steddyman
super member
Reged: 03/02/06
Posts: 169
|
|
Thanks for the clarification Jerry. My main reason for getting into astronomy was to link it in with my life long photography hobby (started 5). That side is very important to me.
I will give Meade a call and if they can't now tell me what was causing the problem and if it could be fixed in the UK, then I will just sell the scope and maybe revisit the situation in a couple of years. They have had quite a few back now, so they should know.
Thanks
Steddyman
--------------------
Skywatcher 100ED2
Skywatcher HEQ5 Pro
Nikon D200
Sony HDR-HC1E
Philips Toucam Pro II
|
JerryWise
Postmaster
Reged: 12/26/03
Posts: 7006
Loc: Lexington, SC
|
|
Please let us know if they tell you. Best of luck on it.
--------------------
Jerry
LX200ACF 14", Tak FS 152 & TOA 150
AP-1200 & Mach1
|
Gluon
member
Reged: 02/16/06
Posts: 39
Loc: Austria
|
|
Kim,
Quote:
...Why would a secondary mirror affect the contrast of the final image? What does it look alike?
Therefore, a refractor rules in planetary imaging? Is the magnification ratio of a refractor greater than a SCT? (both telescope with the same aperture, the usable magnification of a refractor is higher than a sct?
A secondary's obstruction makes the image look softer and somewhat unsharp -> see web page -> "About High resolutino -> The obstruction"
A good refractor always wins over a (same size) telescope with a secondary obstruction in terms of sharpness and contrast which results in more aethetics and perception of lower contrast features. On the other hand most of the best planetary images are made with SC's because its their pure size (absolute resolution) and amount of light (shorter exposure time -> less influence of seeing) that wins over a SMALLER refractor (of the same or even lower price, perhaps).
So the maximum reasonable magnification of a high quality refractor is always higher than that of an obstructed scope (of same quality)
Martin.
|
Joad
Wordsmith
Reged: 03/22/05
Posts: 12022
|
|
Kim,
At the level of amateur astronomy equipment, there are always going to be tradeoffs. Many of us would love to have, say, a nine or ten inch apochromatic refractor. But, at that size, we would have to have a permanent observatory because large refractors are enormously heavy. It would also help to own a bank, because a refractor of that size (with a suitable mount) could well cost in the six figures (a hundred thousand dollars or more); at least in the mid to high five figures.
My eight inch SCT, by contrast, is something I can carry around the yard while mounted and on its tripod. It cost me $750 (mint condition, used). With a two inch obstruction, it offers more light gathering capacity than a 6 inch apochromat and approximately equivalent resolution, along with a good level of chromatic aberation suppression. I would not be able to carry around a 6 inch apochromat, and, with a suitable mount, it would cost me tens of thousands of dollars.
But the reason you see so many large Dobsonian mounted Newtonian reflectors at American star parties is because the truss mounted Dobsonian offers the possibility for very large aperture in a package that can be disassembled and moved in an ordinary automobile to a dark site, at a very good price. Though not preferred for imaging, a well made large aperture Dobsonian can outperform any smaller aperture refractor or SCT at a much lower cost per inch of aperture.
The great thing about small apochromatic refractors (4 inches or less), is that high quality ones can offer fantastic imaging platforms that are very portable, so long as you get a high quality mount. They are expensive per inch of aperture, but at 3-4 inches, many serious imagers can afford them (though expect to pay around 2 thousand dollars or more for a properly mounted 80mm APO and around 3 thousand dollars or more for a properly mounted 4 inch APO).
|
bluesman
sage
Reged: 01/14/05
Posts: 211
Loc: N Yorkshire. UK
|
|
Steddyman, I was always under the impression that TH carried out optical repairs so thanks for the heads up on that. Are we saying that there are no UK sources for optical repair work on Meade scopes?
Ed
|
Kim Miau
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 07/17/06
Posts: 1133
Loc: Kluang, Johor, Malaysia
|
|
Quote:
A secondary's obstruction makes the image look softer and somewhat unsharp -> see web page -> "About High resolutino -> The obstruction"
A good refractor always wins over a (same size) telescope with a secondary obstruction in terms of sharpness and contrast which results in more aethetics and perception of lower contrast features. On the other hand most of the best planetary images are made with SC's because its their pure size (absolute resolution) and amount of light (shorter exposure time -> less influence of seeing) that wins over a SMALLER refractor (of the same or even lower price, perhaps).
So the maximum reasonable magnification of a high quality refractor is always higher than that of an obstructed scope (of same quality)
Martin.
Martin, Joad, you both are so helpful! From what I read above, it's better for me to keep going with SCT. One who owns a 10" refractor oneself must be the rich. I would rather buy a good car to transport my family and my LX90.  Is there any astronomical value of refractor in doing researching?
I hope JerryWise doesn't mind we are talking about anything else. 
--------------------
-Robin
QHY CCD
My Astronomy Blog - http://www.astronomynotes.net
Meade 8" LX90 + LPI + QHY5 + Denk's Power x Switch S2 Diagonal
More equipments @ here
|
steddyman
super member
Reged: 03/02/06
Posts: 169
|
|
Ed
Correct. There is no UK source for Optical repairs on Meade scopes. Only mechanical/electrical faults.
BC&F representing Meade UK told me this when I phoned for a quote to pay to have it repaired.
Steddyman
--------------------
Skywatcher 100ED2
Skywatcher HEQ5 Pro
Nikon D200
Sony HDR-HC1E
Philips Toucam Pro II
|
JerryWise
Postmaster
Reged: 12/26/03
Posts: 7006
Loc: Lexington, SC
|
|
Quote:
............
I hope JerryWise doesn't mind we are talking about anything else.
Of course not..... It's all my pleasure.
--------------------
Jerry
LX200ACF 14", Tak FS 152 & TOA 150
AP-1200 & Mach1
|
PGW Steve
professor emeritus
Reged: 10/03/06
Posts: 559
Loc: Winnipeg, Canada
|
|
Are the problems associated to a range of serial numbers, or is it fairly random? Is there a cut off point that a guy could tell if he dodged the bullet as far as Meade being aware of the problem and not shipping a flaw? Mine is #100575.
--------------------
A-P 1200GTO - On the list for a Mach1GTO
14" LX200R OTA
FSQ106ED Tak .75 reducer +1.6 extender
WO Megrez 80mm 600mm triplet APO
WO ZenithStar 66 Triplet ED APO
EQ 6 PRO, HEQ-5 PRO
Astrotrac TT320, Manfrotto 475&488
DSI PRO II W/filters, Orion SSAG
Hutech 40D and Unmodded EOS 40D
16-35mm f2.8L II, 24-70mm f2.8L,70-200mm f2.8L IS 300mmf4.L, 400mmf5.6L
31T5,22T4,13E,9T6,8E,5T6,3.5T6
5’X8’ Wells Cargo trailer to haul it in!!!
|
JerryWise
Postmaster
Reged: 12/26/03
Posts: 7006
Loc: Lexington, SC
|
|
I saw no pattern. The scope I have now that works fine has a lower serial number than the one I sent back with the manifestation. Several have said in post here there is no sequential numbering of the serial numbers. I'd say if it collimates well and has knockout star test then it's a keeper.
--------------------
Jerry
LX200ACF 14", Tak FS 152 & TOA 150
AP-1200 & Mach1
|
Gluon
member
Reged: 02/16/06
Posts: 39
Loc: Austria
|
|
Quote:
I would rather buy a good car to transport my family and my LX90.
A very wise decision!
Quote:
Is there any astronomical value of refractor in doing researching?
Because of the usually smaller aperture (light grasp) of refractors I think there's no more use of refractors for astronomical research than for SC's and the like - the only exception could be when portability comes into play.
Fields for astronomical research for the amateur include occultation observations (see web page , Variable star observations and Supernova search --> browse the AAVSO page.
Enjoy!
Martin.
|
Kim Miau
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 07/17/06
Posts: 1133
Loc: Kluang, Johor, Malaysia
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I would rather buy a good car to transport my family and my LX90.
A very wise decision!
Quote:
Is there any astronomical value of refractor in doing researching?
Because of the usually smaller aperture (light grasp) of refractors I think there's no more use of refractors for astronomical research than for SC's and the like - the only exception could be when portability comes into play.
Fields for astronomical research for the amateur include occultation observations (see web page , Variable star observations and Supernova search --> browse the AAVSO page.
Enjoy!
Martin.
Jerry, thanks for your kindness. 
Martin, so a refractor is mostly for visual and imaging pleasure? By the way, the problems of Meade are making me consider a Celestron CGE now. 
--------------------
-Robin
QHY CCD
My Astronomy Blog - http://www.astronomynotes.net
Meade 8" LX90 + LPI + QHY5 + Denk's Power x Switch S2 Diagonal
More equipments @ here
|
Gluon
member
Reged: 02/16/06
Posts: 39
Loc: Austria
|
|
Kim,
Quote:
Martin, so a refractor is mostly for visual and imaging pleasure?
When talking about smaller refractors up to 5" I would also put it that way, yes. For larger refractors handling and price become an issue...
Quote:
By the way, the problems of Meade are making me consider a Celestron CGE now.
I had 2 MEADE SCT's and the optics were REALLY fine, but the mechanics and some design issues didn't by far serve my photographic needs, so I changed to a mechanical state-of-the-art instrument of RCOS.
The RCX seem to have good optics for deepsky photography as well, but I wouldn't trust the complicate electronics (durability ?!)- its a mass product in the end.
Nevertheless, if You aren't an aesthetic only and want some light grasp for deep sky VIEWING, an SCT is a good choice.
MEADE's customer care and RCX problem handling is another issue You can form Your opinion about... at least Celestron has an email tech support that DOES answer Your questions.
Martin.
|
Kim Miau
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 07/17/06
Posts: 1133
Loc: Kluang, Johor, Malaysia
|
|
Quote:
Kim,
Quote:
Martin, so a refractor is mostly for visual and imaging pleasure?
When talking about smaller refractors up to 5" I would also put it that way, yes. For larger refractors handling and price become an issue...
Quote:
By the way, the problems of Meade are making me consider a Celestron CGE now.
I had 2 MEADE SCT's and the optics were REALLY fine, but the mechanics and some design issues didn't by far serve my photographic needs, so I changed to a mechanical state-of-the-art instrument of RCOS.
The RCX seem to have good optics for deepsky photography as well, but I wouldn't trust the complicate electronics (durability ?!)- its a mass product in the end.
Nevertheless, if You aren't an aesthetic only and want some light grasp for deep sky VIEWING, an SCT is a good choice.
MEADE's customer care and RCX problem handling is another issue You can form Your opinion about... at least Celestron has an email tech support that DOES answer Your questions.
Martin.
An RCOS is not capable of viewing?
--------------------
-Robin
QHY CCD
My Astronomy Blog - http://www.astronomynotes.net
Meade 8" LX90 + LPI + QHY5 + Denk's Power x Switch S2 Diagonal
More equipments @ here
|
Gluon
member
Reged: 02/16/06
Posts: 39
Loc: Austria
|
|
Quote:
An RCOS is not capable of viewing?
Oh no, RCOS IS for viewing also!
Its even very comfortable because it has a fixed 2" adapter on the backplate for eyepieces or cameras and focusing is done by shifting the secondary mirror - You dont't have to touch the tube when doing so (no vibrations) and there's NO image shift.
Its great for deepsky, but maybe not that perfect for planets as the large secondary mirror reduces the contrast. But I have to admit that I wasn't able to push the scope to its high resolution limit until now because of weather conditions. I'm eagerly looking forward to saturn in the coming months...
Martin.
|
Kim Miau
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 07/17/06
Posts: 1133
Loc: Kluang, Johor, Malaysia
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
An RCOS is not capable of viewing?
Oh no, RCOS IS for viewing also!
Its even very comfortable because it has a fixed 2" adapter on the backplate for eyepieces or cameras and focusing is done by shifting the secondary mirror - You dont't have to touch the tube when doing so (no vibrations) and there's NO image shift.
Its great for deepsky, but maybe not that perfect for planets as the large secondary mirror reduces the contrast. But I have to admit that I wasn't able to push the scope to its high resolution limit until now because of weather conditions. I'm eagerly looking forward to saturn in the coming months...
Martin.
I see. What do you mount your RCOS on? What is your RCOS? The 10" Truss Tube RC? I thought RCOS is not capable of viewing because you upcased VIEWING when you talked about SCT. Is a SCT better than RC in planetary? (10" vs 10")
--------------------
-Robin
QHY CCD
My Astronomy Blog - http://www.astronomynotes.net
Meade 8" LX90 + LPI + QHY5 + Denk's Power x Switch S2 Diagonal
More equipments @ here
|
Gluon
member
Reged: 02/16/06
Posts: 39
Loc: Austria
|
|
Kim,
I have a 16" RCOS truss tube (weighing ~50 kg) on a Paramount.
The difference of an RC to an SC of the same size should be noticeable because the SC has a smaller obstruction, although it shouldn't be that much.
But I can tell the difference to my former SC only when there's Saturn right up in the sky in the next months...
There should be no difference to an RCX since those instruments also have a secondary mirror of the same size, as far as I know. Maybe the color error in the RCX makes things even worse...
To cut it short: An RC from RCOS wins over an SC (not RCX) of the same aperture in every respect, except for the secondary obstruction and the bulkier handling.
Martin.
|
Kim Miau
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 07/17/06
Posts: 1133
Loc: Kluang, Johor, Malaysia
|
|
Quote:
Kim,
I have a 16" RCOS truss tube (weighing ~50 kg) on a Paramount.
The difference of an RC to an SC of the same size should be noticeable because the SC has a smaller obstruction, although it shouldn't be that much.
But I can tell the difference to my former SC only when there's Saturn right up in the sky in the next months...
There should be no difference to an RCX since those instruments also have a secondary mirror of the same size, as far as I know. Maybe the color error in the RCX makes things even worse...
To cut it short: An RC from RCOS wins over an SC (not RCX) of the same aperture in every respect, except for the secondary obstruction and the bulkier handling.
Martin.
Cool Martin, you have a Ferrari GEM! I will be waiting for your report regarding the differences. By the way, do you mind to list us the every aspect?
--------------------
-Robin
QHY CCD
My Astronomy Blog - http://www.astronomynotes.net
Meade 8" LX90 + LPI + QHY5 + Denk's Power x Switch S2 Diagonal
More equipments @ here
|
Art Stithem
member
Reged: 09/01/06
Posts: 13
Loc: Richland, WA
|
|
I had Meade forward my LX200R to Dr. Clay for supercharging. The good Dr. is working on it now, and he confirmed that Meade corrected the optical problems and his bench tests produced textbook optical performance. I can't wait to get it back and start using it for serious imaging. Thank you Dr. Clay!
--------------------
Meade 10" LX200R (Supercharged)
Coronado Maxscope 40 (Double-stacked)
Astro-Tech AT80 (not the ED)
Wife (loves shopping)
Bank account (empty)
|
Joseph Gillman
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/06/05
Posts: 2357
Loc: Boothwyn, PA
|
|
I was just curious, how do you update the firmware if Dr Clay fine tuned all the drive training, drive ratios, backlash, sensor calibration, etc? Isn't that lost every time you update the firmware? Is there a list of variables that you have to go back in and set to what you want (back to Clay's values) after the update? I might send in my scope one day and was just curious. If I ask him directly then that takes his time away from working on your scope 
--------------------
Meade RCX400 30cm --
People dont like when I stick up for Meade but they're just jealous of my RCX 
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
