Meade vs ???????

[uklush]

Hi guys could someone tell me the difference/pro's/cons between between meade etx scopes amd others (skymax, celestron) they seem to be a lot more expensive for one so are they that much better? will a etx 80 give better moon and planetary veiws than say a sky watcher 130?

Im just unsure if I would be better with the meade with a smaller app or the other brands with a larger app? Thanks for any help guys.

uklush

[John]

Meade are no better than Skywatcher and Celestron in my opinion. The Skywatcher 130 would outperform an etx 80 by quite a big margin because of the aperture difference.

[PARTY MARTY]

Hi Mate!

I own a meade etx 125, and I'm sorry to say that the meade is total trash mate. It's such a shame really cos the optics are really good on the meade, however it's plastic flimsy goto mount is xxxx, im afraid to tell you.

I've tried everything to get the goto mount properly set-up, even setting it up using sprit levels and aligning the mount in equatorial mode and properly aligned with north star, even updated the autostar handset to the latest update and put correct co-ordinates and data on autostar, even using the G.P.S kit I use to give me more accurate data for autostar, and after all that and nearly hundreds of times of me setting it up, the mount still fails to align properly and finding objects almost 10 degrees out of F.O.V and tracking is pure poo, even in Equatorial mode.

I've tried loads of times to the get the meade to run properly, but still the mount fails me once again.

This is main reason why I've choose to buy the Skywatcher 127 Mak telescope as my new replacement for a second scope.

Tell you what mate, listen to my advice!!! get rid of your meade, and get the skywatcher GOTO 127 Mak, cos the optics are virtually the same, but the mount is much better and the Synscan controller is alot easier to use, and best of all it's alot cheaper, costing around £349, And I've tried one using my mate's Skywatcher mak, And I feel new love already, which made me change my about the meade 125 etx!!

Pure shame cos the meade is really a good scope, but wot were they thinking with the design of the mount?????????

[NGC 1502]

I own a meade etx 125, and I'm sorry to say that the meade is total trash mate. It's such a shame really cos the optics are really good on the meade, however it's plastic flimsy goto mount is xxxx, im afraid to tell you.

It's not hard to demount the ETX 90,105 and 125 optical tube and

mount it on something else. If it's out of warranty could be an option.

I bought a 90 with fried electronics specifically for solar

white light with a baader filter.

Gets occasional use for double stars, really sharp optically.

Regards, Ed.

[CGolder]

Hi Mate!

I own a meade etx 125, and I'm sorry to say that the meade is total trash mate. It's such a shame really cos the optics are really good on the meade, however it's plastic flimsy goto mount is xxxx, im afraid to tell you.

I've tried everything to get the goto mount properly set-up, even setting it up using sprit levels and aligning the mount in equatorial mode and properly aligned with north star, even updated the autostar handset to the latest update and put correct co-ordinates and data on autostar, even using the G.P.S kit I use to give me more accurate data for autostar, and after all that and nearly hundreds of times of me setting it up, the mount still fails to align properly and finding objects almost 10 degrees out of F.O.V and tracking is pure poo, even in Equatorial mode.

I've tried loads of times to the get the meade to run properly, but still the mount fails me once again.

This is main reason why I've choose to buy the Skywatcher 127 Mak telescope as my new replacement for a second scope.

Tell you what mate, listen to my advice!!! get rid of your meade, and get the skywatcher GOTO 127 Mak, cos the optics are virtually the same, but the mount is much better and the Synscan controller is alot easier to use, and best of all it's alot cheaper, costing around £349, And I've tried one using my mate's Skywatcher mak, And I feel new love already, which made me change my about the meade 125 etx!!

Pure shame cos the meade is really a good scope, but wot were they thinking with the design of the mount?????????

I certainly dont agree with this... i have owned a Skywatcher AZgoto with the 127, a meade etx 125PE and now own the Nexstar SE C6.

In order of quality, the Celestron wins by a long way, followed by the meade and then the skywatcher. I found the meade extremely steady and accurate.

The etx mount needs training once but once thats done its cracking, it has lots of setting to adjust to the way you like using the mount by changing button sensitivity and press timings, but once done is great.

The skywatcher with a 127 is very wobbly and limited, would have been better in 102 rather than 127.

The meade is the only mount that takes turning and cables into consideration and doesnt move with the OTA.

If i were starting again.. i would buy celestron, either a 4SE or 6SE.

as a general rule the larger the size of the primary for visual the better, but having a mount you can get on with is just as important

[PARTY MARTY]

Thanks Ed!

