6 replies to this topic

[Supernova74]

Hi all I’ve decided to write a slighty different topic this evening and I’ve noticed a certain trend amongst certain forums mainly in celestron,Meade sct cassagrain telescopes.

for exsample an op will ask advice and direction on a particular product he or she would be interested in and I’ve noticed heated debates going on to the point that various members are playing paper scissor games in what is the better telescope brand name.

 

And in some cases the simple debate can start to get more heated and hostile remarks can be exchanged with forum members.i do believe we live in the kind of world with freedom of speech is acceptable however the smaller majority perhaps do take there beliefs and opinions to far on occasions.this is mainly on the celestron,Meade forums and let’s say from the beginner,s point of view this could be quite off putting and can leave the original op left in confusion and then tawn in two separate directions in the decision making process.

 

Myself personally there is no such thing as perfect it simply does not exsist and even with the best instruments,accessories available that money can buy there is a chance some where along the line it can perhaps break down or malfunction either with the user or poor manufacturing.its the law of average from time to time you will puchase a faulty product or poorly built regardless the money you have spent as when a product consists of motors and circuit boards which is just an exsample which consists of intricate working parts.

this can happen with any brand name either celestron or Meade and I’m not particularly a fan of any brand name as long as it serves a purpose and even tho something has gone wrong with my Meade recently and was repaired in a satisfactory time frame it does,nt mean I’m going to jump on the band wagon and slate off the brand name because I’ve had a bad experience with the product.

 

i would say and just my personal opinion that celestrons electrics and overall build quality of there fork mounts do seem more superior to Meades fork mounts even to the castings and general build quality of the details in the finish.then I’ve noticed the ACF optics for visual purposes do seem a little sharper and pleasing on the eye and from the feed back I’ve received that’s mainly where the money has been spent and is very hard to produce.so in a nutshell for myself personally it’s horses for courses and in some ways you have to make sacrifices ie better mount or perhaps OTA and yes  both brands have there strengths and weaknesses.

[luxo II]

“Rock paper scissors” yep - endless circular arguments ... did you want to open another one ?

Edited by luxo II, 20 January 2021 - 07:51 PM.

[Rick-T137]

I don't have an opinion about current Celestron v Meade SCT scopes as I've never used either.

 

I do have experience with old C8's, black-tube Celestars, and various Meade SCT's (all pre-LX200). In my estimation, I really love using them and I like them pretty much all equally. 

 

My current scope is a Meade 2080 LX6 "Premier" and it's a great little rig. 

 

Clear skies!

Rick

[carolinaskies]

 

i would say and just my personal opinion that celestrons electrics and overall build quality of there fork mounts do seem more superior to Meades fork mounts even to the castings and general build quality of the details in the finish.then I’ve noticed the ACF optics for visual purposes do seem a little sharper and pleasing on the eye and from the feed back I’ve received that’s mainly where the money has been spent and is very hard to produce.so in a nutshell for myself personally it’s horses for courses and in some ways you have to make sacrifices ie better mount or perhaps OTA and yes  both brands have there strengths and weaknesses.

Hmm, interesting.  I have a C8 sitting on the floor, an old ulitima 8 fork sitting elsewhere, sold off a CPC1100 a while back, have an LX200 Classic 8, an LX200 GPS 10 and LX200 GPS 16.  And I've been in the hobby more than 30 years as an amateur and 24 years as an owner of quality telescopes.  And good to use good ones prior to personal ownership to boot.  

I don't think any Celestron on board electronics have ever met or exceeded Meade since the LX200 was introduced.  Currently the only electronics that Celestron has that I find compelling is the new hand control with built in RS232 USB connectivity.  Yes you can buy external bits and bobs like the StarSense, etc.  but I could simply point to the Meade Starlock and drop a mic for turnkey imaging and not say another word.  Mechanically LX200s haven't had to change much since introduced. The GPS model upgraded the handcontrol set and all brains are internal so Meade isn't prone to the many failures Celestron has had with faulty hand controls over the past 20 odd years.  Celestron's integration with externals when it works is great, but it can be buggy as evidenced with any serious look at the Celestron forum.  There is still a long term issue with Celestron GEMs with even Dylan Odonell pining about his setup in Australia where his big C mount is out of order.  I'm rather miffed at the CPC design and utilization of the crappiest power toggle switch in existence, some engineers wet dream in simplicity that must never have been properly time-tested as it's a common failure in CPCs along with the all-to-short power port too.   I comment the CPC for sexy forks compared to the LX200 geometric crisp edges... but neither is ergonomically superior.  The CPC1100 has to be held at the sides with one visible handle and one grab hole. The LX200 still has too-short fork handles.  But these are the consequences of designing for compact OTA's with forks substantial enough to hold 8-14" OTAs. 

Since the ACF(R/Ritchey-Criteon) intro, the standard Celestron XLT is the lowest performing SCT on the market. Still quite a nice performer, and priced accordingly to it's competition and to it's better Edge version. The advantage of being able to use a Hyperstar will likely remain for a long time into the future since Meade decided to drop the idea more than a decade ago of supporting the integration with the ACF... sad, but thems the breaks.  

Today from strictly an OTA performance I believe Meade outshines for value.  For planetary yes the XLT will match it, but for overall field performance the ACF is just a bit crisper and closer to the flatness without succumbing to the internal corrector of the Edge.  The Edge suffers from the expense-itis of designing specific internal correctors requiring specific reducers meaning non-compatibility with old tech.(I wouldn't turn down a deal on one though).  The XLT is nice for anyone with substantial inventory of reducer/correctors.  The ACF anecdotally is suggested to not use the reducer/correctors, but many have found them useful, while Edge users have found them an utter bane to performance... ah, such is the ordeal of matching optics for quality performance. 

I enjoy all brands, understanding the limitations and advantages, and not sugar coating the flaws (like the RCX400, or the LX200 Classic capacitor issue).  In the long run anyone denying both companies make reasonable performing mounts and telescopes would be utterly incorrect.  Brand loyalty should only extend as far as the eyepiece projecting into our rods and cones enough light to enjoy the night sky. 

We can tit-for-tat on diffent foibles between the brands.  

[junomike]

IME I prefer the Celestron Software/HC over Meade.

For OTA's I find the ACF better then the standard SCT but the EdgeHD a little better than the ACF.

Can't go wrong with any of them.

[jgraham]

Heh, heh, I have a garage that looks like a Celestron & Meade showroom. Deciding which one is 'best' is like deciding which one of your kids is the 'best'. They're all wonderful. Both have had their hits and misses, but overall they have been wonderful. Their current offerings are among their best. There is no wrong choice.

It's a good problem to have.

[alphatripleplus]

I've owned and used both companies' regular SCT OTAs and don't have a preference.