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

Mewlon 180c v Meade lx200 8 on Jupiter and Saturn from New Zealand

  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#26 carolinaskies

carolinaskies

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,978
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2014
  • Loc: Greenville SC

Posted 22 July 2021 - 07:00 PM

Let's not forget the Mewlon is coming out of the gate handicapped in that comparison. The aperture is 7 inches vs 8 inches. I know there will be those that will respond it's just one inch; yes, but one inch makes a difference with high quality telescopes when low contrast features are observed on objects such as the planets.

The aperture difference is made up for on the planets by the F/12 vs F/10 ratio which makes tack sharpness easier to find in the Mewlon.  The extra 1" actually probably hindered the 8" as the brightness difference would change the contrast the human eye perceives. 

Also, lets not forget the Meade 'mass produced' mirror/corrector vs the Tak's highly hand-figured system. 
For them to be this close is clearly a nod that mass-produced has closed the gap enough where an $800 early 2000's OTA is nigh on par with an OTA more than 2x it's price.  

For all but the most 'premium brand' pretentious it's fodder for not worrying about spending too much extra if performance can be so close.  

 


  • Phil Barker and teashea like this

#27 Kevin Barker

Kevin Barker

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 926
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2009
  • Loc: Auckland, NZ

Posted 23 July 2021 - 02:39 AM

"For all but the most 'premium brand' pretentious it's fodder for not worrying about spending too much extra if performance can be so close.

 

Yes but performance is not always so close is it? You might luck out and buy a poor sample. It appears that if you buy a Takahashi the chances of buying a lemon is quite low.

 

That is why Takahashi and other exclusive brands sell telescopes.


  • Phil Barker and teashea like this

#28 carolinaskies

carolinaskies

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,978
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2014
  • Loc: Greenville SC

Posted 23 July 2021 - 07:35 AM

The sct was an older non ACF. All modern Meade are ACF and have proven even more consistently better performers. I have never bought a mass produced product expecting it to under perform or over perform as if it was a handmade high end version. Therefore in a head to head comparison the Meade is disproving the contention that mass produced optics are inherently poor performers.

Note the OP collimated the telescope which failure to do so is often the reason of anecdotal poor performance of many telecopes whether mass produced or hand made.
  • Stopforths likes this

#29 luxo II

luxo II

    Skylab

  • ****-
  • Posts: 4,338
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 23 July 2021 - 08:03 AM

But a sample of 1 is not representative of Meades production.

The statistics from the Russian lab measurements of SCTs a while back - when filtered as Meade or Celestron - showed nice bell curves, typical of mass production. The number of examples tested was plenty to show this was not anecdotal, and Meades median and mean were both worse than Celestrons.

 

Yours just happened to be well up the curve.


Edited by luxo II, 23 July 2021 - 08:07 AM.


#30 carolinaskies

carolinaskies

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,978
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2014
  • Loc: Greenville SC

Posted 23 July 2021 - 09:09 AM

ROFL, a lab in Russia testing results we should rely on for actual field results?

I'll take 40yrs of thousands of actual observers using their equipment rather than a lab in Russia's handful being provided from God knows where sourced optics.

#31 TG

TG

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,780
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Latitude 47

Posted 23 July 2021 - 11:19 AM

Thanks for sharing the reports. It’s always a treat to observe the gas giants when they’re well positioned.

Re. the perception that Meades/Celestron SCTs are mass produced vs. Takahashi Mewlons, which are not, this is just incorrect. They’re both mass produced scopes. Takahashi just builds them to a higher quality level. This perception is probably caused by the lower volume of Takahashi scopes, which itself is a function of the quality level, given the limited market. There is actually a documentary on Youtube about Takahashi, which will dispel any doubts about whether they mass produce scopes or not.
  • Phil Barker likes this

#32 Supernova74

Supernova74

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,760
  • Joined: 25 May 2020
  • Loc: Epsom surrey near (London)

Posted 23 July 2021 - 11:28 AM

I would be interested to see the results of a more modern Meade 8”ACF going on a face off with the 180mm mewlon 



#33 Phil Barker

Phil Barker

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 691
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2009
  • Loc: hokitika New Zealand

Posted 23 July 2021 - 05:11 PM

The acf has a hypobolic secondary and corrects for coma but can't see how it would beat a standard sct on axis as the standard sct has a much easier to produce spherical secondary.

 

The sct I have is a good optics very sharp lovely startest but it does have a 37.5% by diameter obstruction which I think costs it a bit versus the Mewlon which is 33%.

 

Also only 2 optical surfaces in the mewlon and 4 in the sct.

 

 

 

I would be interested to see the results of a more modern Meade 8”ACF going on a face off with the 180mm mewlon 


Edited by Phil Barker, 23 July 2021 - 05:12 PM.


