233 replies to this topic

[oldmanastro]

On the topic of the ETX-90 being a classic, the model was introduced in 1996. The RA models from that era are already at the point of classic stature. After 2022, all those early RAs will be classics.

[Benach]

ETX mounts are crappy plastic. The rear part of the scope is plastic, with the mirror box. But, the OTA from the mirror to the corrector is all machined aluminum. It's a very solid piece of construction. If only they'd made a deluxe version with a metal fork mount.

Agreed. But that would've increased the price at least four times, reducing its accesability. But I am sometimes contemplating to design an aluminium forkmount with bigger worms and wormgears for my very old ETX. Some sort of a modern Questar 3.5 but with modern GoTo, with Meade optics but without its flimsy mechanics...

For most observations too small, but awesome as a travel scope for eclipses. Although I already have a Carbon WO98mm F/6.3 which does that also great.

[GreyDay]

ETX's have good optics wrapped in poorly designed badly executed VB, mount and electronics, kind of like getting a birthday cake wrapped in a bin bag.

 

I borrowed an ETX125EC that a friend had picked up cheap. Listed on ebay as "not working", the mount had been apart before he bought it which took about 3 days to sort out with many visits to Weasners site. There was excessive play in both RA and DEC even when adjusted to the point of binding there was still slop in the worm drive as though the gear was a different pitch to the worm. I would have put this down to excessive wear but the gears looked like new.

 

Electronically the handbox was frustrating with a delay on each button press and the motor "running on" when the button was released, not an issue at low power but over 200x could lose the target from the FOV. I could go on but i'll just say the mount was disappointing both electronically and mechanically, with cheap ill fitting parts being the root of most of its problems.

 

I can see what Meade were aiming for but it looked like budget versus pricepoint lead to compromises that really shouldn't have been made. The optics were great but the visual back let the ota down a bit, i returned the ETX in good working order then my friend used it for a month or so, then traded it for an ETX 90 which was much better mechanically but still had a few problems of its own.

 

I've been told the later autostar versions are better designed with upgraded parts but the limited experience i have, plus the high second hand prices here in the uk have put me off for the time being. I can see the appeal and why so many people like them, i just wish they were better constructed with quality parts then i'd have one

[sunrag]

When I used a sight-tube, I found that it the flip mirror is not always at 45 degrees to the OTA (causing the image of the objective to be off-centered w.r.t x-hair on the sight-tube)

You have to hold the knob and keep it pressed to hold at position. If it is off by a degree or so, it might show up as 'coma' when you do star-testing.

 

It might be better to use the rear-port, but I have been unable to find a way to fit 1.25" accessories to the rear port.

Edited by sunrag, 26 May 2021 - 09:33 AM.

[clamchip]

To use the ETX90 finder as built you need a head the size of a squirrel.

I like to use the flip mirror for the finder and the accessory port for the

telescope.

Robert

 

[clamchip]

When I used a sight-tube, I found that it the flip mirror is not always at 45 degrees to the OTA (causing the image of the objective to be off-centered w.r.t x-hair on the sight-tube)

You have to hold the knob and keep it pressed to hold at position. If it is off by a degree or so, it might show up as 'coma' when you do star-testing.

 

It might be better to use the rear-port, but I have been unable to find a way to fit 1.25" accessories to the rear port.

Here's what you need to use the rear port:

 

Edited by clamchip, 26 May 2021 - 09:51 AM.

[RichA]

just about everything will do 600X on the moon   Says so right on the box.

 

https://www.amazon.c...e/dp/B000LJMOYK

Barska:  Defining empty magnification.  Having said that, Barska 65mm and 80mm triplet apos were fantastic!!  RIP.

[CHASLX200]

The scope really needs a 50mm RA finder. Kinda hard to do as was the same with a C5 as it did not scale well.

[Bomber Bob]

ETX's have good optics wrapped in poorly designed badly executed VB, mount and electronics, kind of like getting a birthday cake wrapped in a bin bag.

 

Yep... and the presents were all gift cards for... SEARS.  Some folks upgraded the ETX-90 OTA to an all-metal B&L 4000 fork mount - good idea!  But... you still have that plastic box hanging off the end.

[clamchip]

The plastic box can be replaced with a Wegat Optical adapter:

https://wegatoptical.com/

I bought one for my ETX125 and its very nice.

The plastic control box can be a bit difficult sometimes because

the 90deg eyepiece can be in awkward places.

Questar makes this box rotate, a good idea.

Robert 

 

[ETXer]

I have one of each of the three EC Mak models, a 90, 105, and 125. I always thought the 105 was the best "sweet spot" between viewing capability and portability. However, I always felt nothing could beat the 90EC (and later) models for ease of travel and use while on the road. The case easily fits in an airline overhead bin, I've taken it with me on many airline trips and vacations. A tripod isn't even required, (in alt-az mode) just set it on a picnic table, align it and you're good to go. I did replace the straight-through finder with the 8x25 RA finder which makes a huge difference.

 

The optics also hold their own, and while maybe not quite up to Questar standards, they come really close.

 

 

Cheers, Allan

[RAK on Tour]

To use the ETX90 finder as built you need a head the size of a squirrel.

I like to use the flip mirror for the finder and the accessory port for the

telescope.

Robert

 

post-50896-0-25018600-1494875830_thumb.jpg

clamchip - I've hesitated to buy the adapter to use 1.25-inch eyepieces through the rear port because I'm unsure an eyepiece will come to focus if I use a 90-degree diagonal. I see you use it "straight through, but wonder if you also use it with a star diagonal. Can you confirm this would work?

