Jump to content


Photo

Celestron C6-RGT f8 -vs- Meade's AR-6 f8

  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 CatStar

CatStar

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 03 May 2012

Posted 04 May 2012 - 04:20 AM

I realize that this might be an old debate but I'm hoping someone can help. :help:

While this might happen until somewhere down the road, I am thinking on buying a telescope. My initial plan had been to go with a 10" Newtonian reflector, but the "twiddle factor" was too much, so my next plan was to purchase either an 8 or 9.25 inch SCT but after reading about culmination, mirror flop, etc., etc I ultimately decided to go with a good ol' quality made refractor . For reasons particular to me the less I have to twiddle with something the better. as Once set up the "twiddle factor" involved with a refractor becomes almost zero, plus while a reflector gives more bang for the buck ie light gathering ability, quality made refractors have their own pluses. Given my druthers if I had the choice I'd go with a D&G Optical -- made in the USA :usa: :usa: -- 6 inch f/15. Second choice would be the 6 inch f/12. Sigh!! -- Actually their 8 inch f/15 would be nicer, but would cost too much and if the 6" f/12 would be too long.... Which brings me back to the so called "Yard Cannons".

Both the Celestron C6-RGT f8 and the Meade AR-6 f8 seem to be the most popular telescopes. Both are made in China, both seem to have their pluses and minuses. The primary lens on the AR-6 is a whopping 2 mm larger :lol: but the C6-RGT seems to be the scope most often bought. :tonofbricks: The down side with the Celestron seems to be the CG5-GEM. The other down side seems to be the focuser. IF I got the C6-RGT the first thing that goes is to replace the focuser with one from MoonLite who has a model that fits right into the C6-RGT.

As to the Meade AR-6 it seems to be a good scope but I could find few reviews, but those people who have them seemed to like them, which brings me to this post: Which of the two -- C6-RGT or the AR-6 -- has the better Optics?? After answering that question which has the better GEM?? And lastly over all which is the better value???

Hopefully someone :bow: has done a side-by-side comparison of these two "Yard Cannons" as that would greatly help. As I said this is something for "down-the-road" as I currently live an apartment and am disabled with Parkinson's Disease (the reason behind the need for having a telescope with a low "twiddle factor"), my sister has been bugging me to come live with them in NV and at some point may need to move in with them like it or not. One plus: She lives in an area with a lot of dark skies and little light pollution, and they have 3 Acr. of land on which I could possibly build a small observatory ( read shed with a roll-on, roll off roof) with a permanent pier. Initially the mounted scope would on a trolley (??) thus mitigating the lugging in and out of the heavier refractor, and once I get it in pin point exact alignment I'd simply mark places on the ground where each leg would go.

Until that time comes I'm thinking of buying a good quality pair of 10x50 field glasses, which would be better than nothing, plus they have the advantage of being highly portable.

It will be "interesting" :evillaugh: to see he pros and cons of each of these "Yard Cannons".

:kitty: :refractor:

#2 M16SEAL

M16SEAL

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2012
  • Loc: Riyadh,Saudi Arabia

Posted 04 May 2012 - 07:37 AM

Like you I decide to get C6-RGT and I ordered one from Amazon , I chose this scope for it's big 6 inch aperture & free maintenance ..but this scope is heavy & big ...so think again and again , I cancel my order and buy Celestron 8SE , this scope no need for collimation more portable , 8 inch big aperture and 2032 focal length ,but down side of this scope is Altazmith mount not suitable for long exposures astropgraph & finderscope not provide better view

So I think you have to think again about refractor you "ll get chromatic abrrevatio , less portable telescope ...SCT no need collimation unless the scope get strong jolt & no need for cleaning optic like reflector .

#3 MikeBOKC

MikeBOKC

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4601
  • Joined: 10 May 2010
  • Loc: Oklahoma City, OK

Posted 04 May 2012 - 07:54 AM

I don't think the Meade scope is being made any more, so you would have to pick up a used one, and they do show up in the classifieds from time to time at pretty reasonable prices, though usually without the mount.

The C6R is a very popular large achro refractor. It rides OK on the CG5 mount, but most folks get a mount extension (Orion sells them) to make the viewing position more comfortable for objects high in the sky. I ahe owned one and it is a nice instrument . . . CA is not that bad and can be easily corrected with a minus-V filter. The big issue is transport -- the tube is long and the mount somewhat bulky, though far from prohibitive. Are you near a local astronomy club where you could try out some scopes at a star party. Someone there is likely to either own or have used one of the larger Meade or Celestron refractors as well.

#4 Jon_Doh

Jon_Doh

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1005
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2011
  • Loc: On a receiver's back

Posted 04 May 2012 - 08:39 AM

If it were me I would look a the Explore Scientific AR152. It has a shorter tube than the Celestron, but handles much higher magnification. For an achro the optics are outstanding and the CA is easily tamed with a Baeder Semi Apo filter.

As for SCT's I had a Celestron and it suffered from mirror flop, gear back lash and a whole host of problems including a stupid goto. I got rid of it and bought a Meade and have experienced none of the problems I had with the Celestron. Collimation on a SCT is easy compared to a Dob and you shouldn't have to mess with it but once a year. I'm very happy with the performance of my SCT and the views it puts up. Just something to think about.

#5 WillCarney

WillCarney

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1465
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Bloomington, ILL

Posted 04 May 2012 - 10:11 AM

I have had an older C-8 for some years and don't get bad mirror flop as some newer one's do. I have been well pleased.

Posted Image

I looked through a C6 a number of times and decided I wanted one as well. It complements my other scopes. My C6 focuser was really loose but I managed to tighten it where image shift was a lot less. I do plan to put a Moonlite focuer on it. I have been pleased with my C6. The views of the Sun with my Lunt diagonal are just great and double stars with a VR is stunning. I got my refractor used with out the mount.

With the Lunt solar observing.
Posted Image

With QSI and 90mm guider.
Posted Image

With 102mm on top.
Posted Image

Posted Image

One thing I did was to replace the small vixen dovetail with the losmandy size dovetail. I mounted one on top as well for mounting camera or guidescope. I also always use extra weights on the tripod legs. I have 2 three pound weights on each leg. Seen below on another tripod not my Atlas.

Posted Image

William

#6 stevetaylor199

stevetaylor199

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 369
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2011
  • Loc: SE Wisconsin

Posted 04 May 2012 - 12:59 PM

I can't help the OP with a comparison, but here's my impression of the C6R after a few months with it:

- Does well on the Atlas mount I already have (I bought the C6R OTA only from Astronomics, for significantly less than the newer, shorter 6" refractors gaining popularity)

- Does merit the add-ons mentioned above, also including:

-- Baader Semi-Apo 2", ~$100

-- Atlas extension, ~$80

-- Orion two-speed Crayford focuser for refractors, ~$150 (its drawtube is longer than the GSO units I have seen offered, and the scope needs the length)

-- Orion Accufocus motor, ~$75

-- is set up fairly close to allowing the use of a common binoviewer, but not quite (I wonder how competitors differ in that regard)

It's front-heavy, but not particularly heavy overall; as the OP was considering a 10" reflector tube, this scope doesn't present any additional difficulty with gross weight or length. I did get a standard 13" dovetail and another dovetail so that I could put a handle of sorts across the top of the tube near its CG. The OP will surely benefit with an observatory that won't require mounting and dismounting each session.

As for optical quality, I'd love to hear more about test results on this scope. It certainly does offer nice views of all objects and is free of astigmatism, and it separates closer doubles more decisively than my 4" ED, but I'm always interested in seeing numbers.

Edit: One more thing, regarding collimation: I did need to do this once with the objective, and again when installing the focuser. The relatively inexpensive focuser from Orion, like the stock one, is kludgey to align down the center of the tube; I basically held it in the desired orientation and tightened its screws to keep it in that place. I used a laser for that first step of aligning the focuser to the middle of the objective, and then the supplied Cheshire for aligning the objective cell. It has held collimation since then.

#7 CatStar

CatStar

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 03 May 2012

Posted 04 May 2012 - 11:33 PM

I don't think the Meade scope is being made any more, so you would have to pick up a used one, and they do show up in the classifieds from time to time at pretty reasonable prices, though usually without the mount.

The C6R is a very popular large achro refractor. It rides OK on the CG5 mount, but most folks get a mount extension (Orion sells them) to make the viewing position more comfortable for objects high in the sky. I ahe owned one and it is a nice instrument . . . CA is not that bad and can be easily corrected with a minus-V filter. The big issue is transport -- the tube is long and the mount somewhat bulky, though far from prohibitive. Are you near a local astronomy club where you could try out some scopes at a star party. Someone there is likely to either own or have used one of the larger Meade or Celestron refractors as well.


DRAT!!! You are right: the Meade AR-6 is no longer being made -- at least it is not listed on their website, so all things being equal I may have to buy a Celestron C6-RGT. I'd still like to see a comparison between the two to see how they compare optically as the optics are the heart of the system... just in case I could find an AR-6 on the boards when the time comes to buy... even if all I can buy is the OTA sans mounting. I am wary of anything less than f8 in refractors as I've read -- at least a long time ago -- that you get more and more CA introduced as you go to shorter f ranges, which was why if I had my druthers, the D&G Optical 6" f/15 or f/12 sounded so nice, but even the f/12 would be some 72" long -- that's 6 feet!!! Add another 1.5 feet for the f/15, and that is sans dew cap. I'd still be looking at about $2000 for the OTA sans mount which would be pushing the outer limits of what I could afford. Add in a mount and your looking at $4,000 - $5,000 before adding in eyepieces etc. :(

For me an SCT (to say nothing of a Newtonian which is even worse) is almost a non starter because of my Parkinson's -- my fine scale movements are, for the most part, shot -- even with drugs!!! The less I need to twiddle, the better off I am. I know a guy with a SCT and he needs to collminate almost every bloody session depending on when the last time was he used it... even if it is just a tweak -- not easy to do with severe tremors in your hands. I've already weighed the pros and cons of a refractor. The MAJOR drawback, as you point out, is bulk, but if set up on a trolley (???) it simply needs to be rolled out of the garage to its designated place on the lawn where the "future" observatory -- read shed with roll off roof -- would be built. In the short term the "tripod" with the suggested extension (I already had that figured in but forgot to mention it :foreheadslap:), should work well enough though I like the idea of adding weights around the legs that someone just suggested to give it more stability. :bow:

Sigh... for me this is still very much in the future, but the future I fear is closing fast upon me :(, and I want to see what I could do for enjoyment. By training I'm a PhD level scientist, and astronomy and cosmology (among other things ) is something I've always had an interest in, and where my sister lives with her clear DARK skies :jump: most AA would kill for!!! There are some good things that can be said for living more or less out in the boonies like they do :). Dark skies and clear air would be one of them. Unless I hit the lottery and can afford to buy that 8" D&Q Optical f/15 refractor, for the time being I'd be VERY HAPPY :jump: with a so-called "Yard Cannon", though it looks at this point the C6-RGT f/8 might be my only option unless I can find an AR-6 second hand when it comes time to buy in another year or two, but now is the time to do my research while I have luxury to think and plan.... Mind you I have been prowling these boards for a while and have already narrowed my choices down, but know next to nothing about the AR-6 as there is a paucity of reviews of it that I could find -- if Meade is no longer making it that might be a very good reason why I can't find any. Soooo with luck there might be someone out there who hopefully has used both and can lists their strengths and weaknesses would be most helpful. The BIG weakness with the Celestron seems to be the CG5 mount -- I have heard few sing its praises :tonofbricks: but many more cuss it out!!! I have no idea if the AR-6 would be any better since like the Celestron, it too is -- was -- made in China, for all I know it may be just as bad if not worse than the CG5. I know one thing for sure: the focuser will have to go. MoonLite has one that will drop in place, so that is a plus.

The Cat Star

#8 Wilsonman

Wilsonman

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1964
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2007
  • Loc: S.E. PA

Posted 05 May 2012 - 12:10 AM

As someone who has owned both the Meade AR-6 and the Celestron C6, my opinion is that they are nearly identical in optical quality and performance- which is to say they are pretty good scopes. Both have mediocre focusers which should be upgraded. Although I no longer have it, I prefer the AR-6 ONLY because it's, IMO, a more attractive scope. However, now that I have the Celestron, I'll be keeping it since it's rather good and I love comparing the views with my 4" SW and larger Dob. It's unlikely that I'll ever own a 6" APO, unless they do come out with a more affordable ED doublet version, but it's nice to have a decent 6" achro.

#9 123456

123456

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 398
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2006
  • Loc: mid tenn

Posted 05 May 2012 - 01:06 AM

i agree ..

i had both at one time and both had good glass .

the meade's focuser seemed a little better

the AR-6 sure looked better........ so i sold the CR-6

upgraded the AR-6 focuser and just enjoy it !

Oh and it rides on a Sirius mount or LD75

#10 CatStar

CatStar

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 03 May 2012

Posted 05 May 2012 - 02:43 AM

:bigshock:WOW!!!! Just have to ask: Is that the Celestron C6-RGT ??? Looking at your telescopes are to die for :drool5: I'd be very, VERY HAPPY with the C6. If that is the C6-RGT how do you like it?!? Most of the reviews I have read say that the optics are outstanding given that these is mass produced telescope -- again that is what I have READ, I never known anyone who has owned one. Just as importantly, have you had any problems with it?!? If so what were they??

Yeah I've heard that the OLD :gramps: 8" SCT by Celestrons were much better the current crop, though I'm not sure why that is.

You might be just the person to ask this question of: are there any :question: devices??? Cameras?? Whereby you can send the output seen at the eyepiece to a computer screen??? If that were possible it would make observations a whole lot easier. :crazyeyes:

The two gripes I have heard about the Celestron C6-RGT usually concerns the CG5 mount -- most suggest that either you, or you have someone who has the ability and know-how to simply rebuild it from the ground-up, once rebuilt I understand -- so I could be wrong :tonofbricks: -- that the CG5 is actually a pretty good mount -- not the best but reasonably good, and much much better :grouphug: than the standard from-the-factory CG5 -- it might not be the equivalent of a $6,000 -- $10,000 mount, but should be more than adequate for light duty work.

The second gripe I've read about concerns the focuser. The general :grouphug: consensus is to scrap the stock focuser and get one from MoonLite, which would probably be among the first things I did. The one I had in mind was one that has a fine adjustment that would allow me to add a light camera back. The other "accessories" would include a good 2x barrow lens, a wide angle lens, a quality 2" true 45 degree glass mirror angle, a comfortable :waytogo: observing chair, and a lens that should get enough magnification of 300 - 400x (the theoretical limiting magnification under excellent skies.). And I'd be a very happy camper.

Again Thank You :thanx:for sharing pictures of your set up it is REALLY Way Cool! :cool: It almost makes me wish that a) I did not live in an apartment in the middle of a city b) I had the money to indulge. SIGH One can Dream can't one ?? :bow:

:kitty: :refractor:

#11 Vondragonnoggin

Vondragonnoggin

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5019
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Southern CA, USA

Posted 05 May 2012 - 09:06 AM

You might be just the person to ask this question of: are there any :question: devices??? Cameras?? Whereby you can send the output seen at the eyepiece to a computer screen??? If that were possible it would make observations a whole lot easier. :crazyeyes:


Yes there are several different ways to do this. Check out the Video and Electronocally Assisted Astronomy forum.

I think for someone with your condition, it would be an ideal solution. I would imagine that even keeping the head steady for any length of time is difficult. Please check out the forum and look at some of the results people are getting. Also check out Night Skies Network to see what people are doing there with some of these devices.

I think you will be floored with what you can see, and what you can see comfortably.

:cool:

#12 Vondragonnoggin

Vondragonnoggin

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5019
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Southern CA, USA

Posted 05 May 2012 - 09:13 AM

The only drawback is the money with camera and monitor, but the good part is that you can buy a much smaller scope and mount as long as it is stable and see much more than with just your eyeballs and a larger scope, so you might break even on the cost and have a setup that is less taxing to setup and breakdown physically.

I understand budget completely. There are several ways (buying used, not buying the highest quality, etc) to get in with lower budget and still get whopping good views.

It's a good market for all types of budgets nowadays.

If you ask your questions over there while stating your budget, you will get some good suggestions.

You should see what people are doing with the inexpensive short tube 80 mm scopes and video assisted viewing.

My best friend's dad had very advanced Parkinson's and I wouldn't think to even put him at an eyepiece, but he could still enjoy TV very much.

I think you will be pleasantly surprised at the options!

#13 oldstargazer

oldstargazer

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1992
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Western Oklahoma

Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:34 PM

The CG5-GTa that comes with the C6-RGT is a much better mount than the old plain CG5 mount. It has the same size tripod as the bottom line CGEM. I have used mine tracking after doing polar align for over 5 minutes. Over an hour of doing photos you will start to notice some drift and I suppose if you do the drift align you could even get rid of that. Will have to give that a try if the weather ever gets good again.

As far as doing colimation on the SCT it only needs to be done when you first get it if is out. I bought mine used to go with my mount that I got when I bought my C6-RGT. I prefer my C8 now over every thing else that I have. I only wish I had the C11 instead.

On really bright stars you will get some blue halo with the refractor. My used C8 was so close on collimation that I really didn't see that is was off until I started doing long exposures and noticed that the stars had a little tail. Did the collimation per the instructions in the maunal and it wasn't hard at all and now perfectly round stars.

I would suggest getting the C8 with the CG5-GTa mount. They are a perfect match. The C8 will be at the perfect height for observing and won't try to knock its focuser off on a tripod leg.

The refractor that came with my mount does one thing really well. When I want to have the very best view of the moon that I have ever seen that is what I use. It shows a view of the moon that makes it look like you are right next to it. I don't know why it gives that kind of view of the moon but nothing else that I have gives that type of view of the moon. There are some good reasons to have more than one ota since each seems to have something that it can do that nothing else can do. At this point if I could only have one it would have to by the C8 since overall it seems to be able to do more without showing faults.

So good luck on deciding what to get but don't sell the CG5-GTa mount short, it is a great mount and I make mine work very hard.

#14 CatStar

CatStar

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 03 May 2012

Posted 07 May 2012 - 04:37 AM

Thank you Ralph. Just one tiny, tiny :watching: question: From what I have read to get any sort of decent performance you need to take the CG5 apart, degrease it of all the thick Chinese Goo inside it, de-burr it, re-lube it, and put it back together. Have you had to go that route yet??? Or is it working well and you have not as of yet, had any reason to haul it in for servicing??

While an SCT would be nice, the fact is my hands just have too many tremors in them... and I live in AZ where our temperatures can vary by 30-35 degrees within a 24 hour period... which is why I suspect my buddy needs to tweak his collmination so frequently. IF i was a millionaire my ideal scope would be a 10" f/15 refractor; and if I was just "extremely wealthy" an 8" f/15 refractor; but on my income if I could swing it, it would be a 6" f/15 or f/12 refractor, but realistically I'd be EXTREMELY HAPPY with a QUALITY made 6" f/8 refractor, the two that I kept falling over was the Celestron C6-RGT and the Meade AR-6, but the AR-6 is no longer made, so it looks that when the time come to buy, unless I can find an one in excellent used condition, it seems I'll be going with the C6, unless someone comes out with another that will compete feature for feature, and dollar for dollar. My first choice however if I found a used one, would be a D&G 6" especially since it is Made in the USA , thus a lot easier to get it serviced, if it needs to be serviced, or at least have someone to complain to. That said I seriously doubt you'll ever see a D&G being sold used -- it's probably been bought before the ad even runs. A CLASSIC refractor. No I'd be VERY HAPPY with either the C6-RGT or the AR-6
(if I could find it used).

:kitty: :refractor:

#15 Patrick

Patrick

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11412
  • Joined: 15 May 2003
  • Loc: Franklin, Ohio

Posted 07 May 2012 - 06:47 AM

my next plan was to purchase either an 8 or 9.25 inch SCT but after reading about culmination, mirror flop, etc., etc I ultimately decided to go with a good ol' quality made refractor .



Not too dissuade you from a nice big refractor (I'd love to have one too), there is no 'twiddle factor' with an 8 or 9.25" SCT, at least no more than you're going to have with a 6" refractor. I've collimated both my SCT's only once or twice over the last 3+ years I've had them. The C6R has a collimatable lens cell...not sure about the AR6 (or if it's even still available), but both the SCT's and refractors hold their collimation well.

Patrick

#16 Patrick

Patrick

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11412
  • Joined: 15 May 2003
  • Loc: Franklin, Ohio

Posted 07 May 2012 - 06:55 AM

I have had an older C-8 for some years and don't get bad mirror flop as some newer one's do. I have been well pleased.



It's been my experience that the newer Celestron SCT's have much better control of mirror flop...not worse. Glad you're older C8 is serving you well.

Patrick

#17 Patrick

Patrick

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11412
  • Joined: 15 May 2003
  • Loc: Franklin, Ohio

Posted 07 May 2012 - 07:09 AM

I'd still like to see a comparison between the two to see how they compare optically as the optics are the heart of the system..



I think you're going to find that both of these scopes have very similar optics. Both are made in China with similar quality control...they might even come out of the same plant.

One of the other posters suggested an Explore Scientifc AR152 f/6.5 Doublet. Mounted on a CGEM or Atlas class mount that would be the setup to shoot for. If you're willing to spend the money on a Celestron C6R and upgrade the focuser, etc, you should at least give the AR152 a look-see. I have the ES Comet Hunter Mak-Newt and can testify that it is a first class instrument with great optics and mechanical structure.

As far as the CG5 mount goes, the C6R is really too much weight and length for it. I've had 3 CG5's and all served their purposes well, but it's not a big capacity mount. If you're going to put the scope in an observatory, I'd seriously look at a CGEM/Atlas/IOPtron 45 class mount. I know it's more money, but in the long run it could be worth it.

Patrick

#18 oldstargazer

oldstargazer

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1992
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Western Oklahoma

Posted 07 May 2012 - 02:42 PM

No I have not taken it apart. I bought it new last october and have used it with the 6 inch refractor that came with it, the 10 reflector with rings, and even the little 80mm. I have been using it mostly with the C8 for DSLR work. Since I finally got my DBK if I can get any good weather I would like to try using it with the 10 inch to do a little planet work. I have found that the 10 inch gives me the best detail on the planets. That is the reason I want to get a C11. If I don't get one in a year or so I will just wait and get a C14 with the CGEM pro mount.

#19 aa6ww

aa6ww

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 967
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2011
  • Loc: Sacramento, Calif.

Posted 07 May 2012 - 03:41 PM

I realize that this might be an old debate but I'm hoping someone can help. :help:

While this might happen until somewhere down the road, I am thinking on buying a telescope. My initial plan had been to go with a 10" Newtonian reflector, but the "twiddle factor" was too much, so my next plan was to purchase either an 8 or 9.25 inch SCT but after reading about culmination, mirror flop, etc., etc I ultimately decided to go with a good ol' quality made refractor . For reasons particular to me the less I have to twiddle with something the better. as Once set up the "twiddle factor" involved with a refractor becomes almost zero, plus while a reflector gives more bang for the buck ie light gathering ability, quality made refractors have their own pluses. Given my druthers if I had the choice I'd go with a D&G Optical -- made in the USA :usa: :usa: -- 6 inch f/15. Second choice would be the 6 inch f/12. Sigh!! -- Actually their 8 inch f/15 would be nicer, but would cost too much and if the 6" f/12 would be too long.... Which brings me back to the so called "Yard Cannons".

Both the Celestron C6-RGT f8 and the Meade AR-6 f8 seem to be the most popular telescopes. Both are made in China, both seem to have their pluses and minuses. The primary lens on the AR-6 is a whopping 2 mm larger :lol: but the C6-RGT seems to be the scope most often bought. :tonofbricks: The down side with the Celestron seems to be the CG5-GEM. The other down side seems to be the focuser. IF I got the C6-RGT the first thing that goes is to replace the focuser with one from MoonLite who has a model that fits right into the C6-RGT.

As to the Meade AR-6 it seems to be a good scope but I could find few reviews, but those people who have them seemed to like them, which brings me to this post: Which of the two -- C6-RGT or the AR-6 -- has the better Optics?? After answering that question which has the better GEM?? And lastly over all which is the better value???

Hopefully someone :bow: has done a side-by-side comparison of these two "Yard Cannons" as that would greatly help. As I said this is something for "down-the-road" as I currently live an apartment and am disabled with Parkinson's Disease (the reason behind the need for having a telescope with a low "twiddle factor"), my sister has been bugging me to come live with them in NV and at some point may need to move in with them like it or not. One plus: She lives in an area with a lot of dark skies and little light pollution, and they have 3 Acr. of land on which I could possibly build a small observatory ( read shed with a roll-on, roll off roof) with a permanent pier. Initially the mounted scope would on a trolley (??) thus mitigating the lugging in and out of the heavier refractor, and once I get it in pin point exact alignment I'd simply mark places on the ground where each leg would go.

Until that time comes I'm thinking of buying a good quality pair of 10x50 field glasses, which would be better than nothing, plus they have the advantage of being highly portable.

It will be "interesting" :evillaugh: to see he pros and cons of each of these "Yard Cannons".

:kitty: :refractor:


Ive owned both. Both are optically identical. There seems to be more options for focusers with the Celestron and it has a smaller tube than the AR-6 and seems more compact because of the smaller tube.
I preferred the white tube on the AR-6 and bought a longer metal AstroZap Dew shield and cut it down a few inches so it looked excellent and bought a moon light focuser for it also. It was a very beautiful scope and complimented my G11 perfectly. The Meade would draw crowds with its big white tube. I sold it and got a TOA-130, that was a dumb move. The Meade was a much better Deep Space scope and was 1/10th the cost of my TOA-130. In addition to my TOA, now I have a APM-180mm F/6 so in the end it worked out. Here's my AR-6 mounted on my G11 with me beside it. It always drew a crowd:

http://nightsky.jpl....cfm?News_ID=126

...Ralph

#20 Gary70

Gary70

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:17 AM

Sorry for resurrecting an old thread, I think the Bresser AR-152 is the "new" Ar6? not sure it is available in the states but it is readily available in Europe.

#21 Agatha

Agatha

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1264
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2012
  • Loc: Coulee Region, Wisconsin

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:58 PM

Hi Gary,

Welcome to Cloudy Nights. :)

While that Bresser looks like a real beauty, it is not really like the C6-R or the AR-6. The focal ratio is much different. The Bresser, it appears, is f5 and the C6-R is f8.
Clear skies to you and again welcome.

Best, Linda B.

#22 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 11 April 2013 - 02:00 AM

While that Bresser looks like a real beauty, it is not really like the C6-R or the AR-6. The focal ratio is much different. The Bresser, it appears, is f5 and the C6-R is f8.


Bresser has a 6" f/8 achromat in their range.

http://www.apm-teles...ubus/Achroma...

Their 6" f/5 is a Petzval design with reduced false color, compared to a 6" f/5 doublet.


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

#23 belgrade

belgrade

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 315
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Stone Oak in San Antonio, TX

Posted 11 April 2013 - 09:33 AM

Bresser's 6" f/8 achro is very similar but it seems not exactly the same scope, compared to Meade's discontinued 6" achro (based on reported data). They added a carrying handle and a camera bracket, painted it differently (both the color and the paint), threw in the package a "rotatable starmap"... but, more importantly, its focal length isn't 1219mm (but 1200mm), the focal ratio isn't f/8 (but f/7.9), resolving power isn't 0.74 (but 0.76)... And you could buy the Meade's new scope only with the mount and the tripod at the time and the Bresser's is sold as an OTA. However, overall, I don't think one would notice a difference between the two except the fit and finish of the Bresser refractor seems a bit better. All this, needless to say, assuming there's no difference in the lens (cell) used.

#24 123456

123456

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 398
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2006
  • Loc: mid tenn

Posted 11 April 2013 - 05:22 PM

i understand the original post and i have owned both 6"ers ...
and still have the AR-6

but if its planets and the moon your interested in
save your time and money and grab a used ED100 brand xxx
you would save money in the end.

with the 6" you will spend a few bucks in upgrades to get it
going ......"well i did " focuser ...filter....big mount ...and fully loaded
it could weight 75++ lbs

a used ED100 is pretty much ready to go
you will enjoy it more .. easier to mount , likely to have a better focuser
better color correction ..........you will not be disappointed

just do the math the 6" will cost more

now if your into deep dark fuzzes the 6" would be a improvement
and are lots of fun, just big and heavy ..!


personally i think the 4"ED is the best bang for the buck going! :jump:

YMMV

joe

#25 Scott Beith

Scott Beith

    SRF

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 44514
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2003
  • Loc: Frederick, MD

Posted 11 April 2013 - 06:10 PM

Everything you ever wanted to know about the C6R:


link






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics