Jump to content


Reflections/Questions Regarding Meade

  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#26 Spacetravelerx


    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1756
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2012
  • Loc: New Mexico

Posted 30 July 2014 - 01:47 AM

Andrew, I'm north of Muskegon and south of Ludington,
been trying to get to the Holland star party the last 2 events
but clouds didn't cooperate so maybe next time. Would like to
see more positive Meade postings here and not so much Meade

I agree on the Meade front. Hopefully the user community and Meade can together help improve things and focus on their strengths.

The weather has been really challenging in Michigan, at least every time I was there. I am finding it useless to bring my gear there. One of these days I hope I can sync up good weather with observing! Maybe we will run into each other at one of the Holland events!

#27 stanislas-jean


    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1991
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2008

Posted 30 July 2014 - 04:09 AM

Personally the own experience with Meade products was:
- the 628 newtonian, easy to use, easy to improve mechanically, but just average optics,
- the lx50 8" sct, stable, easy to use, but parts unfindable now, the RA motor that cogged a lot after 20 years.
- the lxd 75 mount, Noisy, but the only mount on its category to keep accuracy of pointing after a local meridian crossing, tracking well OK.
- the LX200 GPS 305mm, Noisy but enough accurate to make access to a cam. Easy to improve with Peterson kits. The only model that resists Under a 365 telegismos curtain all the year. Sometimes have to shake the connectors in order to recover connectivity. Easy to remote with a PC and for using their autosuite for Imaging. May be not the best but working. Install the de-rotator device which works well above east and west horizon, but fails at the zenith and near the meridian (this is normal). The fork could improved with some machining operation on the connection face on each arm. This would help a lot when dismounting the tube and after re-assembling on the fork. The ZIS is well OK enough for focusing, other hand controller can be used for improving. The SCT OTA needs a fine alignment for the benefit of the good optics which are easy to clean.
- the 254mm F10 ACF: lighter than the previous version and optically acurate, better than the C11 ultima, sold.
There are some fields of improvements but some needs some design modification as the machining of the fork arms. Peterson kits should be integrated on basis on the package. The ZIS needs to installed on a basic version not on option.
As well the Hood of the meniscus made of aluminium more eefficient that the heating system against moisture ddeposition.
The altazimuthal tracking is acurate on the LX200.
The utilisation notice is a little fuzzy for a new incomer of Meade scopes. The 2012 version solved this.
That's my observations about what was owned and used: still remains here the LX200GPS and the ACF 254mm F10 OTA used for Uranus. Valuable items.
  • travelenfree1952 likes this

#28 tonyt


    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 758
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Australia

Posted 01 August 2014 - 02:00 AM

I've owned a few Meade scopes and been happy with them, but I won't buy any more Meade SCT's unless they add vents - easier to simply buy a Celestron than modify the Meade.

#29 jimb1001



  • *****
  • Posts: 456
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2009
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 07 August 2014 - 01:55 AM

"I'm really not trolling; I would love to love Meade, but they've beaten it out of me. I'm just curious if they're getting better.




I've bought lots of Meade equipment over the years, most recently my LS 8. It had a quality problem right out of the box that took two trips back to Meade to fix. That's the bad news.


The good news is that when they figured out the problem it was fixed under warranty, customer service was helpful and put me through to management at the repair facility when I requested it.


Even in the $10K range for scope and mount things don't work as advertised, need repairs and customer service is not always knowlegable. The difference is that they have enough money built into the $10k product to hold your hand while they work through their problems. Under $10k, its hit or miss. And that can be from Meade, Celestron and even Losmandy and Vixen.


Now, quite frankly, most Meade bashing posts sound like yours: "I just want to find out if they are doing better because listen to my horror story!"


If your intent is to "warn" purchasers about Meade I doubt that your post influences many. If you just want to vent for the umpteenth time, that's what forums are for, or so it seems in many cases.



Edited by jimb1001, 07 August 2014 - 01:56 AM.

#30 starship2010


    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2009
  • Loc: NE PA

Posted 06 September 2014 - 07:44 PM

All I can say is that I've owned and used a Meade LX200 12" classic for nearly 20 years without a problem. It's been permanently mounted in an observatory and I did a lot if imaging and viewing and I have been very satisfied. Satisfied enough that I upgraded to a 14" LX850. The few times I contacted Meade regarding questions, they always helped me out.