 

Thanks

[clamchip]

I don't remember if I tried it with a star diagonal at the rear port sorry.

And I let the adapter go with my C90

 

Robert

[oldmanastro]

clamchip - I've hesitated to buy the adapter to use 1.25-inch eyepieces through the rear port because I'm unsure an eyepiece will come to focus if I use a 90-degree diagonal. I see you use it "straight through, but wonder if you also use it with a star diagonal. Can you confirm this would work?

 

Thanks

I have the adapter for the rear port and it works ok en the ETX-90 with a diagonal. There's enough focuser travel. The only limitation is in altazimuth mode. The diagonal will bump with the base for observations near the zenith. In equatorial mode there's no problem except for observing near the pole. 

[starman876]

Barska:  Defining empty magnification.  Having said that, Barska 65mm and 80mm triplet apos were fantastic!!  RIP.

I remember the first time I had a 60mm scope up to 600X on the moon.  Took me a little while to figure out what I was looking at. 

[CHASLX200]

I have one of each of the three EC Mak models, a 90, 105, and 125. I always thought the 105 was the best "sweet spot" between viewing capability and portability. However, I always felt nothing could beat the 90EC (and later) models for ease of travel and use while on the road. The case easily fits in an airline overhead bin, I've taken it with me on many airline trips and vacations. A tripod isn't even required, (in alt-az mode) just set it on a picnic table, align it and you're good to go. I did replace the straight-through finder with the 8x25 RA finder which makes a huge difference.

 

The optics also hold their own, and while maybe not quite up to Questar standards, they come really close.

 

 

Cheers, Allan

My 125 was insane on the moon. Even at 600x.

[clamchip]

My ETX90 is the Astro. From the introduction of the ETX around 1996-97.

 

 

[ETXer]

My 125 was insane on the moon. Even at 600x.

The ETX-125 optics certainly are truly remarkable.

[DirtyRod]

clamchip - I've hesitated to buy the adapter to use 1.25-inch eyepieces through the rear port because I'm unsure an eyepiece will come to focus if I use a 90-degree diagonal. I see you use it "straight through, but wonder if you also use it with a star diagonal. Can you confirm this would work?

 

Thanks

Why buy the diagonal when it already comes with the internal flip mirror? Does the flip mirror not work for you? I thin k it's one of the best features on the scope. 

[RAK on Tour]

Why buy the diagonal when it already comes with the internal flip mirror? Does the flip mirror not work for you? I thin k it's one of the best features on the scope. 

DirtyRod,

 

I don't believe the flip mirror is stopping at the correct 45-degree angle, yielding a flare when I defocus a star slightly. I'm not getting the sharpest image on my 90 RA, known for sharp optics. I'm leery of trying to collimate the scope if the problem lies in the flip mirror. As I purchased the scope second-hand, I can't say what kind of life the scope led before I acquired it.

[sdedalus83]

Why buy the diagonal when it already comes with the internal flip mirror? Does the flip mirror not work for you? I thin k it's one of the best features on the scope. 

Even if your mirror is in good shape and is correctly aligned, it makes the scope very difficult to use on a GEM and requires the use of an l bracket to use on a side saddle alt az mount.

[CHASLX200]

The ETX-125 optics certainly are truly remarkable.

It killed any C5 i had.

[Bonco2]

If Meade had any sense they would offer just the OTA with hardware choices   to mount it on many common mounts. Plus they should do an easy modification to their insane finder. If they did that they would have a jewel without having to redesign their poorly designed  mount. It is an optic comparable to a Questar but on a cheap unfriendly mount.

Bill 

[CHASLX200]

If Meade had any sense they would offer just the OTA with hardware choices   to mount it on many common mounts. Plus they should do an easy modification to their insane finder. If they did that they would have a jewel without having to redesign their poorly designed  mount. It is an optic comparable to a Questar but on a cheap unfriendly mount.

Bill 

I would love a well built 125 OTA that could be mounted easy and use a 50mm RA finder.  $1000 would be fine with me.

 

I think Meade is done.
 

[Terra Nova]

I bought the non goto ETX because I liked the look of it. Its a good scope. I have diligently taken it on holiday, tried to do observations under dark skys. I like may of you have loved the idea of this scope.

But... the mount is infuriating. I have used it in AZ mode and in the EQ position on the legs supplied. Ether way it just fights the user at every step. It is very apparent that the addition of GOTO to this mount was critical as the original design was woefully inadequate.

This experience makes me wonder how Questar owners can possibly be so satisfied with this design. This mount is an expression of pure disappointment in Meade and a serious black spot on their good name.

In saying this. I am writing this as I am looking at the moon through my ETX. And I love it and write this as a total hypocrite. Forgive me Meade.

I’ve never had an ETX. I could never get by all the plastic, especially their huge and clunky version of the fork mount. I can certainly empathize with your disdain and understand how poor it might be in use. However, it is nothing but a cheap imitation of the Questar fork mount, and cheap imitations are seldom as pleasing as the originals they are imitating. I’m sure there’s  as much plastic inside it as there is outside of it, and that there’s lots of slop and backlash in the movements. However, I am a very satisfied Questar owner and the mount is a beautiful and most functional piece of precision engineering. I find it extremely easy and intuitive to use, smooth and stable in its motions, and quite precise in its tracking. I don’t believe the two are equivocal in any way.

Edited by Terra Nova, 29 May 2021 - 10:05 AM.