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

Meade ETX90 Vs Celestron NexStar 4SE

catadioptric Celestron equipment Meade Maksutov tripod
  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 aalmanni

aalmanni

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 41
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2015

Posted 31 October 2019 - 11:57 AM

I am narrowing my options for a second scope between ETX90 and NexStar 4SE.

 

Both are at the same price point, the Celestron have 28% more light gathering power

Both are GoTo

Both are light enough for grab and go, although the Celestron is a bit heavier

ETX90 package include a case for the mount and soft bag for the tripod, Celestron include non

 

The question is which one has a sturdier tripod?

 

By the way my first scope is Orion 120mm  refractor on EQ manual skyview mount

 

Thanks


Edited by aalmanni, 31 October 2019 - 12:02 PM.


#2 fcathell

fcathell

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1263
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Tucson, AZ

Posted 31 October 2019 - 12:57 PM

This is a hard call, particularly with these two particular scopes which have good reputations for the most part. If you are buying new I'm sure you can return a "defective" scope if you get one, so I would go for the extra aperture. Even 12mm extra will be very noticeable in brightness. 

 

Frank

Tucson


  • barbarosa likes this

#3 barbarosa

barbarosa

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2246
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2010
  • Loc: 139 miles W of the Awahnee Hotel

Posted 31 October 2019 - 01:49 PM

I've owned them both and still have the ETX90 but not because it is the superior scope/mount/tripod. I picked up the 4 SE used at a very low price and eventually sold it in favor of a used C-5 spotter. Later I picked up a used original ETX 90 RA very cheap.. I removed it from the forks and it sits on an alt-az tripod as a spotter. 

 

I would recommend the 4SE over the old ETX or the current model because in my opinion it has the better mount/tripod. The 4/5 SE mount internals more closely resemble the SLT mount than the heavier duty 4/8 SE mount but it performs well enough with the smaller payload. The tripod on the current version appears not to have the almost useless built in jack screw to emulate a wedge. Adequate is about the best you can expect in tripods at these price points, serviceable but best with the legs kept short.

 

I have not done a side by side comparison with the ETX90 but memory says that the optics were in no way better than the 4 SE. My impression of the current version's tripod and mount are from reviews. My impression of the optics is that they are about the same as on the older versions.

 

There are things I do not like with both scopes, the flip mirror, the odd sized rear port and the need to buy an adapter for it. The old Also not a defect but the long focal length of a Mak means a small field of view. Depending upon your skies you may find that they are best for the moon and the gas giants, double stars and a few of brighter more compact deep space targets. Both scopes can take a Barlow but I am not clear that you can find a useful focal reducer, though one of the inexpensive .5x reducers screwed into an eyepiece might do the trick.

 

Both scopes can perform well so I don't want to sound negative. But I think that if you stay with the hobby you will trade up to a larger scope at some point. But if you need portable then both of these kits are on the lighter side.


  • fcathell likes this

#4 aalmanni

aalmanni

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 41
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2015

Posted 01 November 2019 - 10:48 AM

Thanks, for the info. so basically, both are identical except

 

This is a hard call, particularly with these two particular scopes which have good reputations for the most part. If you are buying new I'm sure you can return a "defective" scope if you get one, so I would go for the extra aperture. Even 12mm extra will be very noticeable in brightness. 

 

Frank

Tucson

For sure, I will get a new one, unless if I am super lucky like one of or local club member, she picked up a used ETX90 for $20, it needed a lot of repairs and re-greasing of course, but it was a complete ETX90

Abdul



#5 aalmanni

aalmanni

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 41
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2015

Posted 01 November 2019 - 11:01 AM

I've owned them both and still have the ETX90 but not because it is the superior scope/mount/tripod. I picked up the 4 SE used at a very low price and eventually sold it in favor of a used C-5 spotter. Later I picked up a used original ETX 90 RA very cheap.. I removed it from the forks and it sits on an alt-az tripod as a spotter. 

 

I would recommend the 4SE over the old ETX or the current model because in my opinion it has the better mount/tripod. The 4/5 SE mount internals more closely resemble the SLT mount than the heavier duty 4/8 SE mount but it performs well enough with the smaller payload. The tripod on the current version appears not to have the almost useless built in jack screw to emulate a wedge. Adequate is about the best you can expect in tripods at these price points, serviceable but best with the legs kept short.

 

I have not done a side by side comparison with the ETX90 but memory says that the optics were in no way better than the 4 SE. My impression of the current version's tripod and mount are from reviews. My impression of the optics is that they are about the same as on the older versions.

 

There are things I do not like with both scopes, the flip mirror, the odd sized rear port and the need to buy an adapter for it. The old Also not a defect but the long focal length of a Mak means a small field of view. Depending upon your skies you may find that they are best for the moon and the gas giants, double stars and a few of brighter more compact deep space targets. Both scopes can take a Barlow but I am not clear that you can find a useful focal reducer, though one of the inexpensive .5x reducers screwed into an eyepiece might do the trick.

 

Both scopes can perform well so I don't want to sound negative. But I think that if you stay with the hobby you will trade up to a larger scope at some point. But if you need portable then both of these kits are on the lighter side.

Thanks a lot, your comment is very informative to me. the other question is how about the customer support from both? I had a good customer service experience with Celestron for a binocular collimation issue, I heard the Meade is not that supportive for this specific model due to its very cheap built and cost, any idea?




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





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: catadioptric, Celestron, equipment, Meade, Maksutov, tripod



Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics