Jump to content


Photo

new meade sct vs. old sct

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 taki53

taki53

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2008
  • Loc: NY

Posted 13 September 2013 - 07:57 PM

I recently picked up a 10 in. LX6 sct optical tube made probably back in the late 80's. The optics were made in Japan. My question is do the current meade 10 in. sct have better optics? I'm sure over the years technology has made them better but is there a great difference between the two models? Thanks.

#2 bigj

bigj

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 50
  • Joined: 07 May 2013

Posted 13 September 2013 - 09:10 PM

Those LX6 optic were made in Irvine.

#3 Raginar

Raginar

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6138
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2010
  • Loc: Rapid CIty, SD

Posted 13 September 2013 - 10:56 PM

It doesn't really matter :) enjoy the new scope!

#4 thesubwaypusher

thesubwaypusher

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 942
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2004
  • Loc: New York City

Posted 14 September 2013 - 03:28 AM

I just picked up an 8" LXD55 for fun off AM for $375. Took it out and was amazed at the performance. Those old Meades kicked butt! BUT, the field is much flatter in the Edge HD and the ACFs.

#5 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15557
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 14 September 2013 - 08:43 AM

I recently picked up a 10 in. LX6 sct optical tube made probably back in the late 80's. The optics were made in Japan. My question is do the current meade 10 in. sct have better optics? I'm sure over the years technology has made them better but is there a great difference between the two models? Thanks.


They were not made in Japan. They were made in California not far from the arena where the Ducks play. Who told you otherwise? ;)

Yes, a current SCT will likely have better optics. Considerably better. Meade made some good 6.3 optics, but it took them until the time of the LX200 to really perfect 'em. That said, I've seen some LX-6es that were damned good. How are the images?

#6 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15557
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 14 September 2013 - 08:55 AM

I just picked up an 8" LXD55 for fun off AM for $375. Took it out and was amazed at the performance. Those old Meades kicked butt! BUT, the field is much flatter in the Edge HD and the ACFs.


The LXD-55s are not really that old, however. Not compared to a frakin' LX-6. :cool:

#7 RAKing

RAKing

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6240
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2007
  • Loc: West of the D.C. Nebula

Posted 14 September 2013 - 12:42 PM

I had one of the first LX200 ARC, before they changed the designator to "ACF".

That 10 inch SCT was just as good as my Celestron Edge versions and I'm a little sorry I ever let it go. :bawling:

Cheers,

Ron

#8 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15557
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 14 September 2013 - 02:49 PM

I had one of the first LX200 ARC, before they changed the designator to "ACF".

That 10 inch SCT was just as good as my Celestron Edge versions and I'm a little sorry I ever let it go. :bawling:

Cheers,

Ron


There were some vey good LX200s, but an f/6.3 LX-6 can be that horse of a different color--the one you've heard tell about. ;)

#9 bigj

bigj

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 50
  • Joined: 07 May 2013

Posted 14 September 2013 - 05:04 PM

ACF is a product name change because of a lawsuit by RC and someone else.
The SC is SC
The F-10 ACF is the R (These are flat but not as much as a RC)
The F-8 ACF is the RCX (These are the same as a RC in flatness performance)
So yes the technology has improved the optic at Meade and Celestron.
In the end good optic are good enjoy.

#10 dale67cameron

dale67cameron

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 50
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2012
  • Loc: Midwest

Posted 14 September 2013 - 06:02 PM

I had a 10" lx200 gps that I loved planetary views through. I set up beside a acf version one night and we used the same eyepieces on the same targets. Planets were similiar as long as the target was centered in the non- acf. Everything else was just nicer in the acf version. I have the edge hd now and though I haven' t been able to setup next to an acf, i think it is probably even better yet. I think optics just keep getting better on average.

#11 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 33792
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 14 September 2013 - 06:33 PM

ACF is a product name change because of a lawsuit by RC and someone else.


Both R and C are long dead and the combined name was never registered by anyone. The suit wasn't about trademark infringement; nobody owned (or owns) the mark.The suit was by manufacturers using the RC designation descriptively for their products who claimed that Meade's label was deceptive even though they didn't use the precise RC lettering. It's like the CDK - it is a modified D-K so uses an additional letter to distinguish it. Maybe someone will sue somebody about that some day. It won't be D or K; they aren't around.

#12 redlinedb16a

redlinedb16a

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 227
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010

Posted 14 September 2013 - 08:50 PM

Here's the cool part
If your not satisfied
$170 will get them recoated
I got my early90's lx200 10" recoated by spectrum coatings,the max-r coating
It was 100% better


A very noticeable difference

#13 taki53

taki53

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2008
  • Loc: NY

Posted 15 September 2013 - 07:09 AM

Uncle Rod, I am honored that you took the time to answer my question and I thank you. I'm still new at this hobby and still have much to learn. I haven't used it for astrophotography, in fact I cant get the motor to work. I'm not sure if the tracking motor is dead or the cigarette adapter doesn't work. I can't seem to locate a cigarette adapter. If it doesn't work I was considering getting another wedge. Any suggestion would be much appreciated.

#14 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15557
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 15 September 2013 - 08:57 AM

Make sure it's really not working. It will move the scope very slowly. Lock the RA axis, note the position of the tube, and let it track for an hour or so...

#15 taki53

taki53

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2008
  • Loc: NY

Posted 15 September 2013 - 10:42 AM

It's not working. The red light on the base isn't lite. I need to find another cigarette adapter.

#16 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15557
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 15 September 2013 - 11:04 AM

Check the fuse. Almost all cigarette lighter plugs have a fuse in the tip. Usually you get at it by unscrewing the tip. Sometimes you have to open up the plug.

#17 Live_Steam_Mad

Live_Steam_Mad

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 431
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2007
  • Loc: Moss Bank, St.Helens, England

Posted 15 September 2013 - 02:01 PM

The F-10 ACF is the R (These are flat but not as much as a RC)
The F-8 ACF is the RCX (These are the same as a RC in flatness performance)


ACF is NOT "flat", it removes Coma. Field Curvature remains and stars are nominally round throughout the field, but enlarged towards the edge. "Flat" is what Edge HD brings, removal of coma AND flattens the field (less field curvature).

In practice, the aberrations of most simpler eyepieces will dominate with the ACF, for example astigmatism can be seen at the edge of the FOV with my TeleVue 32mm Plossl in my friend Jon H's 8" ACF, which doesn't happen in the centre. My TV Radian 8mm doesn't have anywhere near this astigmatism towards the edge and stars remain point like all over, in the same 'scope. The optics in Jon's LX90 are incredible, the optics were made in Mexico apparently.

Regards,

Alistair G.

#18 orion61

orion61

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4579
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Birthplace James T Kirk

Posted 16 September 2013 - 11:00 AM

Probably the cord, if it is working when you turn it on, it will Beep once and the meter will jump, red light will be on. You dont need the hand control for it to track in RA..

#19 Live_Steam_Mad

Live_Steam_Mad

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 431
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2007
  • Loc: Moss Bank, St.Helens, England

Posted 16 September 2013 - 07:56 PM

Here is an extract of Astronomy magazine's test of the Meade 2120 10" LX6 from December 1989. Note the report on the optics.

https://picasaweb.go...ineTestsTheM...

This is exactly what scared me away from Meade's SCT's i.e. the variation in optical quality. To this day I cannot personally trust to order an ACF from them and e.g. have a sharp Airy disc at 500x or so and an almost text book perfect Star Test. Otherwise I would have bought one already. Just my personal opinion. But my friend Jon's 8" ACF has awesome optics I have to admit.

PS. Am I allowed to post the whole article here? It's over 20 years old after all!

Regards,

Alistair G.

#20 trw

trw

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009

Posted 18 September 2013 - 03:55 PM

All good advice, but be aware that the red light on the base is very dim, it needs to be dark to see well. The power meter should jump, but not very much--easily overlooked. Use a multimeter to check for power at the plug. Do you have the hand controller plugged in? Does the map light on the hand controller work? If so you have power. Put your ear right up to the drive base. You should be able to hear a very low hum if the drive is working, which changes tone when you push the E-W buttons.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics