Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Non Edge C11 vs. Meade 12 f/10 ACF

  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#26 Jon_Doh

Jon_Doh

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1691
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2011
  • Loc: On a receiver's back

Posted 20 August 2014 - 02:11 PM

Is it possible to put wheels on your C14 and keep it on the tripod and roll it out when needed?  This would work if you observe from home.  For dark sites you can always take the smaller scope.



#27 Bill Barlow

Bill Barlow

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3419
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Overland Park KS

Posted 20 August 2014 - 06:19 PM

Bmark,  I do a lot of deep sky observing focusing on galaxies and galaxy groups, so every inch of aperture helps.  Plus I really like the build quality of the older glossy blue Meade scopes better and the ACF optics.  

 

Bill


  • Live_Steam_Mad likes this

#28 Bill Barlow

Bill Barlow

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3419
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Overland Park KS

Posted 20 August 2014 - 06:26 PM

Jon doh, I don't have the ability to mount the C14 on a mount with a wheeled dolly.  So now I have a nice glossy blue M12 ACF, but haven't sold the C14 yet.  Seems without the Fastar secondary, it is harder to sell.

 

Bill



#29 skycamper

skycamper

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1118
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Beaverton OR

Posted 04 October 2016 - 09:17 AM

Sorry to fire up this old thread.   I have a C11XLT with a feather touch and carbon fiber tube. No mirror lock. I put a Rail on it with Losmandy radius blocks and use it often.  Optics seem pretty good but I'm just a novice.    To my point now.......I see a few meade 12" LX200R scopes out there ranging in price from $1800 to 2100 depending on what included which is never shipping.....LOL.....is this a step up for me or what?  I use a SBIG 8300 color camera and dslr camera.  NEQ 6 and a G11 if I can get it running......just added DSC to it!!  Thanks for helping me out here cause I could probably get $1200 or $1300 for mine and step up to a LX200r .......is that worth the hassle though??

Abraham



#30 Bill Barlow

Bill Barlow

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3419
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Overland Park KS

Posted 04 October 2016 - 09:30 AM

The ACF/R optics in the 12" Meade are a noticeable step up in performance compared to the non Edge C11 as I have owned and observed through both.  But the Meade weighs 10 pounds more, coming in at about 40 pounds.  But I am purely visual and do no imaging.   If you can handle the weight, it might be a good upgrade.  

 

Bill


  • skycamper likes this

#31 SandyHouTex

SandyHouTex

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 04 October 2016 - 09:48 AM

From the Astronomics website:

 

Meade 12" ACF OTA = 35 lbs.

Celestron Edge 11" = 27.5 lbs.

Celestron non-Edge 14" = 45 lbs.


  • Live_Steam_Mad and skycamper like this

#32 skycamper

skycamper

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1118
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Beaverton OR

Posted 04 October 2016 - 11:11 AM

From the Astronomics website:

 

Meade 12" ACF OTA = 35 lbs.

Celestron Edge 11" = 27.5 lbs.

Celestron non-Edge 14" = 45 lbs.

Celestron C11XLT-CF is also 27.5 lbs

Celestron C11XLT is 27.5 lbs

What gives!!

Abraham



#33 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 19518
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 04 October 2016 - 01:19 PM

I wanted to ask if anyone has observed with these two telescopes and had a preference to which one they would select or maybe in some cases actually kept. I am a visual observer only. Anything about optical quality, better focuser, etc. Thanks for any feedback.

Bill


Very similar in performance. The Celestron Edge's got a slightly better field edge, the Meade slightly brighter images.

The deciding factor may be weight...the Meade is considerably heavier.

Edited by rmollise, 04 October 2016 - 01:24 PM.


#34 skycamper

skycamper

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1118
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Beaverton OR

Posted 04 October 2016 - 04:24 PM

I recall someone mounting both these scopes side by side.  But the edge was not invloved.  Is a C11XLT harder to collimate vs the Meade RC? Or Edge telescopes?



#35 Bill Barlow

Bill Barlow

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3419
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Overland Park KS

Posted 04 October 2016 - 08:57 PM

Having used both and collimated both, I feel the C11 is harder because Celestron uses soft Phillips head screws to move the secondary mirror that can be easily stripped.  The Meade has Allen head screws that are easier to turn and make finer adjustments with.  

 

Bill


  • Live_Steam_Mad, skycamper and KevH like this

#36 Patrick

Patrick

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11758
  • Joined: 15 May 2003
  • Loc: Franklin, Ohio

Posted 05 October 2016 - 01:16 AM

I wanted to ask if anyone has observed with these two telescopes and had a preference to which one they would select or maybe in some cases actually kept. I am a visual observer only. Anything about optical quality, better focuser, etc. Thanks for any feedback.

Bill

 

If you look at Celestron's White Paper on page 5, they show the spot diagrams for the "Classic SCT" and the "Coma-Free SCT". That will show you the relative difference optically between the non-edge (Classic SCT design) and the ACF (Coma Free).

 

The ACF shows a tighter and rounder spot diagram than the standard SCT.

 

Patrick


Edited by Patrick, 05 October 2016 - 01:17 AM.


#37 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 19518
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 05 October 2016 - 08:29 AM

Having used both and collimated both, I feel the C11 is harder because Celestron uses soft Phillips head screws to move the secondary mirror that can be easily stripped.  The Meade has Allen head screws that are easier to turn and make finer adjustments with.  
 
Bill


The Allen screws are still the best solution in my book. But not really a reason to choose one over the other. If I had a mount that would handle the Meade 12-inch, I'd probably choose it, however. Extra inch of aperture does make some difference if you are going to use the scope visually. And if you are considering the non-Edge Celestron, the Meade ACF optics are a win. Heavy scope though. I don't really even like mounting the C11 on a GEM, and the CGEM is really just barely sufficient for it in my book. The Meade would require the next mount up. G11 or Celestron CGX IMHO.

Edited by rmollise, 05 October 2016 - 08:32 AM.


#38 SandyHouTex

SandyHouTex

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 05 October 2016 - 09:26 AM

Having used both and collimated both, I feel the C11 is harder because Celestron uses soft Phillips head screws to move the secondary mirror that can be easily stripped.  The Meade has Allen head screws that are easier to turn and make finer adjustments with.  

 

Bill

I've never had any issue with the screws Celestron uses to adjust the secondary.  You do have to use the right Phillips head screwdriver.  There are the pointed ones, which you shouldn't use, and the ones that have the point flattened a little bit.  That's the one you should use.  If you use a pointed one instead of the flattened point one, you will strip the screw.  It is not manufacturer driven.  I'm sure Meade uses the same screws as Celestron.  All fasteners (screws), except large ones that are machined, are cold-worked when forming the threads and heads which makes them very strong.  Stronger than the material the screw into.

 

Or you can use Uncle Rod's solution.  Replace the screws one at a time though.


Edited by SandyHouTex, 05 October 2016 - 09:27 AM.


#39 Bill Barlow

Bill Barlow

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3419
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Overland Park KS

Posted 05 October 2016 - 09:40 AM

Meade does not use the same secondary screws as Celestron.   Allen vs. Phillips.   Have you owned both scopes like I have?

 

Bill



#40 Hearnuret

Hearnuret

    SCAMMER

  • ***--
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2016
  • Loc: AZ,USA

Posted 05 October 2016 - 01:38 PM

I once tried them both though not side by side.Personally i think the C11 is very nice, so I think(also considering the price) the C11 is a better buy. Why?

 

Carbon fiber OTA...this can be a big advantage for high resolution imagers, as it will minimize focus changes do to temperature variations.

 

Fastar available for the C11 you can get down to about f/3.3 with a focal reducer on the Meade, but the Fastar allows you to do f/2 with a CCD on the Celestron. This can be a big help if you're using a camera with a small chip,
or want wider fields.

 

The Celestron focuser on the C11 is better IMHO.The C11 optics are currently just outstanding.


  • Live_Steam_Mad likes this

#41 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 19518
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 05 October 2016 - 04:25 PM

I once tried them both though not side by side.Personally i think the C11 is very nice, so I think(also considering the price) the C11 is a better buy. Why?

 

Carbon fiber OTA...this can be a big advantage for high resolution imagers, as it will minimize focus changes do to temperature variations.

 

Fastar available for the C11 you can get down to about f/3.3 with a focal reducer on the Meade, but the Fastar allows you to do f/2 with a CCD on the Celestron. This can be a big help if you're using a camera with a small chip,
or want wider fields.

 

The Celestron focuser on the C11 is better IMHO.The C11 optics are currently just outstanding.

Except Celestron hasn't made a carbon fiber C11 in years.



#42 clusterbuster

clusterbuster

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 175
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2016

Posted 05 October 2016 - 08:25 PM

I used to have a C11,...now I have a Meade 10" ACF..

IMO the Meade ACF has better images..

Mark


  • Jon_Doh likes this

#43 Bill Barlow

Bill Barlow

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3419
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Overland Park KS

Posted 05 October 2016 - 08:33 PM

I used to have a C11,...now I have a Meade 10" ACF..

IMO the Meade ACF has better images..

Mark

That's what I have noticed as well.  The Meade 10 ACF was noticeably better than the standard C11.  

 

Bill



#44 Jon_Doh

Jon_Doh

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1691
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2011
  • Loc: On a receiver's back

Posted 06 October 2016 - 08:57 AM

I've owned both Meade and Celestron, although not in the sizes being discussed here, and I found the Meade alignment to be much easier and their gotos more accurate.  But, when considering the two systems you have to take into account all of the factors like the weight of the systems, the alignment and gotos, optics, calumniation, etc.  It's like Nikon and Canon, each has its own advantages and certain things appeal more to some than others.



#45 SandyHouTex

SandyHouTex

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 06 October 2016 - 11:32 AM

Meade does not use the same secondary screws as Celestron.   Allen vs. Phillips.   Have you owned both scopes like I have?

 

Bill

I do.  If you look at my telescope list you will see them.  A Phillips head or a Straight Slot does not mean the material they're made from is different.  The only difference is what screwdriver you use.  The material is the same.  In fact, there is less bearing surface in Straight Slot head than a Phillips.  If you use the right Phillips screw driver.



#46 SandyHouTex

SandyHouTex

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 06 October 2016 - 11:34 AM

 

I once tried them both though not side by side.Personally i think the C11 is very nice, so I think(also considering the price) the C11 is a better buy. Why?

 

Carbon fiber OTA...this can be a big advantage for high resolution imagers, as it will minimize focus changes do to temperature variations.

 

Fastar available for the C11 you can get down to about f/3.3 with a focal reducer on the Meade, but the Fastar allows you to do f/2 with a CCD on the Celestron. This can be a big help if you're using a camera with a small chip,
or want wider fields.

 

The Celestron focuser on the C11 is better IMHO.The C11 optics are currently just outstanding.

Except Celestron hasn't made a carbon fiber C11 in years.

 

In fact carbon fiber is a horrible material to make a telescope tube out of because it takes so long to respond to temperature changes.  That is unless you have an open tube and require the imaging plane not to shift.



#47 KevH

KevH

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 617
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2010
  • Loc: Maine

Posted 06 October 2016 - 12:35 PM

 

Meade does not use the same secondary screws as Celestron.   Allen vs. Phillips.   Have you owned both scopes like I have?

 

Bill

I do.  If you look at my telescope list you will see them.  A Phillips head or a Straight Slot does not mean the material they're made from is different.  The only difference is what screwdriver you use.  The material is the same.  In fact, there is less bearing surface in Straight Slot head than a Phillips.  If you use the right Phillips screw driver.

 

Meade doesn't use straight slot screws.  They use allen head screws.  They also have a spring loaded secondary which allows for quite a bit more travel than a Celestron secondary.  The allen head screws coupled with the extra travel before bottoming does allows for easier collimation... In my experience anyway.  Optically, I'd take an ACF over a standard Celestron SCT anyday.


  • Jon_Doh likes this

#48 SandyHouTex

SandyHouTex

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 07 October 2016 - 03:12 PM

 

 

Meade does not use the same secondary screws as Celestron.   Allen vs. Phillips.   Have you owned both scopes like I have?

 

Bill

I do.  If you look at my telescope list you will see them.  A Phillips head or a Straight Slot does not mean the material they're made from is different.  The only difference is what screwdriver you use.  The material is the same.  In fact, there is less bearing surface in Straight Slot head than a Phillips.  If you use the right Phillips screw driver.

 

Meade doesn't use straight slot screws.  They use allen head screws.  They also have a spring loaded secondary which allows for quite a bit more travel than a Celestron secondary.  The allen head screws coupled with the extra travel before bottoming does allows for easier collimation... In my experience anyway.  Optically, I'd take an ACF over a standard Celestron SCT anyday.

 

I stand corrected.  I rarely use my Meade because it has had pinched optics since I bought it.

 

I did go in and look at the Allen screws on the secondary.  The heads are incredibly small with a 5/64 inch Allen wrench fitting them.  They would strip much more easily than a Phillips head screw if the same force was applied.



#49 GJJim

GJJim

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3617
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2006
  • Loc: East of Tucson, AZ

Posted 07 October 2016 - 03:28 PM

 

 

 

Meade does not use the same secondary screws as Celestron.   Allen vs. Phillips.   Have you owned both scopes like I have?

 

Bill

I do.  If you look at my telescope list you will see them.  A Phillips head or a Straight Slot does not mean the material they're made from is different.  The only difference is what screwdriver you use.  The material is the same.  In fact, there is less bearing surface in Straight Slot head than a Phillips.  If you use the right Phillips screw driver.

 

Meade doesn't use straight slot screws.  They use allen head screws.  They also have a spring loaded secondary which allows for quite a bit more travel than a Celestron secondary.  The allen head screws coupled with the extra travel before bottoming does allows for easier collimation... In my experience anyway.  Optically, I'd take an ACF over a standard Celestron SCT anyday.

 

I stand corrected.  I rarely use my Meade because it has had pinched optics since I bought it.

 

I did go in and look at the Allen screws on the secondary.  The heads are incredibly small with a 5/64 inch Allen wrench fitting them.  They would strip much more easily than a Phillips head screw if the same force was applied.

 

Why would you have to apply a lot of force? The springs in the Meade secondary holder compress easily, maybe too easily. I doubt anyone would strip one of the screws unless they did something really stupid.



#50 skycamper

skycamper

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1118
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Beaverton OR

Posted 08 October 2016 - 02:08 AM

This is what I was looking for......kinda cool!!!  His cup runeth over ;-)

 

http://www.mikesastr...11vsLX200R.html


  • Reid W likes this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.







Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics