calibrated it - much better.

Can't comment on the Meade as I don't know about it. BTW - the Celestron splits down in to 3 very easily for easy transportation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've owned 2 Celestron 5's and they were both great - one was an earlier version of the Nexstar 5SE and one was the 5" optical tube alone. Both well made and optically very good. The Nexstar 5 mount worked well and was as simple to operate as a GOTO mount can be.

I've not owned a Meade ETX because of their reputation for mount issues although I hear that optically they are fine.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have the Meade 105 and 70. So far not had a problem, had the 70 for 8-9 years now. I have always used a mains supply for them as the battery arrangement always looked dubious.

Check what the scope type is, Mak or SCT. All else being equal I would suggest getting the SCT as they tend to have a wider field of view and I found that this helps when in use.

Whichever one you may decide on please learn how to align it. There are no shortcuts, a bit of thought pays dividends, and the things that can be read about alignment problems can made you cringe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to decide on your main interest - moon, planets, double stars, limited DSOs etc. The Meade is a Maksutov Cassegrain whereas the Celestron Nexstar 5 is a SCT. I have used a Nexstar 5 over many years and I have a number of friends who own a Meade.

The FOV of the Nexstar is much better so as a general scope I would go with the Nexstar. If you prefer to view the Moon, Planets and Double Stars perhaps go with the Meade.

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so exactly what is the problem with the mount??

I think the thing to keep in mind is that ETX's and and Nextstar mounts are built to a low price point, so the quality is not necessarily there. As cheaply made simple gotos they have their limitations, so one should not expect rock solid mechanics and longterm reliability. I've never owned a Nextstar so I can't say what its limitations and issues are but I did have an ETX 125. I didn't have any major issues with the mount - it did more or less what it said on the tin but was not perfect. Its principal failing was it did not like it if the supply voltage dropped below 12v (which ruled out using the onboard batteries except in emergencies). Motor failures or goto misaligns were the order of the day if that happened. This could be very frustrating. I end up using a mains to 12v converter which solved the problem but I didn't like having 240v cable trailing across my lawn. Its other annoying feature was that, despite having a cast aluminium fork structure and ball bearings for the axis under the plastic outer casing, it had just too much backlash in the mechanics, so it suffered from St. Vitus Dance when you tried to focus it (improved by using a felexifocus). Hanging a camera off the back, it was very difficult to stop the OTA sagging under the weight, but then it's not designed as a photographic combination. The scope itself was lovely, though at f/15 better suited to the moon and planets than DSO's. After two years of ownership I sold it and bought a Celestron C6 OTA which at f/10 is a much better all-round scope and can be fitted to standard Vixen type mounts. So if you buy a Celestron and you decide to change to a better mount at a later date that would be an easy and affordable upgrade route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi everyone.

Have been reading articles here and found this forum very informative. This thread is particularly interesting to me as I am currently looking at finally buying a telescope, after year of using just eye and binoculars. The telescopes discussed above seem great for what I would like myself but have also been looking at the Skywatcher skymax 127 synscan. The skymax seems cheaper than meade and celestron scopes. So my question is are mead and celestron so much better scopes than the skymax, or is the skymax generally not as good a value or more problematic.

Thanks for any advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Skymax is a maksutov design (the scope that is) the same as the Meade. As with the other 2 discussed here, optically they are very nice scopes. I've not heard of any specific issues with the synscan alt-azimuth mounts although it has not been on the market for that long wheras the Meade ETX and Celestron Nexstar have been around for a few years now - so the user base is high and the issues have had time to become clearer.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a meade for a while and now I have Celestron SE8.

Celestron every time if you want the mount to work. Set it up right and the object you want is in the field.

Levels with the bubble supplied. Needs a powertank but I love mine...SHAME ABOUT THE CLOUD!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ETXs I've used have been very noisy so you might want to bear that in mind if you have nearby neighbours. Celestron have a better reputation for quality control than Meade. The ETXs sometimes have a problem with excessive play in the gears. This can be fixed by tweaking but who wants to do that with a new scope.

The Skymax 127 looks interesting esp if a maksutov rather than an SCT appeals (planetary, close up lunar and doubles). F15 is not ideal for a general purpose scope though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Skymax 127 looks interesting esp if a maksutov rather than an SCT appeals (planetary, close up lunar and doubles). F15 is not ideal for a general purpose scope though.

Thanks for the replies and this answer leads me to another question.

What is a good f number for general purpose scope?

Also are SCT's better for deep space than Maks or just generally better optics.

Thanks again.

Dicky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DSO's generally need a fairly wide field of view and this is easier to get with a system around f6 or so. The MAK optics are generally very good; sometimes the SCT optics are not so good. I had an ETX90 which was very good but limited when it came to imaging :-(

I recently used a SW 150Mak which was very nice! But at f12 only useful for planets and Lunar. The baffle tube inside limits the size and type of eyepieces you can use. You can get an adaptor to allow std. SCT fittings to be used on the SW Mak but it still doesn't give wide fields of view.

I also had a C5 optical tube; the optics were first class and the availability of focal reducers ( to take the f10 down to a f6.3) make it a good choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Merlin66 has stated if you want to have a general purpose scope then I would buy a SCT. You can add a focal reducer to change the scope from f10 to a f6.3 giving a better FOV. The only other decision is should I buy a 5" or 6". I have had both and if I was starting out again I would go for the Celestron 6".

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.