#34 Phil Barker

Phil Barker

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 691
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2009
  • Loc: hokitika New Zealand

Posted 23 July 2021 - 05:45 PM

3647 pound for a mewlon 180c  ??

 

my ota cost around 1750 pound and the mount is an older  heq5 non goto worth around 200 pound.  My father was english by the way.

 

The meade is an absolute mint lx200 uhtc gps. in its day would have been around 2500 pound.

 

The optics in the mewlon are better and the mecahnics noticeable better in the ota.

 

I've owned several sct's over decades up to 11 inches in aperture.  Some of them were good but the melon has  the best optics inch for inch versus any of them Meade or celestron.  I love the lx200 now it has a moonlight focuser its a good scope but in the best seeing if I'm looking at planets I'll be getting the Mewlon out.

 

 

 

 

No how can a scope costing £3647 uk pounds possibly be handicapped in any shape or form when comparing it with a run of the mill Meade 8” OTA not even ACF optics costing (around £1300) it’s almost you should feel sorry for the mewlon in costing an additional over £2300.1” aperture in astronomy means nothing in this day and age it’s the quality of the optics which shine through not always the aperture,this is another classic exsample you truly don’t always get what you pay for in life the photos prove otherwise.


  • teashea likes this

#35 Reid W

Reid W

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,232
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2010
  • Loc: Shreveport, LA

Posted 23 July 2021 - 06:03 PM

Re. the perception that Meades/Celestron SCTs are mass produced vs. Takahashi Mewlons, which are not, this is just incorrect. They’re both mass produced scopes. Takahashi just builds them to a higher quality level. This perception is probably caused by the lower volume of Takahashi scopes, which itself is a function of the quality level, given the limited market. There is actually a documentary on Youtube about Takahashi, which will dispel any doubts about whether they mass produce scopes or not.

 

Last year, I was reading a review where the author noted that forty 210s are made annually with twenty making it to the US.  


  • payner, Stopforths and teashea like this

#36 Supernova74

Supernova74

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,760
  • Joined: 25 May 2020
  • Loc: Epsom surrey near (London)

Posted 23 July 2021 - 06:05 PM

3647 pound for a mewlon 180c  ??

 

my ota cost around 1750 pound and the mount is an older  heq5 non goto worth around 200 pound.  My father was english by the way.

 

The meade is an absolute mint lx200 uhtc gps. in its day would have been around 2500 pound.

 

The optics in the mewlon are better and the mecahnics noticeable better in the ota.

 

I've owned several sct's over decades up to 11 inches in aperture.  Some of them were good but the melon has  the best optics inch for inch versus any of them Meade or celestron.  I love the lx200 now it has a moonlight focuser its a good scope but in the best seeing if I'm looking at planets I'll be getting the Mewlon out

Lol sorry my mistake the mewlon 210mm



#37 teashea

teashea

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,802
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2020
  • Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Posted 23 July 2021 - 07:06 PM

"For all but the most 'premium brand' pretentious it's fodder for not worrying about spending too much extra if performance can be so close.

 

Yes but performance is not always so close is it? You might luck out and buy a poor sample. It appears that if you buy a Takahashi the chances of buying a lemon is quite low.

 

That is why Takahashi and other exclusive brands sell telescopes.

It is very true that the consistency is substantial factor - at least with me.  Of the dozen Takahashi telescopes I purchased in the last several months, I have yet to find any problem - even cosmetic.  and I am very fussy.  


  • Phil Barker likes this

#38 teashea

teashea

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,802
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2020
  • Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Posted 23 July 2021 - 07:11 PM

Thanks for sharing the reports. It’s always a treat to observe the gas giants when they’re well positioned.

Re. the perception that Meades/Celestron SCTs are mass produced vs. Takahashi Mewlons, which are not, this is just incorrect. They’re both mass produced scopes. Takahashi just builds them to a higher quality level. This perception is probably caused by the lower volume of Takahashi scopes, which itself is a function of the quality level, given the limited market. There is actually a documentary on Youtube about Takahashi, which will dispel any doubts about whether they mass produce scopes or not.

Is that the YT video that shows the very talented worker making a small group of sand casting molds and then hand pouring the aluminum in each mold?  Or the individual testing of each lens cell by the head of Takahashi's lens design?  Or the worker hand spraying a telescope tube?  


  • Stopforths likes this

#39 teashea

teashea

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,802
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2020
  • Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Posted 23 July 2021 - 07:13 PM

3647 pound for a mewlon 180c  ??

 

my ota cost around 1750 pound and the mount is an older  heq5 non goto worth around 200 pound.  My father was english by the way.

 

The meade is an absolute mint lx200 uhtc gps. in its day would have been around 2500 pound.

 

The optics in the mewlon are better and the mecahnics noticeable better in the ota.

 

I've owned several sct's over decades up to 11 inches in aperture.  Some of them were good but the melon has  the best optics inch for inch versus any of them Meade or celestron.  I love the lx200 now it has a moonlight focuser its a good scope but in the best seeing if I'm looking at planets I'll be getting the Mewlon out.

The optics and build quality of the Mewlon 180C is rather remarkable.  God is in the details.


  • Stopforths likes this

#40 teashea

teashea

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,802
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2020
  • Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Posted 23 July 2021 - 07:15 PM

Last year, I was reading a review where the author noted that forty 210s are made annually with twenty making it to the US.  

That is very interesting - It seems reasonable.  It will be interesting to see when they start selling Mewlons again.  When I purchased my 180C a couple months ago, I had to buy it from Japan since there were none available in the US.


  • Stopforths likes this

#41 Stopforths

Stopforths

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 250
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2018

Posted 23 July 2021 - 08:26 PM

That is very interesting - It seems reasonable.  It will be interesting to see when they start selling Mewlons again.  When I purchased my 180C a couple months ago, I had to buy it from Japan since there were none available in the US.

I had to wait 6 months and offered 2 chances to get my money back which I declined.    Well worth the wait. Another pristine night ahead preparing for another session :)

.       


  • teashea likes this

#42 teashea

teashea

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,802
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2020
  • Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Posted 24 July 2021 - 07:45 PM

I had to wait 6 months and offered 2 chances to get my money back which I declined.    Well worth the wait. Another pristine night ahead preparing for another session smile.gif

.       

I think you will very much enjoy it.



#43 Stopforths

Stopforths

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 250
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2018

Posted 25 July 2021 - 01:19 AM

Re the Mewlon.  I discovered it can't be used with a diagonal and a celestron binoviewer without an extending lens in the unit.  The design of the mewlon has nowhere the range of focus a sct has.

 

I was able to reach focus looking straight through with the meade ortho and volcano top 12.5mm on jupiter.  Its high up here  so it wasn't comfortable.  The views were sensational for the few moments I used this combination.  

 

 Definitely removes those floaters you get at high power on the planets I've got a high quality doublet I've placed in the nosepiece that hopefully will allow it to be used although at a higher power to be worked out. 

 

Pretty happy with the higher power performance of the celestron unit although its limited at lower powers.  Will work great with the SCT.


Edited by Stopforths, 25 July 2021 - 01:54 AM.


#44 Reid W

Reid W

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,232
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2010
  • Loc: Shreveport, LA

Posted 25 July 2021 - 10:22 AM

..... while it's true the SCT has such a broad focus range, the "ideal" focus is a point from the back ring equivalent to the length of a 1.25" prism diagonal.

Years ago I compared (binoviewer)planetary views in my USA mfg C11 with and w/o the corrector in place.

In my setup, a Denk II with a power switch and corrector, planetary views were superior to those views, at similar magnifications, of the binoviewer without the corrector.

Posts on the binoviewer forum refer to an increase of S.A. the further you move the focus point beyond the "optimum" point.

You are right regarding the u210. When I am binoviewing with my u210, there is a corrector in place, and with the power switch, I'm pretty sure the resulting magnification factor is 1.2X.

I am certain there is a way to use a Baader corrector with the Celestron unit. The resulting bino planetary views are worth it.
  • Phil Barker likes this

#45 Stopforths

Stopforths

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 250
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2018

Posted 29 July 2021 - 06:14 PM

..... while it's true the SCT has such a broad focus range, the "ideal" focus is a point from the back ring equivalent to the length of a 1.25" prism diagonal.

Years ago I compared (binoviewer)planetary views in my USA mfg C11 with and w/o the corrector in place.

In my setup, a Denk II with a power switch and corrector, planetary views were superior to those views, at similar magnifications, of the binoviewer without the corrector.

Posts on the binoviewer forum refer to an increase of S.A. the further you move the focus point beyond the "optimum" point.

You are right regarding the u210. When I am binoviewing with my u210, there is a corrector in place, and with the power switch, I'm pretty sure the resulting magnification factor is 1.2X.

I am certain there is a way to use a Baader corrector with the Celestron unit. The resulting bino planetary views are worth it.

I think you are right there is an optimal  position for the correction. With the celestron binoviewer they work better at higher power anyway ie around 150-250 x  and are limited in effective aperture lower than that.

 

I've compared the celestron to a televue binoviewer and the televue was much better at lower powers having a larger prism aperture.   To be honest there wasn't much in it at 200 x the Celestron and the William optical binoviewers seem to have good optics for the money having owned and used both.




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