You're right in that way of sense! Yes I totally agree with you to mount the meade etx tube on another mount, but then I'm already getting the skywatcher 127 on EO-5 Synscan GOTO Equatorial mount, so there is really no need. And I prefer the dovetail mounting bracket on the Skywatcher 127 Mak tube as well which is much more secure and studier, If I was to mount the meade tube, I have to mount it using 2 bolts! Not my ideal choice esspecially If I'm fitting my CCD imaging kit onto it! But thanks for the advice!!!!

[PARTY MARTY]

CGolder!

If tried training the drives on my Meade etx! And still mount fails on me, Now you properly must have decent one, cos my meade is quite old, I've had it 11 years from now, mine is the EC model, and I've had alot of problems with it, unless you can help with the dilemma??

[CGolder]

I see... now that may be the difference, the PE and AT models have improved Dec locks and gearing systems

[NGC 1502]

I have to mount it using 2 bolts

What I did was to get a short length of 100 x 100 x 6mm aluminium

angle (metal merchants) cut & bolted it to the two bolt holes under

the ETX tube, and fitted a short piece of dovetail to the the upright

side of the ali angle. Works a treat.

Best regards, Ed.

[John]

On the original posters question, optically there is not much to pick between these brands (assuming equal aperture) but, as you can see from the above, there are differences in the quality and usability of the mounts. Meade certainly don't seem to justify their higher price tag in that department ....

[PARTY MARTY]

Cgolder!

It must be? cos the dec and altzimuth gears are made from PTFE (plastic other word's), So basically I've got a Ford Cortina in the range of the meade ETXs then???

I alway's never fall in this catergory esspecially when it comes to buying new cars!!! I've alway's wait for than 2 years when a certain model of car is first introduced, cos alot of design faults and problem are usually corrected and remodified by the company. This obviously applies to telescope degns as well???? I've been screwed here!!!!!

[uklush]

Thanks guys, just to clear things up I don't have the etx125 now, but I used to, but in the the end a few factors saw me get rid (one of them being I could never get the autostar to work). which was very to the frustrating, but now im trying to renter the hobby I just cant make my mind up, I want something 2nd hand and I guess the skymax 127 is looking favourite right now, the search continues......... only 4 weeks and 46 posts and I can use the buy/sell section

Thanks folks uklush

[PARTY MARTY]

No Probs Uklush!

Get wot is best for you mate! However I prefer the Skywatcher 130P Synscan AZ GOTO, has first rate choice for a beginner scope, however the Mak 127 is more compact and easy to transport, and alot less maintance as well. However wot people would say, the Meade Autostar was never easy to use in the first place and the mount is total xxxx. End of the day it's your choice, and I believe personally your making a good one as well mate!!! Have fun in this great hobby pal and clear skies!!!!

[CGolder]

Cgolder!

It must be? cos the dec and altzimuth gears are made from PTFE (plastic other word's), So basically I've got a Ford Cortina in the range of the meade ETXs then???

I alway's never fall in this catergory esspecially when it comes to buying new cars!!! I've alway's wait for than 2 years when a certain model of car is first introduced, cos alot of design faults and problem are usually corrected and remodified by the company. This obviously applies to telescope degns as well???? I've been screwed here!!!!!

Hello Marty,

Yup you have the older one, the newer ones replace the plastic with Metal.

Uklush,

good luck in your search for a scope, there are many different ones around and i hope you find one that you like

[PARTY MARTY]

Definitely Cgolder!

Mine's the poor man's version and properly the first design I'm afraid, shame really, the optics are superb Lol!!!!!!

[Horus]

I must admit mine seems well put together and nicely finished off . Not had a chance to crank her up yet but........clear skies are coming !

[Nick R]

ive had 2 etx,s over the yrs , still got one , never had a problem apart from the inital set up and the fact they eat batteries.

[uklush]

So is the Skywatcher "Explorer" 130P is that the same as recommended above? (just not sure about the explorer bit) Is this a good choice guys? it could d-day im probably shooting myself in the foot but is this any good?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Skywatcher-Explorer-130P-SynScan-AZ-GOTO-/190495937690?pt=UK_Telescopes&hash=item2c5a71549a#ht_1579wt_1139

Many thanks uklush

[PARTY MARTY]

Hi UKlush!

Go on Youtube, and type in Astronomy and nature centre TV, and click on the following clips:

The Sky Watcher AZ SynScan GOTO Series of Telescopes (A buyer's guide)

Demonstrating the Sky Watcher AZ SynScan GOTO System

And you'll find some extremely useful information, which will answer all your questions.

The 130P is a little bit bigger apeture than the Skymax 127, and is cheaper as well, as long as you can maintain and collimate once a while, it should be fine. However if want a ultra portable and hassle free scope, than the 127 Skywatcher is for you.

However both scopes are really good. The choice is yours mate?????

[BenM]

I only have first hand experience with the Celestron 127 (C5). My conclusion from having this scope and using it on several occasions is the optical quality is barely adaquate, and the build quality could be quite good or you could just as easily get one with flaws. The most notable feature about the scope is that it is very, very cheap.

In my opinion, consumers and manufacturers have been in a race to the bottom. They want x, y, and z and they want it really, really cheap. If it truly empowers more people to experience and enjoy amateur astronomy, it's a good thing. Where I begin to resent the situation is when the community as a whole (manufacturers, retailers, and the consumers) make and accept false and grossly misleading claims about the products.

When I say that the optics on these scopes are barely adaquate, it means that you can probably use the scope but I would not expect to do anything anywhere near the limits of the specifications as represented. When you buy one of these scopes, the optics are more likely out of specification than they are within. You can be almost totally certain that nobody has ever tested them. For the price you're paying, nobody can afford to.

The manufacturer represents the scope with theoretical limits based on particular specifications like the aperature (which they don't even claim accurately -- they use "nominal" values and totally disregard loss of aperature due to corrector lens retainer rings and central obstructions), and they do nothing to prove that the scope actually performs to the theoretical maximums. They universally claim their optics are "diffraction limited" but rather than actually verifying that they are void of limiting abberation, they simply specify 1/4 pv optics from their mirror source and consider that sufficient to make the claim. In fact, the mirrors probably often aren't 1/4 wave, they don't test them, and even if they were 1/4 wave, it doesn't mean the scope is diffraction limited or will perform the the Dawes limit as they claim. Just as bad, the retailers, the community's professional journalists, and consumers reviewers often repeat the same untested claims and without accounting for sample variations.

The bottom line is the optics are only good enough to fool you. You have no clue about optical quality. You can barely perform a make-shift star test which might at best tell you whether the scope is collimated or not. You have no optical testing equipment. You are just a typical consumer. So am I. We're at the mercy of those that are equipped to ensure we receive the quality that makes our experience enjoyable instead of frustrating. In my opinion, I'm very skeptical that Meade, Synta, GSO, Vixen or anyone is doing that on their low end scopes (under $1K). They are mass producing garbage that has an acceptable mean and anything within a standard deviation is good to go. If they test at all, it's simply a test for processes (not the product) that would result in product two standard deviations out of the target mean. I have no doubt that sales is what determines the quality parameters. The retailers (super warehouse fulfillment centers) do not even look at what they're selling. They've never even opened a box on purpose. So it's pretty much up to the consumer to decide whether they're satisfied or not based on what little they know, and for beginners (like myself), it's very little indeed.

If you were to buy an LX200 from Meade, you would have every right to expect a good scope. You won't be guaranteed one at all. Meade has delivered blunders in quality even on their top scopes. For their low-end scopes, you can bet they ask very little from their supplier in Asia and that they get very little.

My advice is to pay for quality. If you want a catadioptric scope like the ETX125, I would check out Orion Optics OMC 140. I have no experience with them, but I would suggest checking them out and seeing how well they can verify the quality of the actual scope you would receive. Another option is Questar, although I think you have to be more certain that is what you're looking for because the expense isn't trivial and you might prefer a refractor for example.

For quality refractors, I think the standards are known, but rather than refer you to several of those, I would like to suggest somethings to check out in the ETX 80 price range.

I recommend the Steiner 7x50 Marine Binocular. This is an excellent binocular for the price and ideal for astronomy. It has a very wide field of view and generous aperature while having low enough magnification that you can hand hold without it being too shakey. I still recommend a tripod unless you plan to view laying on your back because they are rather heavy.

I also recommend the Canon 10x30 IS binocular. They have a higher magnification but the image stabilization feature allows them to be effectively hand held. They also have a very generous apparent field of view.

I am confident the view through either of those would be far superior to anything you would ever get out of a ETX-80 with even the most expensive eyepieces.

There are a wide variety of 8x42 binoculars some of which may be had in the price range of an ETX-80 and may also surpass it in views. Consider the Nikon Monarch or the Zen Ray Optics ED. I have not used either.

Other things I have not tried but I would expect to be much more satisfying than an ETX80 -- the Baader Planetarium 10x60 Vario Finderscope. It accepts 1.25" eyepieces for other magnifications. I would try it with a Nagler 16 for rich field or a Radian 8 for planets.

Around the price range of an ETX-125, I can suggest the Steiner Commander XP 7x50 binocular. Although I think the Marine model is a better value, the Commander XP is noticeably better and definitely better than any cheap Mak Cas where most of the cost is wasted on a poor tripod, mount and goto system.

In this price range, the Canon 15x50 and 18x50 binoculars are available. I haven't tried them, but I have tried smaller versions and I am confident the 50mm Canons would be far more satisfying than a cheap 5" Mak Cas.

The Tele Vue 60 is a small apochromatic refractor but I have a notion it would be more satisfying than much larger cheap scopes. Although the OTA alone is in the price range of an ETX-125, consider that even with the ETX, you'll probably want to upgrade the diagonal and the eyepiece from the cheap one thrown in to complete the kit.

Also check out Kowa spotting scopes.

Since you're a beginner (like myself) I highly recommend low magnification even if you're particularly interested in the moon and planets. We lust for power, but it's simply a fake claim that these cheap 5" scopes will give you 300x. It's really just as bad as the $89 60mm Christmas trash refractor that says 600x on the box. It's completely false. The Celestron 127 I've tried cannot show me more at 225x with an expensive Ethos eyepiece than it does at 100x. There's actually some benefits to keeping it at 50x but I can see some additional details at 100x. That's about the limit of this scope. I can easily test it at short range to verify it's not the atmosphere that's interfering (and my eyes just tested at 20/15). The optics simply don't deliver. I would suggest to view planets at 200x with a cheap mass-produced optics, and actually see more than you would at a lower magnification, you need a 10" scope. I don't have a place in my life for a 10" scope, so I'm getting comfortable with the idea that I'll find a lot more at 50x than I would ever otherwise, and I'll inevitably observe more often than I would with a scope that might be marginally better on a very small handful of targets.

[uklush]

Phew thank for your extensive thoughts ive not even thought bins, I can see where you are coming from, what do others think, there would only b the goto feature to loose out on!

Head spiningly thank you uklush

[Ender Of Days]

Any problems I had with my new ETX 125 were my own fault,

as they can be confusing to set up for some,

Once the first alignment is adjusted it seems to go wherever I ask it,

It really is a put together - put down and go scope,Sure there are other better scopes out there but the portability to me is invaluable,

I had the option of going for a big dob but chose the 125 as its so much easier to use and store when not being used,

besides I struggled for years setting up EQ mounts,the 125 takes about 5 mins and for observing that's worth its weight in gold,

Maybe going for a schmidt/cass would've been a better option,but I can leave that for the future ,

Im loving mine at the mo,

JJ..

[uklush]

Thanks guys for all your help, ok ive taken the plunge with sky watcher 130, fingers crossed wed/thurs delivery, come on clouds away with ya

[Ender Of Days]

Cgolder!

It must be? cos the dec and altzimuth gears are made from PTFE (plastic other word's), So basically I've got a Ford Cortina in the range of the meade ETXs then???

My ETX 125 has ball bearings not ptfe (it says in the manual)the smaller versions have ptfe,

JJ..

[sixela]

I only have first hand experience with the Celestron 127 (C5). My conclusion from having this scope and using it on several occasions is the optical quality is barely adaquate, and the build quality could be quite good or you could just as easily get one with flaws.

Not my experience. For the small aperture they take long to cool down and if you don't collimate them they don't perform, but other than that, they seem to be standard SCT grade scopes (though I must confess I tend to like most C6s better, but that could also be the extra inch of aperture) and quite usable (and compact, at that).

"Using it on several occasions" gives us no indications of the targets used, the magnification used, whether the scope was collimated and whether you still have tube currents or a warm mirror. "barely adequate" also doesn't really tell us much about the exact problem you were seeing.

Expecting you can crank up the magnification beyond 180x on planets is stretching it (but that has little to do with the quality of the optics: 5" is 5" and the central obstruction is quite large, so the scope is bound by the laws of physics) and anything beyond 150x may give dim views and give you a view of floater city in your eye's vitreous liquid, but if you can't push it beyond 100x that suggests it's either not collimated or not cooled, or that your local seeing is really appalling (like my back garden's sky is over the roof of some of my enthusiastically heating neighbours). When you have a good night and you can get a stable image at 150x, though, there's already a lot to see on Jupiter.