Just my 2 cents.


#31 WardyNew


    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 219
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013
  • Loc: UK

Posted 07 September 2014 - 03:13 PM

Bought a 14" LX850 after lots of research here and elsewhere (and I did look at and through the Celestron HD's in stores and at star party's...which I'm not knocking, they were very good also and was a difficult choice to make).  Despite some concerns at the time due to the comments on the company's future and quality control, my personal experience is I'm very happy with my LX850.  I'm very much a newb so I'm certainly not giving an expert opinion but very happy with the LX850 for what I wanted (large aperature, ability to use different OTAs and image as I develop but easy to get going with at the beginning as someone with little / virtually no experience).  Bearing in mind I am inexperienced I have been able to get into the hobby with ease, starlock pretty much centering things in my eyepiece despite my 'approximate' polar aligning.


Still to use some of the more advanced features and about to start getting into imaging but so far it has allowed someone very inexperienced to easily locate and view numerous objects in a single night's observing, even at the long focal length of the LX850. 

#32 neilson


    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 536
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2010

Posted 11 September 2014 - 10:25 PM


   I have a Meade LX3 10" in excellent condition and removed the OTA and put it in an LX200GPS 10" and it's been working great for years.  I own an LXD75 with SN10" and they have also worked great for years.  I wanted a larger eq mount and the LX80's specs had me excited for a while but it ended up being a bummer.   So I ended up returning it, disappointed.  I also returned the 10" ota, mostly because they had just switched to crinkle paint.  They told me that only 40% of the people made a negative comment about the switch.(people that stopped at their booth in one of the telescope conventions)  And they were acting proud of this.

That got me to buy a Celestron CGE.  They were made (machined) in the USA but they stopped making it and switched to (cast) China made mounts.  I bought a 9.25 Edge, I wasn't very happy when I got it and found it was basically a C9.25 with a $1,000. field flattner on the back.  I really wanted a Meade 12" ota but since they are using cheap crinkle paint instead of the beautiful high gloss dark blue paint like my 10" has I said no way, not at that price, and got a new 11" fastar capable Celestron ota painted in gloss black and I can use the same f6.3 reducer/flattner that I use on my Meade 10".  Meade told me they switched to crinkle paint to cut costs and man hours.  If their making the best optics and priced that way, they should look that way too, like they use too.  I would never buy a car with crinkle paint, especially at a premium price.  I like to polish my ota's and show them off just like my cars. I like my new 11" but I really wanted another Meade ota.  

    I think Meade has the best optics but they are heavy, pricey and are painted with cheap looking crinkle paint instead of the high gloss blue.  All their mounts are priced really high these days so that's out of the question too.  As much as I want to buy Meade again, because I feel they have the best quality optics and mounts,  they are preventing me from doing so themselves.  

 Most Americans buy expensive things like tv's and cellphones, laptops and when they break they just throw them away and buy another high priced one without much complaint.  I think Meade felt that we would do that with telescopes.  And maybe that's why they have abandoned support on past products.  What they should realize is we tend to keep telescopes and mounts and expect to use them for a lifetime.  

I feel if Meade would go back to making the best quality at a price most people can afford like they use to then they could come back strong.   And I think now that they are selling some of the parts on their website to us customers, it's a real good step in the right direction.



Edited by neilson, 11 September 2014 - 10:32 PM.

#33 Bill Barlow

Bill Barlow


  • *****
  • Posts: 2302
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Overland Park KS

Posted 13 September 2014 - 03:45 AM

I am with you, Neilson, as far as not wanting to buy the newer Meade OTA's with the crinkle/pebbled paint finish.  I own a mint 12" f/10 ACF OTA with the glossy blue paint and it is a nice looking scope for sure.  I also like the finish on the Celestron glossy black OTA's..now just picking up an 8" XLT OTA.  I had heard that when production moved to Mexico, too many OTA's were rejected when using the glossy paint finish, so a change was made to the crinkle finish.



  • neilson likes this

Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics