blueman
Vendor Blue Sky Accessories
Reged: 07/20/07
Loc: California
|
Re: Why me?
[Re: austin.grant]
#5394882 - 08/30/12 12:46 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
OK, I will bite. If the LX-800 or LX-80 have sucessfully taken good images with long exposures, can some one provide a link where they can be viewed?
Thanks,
Blueman
|
rmollise
Postmaster
Reged: 07/06/07
|
Re: Why me?
[Re: blueman]
#5395015 - 08/30/12 02:17 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
AFAIK, there are no LX800s in use.
|
biz
Vendor
Reged: 11/08/09
Loc: New Zealand
|
Re: Why me?
[Re: rmollise]
#5395041 - 08/30/12 02:36 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
AFAIK, there are no LX800s in use.
I hope this particular company is paying interest on money they have from these particular owners while they finish building this particular mount. The owners of the returned units certainly should be compensated.
cheers.
Graham
|
rmollise
Postmaster
Reged: 07/06/07
|
Re: Why me?
[Re: biz]
#5395047 - 08/30/12 02:38 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
AFAIK, there are no LX800s in use.
I hope this particular company is paying interest on money they have from these particular owners while they finish building this particular mount. The owners of the returned units certainly should be compensated.
cheers.
Graham
Sure they are. Just like every telescope company that's held onto my money for months and years since the 1960s. 
|
blueman
Vendor Blue Sky Accessories
Reged: 07/20/07
Loc: California
|
Re: Why me?
[Re: rmollise]
#5395359 - 08/30/12 05:56 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Understood, so that means the mounts were sold and they did not work as advertised and have not worked for months now. This just makes my original point.
Now, any good images taken guided with longer exposures available from those using the LX-80 mounts?
Blueman
Quote:
AFAIK, there are no LX800s in use.
|
rmollise
Postmaster
Reged: 07/06/07
|
Re: Why me?
[Re: blueman]
#5395390 - 08/30/12 06:21 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Understood, so that means the mounts were sold and they did not work as advertised and have not worked for months now. This just makes my original point.
Now, any good images taken guided with longer exposures available from those using the LX-80 mounts?
Blueman
Are we now talking LX80s or 800s? The 80s do work. The 800s were recalled due to (apparently) firmware problems with the StarLock widget. Not sure why you need to make a point. It's really simple: If you don't think either will work right or suit your needs, don't give Meade yo' money, honey.
I haven't seen any images other than the few here taken with the 80. Which could mean they can't take guided images, or it could mean that the people who've purchased them thus far are not imagers or at least experienced imagers, or it could mean there are not enough of 'em out there in the hands of CN readers yet. 
My thoughts? From the beginning I've thought this mount would essentially be an alt-az rig capable of operating in polar mode, not unlike some of the iOptron towers. Did I think this would be an imaging workhorse with a payload of 40-pounds when that is really too much to ask of an EQ-6 and is approaching "over the top" even with a G11? Not really, and not sure why anyone would think a mount in this pricerange would be.
Ah...but hope, it seems, springs eternal. TANSTAAFL.
|
Stew57
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/03/09
Loc: Silsbee Texas
|
Re: Why me?
[Re: rmollise]
#5395455 - 08/30/12 07:01 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Ahh Rod
we were hoping that lunch was at least getting cheaper! Meade is partly to blame for raising expectations a little too much. They should have been more realistic with specs and features. I hope they do well with this mount and it certainly will beat the pants off the mini towers in price, but many thought it would be competition for the CGEM, Atlas, and IEQ45 at AP.
|
Lee Jay
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/27/08
Loc: Westminster, CO
|
Re: Why me?
[Re: rmollise]
#5395473 - 08/30/12 07:13 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
My thoughts? From the beginning I've thought this mount would essentially be an alt-az rig capable of operating in polar mode, not unlike some of the iOptron towers. Did I think this would be an imaging workhorse with a payload of 40-pounds when that is really too much to ask of an EQ-6 and is approaching "over the top" even with a G11? Not really, and not sure why anyone would think a mount in this pricerange would be.
Bingo. Most mounts that are designed for AP aren't great for guided long-exposure AP at their maximum capacity. This is a convertible mount that doesn't even come with a guide port indicating that it isn't primarily designed for guided long exposure long focal length AP, especially at its maximum capacity, so why people expected it to be that way baffles me.
I still expect it to be decent with my dSLR and lenses (unguided, once they fix the PEC recording) and even fine with a big scope for planetary AP in polar, and I have yet to see any evidence that it won't be.
Maybe this will be a suitable alternative if it's ever released, but it's almost guaranteed to be quite a lot more expensive, and I still doubt it will be suitable at whatever its rated capacity will be.
Edited by Lee Jay (08/30/12 07:15 PM)
|
deepskyguy
member
Reged: 12/16/09
|
Re: Why me?
[Re: blueman]
#5395504 - 08/30/12 07:34 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Understood, so that means the mounts were sold and they did not work as advertised and have not worked for months now.
You forgot one step... The 25% price increase!
|
neilson
sage
Reged: 08/22/10
Loc: outside Pleasanton, Texas
|
Re: Why me?
[Re: deepskyguy]
#5395535 - 08/30/12 07:59 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Hi,
I really didn't think that price increase was warranted, especially with this big load capability decrease. I ordered my mount last year for $799. but paid the extra $200. to have one now. I would of liked to have known that its out of the box capability was only 20 to 25lbs in polar. before I paid that extra $200. and the extra for the 10" ota that it came with. Especially after this long wait.
neilson
|
dmdouglass
professor emeritus
Reged: 12/23/07
Loc: Tempe, AZ
|
Re: Why me?
[Re: neilson]
#5395608 - 08/30/12 08:48 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Greetings all...
As Blueman is aware, i am curretnly "on the road", thus the long delay in answering. And as Rod sort of guessed, there does seem to be a "user" problem with guided images.
To my knowledge, only three (3) of us have posted images from the LX80. Keven and Dennis are guider equipped, but i believe weight limited. Neilson has posted unguided, and his guiding capability is unknown. Even if he is equipped, he will need to use a lighter OTA, which he does have.
In my case, I was two OTA configured, with guiding the idea, but that would be in Alt/AZ, and we all know that story by now.
I spent a week at the Oregon Star Party. Had lots of fun, but very little observing, and no imaging. It seems Oregon has LOTS and LOTS of fires. Which.... produce LOTS and LOTS of smoke. We had otherwise clear skies, but extremly poor seeing due to smoke. There were a few nights, i could not even find Polaris, or make out Ursa Major.
We moved on to just east of Redmond, and stayed there for a week or so. The smoke situation did not improve. HOWEVER, as readers may recall, the reason i did not have guided images was that i had no Guide OTA to mount to the 6". I ordered a Orion Mini 50mm Guide Scope from OPT, and had it shipped fast. It mounts very well on the 6", and the DSI-2 Pro focuses nicely. However, seeing was still horrible, and thus, no imageing.
We have moved on to Lakeview, OR, and then on to central northern Nevada, and it is worse here than in Oregon. YIKES !
Ahhhhh, but there is still hope. We are now just north of LAS VEGAS. No Smoke !!! Just clouds.
We should be home in a couple of days (Arizona). Hopefully the weather will clear up, and i will be able to get the equipment set up, and hopefully have something to show.
I just looked at the 10-day.... Hmmmmmm. Guess we will have to be patient for awhile.
|
ur7x
super member
Reged: 01/08/12
|
Re: Why me?
[Re: Lee Jay]
#5395765 - 08/30/12 10:12 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
My thoughts? From the beginning I've thought this mount would essentially be an alt-az rig capable of operating in polar mode, not unlike some of the iOptron towers. Did I think this would be an imaging workhorse with a payload of 40-pounds when that is really too much to ask of an EQ-6 and is approaching "over the top" even with a G11? Not really, and not sure why anyone would think a mount in this pricerange would be.
Bingo. Most mounts that are designed for AP aren't great for guided long-exposure AP at their maximum capacity. This is a convertible mount that doesn't even come with a guide port indicating that it isn't primarily designed for guided long exposure long focal length AP, especially at its maximum capacity, so why people expected it to be that way baffles me.
I still expect it to be decent with my dSLR and lenses (unguided, once they fix the PEC recording) and even fine with a big scope for planetary AP in polar, and I have yet to see any evidence that it won't be.
Maybe this will be a suitable alternative if it's ever released, but it's almost guaranteed to be quite a lot more expensive, and I still doubt it will be suitable at whatever its rated capacity will be.
If you re read Nelsons posts he is more than clear that this mount is not suitable for visual use at 2/3rd of its weight limit either... AP would be outstanding at this price point. Visual would be OK at this price point. So far with a 30lb OTA, that the mount actually shipped with, it has been a heap-o-fail... With the owner taking the mount apart and self tuning it, with Meade's support and guidance no fewer than 10 times.
Simply Not acceptable...
|
dmdouglass
professor emeritus
Reged: 12/23/07
Loc: Tempe, AZ
|
Re: Why me?
[Re: ur7x]
#5395781 - 08/30/12 10:24 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
ur7x....
Can we assume from this post, and most of your prior posts, that you are not going to buy one?
And if that is the case, we got the message. Actually, a long time ago. You must simply enjoy telling us that.... over and over and over.
|
ur7x
super member
Reged: 01/08/12
|
Re: Order cancelled
[Re: Lee Jay]
#5395789 - 08/30/12 10:28 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If it is (as it now appears ) just another 25-30lb mount then it is way over priced.
Okay, where can I get an convertible alt-az/gem mount that can carry 25-30 pounds in gem mode and 60+ pounds in dual-OTA alt-az mode for a lower price?
If this thread is any indication, no one sells a working mount like this. Meade came close and then failed miserably.
|
ur7x
super member
Reged: 01/08/12
|
Re: Why me?
[Re: dmdouglass]
#5395799 - 08/30/12 10:34 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
ur7x....
Can we assume from this post, and most of your prior posts, that you are not going to buy one?
And if that is the case, we got the message. Actually, a long time ago. You must simply enjoy telling us that.... over and over and over.
I actually came within a heart beat of buying one. As I have posted over and over, a Meade Dealer actually talked me out of it, that and some snarly posts from Meade faithful convinced me, that in spite of happily owning several other Meade optical products, "This mount ain't for you".
Oh and this thread is not 40 pages of nothing... it is 40 pages of consumer protection. If after reading all of this, you still choose one of these mounts, you are at least doing so with your eyes wide open.
|
Lee Jay
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/27/08
Loc: Westminster, CO
|
Re: Why me?
[Re: ur7x]
#5395875 - 08/30/12 11:49 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My thoughts? From the beginning I've thought this mount would essentially be an alt-az rig capable of operating in polar mode, not unlike some of the iOptron towers. Did I think this would be an imaging workhorse with a payload of 40-pounds when that is really too much to ask of an EQ-6 and is approaching "over the top" even with a G11? Not really, and not sure why anyone would think a mount in this pricerange would be.
Bingo. Most mounts that are designed for AP aren't great for guided long-exposure AP at their maximum capacity. This is a convertible mount that doesn't even come with a guide port indicating that it isn't primarily designed for guided long exposure long focal length AP, especially at its maximum capacity, so why people expected it to be that way baffles me.
I still expect it to be decent with my dSLR and lenses (unguided, once they fix the PEC recording) and even fine with a big scope for planetary AP in polar, and I have yet to see any evidence that it won't be.
Maybe this will be a suitable alternative if it's ever released, but it's almost guaranteed to be quite a lot more expensive, and I still doubt it will be suitable at whatever its rated capacity will be.
If you re read Nelsons posts he is more than clear that this mount is not suitable for visual use at 2/3rd of its weight limit either...
Not true, since most, if not all visual use of this mount will be in alt-az mode.
|
Whichwayisnorth
professor emeritus
Reged: 07/04/11
Loc: Southern California
|
Re: Why me?
[Re: Lee Jay]
#5395951 - 08/31/12 12:47 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I got the LX80 at the intro price of $799 because I needed a small mount for visual only. I figured I could also use it with a Mallincam or similiar camera once in a while too. Also was hoping that I could do short exposure dslr shots in polar mode when the mood strikes me. I haven't been able to use it at all yet but I am watching the weather map and keeping my fingers crossed.
So in short it is a cheap mount for visual that I'll have for many years. If I want to get into astrophotography with it I will buy a light weight short focal length refractor or perhaps a future 8" SCT with reducer.
|
Starhawk
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/16/08
Loc: Tucson, Arizona
|
Re: Why me?
[Re: Whichwayisnorth]
#5396000 - 08/31/12 01:50 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
No, it really isn't. Alt-az mounts of similar capacity cost considerably less. Equatorial mounts with significantly greater accuracy cost considerably less.
Unfortunately, the LX80 is neither fish nor fowl. Technically, it costs a little less than buying a separate alt-az goto mount and a goto Equatorial mount. But in reality, it's a marketeer's story.
It's looking more like if we really want a combined Alt-az EQ mount, it's called a fork.
-Rich
|
jmiele
Patron Saint?
Reged: 12/04/10
|
Re: Why me?
[Re: Starhawk]
#5396227 - 08/31/12 08:25 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
IMO Rich, folks that "think" they need this mount for the dual capabilities have manufactured the need based on the manufactures advertisements. In other words, necessity in this case was NOT the mother of invention, rather, the INVENTION was the mother of necessity.  You can say you always wanted a mount like this, but IMO you all saw the docs and said - "wow, that's a great idea", "I want one", right?
Best,
Joe
|
cheapersleeper
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/22/10
Loc: Sachse TX
|
Re: Why me?
[Re: jmiele]
#5396253 - 08/31/12 08:52 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
IMO Rich, folks that "think" they need this mount for the dual capabilities have manufactured the need based on the manufactures advertisements. In other words, necessity in this case was NOT the mother of invention, rather, the INVENTION was the mother of necessity. You can say you always wanted a mount like this, but IMO you all saw the docs and said - "wow, that's a great idea", "I want one", right?
Best,
Joe
The same could have been said about the Nagler.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
