46 replies to this topic

[billmagann]

I have a 15 year old Celestron 11" NexStar GPS, and frankly it is starting to show it's age. I am starting to consider replacing it with something in the same aperture range, so the Meade LX600 10" and 12" seem like logical scopes to look at. (I realize that despite the similar apertures the LX600's are much heavier than the 11" GPS.) I enjoy doing EAA, so the self guiding ability of the LX600 would make that a snap. 

 

I have seen that the LX600 had some teething issues. Have they been overcome? Does the tracking work as advertised now? I could of course replace the C11 with a new C11 CPC and save $1000+, but the auto-guiding of the LX600 intrigues me.

 

 

 

 

[AF7JQ]

Hello,

I've had my LX600 12" for about 6 months now...had some teething pains...some not overcome, but worked around! First one had an intermittent sensor control board. Meade took it back and sent a new one. We had problems getting the shipping arranged though, The scope is very heavy (160lbs packed), and because we are very rural UPS couldn't handle the shipping...had to come by semi truck. The second one works great with a wedge. The F/8 ACF optics are much brighter than my friends F/10 12", but the ACF means your reducer most likely will not work if it is a reducer/corrector. I use the Optec Lepus .62 reducer. With no computer connected, a well aligned scope will put your target in the eyepiece all most every time. I think there are some corrupted object data in the Meade database for more than a few targets....

Any way, when you chose a target the scope will slew to a bright star nearby, center the starlock scope on it, then go to your target. Once there starlock will engage and keep the scope on target. Once you have figured out the quirks starlock really does work pretty good. For EAA with computer control, however, you will have some problems. Meade does not support drivers for the scope. They told me "WE BUILD TELESCOPES, NOT DRIVERS. SOMEONE ELSE WILL HAVE TO WRITE A DRIVER". Hey MEADE...how is your market share doing??????

Any way, there is a driver that SORTA works, and will allow you to be able to plate solve close, (but not perfect). The LX200 GPS driver is the only one that will work...and it's for a 20 (?) year old scope. The LX200GPS ASCOM driver has most of the settings you need for computer control but is lacking the most important one...doesn't allow software nudge. Scope has the capability, but it's not turned on in the driver. This means if you are trying to plate solve to a target and center your target the driver can only send SLEW commands instead of NUDGE to the scope. SLEW commands are way too coarse and the target will overshoot back and forth. You have to set the pixel error really high so that the target is always in the camera frame, but may not be exactly centered. Once you manually frame the target with the handset starlock will keep it there. I came really close to de-forking the OTA and going with a GEM mount because of the driver issue. I'll never be able to remote or automate imaging sessions without a fully functional driver, but in the end, because of the optics, and pretty good tracking it's still here. Still hoping to find a programmer who can fix the driver...just two small changes to the existing driver, and it would fix things. If you end up getting the LX600 you'll like it...unless you want to automate it. For everything else the scope is pretty impressive.

Be happy to answer any questions you have!!!

Here is a sample of how well the starlock guiding works...

 

 

[OzAndrewJ]

Gday AF7JQ

 

but is lacking the most important one...doesn't allow software nudge. Scope has the capability, but it's not turned on in the driver.

Not 100% sure what you mean here????

There is no true "Nudge" command ( that i can see ) in the LX850 or 600s firmware.

There is a new serial port multiaxis move command :Ma that allows you to send a delta in arcsecs for the RA and DEC to move, but all it does internally is set the target RA/DEC to current + delta, then do a normal goto, ie it can still end up quite a ways off target depending on when the last encoder read gets done. ( The goto is happy when it is within 30arcsec from target with an :Ma )

A better method for precision nudges would be to do pulseguides of a set time.

 

Andrew Johansen Melbourne Australia

[billmagann]

If it can make 20 to 30 second exposures in ALT/AZ mode at f/5 without smearing the stars, I would be happy! My C 11 is often only capable of making 15 second exposures at f/3.7. Longer than that, or even at that length at f/6.3, and my software starts rejecting the images, and that is in the good areas of the sky for making ALT/AZ exposures.

 

I was planning on adding the Optec Lepus focal reducer, so I'm glad to hear that you like it.

 

There sure aren't a lot of reviews or even comments about these scopes, are there?

[AF7JQ]

Hi Andrew...enjoy reading your posts!

 I am using Sequence Generator Pro for my imaging software. Once the ASCOM driver is connected and I bring up the control panel module for the telescope the software nudge controls are greyed out and not available. However if I use the ASCOM POTH driver and select the LX200gps driver within POTH there is an additional handset controller that comes up that does have nudge capabilities. You can nudge the scope in very tiny amounts. The SGP control panel will still have the controls greyed out though. This is why I think the scope has the capability but isn't enabled in the driver. I have tried using the target offset, and telescope offset commands in SGP which should be using the delta differences to target, but they don't seem to work any differently. The only way around the coarse final movements of the plate solving I have found is to set the pixel offset error to something like 600...the default is 50! Then the target is pretty close to center, but not quite there. When I look at the settings inside the POTH driver the pulse guiding option is enabled with the LX200GPS driver...I still think if the nudge controls were active in the SGP control panel the plate solving would work and be able to center the target. If you don't see that option in the firmware how is the POTH control working to be able to nudge to such a fine degree? Confused!!!! The multiaxis command you mentioned may be in the firmware and is what we need for fine software control, but I don't know if the LX200GPS driver supports it, and there aren't any other drivers I can try. The Universal Meade driver mentions it has LX600 functionality but is worthless...doesn't have half the functionality that the LX200GPS driver has, and won't allow plate solving at all.

Always looking for a way to automate this scope....but options are getting more and more limited.....

Thanks,

John

[AF7JQ]

BILLMAGANN....

 

When I had the scope in ALT/AZ I could take images up to about 3 minutes. The stars didn't smear at all, but you begun to see rotation in the entire image. I use Deep Sky Stacker and it would handle the rotation ok and still stack, but you have to start cropping the images too much if you imaged any longer than about 2 minutes. With the long focal length you can see the image scale for M51. Cropping out the stacking artifacts starts eating away at the image. The guiding works great in ALT/AZ, but a wedge really makes the starlock guiding shine. You can polar align and set the PEC using the starlock too!

John

[OzAndrewJ]

Gday John

I think we need to define "Nudge" here

I have no idea what "Nudge" means in ASCOM/POTH speak,

as ASCOM merely describes a standard interface for an end result,

not the mechanism used.

For a Meade mount, there are many ways to do a "nudge"/"dither",

and here are  4 methods at least

1) pulseguide

2) controlled ST4

3) controlled slew

4) short goto ( 2 methods )

As such, the developer of POTH may have made up their own implementation

of a nudge ( if it is not in the std driver),

then used one of the above std driver commands to do it,

whereas SGP only has access to the std driver???  dunno.

If you can, ( when the skies are rotten or during the day )

connect via POTH and do a dummy align to get tracking,

then turn on tracing/logging, and do a "nudge".

That will tell us what gets sent to the mount.

 

Andrew Johansen Melbourne Australia

[rmollise]

I have a 15 year old Celestron 11" NexStar GPS, and frankly it is starting to show it's age. I am starting to consider replacing it with something in the same aperture range, so the Meade LX600 10" and 12" seem like logical scopes to look at. (I realize that despite the similar apertures the LX600's are much heavier than the 11" GPS.) I enjoy doing EAA, so the self guiding ability of the LX600 would make that a snap. 

 

I have seen that the LX600 had some teething issues. Have they been overcome? Does the tracking work as advertised now? I could of course replace the C11 with a new C11 CPC and save $1000+, but the auto-guiding of the LX600 intrigues me.

 

If I were into E.A.A. (well, actually I still am), this would be the last scope I'd choose. I was never tempted to guide during the short exposures usually required by video. If I did want to guide and use longer exposures, this still wouldn't be my choice. Even the ten is big, heavy, complicated, and expensive. And don't forget to budget for a large wedge.

 

If I wanted to guide, I'd buy a GEM and put the C11 on it. If I didn't want to guide and/or wanted to stick with fork mounts, I'd get a new CPC or CPC Deluxe or a new Meade LX200. 

[billmagann]

Thanks for all the input. I have a lot to think about!

[Spacetravelerx]

I will chime in...and yes, I am a little biased as Meade Brand Ambassador....

For E.A.A. and video astronomy, guiding is overkill, however StarLock does provide these key benefits related to E.A.A.:

-- High Precision Pointing (HPP).  I am very pleased with this - targeting down to 1'.  Here is a demo video I made on it...https://www.youtube....h?v=7826NcjdhS4

-- Not only easy align but also auto drift align 

For longer exposure imaging, StarLock is NOT complicated and removes the computer and all the extra cables and software for the process. Other key benefits:

-- Auto PE training

-- Accurate guiding to 1".   I have found doing 1 train plus three updates to the automatic training does the trick.

The Optec Lepus works great with the f/8 ACF.  However if you get the MalliCam X2 or extreme paired with their reducer you will be down to f/4 with the ACF!

There is no comparison with the Celestron and Meade Focusers - the Meade f/8 has no problems with image shift and mirror flop.

Again, though I run the LX850, I have not found it to be complicated to use and setup at all.  It is about as easy peazy as it can get.  My typical evening, which would be the same for the LX600:

-- remove covers
-- Turn on LX850
-- Goto a bright target
-- Autorate calibration
-- View, take pictures, explore

-- Park scope
-- put on covers

No extra computer is required for PE training, alignment or guiding.

I am now trying in the Prima Luce Labs Eagle 2 with the telescope.  I am currently using this for imaging control and power management.  Soon I will be using it for gotos - yes, I am taking sky safari out of the loop soon.  I am finding the Eagle 2 to be extremely robust and reliable.

[akulapanam]

Meade needs a reducer that can cover a full frame or at least APS-H.  The Celestron product is just so compelling with a full frame reducer and numerous after market imaging add-ons.

[rmollise]

I will chime in...and yes, I am a little biased as Meade Brand Ambassador....

For E.A.A. and video astronomy, guiding is overkill, however StarLock does provide these key benefits related to E.A.A.:

-- High Precision Pointing (HPP).  I am very pleased with this - targeting down to 1'.  Here is a demo video I made on it...https://www.youtube....h?v=7826NcjdhS4

-- Not only easy align but also auto drift align 

For longer exposure imaging, StarLock is NOT complicated and removes the computer and all the extra cables and software for the process. Other key benefits:

-- Auto PE training

-- Accurate guiding to 1".   I have found doing 1 train plus three updates to the automatic training does the trick.

The Optec Lepus works great with the f/8 ACF.  However if you get the MalliCam X2 or extreme paired with their reducer you will be down to f/4 with the ACF!

There is no comparison with the Celestron and Meade Focusers - the Meade f/8 has no problems with image shift and mirror flop.

Again, though I run the LX850, I have not found it to be complicated to use and setup at all.  It is about as easy peazy as it can get.  My typical evening, which would be the same for the LX600:

-- remove covers
-- Turn on LX850
-- Goto a bright target
-- Autorate calibration
-- View, take pictures, explore

-- Park scope
-- put on covers

No extra computer is required for PE training, alignment or guiding.

I am now trying in the Prima Luce Labs Eagle 2 with the telescope.  I am currently using this for imaging control and power management.  Soon I will be using it for gotos - yes, I am taking sky safari out of the loop soon.  I am finding the Eagle 2 to be extremely robust and reliable.

 

It's not that Starlock is terribly complicated to use, it's that IMHO, the whole system is complex and sort of flies in the face of what EAA is all about.

 

For EAA you don't need all that stuff to produce pointing more than sufficient to put objects on the chip. The Celestrons will most assuredly do it. So will the LX200.

 

For longer exposures? It's a nice enough idea, but I want to choose my own guider/guide software/guide camera. Now, for some folks this might be a comfortable setup--no computer, nothing else to buy. Unfortunately the reports I've had on it make me question the consistency of results. Including from one night to the next. Are these reports wrong?

Edited by rmollise, 26 May 2018 - 04:35 PM.

[Bill Barlow]

Hello,

I've had my LX600 12" for about 6 months now...had some teething pains...some not overcome, but worked around! First one had an intermittent sensor control board. Meade took it back and sent a new one. We had problems getting the shipping arranged though, The scope is very heavy (160lbs packed), and because we are very rural UPS couldn't handle the shipping...had to come by semi truck. The second one works great with a wedge. The F/8 ACF optics are much brighter than my friends F/10 12", but the ACF means your reducer most likely will not work if it is a reducer/corrector. I use the Optec Lepus .62 reducer. With no computer connected, a well aligned scope will put your target in the eyepiece all most every time. I think there are some corrupted object data in the Meade database for more than a few targets....

Any way, when you chose a target the scope will slew to a bright star nearby, center the starlock scope on it, then go to your target. Once there starlock will engage and keep the scope on target. Once you have figured out the quirks starlock really does work pretty good. For EAA with computer control, however, you will have some problems. Meade does not support drivers for the scope. They told me "WE BUILD TELESCOPES, NOT DRIVERS. SOMEONE ELSE WILL HAVE TO WRITE A DRIVER". Hey MEADE...how is your market share doing??????

Any way, there is a driver that SORTA works, and will allow you to be able to plate solve close, (but not perfect). The LX200 GPS driver is the only one that will work...and it's for a 20 (?) year old scope. The LX200GPS ASCOM driver has most of the settings you need for computer control but is lacking the most important one...doesn't allow software nudge. Scope has the capability, but it's not turned on in the driver. This means if you are trying to plate solve to a target and center your target the driver can only send SLEW commands instead of NUDGE to the scope. SLEW commands are way too coarse and the target will overshoot back and forth. You have to set the pixel error really high so that the target is always in the camera frame, but may not be exactly centered. Once you manually frame the target with the handset starlock will keep it there. I came really close to de-forking the OTA and going with a GEM mount because of the driver issue. I'll never be able to remote or automate imaging sessions without a fully functional driver, but in the end, because of the optics, and pretty good tracking it's still here. Still hoping to find a programmer who can fix the driver...just two small changes to the existing driver, and it would fix things. If you end up getting the LX600 you'll like it...unless you want to automate it. For everything else the scope is pretty impressive.

Be happy to answer any questions you have!!!

Here is a sample of how well the starlock guiding works...

 

m51_default settings.jpg

Why was your f/8 12" brighter than your friends f/10 12"?  Did your friends 12" f/10 have the UHTC coatings or the older EMC coatings?  I would think at similar magnifications/exit pupils they would be about the same brightness.  

 

Bill

[AF7JQ]

The F/8 gathers almost 2x the light that a F/10. Both scopes have the UHTC coatings and the same aperature...the F ratio makes all the difference. You can see the difference both visually and imaging.

John

[AF7JQ]

rmollise...

 

Any guiding system will operate different from night to night, and even through out the same night, even starlock. Atmospherics and seeing are always changing. The starlock works great...turn the scope on, run Auto Rate Cal and forget about it. Takes about 3 minutes to run the ARC. I've found I can manually set things even quicker by watching the rate changes on the handset. Pulses too big, one sided, or changing positive to negative too fast...change the guide rate accordingly. That takes about a minute. I usually check the guide rates a couple times during a long imaging session at the same times as I refocus due to temperature changes. The whole process takes just a couple minutes.  For pointing across the sky, starlock centers a star near the target then puts the target right in the eyepiece or camera field. Except for a couple targets that I think have bad data in the handset...(plate solving puts me there, but  handset goto's are off) the targets are always there. And once there, I don't have to refocus from one part of the sky to the next. There is no mirror shift. There may be folks having starlock troubles, but I'm not one of them. I can't imaging not having the starlock...thought about deforking the OTA and getting a mount I could automate, but realizing I'd have to get rid of starlock and try to get guiding to work as well as what I have now convinced me to find work arounds for the driver issue. One last point...my scope has a 2438mm focal length!!! Guiding has to be right on the money to keep small, round stars...starlock does that.

John

[OzAndrewJ]

Gday John

run Auto Rate Cal and forget about it.

With the LX600, just ensure that it doesnt give you equal percentages for RA and DEC

cos if it does, your HiSpeed DEC lash wont apply when you reverse

Most times it wont happen, but if it does, you may be scratching your head as to why it doesnt work like before.

Except for a couple targets that I think have bad data in the handset.

Down south of the equator, there are quite a few items that are linked to bad data.

ie most objects in the LMC

ref attached diag of the region which contains objects linked to a dud HiPrec star

Bit more than a couple

Andrew Johansen Melbourne Australia

 

 

 

[billmagann]

Did Meade ever introduce that f/5 focal reducer they mention in the promotional material for the LX600's? I can't find any evidence of it being available. 

 

I know the Optec Lepus is available to do the same thing, I was just wondering what ever happened to the Meade version.

Edited by billmagann, 27 May 2018 - 07:48 AM.

[rmollise]

The F/8 gathers almost 2x the light that a F/10. Both scopes have the UHTC coatings and the same aperature...the F ratio makes all the difference. You can see the difference both visually and imaging.

John

 

No it doesn't. F/ratio ONLY comes into play for imaging extended objects. VISUALLY at 100x an f/8 and f/10 are equal in brightness. Actually, the f/10 probably displays a very slightly brighter image thanks to a smaller central obstruction.

Edited by rmollise, 27 May 2018 - 08:55 AM.

[Phil Cowell]

Are parts an issue with this mount? There was a user who couldn’t get parts for an LX850 recently.

[AF7JQ]

F ratio is F ratio. It works the same for visual or imaging. If it didn't that might come as a real surprise to to all the photographers out there. And comparing the scopes visually it does indeed make a difference. My neighbor is only a mile away. Comparing objects from his house to mine we both can see finer detail with mine. It doesn't come from focal length...his is 3000mm to my 2438. Doesn't come from magnification...same eye pieces give mine less compared to his. The only thing left is the increased light coming in. The lens coatings are the same too.

John

[akulapanam]

F ratio is F ratio. It works the same for visual or imaging. If it didn't that might come as a real surprise to to all the photographers out there. And comparing the scopes visually it does indeed make a difference. My neighbor is only a mile away. Comparing objects from his house to mine we both can see finer detail with mine. It doesn't come from focal length...his is 3000mm to my 2438. Doesn't come from magnification...same eye pieces give mine less compared to his. The only thing left is the increased light coming in. The lens coatings are the same too.
John

It doesn’t quite work the way your implying. Visually your just less zoomed in so your trading resolution for brightness. In fact it’s worse because you will loose contrast on bright targets because of the obstruction.

Etendue is what matters for imaging. If I have a 8” scope at F3 600mm and one at f6 1200mm the F3 one is only faster for the same pixel size. If I have 4um pixels one the F6 but 2um pixels on the F3 one and thus arc sec resolution is the same the speed will be the same because aperture is the same.

speed = aperture ^2 * arc sec resolution ^2 * QE

[rmollise]

F ratio is F ratio. It works the same for visual or imaging. If it didn't that might come as a real surprise to to all the photographers out there. And comparing the scopes visually it does indeed make a difference. My neighbor is only a mile away. Comparing objects from his house to mine we both can see finer detail with mine. It doesn't come from focal length...his is 3000mm to my 2438. Doesn't come from magnification...same eye pieces give mine less compared to his. The only thing left is the increased light coming in. The lens coatings are the same too.

John

 

No it doesn't. For images, an extended object will be brighter in a fast telescope. But visually at 100x (or whatever), the brightness will be the same at any focal ratio. 

 

Visually, using an eyepiece that yields the same magnification, the brightness will be the same with an f/6.3, an f/8, and an f/10. There is no "increased light" when there is an eyepiece in the scope.

 

The community went round and round with this basic principle of optics back when Meade introduced their f/6.3 telescopes in the mid-80s and some vendors at least implied the visual views would be brighter even at the same magnification with the faster scopes.

[E Sully]

Are parts an issue with this mount? There was a user who couldn’t get parts for an LX850 recently.

I did a quick check, and Meade seems to have spare parts for the LX scope mounts in stock, with the exception of the LX850 Dec. Motor Assembly.

[carolinaskies]

Meade SCT's vary the F ratio by moving the secondary closer to the primary and therefore need a larger secondary.  My LX200 F6.3 has a slightly larger CO than the old LX10 F/10 but has 1280 FL vs 2000 of the F/10.   Given both scopes, a given eyepiece will make the image brighter in the faster scope because it is less magnification.  Selecting 2 eyepieces which equate the same magnification between the two telescopes, all else being equal(optical coating/collimation) the image should be identical in apparent brightness.    The vagaries of eyepiece design could induce some difference between identical magnifications as certain eyepieces work better in faster telescope designs.   

Typically we disregard the entire field discussing brightness, but a wider field typically makes brighter objects stand out against the background whereas narrower fields focus attention directly center.  Our eyes do not like to centrally focus on a point source during the day. We train our eyes to do this as much as possible for observing, but find that averted vision typically is better and more attuned to our visual enjoyment.  

It is likely a few of these factors that contribute to the performance difference.  

[AF7JQ]

I never said we were at the same magnification...same eyepiece at same target...3000mm vs 2438, sure the F/8 is a bit smaller but still brighter.