Ray Teeter 18" f/3.5 Dob D&G 5.375" f/20(?) refractor 天体観測にも威力を発揮する、本格仕様の大口径双眼望遠鏡です。 興和ハイランダー
Quote:(1) The people who run the business move forward way to easily and quickly on the ideas their product and marketing managers put forth. This leads to poorly conceived products for which the market is questionable. (2) They make mechanically sloppy devices thinking they can software engineer them back to "observatory-like" performance. It just don't work that way
Rural central lower Michigan
Quote:Their extremely clumsy-looking LX850 mount is $6,000?! Anyone in the market for a $6,000 mount will probably turn to Losmandy or Astro-Physics before they ever consider Meade's contraption.
Quote: In terms of what could be done, why is it that Orion is the only one who has something like Intelliscope, certainly it was within Meade's capabilities, they could have been there first. I think it is a lack of vision within the company.
"You're not afraid of the dark, are you?" - Riddick "The best scientists are humble. They seek to understand, not to ensure their legacy, but merely to understand." - Mori
Quote: Quote: In terms of what could be done, why is it that Orion is the only one who has something like Intelliscope, certainly it was within Meade's capabilities, they could have been there first. I think it is a lack of vision within the company. I still firmly believe that the Lightbridge dobsonians is one of Meade's greatest products ever. It is not perfect in every sense, but they work well right out of the box, are solid and reliable, generally have good optics and just plain work. Why they didn't come out with a GOTO option for them is baffling, to say the least. Instead, they let JMI take that market. And Orion with their Intelliscopes. Huge mistake. Dobs are all the rage with the visual observers these days (along with apochromats). Why Meade didn't take this market more seriously is a mystery. Perhaps they didn't see it as advanced enough, but that is precisely where they could have made a difference. They should have developed GOTO dobs. And a Mallincam equivalent for the video astronomy crowd in light polluted areas. These products might eventually have been developed, but what I mean is that they should have been first, or at least early adopters. Clear skies!Thomas, Denmark
Quote:I am not sure I entirely agree with the idea that Meade just piggybacked on a vision Orion had had a few years earlier. Meade was the first to offer a very good truss tube dob for the masses, IE not a premium priced one. Theý also look radically different than the other offers from GSO, though they do use many GSO parts, such as mirror cells, spider assembly, mirrors, etc.
Quote: An AP900 is not twice the price of an LX850 with the counterweights and doodads.
14" Meade LX850 80mm Meade 6000 ED APO 90mm Meade ETX 60mm Focal (First Telescope) Orion MiniGiant 9x63 Mallincam Xtreme EXview HAD Canon 5D Mark II Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L Canon 24-105mm f/4L
Quote:i don't think anyone would compare a stock tripod from Meade or Celestron with a Rob Miller favorably..
Quote:Tony, i didn't mean the stock meade tripod is no good. I'm sure its substantial. I'm also sure it doesn't weigh 14lb like the Tri36M does. My point to Alph was, the 900 is not 2X the price even with a premium tripod like the Rob Miller, and downgrading the tripod would lower the cost some more.it is still very spendy compared to an LX850, no doubt about that. but not double.this whole urban legend of AP accessories being so expensive that they turn a 6.3k Mach1 into a 9k mount has got to be addressed because it discourages many potential buyers, myself included, until i did the math.
Quote:Interesting picture. Compared to the visual view, --the image is overexposed in the center--the outer envelope of the nebula is missing.--the star images are bloated.So, not the equal of a visual image.BUT, that image could have been taken in LA, while the visual image of the nebula in the same locale will not be any better and probably require an expensive filter.Video astronomy has its place, but the equipment to do it is beyond the budget of beginners. By the time someone is willing to invest in the equipment to make it a reality, they are already outside the realm of the beginners. It isn't going to happen for $300 total outlay, for example, and even $300 is stretching it for most beginners.Except on the Moon, where a $75 HD video camera could be attached to any telescope that tracks (and I've seen some at <$200 that do) for some great Moon images.But even that is going to be highly disappointing to a beginner who has been led to believe his $75 60mm refractor will give him full-color, Hubble-like, images visually.Face it. Meade's woes are those of the astronomy world in general in addition to poor management choices:--a shrinking demographic. The astronomers I meet at star parties are all getting older and young entries into the hobby are few and far between.--a poor economy. Discretionary expenditures are still not at pre-2008 levels.--light pollution. This continues to get worse every year, and 97% of Americans live in heavily light-polluted areas.--Unrealistic expectations. Most non-informed consumers think that all you have to do is plug any telescope into a computer and you'll get Hubble-quality photographs. They think that computerized scopes are ones that give images when plugged into a laptop. They don't understand about mounts and cameras and tracking and all the issues related to getting such an image. Learning the truth about how an image is produced is an interest-crushing letdown for most of those people.
Uncle Rod Uncle Rod's Astroblog: http://uncle-rods.blogspot.com/
NSN Channel: BigAppleSkies
CPC 1100 with HD Pro Wedge with ETX-70 Finder Celestar C8, C80ED and PST Istar 150 Anistigmatic R30 on CGEM Jason 313 from 1975! Mallincam Extreme & Mallincam SSIc & Mallincam Micro DSI Pro, Orion SSAG, GPUSB, Nautilus Filterwheel JMI, Celestron and Orion MotoFocus, FCUSB1&2 Hyperion 5,13, ES 18, 30, OR 18, 25 TV 2.5x Powermate, WO Binoviewer with pairs: TV 7 Naglers, WO 20 and RKE 28
Quote: Astronomy is, essentially, "flying below the radar" of people's perception, and we, and Meade, could use a good publicity push.
Quote:If the LX850 does everything they say it will do, and people are happy with the results, then why would they pay for an AP900 and then still have to buy a scope on top of that?
Quote:They need to concentrate on a few products and do them right.
Quote:It could be that for lack of money if they don't have them in stock, but I count 16 scopes on Meade's website under $1000, with at least a dozen under $500.How is that "all but abandoned the low end of the market"?
Quote:Ridicules. You just don't get it. The Losmandy mounts are old junk that did not receive any significant upgrade in decades. The A-P mounts are twice as expensive as the LX850 when you include tripod/pier, counterweights, and other accessories. Oh no, please don't even mention the Mach1 as it is no match to the LX850.
Quote:The name Meade (and Celestron) should mean guaranteed high quality, and 100% functional. No ifs, ands, buts. Otherwise, folks are going to lump them in with the cheapest imports, and they will have to compete mostly based on price.
Orion XT8i Sears 6333 Refractor Tasco 7TE
Celestron Sky Master 15x70 Binos Orion Sirius 10mm 25mm 32mm UO 7mm HD Ortho Expanse and Agena Astro EWAs 6mm 9mm 15mm Siebert 6.9, 9.9mm StarSplitter (SS) ES 4.7, 6.7 and 11mm 82° N2 Meade 20mm QX70
Your price quote up there a few posts ago is over $10K.
For that price I can get the LX850 and the 14"SCT and I do not have to buy anything else. No extra weights, no guide scopes or guide cameras, no gps units or AC adapters. Everything is included right out of the box. Heck, they may even end up including the motorized focuser. So while you may be correct that it is not twice the price, you still get twice the value. People are going to take a hard look at that when they ready to buy. If the LX850 does everything they say it will do, and people are happy with the results, then why would they pay for an AP900 and then still have to buy a scope on top of that?
I mean if I win the lottery there is little doubt I'd look at the ParamountMX with 14" EdgeHD for my portable rig and the ME with perhaps a Planewave 20" for my future observatory. I can not however afford that.
Will the LX850 perform to specs? Will it have good reliability and good support? Will people that get one have a positive experience? Will everyone that buys one end up taking photos like Jason's after 15 minutes of set up? Only time will tell.
Quote:The LX850 has no proven technologies
Quote: Quote:The LX850 has no proven technologies That's right! It is a new technology. Nobody has done that before. Meade is very creative unlike A-P or Losmandy.
Quote:Based on Jason Ware's review in the other thread, I do not think a Mach1 is "exponentially" better than an LX850 - did you see his Horsehead at 2485mm focal length?
Quote:I think that guiding accuracy scales with the original untrained periodic error. So the lower the raw PE, the better. But it's also asymptotic.Jason says 19" raw PE, reduced to 2" with PE (factor of 10 roughly). That's about 4X worse than a typical AP.Interestingly Celestron quites about 10" native PE for the CGE Pro, reduced to 4" with PPEC. Not a huge reduction.. but these are Celestron figures, not PEMPro figures. Don't know how Jason got his.
-Roger Pitre- 1 X 7 binocular MN65, Nexstar 8SE, SV70ED, Lunt 60 PT EQ6 Pro, Vixen GP2, Canon 50D, Modified XSi, SBIG ST-2000XM, 70-200 f/4L, BackyardEOS "He's got shoulders on him like a smelt..."--Anonymous <a href="" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/pages/AJP-Observatory/462651307139970?ref=ts&fref=ts</a> http://ajpobservatory.is-great.org/