Jump to content


Photo

LX-80 (Guess I got a good one)

  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#26 cn register 5

cn register 5

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 760
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2012

Posted 18 January 2013 - 04:59 PM

I don't think it's just Meade, Celestron gets the same bashing from the CN commentards.

They concoct a specification and then complain that it isn't met. The fact that the specification only exists in the mind of the person who has generated it and will not have any effect seems to cut no ice. Evidence of performance doesn't matter.

I always thought that Astronomy was a science...

Chris

#27 JimMo

JimMo

    I'd Rather Do It Myself

  • *****
  • Posts: 5157
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2007
  • Loc: Under the SE Michigan lightdome

Posted 18 January 2013 - 09:00 PM

I'm glad to see someone who's as happy with their LX80 as I am. I've only really used it five times since August but every time out I've been impressed with it. My mount has none of the slop others have reported in the RA axis. So, I guess there are peaches and then there are lemons. So far mine's a peach and sounds like yours is too.

#28 mmalik

mmalik

    DSLR camera modifications

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 5403
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 19 January 2013 - 04:52 AM

So, I guess there are peaches and then there are lemons. So far mine's a peach and sounds like yours is too.


This very statement says it all; and one that's neither comforting to the customers nor assuring that the maker will survive with such variability.

On a side note, what really hasn't been tested successfully is the imaging in EQ with results of decent quality and with real world pay loads. Thx






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics