Posted 17 October 2005 - 10:28 AM
Posted 17 October 2005 - 10:44 AM
Posted 17 October 2005 - 11:53 PM
If you can get one in good shape for a reasonable price, I'd jump on it. Selling mine was one of the dumbest things I ever did. And I do dumb things on a very, very regular basis.....
Posted 18 October 2005 - 09:34 AM
I believe that Celestron produced a couple of different versions of the C8 with the Ultima moniker. The Ultima 2000 which was computerized and the Ultima 8 PEC (not sure if PEC is officially part of the name or not) which is the model Rob is referring to with the larger forks and Byers drive. IIRC, the 2000 had a grey tube.
Which version are you considering purchasing?
Posted 18 October 2005 - 10:33 AM
Posted 21 October 2005 - 06:40 AM
If you are refering to the Ultima-2000 the both Uncle Rod and Sky & Telescope say that it is a virtual dead heat between the Celestron 8" Ultima-2000 and the Meade 8" LX-200. S&T felt that Celestron had better optics, but the Meade had slightly better goto's. Comparing all the two across a long list the 8" Ultima-2000 bested the 8" LX-200 as many times as the 8" LX-200 bested the 8" Ultima-2000. Tangent instruments built the electronics in the Ultima-2000 for Celestron. You may recognize the name as Tangent makes the electronics for almost all DSC made
Posted 21 October 2005 - 09:01 AM
Bouncier Is that like the Meade LX-6 perpetual motion tuning fork The Ultima-8 PEC was Celestron's top of the line SCT. When combined with a top of the line tripod/wedge it was/is very sturdy and stable. Since it had the Byers gears it had very low PE.
I did mention that it would track as well as most current gear. Compared to some other forkmounts of the era it was pretty solid but the question was in comparison with current gear. Have you tried a Nexstar 8GPS or an 8" LX200? I have; those are beefier.
Tangent made both the Ultima and the Ultima 2000 electronics and yes, they are still around supplying private-labelled DSC boxes - but there's little or no support for the obsolete boards produced for Celestron. I know our Club is getting ready to dispose of an Ultima 8 with one bad board and one unsuitable board that was as close as Tangent could come to a replacement. The Sky Commander and Argo Navis units seem to have pretty much taken over the DSC market; I haven't seen many new Tangent DSC boxes in use lately.
I dunno what happened to the Ultima 2000; they never achieved any significant market penetration yet some folks still use and love them so they must have been pretty good.
Posted 21 October 2005 - 09:20 AM
Posted 21 October 2005 - 09:50 AM
The castings for the base and forks on the LX-6 are as large or larger than the LX-200. The Nexstar-8GPS seems to be a beefier more solid scope than the LX-200GPS. At the starparties I've been to as of late Nexstar's seem to be an all around better product than the LX-200.
Regarding the LX200 v. earlier forkmounts I don't have the same feeling that you do; the LX50 and LX200 forks seem much more stable to me than the LX-3's and LX-5's. I haven't owned an LX-6 but I believe it's the same mechanically as the LX-5. I agree that the NX8GPS is even better than the 8" LX200 in this regard. Regarding overall quality I can't choose a clear winner; I've owned several NX8GPS telescopes and several LX200GPS telescopes and I liked them all and all worked well for me.
Posted 21 October 2005 - 10:02 AM
Consider that Peterson engineering exists only as a supplier of parts to replace the poorly engineered or miss designed parts in the LX-200. I don't see many ads for electronics repair services for the Nexstar, but there is one for LX-200 and it is not because there are more LX-200's out there they just have more problems
It's a matter of opinion; neither company is sharing those figures so we can't be sure. My presumption that the force driving this difference in aftermarket support is a matter of relative quantity rather than a qualitative difference is based on the fact that Meade had the market to themselves for nearly 10 years and must have pushed a raft of product out during that period; there are LOTS of Classic LX200's out there. Even today, with Celestron offering a clearly competitive product, their domestic manufacturing capacity is far smaller than Meade's. They could fix that by shipping SCT production overseas but I hope they don't; I like their products as they are.
Posted 21 October 2005 - 10:46 AM
If used in the vertical alt-az mode, todays dual arm SCTs are very stable and vibrationless. The single-arm C8i from Celestron, though, is a vibrator for sure (I've seen 15+ second vibration periods).
And if any of these contemporary scopes is mounted on a truly heavy-duty wedge (like the Milburn), then vibration really isn't an issue.
There are combinations of SCT and mount that are somewhat questionable, though, like a C11 on the ASGT mount.
Posted 21 October 2005 - 08:14 PM
Posted 26 October 2005 - 08:44 AM