Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

cats I've owned and quick ratings

  • Please log in to reply
175 replies to this topic

#1 Phil Barker

Phil Barker

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 615
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2009
  • Loc: hokitika New Zealand

Posted 13 April 2015 - 01:16 AM

Celestron 8 plus  1994 great scope fantastic optics 9/10 mechanics etc 7/10.  Beautiful startest sometimes wish I kept this scope or ota anyway! 

gave a parks 8 inch newt a run for its money.  I did serious astrophotography with this scope and a lumicon easy guider even with spur gear drive.

 

Intes mk67 delux ota only 6 inches of aperture great optics but fell short of c8 on Jupiter

great optics slow cooldown.  7.5/10

 

Intes micro 715 delux ota

fantastic on Jupiter Saturn mars beat my 5 inch D&G by a sizable margin.

limited on deepsky beautiful scope  9/10

 

Meade 8 lx200 1995ish emc

wow as good as the Celestron optically possibly better.  I recall one night on Jupiter I was stunned it kept up with a 6 inch f-8 astrophysics scope everybit as good.  pointing everything worked well.  some mirror shift.  definitely darker background better baffling and coatings than starbright celestron

optics 9/10  overall 8.5/10.

 

meade lx200 gps emc f-6.3

optics frankly poor hopeless over 150 x pointing and everything else excellent although a lot of mirrorshift.  No improvement on the version 3.34 lx200 optics 4/10 overall 6/10.  Still did some excellent ccd work with st7 where poor optics didn't seem to affect images. 

 

Celestron nexstar 11 gps

toured the universe with this scope in my backyard in a 9 foot dome.  superb all rounder optics 8/10 overall 9/10. 

 

Meade etx90ra

dim but still sharp optics 8/10 overall 6/10 mount very challenged.  Portable yes close to a friends quester great price when I got in line in 1996 ended up owning 2 of these scope and sold both after a few years. 

 

Intes micro 1008 ota

early days but stunning optics and beautiful scope overall.  optics 10/10 frankly lived up to all I expected and then some.  mechanics nbot quite as good focuser a bit stiff overall 8/10.  yes it is better than the c11 by a big margin and the 11 was no lemon.  She's a keeper and I've said that before I know.

 

who else has owned a few cats lets see what you rate them as.

 

 

be interested in what other people '

 

 

 

 


  • Scott Beith, paulsky, Jaimo! and 3 others like this

#2 rmollise

rmollise

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22855
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 13 April 2015 - 06:01 AM

Me? The optics, anyway?

 

Classic Orange Tube: 9/10.

 

Super C8: 9/10.

 

Super C8 Plus:  7/10.

 

Super Polaris C8:  8/10, 7/10 (I've had two of the OTAs).

 

Ultima C8:  8/10.

 

NexStar 11 GPS:  9/10.

 

Edge 800:  9/10


  • Achernar, SandyHouTex, Phil Barker and 1 other like this

#3 Waxing Gibbous

Waxing Gibbous

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 758
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2010
  • Loc: Victoria, Australia

Posted 13 April 2015 - 06:29 AM

I bought both of mine for lunar and planetary work, so the narrow FoV doesn't bother me.  Having said that, with a 30+mm, 70+ degree eyepiece both were /are a fantastic scope for DSOs, the 815 more so just 'cuz its bigger.  They also split doubles like nobody's business!

 

715D - 8.5 / 10
815D - 9.0 / 10


  • Scott Beith likes this

#4 Waxing Gibbous

Waxing Gibbous

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 758
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2010
  • Loc: Victoria, Australia

Posted 13 April 2015 - 07:24 AM

Oh yeah, I also had a Mewlon 210.  No complaints apart from the spikes - artefacts from the secondary holder - and the collimation screws 'squeaked!
Otherwise 8 /10.



#5 Eddgie

Eddgie

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23528
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 13 April 2015 - 08:57 AM

Celestron C65:    Make me laugh.

 

Celestron C90:    Low tech coatings.   Washed out during the day.  Not a good spotter.  C5 was better.  5/10

 

Meade ETX 90:   Topped out at 90x.  More magnification never yeilded any new detai.  3/10

 

Celestron C5:  Turned edge but still decent.  6/10

 

C5:    Excellent 9/10

 

Orion 127.   Blacker sky background than the C5.  I thought it was "Better" until I found out a couple of years ago that the apertuer was only 120mm.   The reason the sky was blacker was not because the scope was better than the C5.  It was because the scope was smaller.  Better than the first C5 by a tick, but not as good as the second C5 by a tick.  7/10

 

Intes MN56:  Excellent performance.   On par with best 4" Apos I have owend (Televue and Orion 100 f/9)  Aftermarket focuser so can['t rate it past optics, but one of the best optics I have ever owned. 10/10 optically.

 

Intes MN61.   Another scope I though was "Bettter" because the sky was blacker.  In retrospect, probably did not have very good transmission.  6/10 mechanically (Two tubes were pinned together and were failing at the seam.  "Tanks" don't use tiny pins to hold them together. 9/10 optically.  Figure was perfect, but the view was dim. 

 

In the case of the MN61 and the Orion 127, people often attribute the "Blacker" sky to "Better Contrast" and later I learned the truth.   Overall sky brightness is little affected by optical quality in general.  A severe turned edge can cause the field to wash out a tiny bit, but only if it is pretty bad.   Now, when I read a review where someone says the sky is blacker, I attribute it to transmission more than the quality of the telescope optics.  After readings Suiters book, I came to realize that optical quality and central obstruction has almost no bearing on how black the sky will appear.  In both cases, the light that is thrown from the Airy Disk falls very close to the star, and a field that is not populated well with stars that looks blacker in one scope than in another scope being used with the same exit pupil most likely has poorer transmission, and to see it easily, it much be meaninguflly lower.    All of the MCT "Sky is blacker" reviews, and the recent discovery that many of these scopes are working at reduced aperture seems to well support my on conclusion, but maybe it is just that I am being to logical, eh?

 

Same with eyepeices.  I read a review of the Meade 8.8 UWA a while back were someone praised it for excellent contrast because the sky was blacker.  In mine, I thought it was more to do with simply having low transmission.   An eyepeice test of a S4000 Meade UWA (4.8mm I think) showed it having one of the lowest eyepiece transmissions ever tested.  That sealed my belief that a "Blacker Sky" is means something is actually wrong with the scope or eyepeice, which is counter to what many reviewers say.

 

C8.   Excellent. 9/10

C8.   Excellent  9/10

 

EdgeHD 8"    Best optics of any SCT I have ever owned.  Star test was textbook.  Heck, Optically, one of the best telescopes of any type that I have ever owned.   10/10 (optical only.  Mirror shift kept it from being perfect and the corrector fogged internally after about 18 months).

 

C9.25.    Not the scope Ed Ting said it was for me anyway.  Not really noticably better than an excellent C8 on planets.  Mine had some SA. OK but no magic for me.   6/10 based on the hype this scope had when I bought it.   7/10 based on real world.  I had just read this amazing review, but when I looked though it the first time, it just did not seem to be all that much better than the C8.  Just like the math would suggest, it was closer in performance to the C8 than to the C11.  I thought the MN61 did a better job on planets.

 

NexStar 11.   Not the best optically but better than the C9.25.   Comfortable to use and I did a huge amount of observing with it.   Not the smoothest optics and a little SA.  Still a solid performer.  Got some great views of Jupiter with it, and the first scope that would regularly show me small ovals on Jupiter in good seeing.  At a star party for the close approach of Mars, it beat every refractor in the field. Not by a little bit either.  I always had a line at the eyepeice and I could here people leaving telling people arriving not to waste their time in the other lines....  8/10.  To be fair, I did not see a refractor bigger than 5", but it was no contest at all.   Mars was bright and colorfull in the NexStar 11, there was considerable detail and it was easy to see.  My best view ever of Mars but only because it was so big.

 

C14.  Very good optics, but not as good as the C8s.   Very good SA correction, very smooth optics, but a zone about half way out.  Not bad at all, but not quite as good as the C8s and the EdgeHD 8.    9/10.  Some of my best planetary views were with this scope. Yeah, I know.. No point in buying a big scope because of seeing.  But I thought that night to night, regardless of what I put next to it, I almost always got the best view of Jupiter or Saturn in the C14 for one reason even if I could not see smaller features than in nearby scopes.   Color.  Lots of color.  Jupiter and Saturn love a big aperture because the are beautifully colored planets and the color brings them alive.  My opinion and I am sticking to it.  C11 was great this way too.   Juptiter and Saturn are amazing at apertures larger than 10" even in less than great seeing because the colors are still so rich.

 

There may have been some others.    These are just the ones that come to mind. You know how it is.  Scopes come and scopes go. 


Edited by Eddgie, 13 April 2015 - 09:03 AM.

  • Achernar, Neptune, rmollise and 4 others like this

#6 Adam E

Adam E

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Edgewood, NM

Posted 13 April 2015 - 11:37 AM

I would have to say that I've had the good fortune to never own a bad CAT.

 

Edge 9.25, Edge 8, AT RC8, and an older (like 2006-ish, I think) Meade non-ACF 12inch F10 (the only one that I still have).  All have been very good scopes, though the Meade is easily beat by the Edge scopes in terms of image quality.The Meade also has a bit more mirror shift that the Edge scopes, but not bad by any means.

 

Actually contemplating one of the new truss AT RCs for long FL imaging recently.  Gotta find some overtime to work somewhere  :lol: .



#7 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 29385
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 13 April 2015 - 11:50 AM

Celestron C90:    Low tech coatings.   Washed out during the day.  Not a good spotter.  C5 was better.  5/10

 

"C5 was better."  Basically why I still have the C5 and sold the C90.  The C5 is nearly as easy for grab-n-go, has bigger aperture and better optics.   The C90 was a bit overcorrected.  Or was that undercorrected?  In any case, SA was there as could be seen when comparing the in-focus and out-focus star test.  Out went the C90.

 

Mike



#8 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 29385
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 13 April 2015 - 11:52 AM

EdgeHD 8"    Best optics of any SCT I have ever owned.  Star test was textbook.  Heck, Optically, one of the best telescopes of any type that I have ever owned.   10/10 (optical only.  Mirror shift kept it from being perfect and the corrector fogged internally after about 18 months).

 

The optics in mine are also great.  But I never saw mirror shift.  Hopefully I'll never see corrector fogging.  I have fans on the vents.  Maybe that will help.

 

Mike



#9 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 29385
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 13 April 2015 - 11:55 AM

I'm surprised nobody has rated a C6 yet.  Mine had 9.5/10 optics.  Excellent for planet/lunar.  Some scatter from the baffling that is correctable, but I never bothered with it.  I only sold mine because I bought an EdgeHD 8".  IMO, not much sense in keeping a C5, C6 and EdgeHD 8.  Out went the C6.

 

Mike



#10 Phil Barker

Phil Barker

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 615
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2009
  • Loc: hokitika New Zealand

Posted 13 April 2015 - 01:55 PM

'

Interesting comments re light transmission.  Wonder why those mak newts are often reported as being dim. what about undersize secondaries to keep obstruction down? 

 

I still think the curved meniscus reduces straylight unlike scts where its almost flat and light is being cast back on the primary unfocused.

 

The meade emc scts with the better lens coatings to my mind had a darker background.  I had the c8 and the meade 8 inch lx200 together at the same time and it was pretty obvious to me.

 

I owned one other scope that I sold  to my twin brother kev a meade 8 ota with emc and it was very good  optically I'll give it 9/10 also.  Jupiter was lovely at 200 x lots of fine detail etc.  Only owned a few weeks as I sold to buy the Mak 1008.

 

I've seen some very average meade's the old club had a very poor 12 inch lx200 that the c11 murdered on just about everything optics in another class.  Mirror shift was terrible and no where near 1/4 wave at eyepiece.

 

The meade 7 inch mak a friend owned was  very good at medium power deep sky with 2 inch eyepieces but didn't get close to the 715 on Saturn or Jupiter at high power.  Pretty sure the big obstruction caused  a bit of this 27% versus 36%..

 

Phil B



#11 rmollise

rmollise

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22855
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 13 April 2015 - 02:02 PM

 

 

Meade ETX 90:   Topped out at 90x.  More magnification never yeilded any new detai.  3/10

 

 

 

 

Sorry about that and unusual in the extreme.



#12 junomike

junomike

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 15814
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Ontario

Posted 13 April 2015 - 02:02 PM

(In order of ownership).

 

SW 8" SCT (XLT) ~ Probably just under the  diffraction limited threshold.  Worst SCT I've ever owned (although I wasn't terrible).

 

Apex 127 ~ Decent for size. no complaints.

 

AT6M ~ Optically and mechanically sound!  Definitely one of my better Maks. Should have kept this one!

 

Intes M703D ~ Optically excellent, but didn't think it was anything special on Planets.  Sold due to similar Planetary Images as AT111EDT.  The purple/green coatings  made Lunar Detail stick out, but not also added color (brown, green, blue)..

 

Meade 10 ACF ~ Optically/Mechanically excellent! Probably my best SCT to date. Only sold it as a Fork Mount C11 dropped on my lap and I preferred It over the GEM.

 

NS11GPS (C11 Starbright) ~ Optically good/great w/minimal Image shift.Slight yellow tone on Moon (due to Starbright coatings).  Still one of my most used SCT's.

 

C14 XLT ~ Optically good/great with strong Image shift (corrected with a FT Micro).  No complains otherwise.  When the Big Globulars make an appearance in the spring, this comes out to play!

 

8" EdgeHD ~ Optically excellent with minimal Image shift (OEM Focuser is fine). Seems to have the "purity" of Lunar Images seen in a Mak.

This easily meets or exceeds my Intes M703D costing 3X as much.

 

Mike



#13 SteveSMS

SteveSMS

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 29 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Jersey Shore USA

Posted 13 April 2015 - 02:45 PM

1. MN56 that was every bit the equal of my all original Vixen FL102S both mechanically and optically.

 

2. LOMO 5" Mak that was optically as good as anything I've ever had but slow to reach thermal equilibrium.

 

3. TEC6 that was just about perfect in every way. Stupidly traded for a Tak FS102 that I later sold.

 

4. Orion 127, Orion 102, Meade ETX 90 all about equal with decent optics and passable mechanics.

 

5. Nexstar 9.25 GPS carbon fiber tube that was optically and mechanically excellent. I did not like the long wait for cool down.

 

6. Meade 6" SCT OTA that is surprisingly good both optically and mechanically. Still have it.

 

7. Edge HD 8 that is MUCH better than I had even hoped it would be. It has Tempest fans and an FT focuser. Great scope!

 

Clear Skies,

 

Steve


Edited by SteveSMS, 13 April 2015 - 02:47 PM.


#14 WebFoot

WebFoot

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1532
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2005
  • Loc: Redmond, WA, USA

Posted 13 April 2015 - 03:31 PM

In order of acquisition:

 

1.  10" LX200, bought in 1998.  Wonderful scope, with excellent mechanics and optics.  I started imaging with this scope, with nice success.

2.  ETX90.  Piece of junk; the less said the better.

3.  12" RCX400.  Great optics; great concept; ultimately flawed implementation, with too much electronics that were poorly designed and poorly chosen.

4.  14.5" RC Optical Systems Ritchey-Chretien carbon truss with ion-milled optics.  Word are inadequate to describe this spectacular instrument.

5.  10" LX200 OTA.  Nice piece of equipment for the price and the intended use (outreach)

6.  11" EdgeHD OTA.  Very, very nice optical tube, optically and mechanically.

 

Mark



#15 Jeffmar

Jeffmar

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 488
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2012
  • Loc: salt lake city, utah

Posted 13 April 2015 - 03:56 PM

Orion 127mm mac- 8/10 optics, 7/10 for utility. Decent optics, no color fringe, too much focal length and cool down time is a bit long for a small scope.

                                

Meade f/6.3 lx200- 8/10 for optics for the center 1/3 of the field. Overall 6/10. Lots and lots distortion off center without a good field flattener. The Baader corrector is helping a lot so far. I like using it for visual. Wide fields.

 

Celestron C11 mid 1980's- 8/10 optics. Coatings and mirrors give a very noticeably darker image than the xlt scopes. Focusing is like herding cats. There is a lot of play in the innards of the scope and some mirror flop is evident. It was a great scope for me for 14 years.

                                          .

 

Celestron c11 edge 2015- 10/10 optics. Moon and Jupiter views are the best I have ever seen in any scope. The  Images are very bright compared to my old c11. Focusing is very tight and I have yet to experience mirror flop. I have had the scope out a few dozen times in  my back yard and once at a star party. So far I can't find anything wrong with it but adaptive optics would be nice. Definitely a keeper.


Edited by Jeffmar, 13 April 2015 - 09:06 PM.

  • JGass likes this

#16 turtle86

turtle86

    Mr. Coffee

  • *****
  • Posts: 4970
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posted 13 April 2015 - 04:05 PM

1. 8" LX200 Classic bought used in 2000. Great scope with excellent optics and precise go-tos. Sold when I upgraded to a 12" LX200 Classic.

2. 12" LX200 Classic bought new in 2002. Another great scope with excellent optics and precise go-tos. Sold when I wanted even more aperture and got an 18" Starmaster.

3. 8" LX200 Classic bought used in 2002; it had been supercharged by Dr. Clay. I bought this once I realized that the 12" LX200 Classic wasn't as portable as I would've liked. If anything, even better than my first 8" LX200. Optically, it can't match the Zambuto mirrors in my Starmasters, but it puts up great views when the mirror cools and the collimation is dialed in. It's an excellent scope and I plan on keeping it for the time being.

Edited by turtle86, 13 April 2015 - 04:11 PM.


#17 Markab

Markab

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 658
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2012
  • Loc: Kansas City USA

Posted 13 April 2015 - 05:02 PM

Celestron C90 Japan uncoated spotting scope (1988)...3/10...lots of ghosting w/o the coatings, very little if any detail on a huge Mars in fall 1988.

 

Meade 2045D (1991)...7/10. Some quirky mechanics but overall not a bad scope. Secondary obstruction I believe was larger than most SCTs, on the order of a full 40%. This gave planets a gauzy look. Drive and integrated hardware pretty good and very compact.

 

Celestron CPC1100 China (2010)...5/10.  Images obviously bright but could never get mine to show a lot of contrast on planets even with it perfectly aligned and using a variety of filters. Still beat my AP Traveler handily however on planetary detail.

 

Celestron Ultima 8 USA (1991)...9/10. An outstanding SCT. Best, sturdiest fork mount ever made for any SCT with a dampening time under 1 sec at 200x. Detail much better on planets than the Chinese CPC1100, although obviously not quite as bright. An absolute bargain on the used market if you don't need fancy GPS.


  • Magnitude7 likes this

#18 Guest_djhanson_*

Guest_djhanson_*
  • -----

Posted 13 April 2015 - 06:11 PM

My ratings of past and presents Cats and Cass's.

Celestron C8 (1982) - 8/10.  8" f/10 SCT
=>Great scope...but aperature lite for my tastes now:D


Celestron C11 (1984) - 7/10.  11" f/10 SCT
=>This scope had been muchly abused by previous owners (OTA torn apart/drilled into a few times).


Celestron C14HD (2014) - 9/10.  14" f/11 SCT

=>Great scope...other than typical SCT thermal cool-down issues.


CFF 350F17CC (2015) - 9.5/10.  14" f/17 Classical Cassegrain

=>yeh I shouldn't rate it yet since it's in the process of being built, but for my planetary imaging needs, I do expect it to best my beloved C14HD (open truss, longer FL, smaller CO%, no corrector).

 

cheers, dj



#19 Bill Barlow

Bill Barlow

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4216
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Overland Park KS

Posted 13 April 2015 - 08:07 PM

I have owned several SCT's and MCT'S...so here goes..

 

1.  C6 2007.  My first telescope after a long break from amateur astronomy.  Very sharp optics and very portable.  Sold to move up in aperture.

 

2.  Meade LXD75 SCT 2008.  Very sharp optics..some of the best I have viewed through in a SCT without the ACF optics. Sold to get larger aperture.

 

3. C11 gray tube 2009.  Optics were okay, nothing special.  Sold to get larger aperture (notice a pattern here?)

 

4. Meade 12" ACF 2010.  Very sharp optics, but sold due to weight.

 

5. C9.25 from Company 7 2011.  Excellent optics..very portable

 

6. Meade 10" ACF 2012.  OPT was having a sale on this scope, so I bought one and compared it to the C9.25 side by side a few times.  Sold the C9.25

 

7. C14 gray tube 2013.  Bought to observe distant faint fuzzies like the Hickson's, Arp's and Abell galaxy groups.  Excellent deep sky scope with decent optics.

    But heavy!

 

8. Meade LX200R 8" 2013 .  Probably the best optics I have observed through at the time, lots of detail on Jupiter that I never observed before.

 

9. C8 2014. Compared it side by side a few times with the Meade 8R, then sold the C8.

 

10.  Meade LXD75 white 8" ACF 2014.  Found this scope as was always attracted to the white glossy paint finish.  This one also has excellent/sharp optics,

       slightly better than the 8R?, but that is still an ongoing evaluation.  Can't keep both.

 

MCT's..

 

1.  I-M M503 2010.  Very sharp and portable, but sold it to gain more aperture.

 

2.  I-M M6511 2012.  Excellent optics..very sharp and still portable.  Sold it to acquire a M703..bad move!

 

3. I-M M703 2013.  Optics good,  but not as sharp as the M6511.   The Meade 8R beat it out most nights, so sold it.

 

So there it is..I guess you can tell I like observing through SCT's and MCT's.  Hope to own a TEC 6 f/12 MCT one day and another C11 with excellent optics when the C14 becomes too heavy.

 

Bill


Edited by Bill Barlow, 13 April 2015 - 08:14 PM.


#20 junomike

junomike

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 15814
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Ontario

Posted 13 April 2015 - 08:10 PM

I have owned several SCT's and MCT'S...so here goes..

 

1.  C6 2007.  My first telescope after a long break from amateur astronomy.  Very sharp optics and very portable.  Sold to move up in aperture.

 

2.  Meade LXD75 SCT 2008.  Very sharp optics..some of the best I have viewed through in a SCT without the ACF optics. Sold to get larger aperture.

 

3. C11 gray tube 2009.  Optics were okay, nothing special.  Sold to get larger aperture (notice a pattern here?)

 

4. Meade 12" ACF 2010.  Very sharp optics, but sold due to weight.

 

5. C9.25 from Company 7 2011.  Excellent optics..very portable

 

6. Meade 10" ACF 2012.  OPT was having a sale on this scope, so I bought one and compared it to the C9.25 side by side a few times.  Sold the C9.25

 

7. C14 gray tube 2013.  Bought to observe distant faint fuzzies like the Hickson's, Arp's and Abell galaxy groups.  Excellent deep sky scope with decent optics. But heavy!

 

8. Meade LX200R 8" 2013 .  Probably the best optics I have observed through at the time, lots of detail on Jupiter that I never observed before.

 

9. C8 2014. Compared it side by side a few times with the Meade 8R, then sold the C8.

 

10.  Meade LXD75 white 8" ACF 2014.  Found this scope as was always attracted to the white glossy paint finish.  This one also has excellent/sharp optics, slightly better than the 

       8R?, but that is still an ongoing evaluation.

 

MCT's..

 

1.  I-M M503 2010.  Very sharp and portable, but sold it to gain more aperture.

 

2.  I-M M6511 2012.  Excellent optics..very sharp and still portable.  Sold it to acquire a M703..bad move!

 

3. I-M M703 2013.  Optics good,  but not as sharp as the M6511.   The Meade 8R beat it out most nights, so sold it.

 

So there it is..I guess you can tell I like observing through SCT's and MCT's.  Hope to own a TEC 6 f/12 MCT one day and another C11 with excellent optics when the C14 becomes too heavy.

 

Bill

Bill my M703D was IMO nothing special either and probably my biggest disappointment in Astro-gear to date.

 

Mike



#21 Ed Holland

Ed Holland

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 9009
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2010
  • Loc: San Jose, CA and Oxford, UK

Posted 13 April 2015 - 09:39 PM

Orion 118mm: Great optics (though not the advertised 127mm as we later discovered at length ;)). Some mechanical issues, eventually resolved. Thermal issues not too bothersome at our location. Also handy for travel.

 

C8 of uncertain vintage (possibly late 80s): Again mechanical issues, plus it was almost wrecked in shipping, but very nice optically. Very stable collimation since modification of the plastic secondary holder - initially due to adjustment difficulties.. My best planetary scope when that great limiter of all things, the seeing, cooperates.



#22 Ed Wiley

Ed Wiley

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
  • Joined: 18 May 2005
  • Loc: Texas, USA

Posted 13 April 2015 - 10:26 PM

Hope you don't mind a couple of SNs thrown in. I couldn't help myself. :)

 

Meade 8" SCT EMC good optics once I got it collimated. GEM mounted. SOld severa years ago. 8/10.

 

Celectron C11 Edge. 11/10 for optics. Another Moonlite Crawford stuck on the back. I like everthing about this scope.

 

Non SCT Cats

 

Meade 8" SN. Butt-ugly used scope I purchased, hand painted by someone unknown, big ugly hole where one of the previous owners tried to mount a cheap Crayford, Beautiful optics.I still have this one. GEM mounted with Moonlite focuser (stock focus unit useless). I don't mind butt-ugly if the optics are excellent. My main photometry OTA. 10/10 for optics, 2/10 for looks.

 

Meade 6" SN. Better looking, GEM-mounted with Moonlite (think $60 saddle, $10 horse). Beautiful little astrograph. 9/10 for optics. Stock focus unit sucked.

 

BTW, I only have two GEMs and switch tubes.

 

Ed



#23 Cotts

Cotts

    Just Wondering

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 9332
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Madoc, Ontario

Posted 13 April 2015 - 10:30 PM

Meade 10" from 1980's.   Dreck.  4/10 ???   During the really good Mars opposition in 1988 My friend's Televue Genesis, 4", always gave more detail and contrast. Most views of Mars through the Meade were of a featureless orange ball.... Apparently it was a 'Halley's Comet' scope which was NOT a good era for high quality optics...

 

Takahashi CN 212 convertible Cassegrain/Newtonian.  Good 8/10 optics. Excellent idea.   But very thick spider vanes (around 3mm thick) wreaked havoc on the contrast of planets and put huge 'double spikes' on bright stars.

 

Intes 6" f/8 Mak Newt.  10/10 optics.  Always was the exact equal of a 1988 6" f/8 AstroPhysics triplet APO for both resolution and contrast.  Very small diagonal (16%) was the reason  for the excellent contrast and the cause of its only downfall - poor full-field illumination at low power.

 

Intes 8" f/10 MakCass.  9/10 Optics.  Very good contrast and superb resolution.

 

TEC 8" f/15 Mak Cass.  10/10 optics.  My current scope.  Planetary and double star killer.  Currently providing astonishing double star measurement accuracy through lucky imaging.

 

Dave
 



#24 TG

TG

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2262
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Latitude 47

Posted 14 April 2015 - 12:43 AM

In the order that I acquired them:

 

C9.25: 8/10. Measured 1/6 wave, 1/30 RMS on Roddier. Got me started in planetary imaging and produced superb images. Not as contrasty as s 5" f/15 D&G refractor but close. Performance improved dramatically when I added two fans and two vents to it.

 

Takahashi TSC 225: 8/10 optics, very close to the C9.25. Startlingly "bad" star test but dead straight Ronchi lines. Older coatings caused light loss and caused it to give significantly dimmer views than C9.25. Gorgeous construction, superb finder, came with fan.

 

Orion Argonaut/MN61: Very good optics but plagued by astigmatism from a misaligned focuser. Taught me that Newtonian collimation procedures don't exactly apply to Mak-Newts due to the aperture stop being at the corrector rather than at the mirror.

 

NexStar NS11: 6/10. Taught me the meaning of field curvature, mediocre optics Terrific mount.

 

Intes Micro MN66: 10/10 Quartz mirror, certified to 1/10 wave. Almost matched a 5" f/15 D&G on Mars. Very versatile scope, showed me the best ever view of M42.

 

C11 EdgeHD: 9.5/10. Superb optics. With added fans and a Reflectix blanket, it equaled a 7" AP apo. Terrific, sharp flat field.

 

Jovian 4" SCT: 7/10 optics. Too small to use as an astro scope so it's my primary spotter.

 

Orion Argonaut/MK66: Measured 1/8 wave, 1/50 RMS. Dim mirrors gives it only a 8/10 rating. Superb lunar machine.

 

TEC 6": From the star test you'd think it's a 1/2 wave optic but it's actually 1/50 wave RMS. 29% CO. Top of the line coatings. Nothing to complain about except the cost. 10/10.

 

Intes Micro, 160mm f/5.5: Appears to be slightly larger but faster brother of my previous MN66 with the same 1/10 wave optics and quartz mirror. Versatile and sharp. 10/10.


  • Phil Barker likes this

#25 SteveSMS

SteveSMS

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 29 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Jersey Shore USA

Posted 14 April 2015 - 06:34 AM

So far, it looks as though TEC Mak and Celestron Edge owners are generally happy campers.




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics