Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
asaint
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/25/03
Posts: 2022
|
|
Meade - An Innovative Company (finally)
|
Clive Gibbons
Mostly Harmless
Reged: 05/26/05
Posts: 10388
Loc: Oort Cloud
|
|
I'm unconvinced.
IMO, Meade's percieved innovation is largely a result of savvy marketing and making cheaper, snazzier and/or more gadget-laden versions of already existing equipment.
But, that's just my
--------------------
A few telescopes of dubious value.
Understanding wife and three curious cats.
"Semper ubi sub ubi"
|
asaint
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/25/03
Posts: 2022
|
|
Clive,
Can you give me a specific example?
Allister
|
Clive Gibbons
Mostly Harmless
Reged: 05/26/05
Posts: 10388
Loc: Oort Cloud
|
|
Quote:
Clive,
Can you give me a specific example?
Allister
Sure Allister.
You already mentioned that truss dobs aren't a new idea. The fact that Meade now makes make them in smaller apertures is a bit novel, but I'm wondering how many folks need an 8" or 10" truss Dob. The standard solid-tube varieties seem portable enough in those sizes and they're cheaper.
Meade's eyepieces have always been "inspired" by what TeleVue has offered.
Meade has greatly hyped their new RCX design scopes. They tout them as Ritchey-Chretien design, but respected independent opticians consider them to be much more akin to modified SCTs than Ritchey-Chretien.
If this is actually the case, Meade has tweaked the SCT rather than come up with an innovative "advanced" RC.
One product that Meade offers is pretty innovative in the amateur astronomy market;
Their "Sky Assurance" extended warranty.
I don't think any other telescope company has sold that sort of product before.
--------------------
A few telescopes of dubious value.
Understanding wife and three curious cats.
"Semper ubi sub ubi"
|
asaint
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/25/03
Posts: 2022
|
|
Clive,
For the sake of brevity and clarity in my counterpoints, I'll pick one of the products mentioned and use that.
Meade's new plossls bear no similarity to Tele Vue's current offerings. Tele Vue offers 52-degree plossls and 60-degree Radians. For example;
Tele Vue 60-deg Radian $240
Tele Vue 52-deg plossl $89
Meade 60-deg plossl $89
I'm unclear on which you are referring to. If the Tele Vue plossl, then Meade has innovated by producing a plossl with a wider field of view. If the Radian, Meade has innovated by producing a product at 1/3 the cost.
Allister
|
Barry Fernelius
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/28/04
Posts: 629
Loc: Rancho Santa Margarita, Califo...
|
|
Allister -
I'm hesitant to say "Well done, Meade" until they institute a quality control program that works. One of the persistent themes in many of the recent online reviews of Meade products is Meade's inability to do QC. This appears to be a problem across their entire product line.
I applaud Meade's willingness to make innovative products, but all of the innovation in the world won't save you if you can't consistently deliver a quality product.
--------------------
The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes. -Proust
Edited by Barry Fernelius (01/19/06 10:04 AM)
|
Chris Greene
sage
Reged: 12/04/05
Posts: 343
Loc: Dark Sky, Idaho
|
|
Meade may be innovating some as Allister states but until they start shipping products (primarily scopes but I keep reading about one of their ep lines having issues too) that don't have a list of problems (so far most of the truss dob reports I've read say they are not packing them properly and things are getting damaged, broken, or hideously out of alignment), any innovation is going to get sidelined due to quality control issues. I also get a little tired of their constant Celestron bashing in their advertisments. Don't knock the other guy, tell me why your products are better. I can decide on my own, thanks.
When Meade fixes their quality control problems, I may become more interested in their "innovations".
Anecdotally, to support my comments, our local Meade dealer is dropping them because of significant quality issues according to the director of the museum.
--------------------
Tele Vue Pronto/Telepod/Gibraltar w/Sky Tour
Questar 3.5
Celestron FS80WA (ST-80)
Celestron C-8/Vixen GP (for sale)
Canon 10x30 IS
Nikon SE 8x32
Zeiss Victory 10x25
Leupold Wind River Mesa 10x50 (for sale)
Garrett 25x100/Bogen 501/475
Many eyepieces
|
Clive Gibbons
Mostly Harmless
Reged: 05/26/05
Posts: 10388
Loc: Oort Cloud
|
|
Quote:
Clive,
For the sake of brevity and clarity in my counterpoints, I'll pick one of the products mentioned and use that.
Meade's new plossls bear no similarity to Tele Vue's current offerings. Tele Vue offers 52-degree plossls and 60-degree Radians. For example;
Tele Vue 60-deg Radian $240
Tele Vue 52-deg plossl $89
Meade 60-deg plossl $89
I'm unclear on which you are referring to. If the Tele Vue plossl, then Meade has innovated by producing a plossl with a wider field of view. If the Radian, Meade has innovated by producing a product at 1/3 the cost.
Allister
Hi Allister.
First, let me say that I do respect your viewpoint, but just don't happen to agree with it. 
WRT the Meade "Plossl", yup they are nice eyepieces. Are they Plossl? Is there such a thing as a 5 or 6 element Plossl? TeleVue doesn't think so. I don't, either.
This isn't to say that the Meade 60-degree ocular for a reasonable price isn't a fine eyepiece.
I just don't believe that qualifies it as being innovative, or bestows Meade with that attribute.
Maybe I'm just difficult to impress, or too much of a Luddite to judge what's innovative and what isn't... 
Cheers.
--------------------
A few telescopes of dubious value.
Understanding wife and three curious cats.
"Semper ubi sub ubi"
|
LivingNDixie
Lord of Ferrets
Reged: 04/23/03
Posts: 15798
Loc: Hoover, AL
|
|
Meade has always been ahead of Celestron in designs of scopes, with that lead really pulling ahead since the LX200 came out. Celestron usually puts a better product out eventually but when they are years behind that just gives Meade more of an edge. I personally think they are very innovative when it comes to telescope designs, as for eyepieces designs, well Televue may have that one, but Meade does at least give them some competition.
As for QC, well I had to send a Pentax XW back because of dirt being between the lens. So bad QC can happen to any company, I just think people like attacking Meade more about it since they are the biggest company selling scopes.
--------------------
Preston
Celestron 11" Nexstar GPS XLT
Lunt LS60T/Ha 60mm f/8.33 (on order)
It’s not finishing something when your tank is empty that makes you a stronger person. It’s brushing yourself off and refacing the foe that defeated you with the same determination and willingness to fight that you had when you began your journey.
|
JayKSC
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 01/01/05
Posts: 753
Loc: Florida
|
|
A thought-provoking article, Allister.
I'm mixed with Meade and the company's "innovations." Their RCX line is definitely positive for the amateur community, but then I question whether this is something of a reaction to Celestron working to get their 20" model to market. Or was that vice-versa? (Sidenote: interestingly, I can't find the Celestron scope on their website this morning, maybe it was too ambitious?)
Meade's new eyepiece line is something I'm skeptical about. I will not down Meade's oculars; most of my eyepieces are older Meades and they are very good eyepieces. But the whole style of Meade's latest oculars seems almost like a gimmick. In fact, I'd say that a lot of Meade's low to medium-priced products have gone this route - evidenced by their Truss-tube dobs.
Certainly the Meade Light Bridge series is a fresh idea for dobsonian mass production, but is the design necessary for 8" aperture scopes? Maybe if one's car is a Mini like the Meade ads suggest. Somehow, the Meade Light Bridge series seems to be more about presenting an alien-looking commercial telescope to consummers. I wasn't immune to this: when I saw the Meade Light Bridge advertisements I immediately exclaimed "Oh, cool!" 
One final thought - and again, not to knock Meade in any way, I own many Meade products and have been back many times for more. I wish that Meade, and other commercial manufacturers, would spend time and money in vamping up their product quality rather than trying to bring whole new designs to the market. It would please many amateurs, I suspect, if some of the extra slop in say the Meade LXD75 mounts (or Celestron CG-5s) could be removed before shipment. From companies like Stellarvue (referencing Stellarvue's early start), I think it is self-evident that with a little effort commercial products can be greatly improved. I'd consider such improvements as being "standard" as more benefit than new, fancy looking equipment.
 Jay
KSC FL
--------------------
Refractor manic.
|
Jerry Barnett
member
Reged: 07/21/04
Posts: 32
Loc: Arlington, Washington
|
|
Great discussion and I applaud Allister for his initial posting. Here is my two cents:
As for innovation, it was Celestron Pacific that invented the technique to mass produce Schmidt corrector plates thus opening the entire SCT market to amateurs. Meade was actually the third player in this market place after Celestron and Criterion Manufacturing. The Lightbridge series of scopes was not a Meade innovation. The were designed and are produced in China and are distributed by Meade under the Lightbridge name. The are also distributed in Australia under a different moniker.
The true brilliance of Meade was to become a public entity and thus infuse enough money into their organization to become the largest and most diverse. They also have a relatively large advertising budget and do a wonderful job at marketing their products. I do not believe Meade is terribly innovative but they are certainly the largest and most glitzy. Overall, Meade is where they are today because of good business decisions and marketing rather than true product innovation.
Warm Regards,
--------------------
Jerry Barnett
Obsession 15
TAL 100R
Leupold 8x42 Porro
|
jrcrilly
Refractor wienie again
Reged: 04/30/03
Posts: 22479
Loc: NE Ohio
|
|
Quote:
Their RCX line is definitely positive for the amateur community, but then I question whether this is something of a reaction to Celestron working to get their 20" model to market. Or was that vice-versa? (Sidenote: interestingly, I can't find the Celestron scope on their website this morning, maybe it was too ambitious?)
There's no way to be certain which project was begun first, but the fact that Celestron showed their prototype 2 years ago makes me feel that their DK project was the earlier of the two. Arguably the fact that the RCX is a new design compared to Celestron's conventional DK makes it the more innovative. Celestron's DK disappeared from their website a few weeks ago, which has convinced some folks that it's been dropped.
--------------------
John C
Urban Observatory
Tele Vue Pronto
A&M/Astreya 76mm F/6 APO
TMB/LOMO 80mm F/7.5 APO
Tak FSQ-106N F/5 APO
Meade 152ED F/9 "APO"
152mm F/10 achromat
Tak CN-212 8" F/12 classical Cass/ F/4 Newt
Teeter 20" F/3.8 truss Newt w/ServoCat
LXD750, EM-200, CI-700
ST-10XME
|
JayKSC
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 01/01/05
Posts: 753
Loc: Florida
|
|
Thanks for that clarification, John.
From a business stance, I'd suggest that if Celestron were working on a large imaging scope, such would have been the impetus for Meade's RCX line. From seeing the Meade versus Celestron campaigns in the past, it seems that one always tries to outdo the other by offering some twist on the product. In the big aperture imaging scopes, I can see it as Meade deciding to go with a different optical design than Celestron. Innovation or reaction - maybe plumbing corporate documents is the only way to decide?
A related note on products and reaction rather than innovation comes from Meade's supposedly upcoming new refractor line. The market is loving the less expensive Chinese apochromats offered by SkyWatcher and Orion, and Meade's decision to go into the refractor market again suggests to me that they are reacting to an amateur astronomy demand more than anything. I think the fact that Meade is reportedly to offer "triplet" apochromats rather than the doublets sported by current less expensive apos is another keen suggestion that Meade attempts to outdo competition in some manner. If this outdoing is a reaction to competition, then I'd say it is not innovation.
Now, I won't say that competition is a bad thing... and Meade's future 5" apochromat does look to boast a very tempting price tag!!!
- Jay
KSC FL
--------------------
Refractor manic.
|
Clive Gibbons
Mostly Harmless
Reged: 05/26/05
Posts: 10388
Loc: Oort Cloud
|
|
Quote:
A thought-provoking article, Allister.
I'm mixed with Meade and the company's "innovations." Their RCX line is definitely positive for the amateur community, but then I question whether this is something of a reaction to Celestron working to get their 20" model to market.
Jay
KSC FL
Hi Jay.
Meade was probably well aware of fine reputation of true RC scopes produced by RC Optical Systems, especially amongst serious astro-imagers.
That was quite likely the inspiration for their RCX series.
--------------------
A few telescopes of dubious value.
Understanding wife and three curious cats.
"Semper ubi sub ubi"
|
CCD Hack
member
Reged: 11/10/05
Posts: 86
|
|
Is mass production using offshore dirt cheap labor innovation? What a load of rubbish. The RCX can fall under innovation but that is it. Lets run down the list......
Lightbridge....no innovation there except cheap labor. Its a dob for god's sake.
DSI/DSI-Pro/DSI-II ... again no innovation here. Just a lot of marketing hype and cheap labor. SAC Imaging (I am a little biased here) was making entry level imaging under $500 while Meade was still trying to sell the Pixtor line. Most of the innovation here came from hanging out on the QCUAIG yahoo group and web searches....
The new "APO" refractors.....hmmmm bet they are pretty much just like the other OK4/FPL53 doublets in performace and the tubes look pretty much like the others that are all over the place now. Meade does talk about a triplet...big deal. It is a proven fact that a well corrected doublet can perform as well. The triplet part is hype.
Meade is a legend in their own mind. They have a giant marketing machine that works by forcing dealers to conform to their products. They progress in the industry by taking other innovations, slapping some new paint on it and calling it "innovative". They then attempt to patient it and sue the competition out of business.
Sorry I don't agree with the op-ed piece at all. Don't get me wrong I own and use Meade products. I own a LX90. I own Meade oculars. Are they innovative?...nope. They are a good buy though and cost effective compared to other vendors.
William
Edited by CCD Hack (01/19/06 12:23 PM)
|
Joe Bergeron
Vendor - Space Art
Reged: 11/10/03
Posts: 845
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
Quote:
Meade has always been ahead of Celestron in designs of scopes, with that lead really pulling ahead since the LX200 came out.
Well, not exactly always. Celestron was selling SCTs for years while Meade was peddling small imported refractors and eyepieces. If not for Celestron, Meade would not exist in its present form. Yet that doesn't stop Meade from using every dubious means at their disposal to try to wipe Celestron from existence.
--------------------
Seven telescopes of a diverse nature.
Multiple chums glittering in the sky. New friends await.
My Web Site
English Lessons for Amateur Astronomers
|
Joe Bergeron
Vendor - Space Art
Reged: 11/10/03
Posts: 845
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
The Meade RCX is certainly not a Ritchey-Chretien. It is a modified SCT. The only reason Meade pretends otherwise is to take advantage of the RC's cachet among advanced imagers. If they could have gotten away with calling them apochromatic refractors, they probably would have. Nor are their "Plossls" Plossls. The VERNONscope Brandon is a lot more like a Plossl, yet it is not quite a Plossl, so it's called a Brandon instead. That's calling a spade a spade.
--------------------
Seven telescopes of a diverse nature.
Multiple chums glittering in the sky. New friends await.
My Web Site
English Lessons for Amateur Astronomers
|
BillFerris
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/17/04
Posts: 2582
|
|
While I agree that Meade's RX400 line of telescopes is a welcome innovation in amateur astronomy--particularly astroimaging, I have to disagree with Allister about Meade and Celestron not having a history of innovation. Celestron has introduced many innovative products over the last 40 years:
* First commercially-available SCT (1966)
* The 1970 C8, the telescope that launched the SCT revolution
* The 1979 C90, which made the MCT design available at affordable prices to amateurs
* First to commercially offer computerized telescope powered by AA batteries (1996-Ultima 2000)
* First to commercially integrate GPS into goto telescopes (2001-Nexstar GPS)
The above is not an exhaustive list but does reflect Celestron's history of innovation over the last four decades.
Meade's history doesn't go back as far. John Diebel started the company in 1972. Meade spent the remainder of the 1970's and early-1980's playing catch up with Celestron. But by the mid-1980's, Meade began a history of innovation that continues to this day:
* LX3 quartz drive with drive corrector (1984)
* 8-element, wide field eyepieces that corrected spherical aberration in longer focal lengths (1985-UWA's)
* The 1992 LX200 SCT's, the telescopes that dominated during the CCD imaging revolution of the 1990's.
* The 1994 Starfinder Dobsonians, the first mass-produced, small aperture Dobs with quality optics and accessories.
* The 1996 ETX90, a telescope offering optical quality comparable to Questar but at prices everyone could afford.
* The 1999 ETX90 "GoTo" MCT, goto technology at affordable price.
* The 2005 RCX400, Ritchey-Cretien performance priced to reach more amateur astroimagers.
Again, this is not an exhaustive list but does reflect the history of innovation at Meade, since the 1980's.
Anybody who takes the time to look into the histories of Celestron and Meade would have to agree that both companies have offered and continue to offer new and innovative products and features to the amateur astronomer. To suggest otherwise may make for a good story, but it's not an accurate portrayal.
Regards,
Bill in Flagstaff
--------------------
Grand Canyon Adventure
Lowering the Threshold
18" Obsession
4.5" Meade 4500
10x50 Swift Audubon
Cosmic Voyage
|
WebFoot
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 506
Loc: Redmond, WA, USA
|
|
Interesting article.
As a confirmed fan of Meade scopes, I was extremely excited by their announcement a year ago of the RCX line. As soon as they were out, I bought one. It's a wonderful scope; much easier to image with than my LX200.
But innovative? That's an interesting debate. Certainly, Meade broke new ground in the amateur astronomy world with the original LX200; it was years before Celestron, or anyone else, had goto scopes in any way competitive. That was innovative by any analysis.
Since then, however, I wonder whether either Celestron or Meade has been truly innovative, rather than evolutionary (in trying to keep a step ahead of the competition). The Nextar scopes were merely a belated answer to the LX200. The LX200GPS a very slight tweak of the LX200 Classic. Even the RCX400 is just an intelligent company incorporating a bunch of known improvements into their scopes, staking out the previously empty $5,000 to $10,000 market space, and filling it with a superior product (well, once the production/QC bugs get worked out).
Likewise, their other recent announcements are nice to see (assuming they don't distract Meade from the rather important job of shipping far fewer DOA scopes), but certainly not revolutionary.
So, I commend Meade. And I love competition, and sincerely hope that Celestron manages to survive and thrive. But, if "innovative" is much the same as "revolutionary," I have my doubts about whether Meade is being innovative with its new offerings in the last year or so; OTOH, if "innovative" is much the same as "aggressively evolutionary," then I have no problem giving Meade that tag. And thanking them for it.
--------------------
12" RCX400
10" LX200 Classic
Meade 102ED/LXD 650 mount
Sky90
SBIG ST-8XE/AO-7/CFW8
http://www.de-regt.com/Astronomy
|
wrather1
AstroBear
Reged: 10/25/05
Posts: 2948
Loc: Dallas, Texas
|
|
Quote:
As a confirmed fan of Meade scopes, I was extremely excited by their announcement a year ago of the RCX line. As soon as they were out, I bought one. It's a wonderful scope; much easier to image with than my LX200.
Yep, I did the same thing, with very high expectations based upon Meade's huge full-page ad campaigns in the astro-mags.
But less than 3 weeks out of the box, my RCX suffered catastrophic failure of the "new & innovative" focusing system. Over a month's time was required to resolve the problem, including sending the RCX back to Meade, having it fixed, and returned to me. Frankly, I expected far better from a $5,000+ scope.
Now that it's back and working again, I am enjoying it at last.
I think Meade has done a great job with overall design, but I believe the company has serious quality-control issues. Not just because of what happened to me, but from reading about many other similar experiences as well.
In summary, I wish Meade would spend less $$ on advertising and more $$ on customer support and quality. Then I will be willing to wave their flag again. 
--------------------
"Don't worry about what telescope you own, or its quality. Just get out under the night sky, and enjoy God's wondrous universe." - T. M. Back
Meade RCX400-12 on JMI trolley "Ursa Major"
TMB 130SS on EQ6 PRO "Ursus Polaris"
Orion ED80 "Ursa Minor", WO ZS66ED "grab-'n'-go"
Canon EOS 30D (Hutech), Meade DSI, Philips ToUcam Pro
North Texas Clear Sky Chart
|
|
1 registered and 6 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: asaint, spaceydee
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 9595
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 