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.

10" 12" or 14" meade?

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
44 replies to this topic

#26 conus

conus

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3053
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2003

Posted 25 May 2004 - 12:15 PM

When I decided to buy a scope I first looked at Meade, since I'd heard of Meade but not Celestron. After reading the reviews and scouring the message boards I concluded that there's no real difference in quality. Apples and oranges. Despite the mass production both companies usually turn out decent scopes. It was the weight issue that tipped the scales in favor of Celestron. Even with the C14 the most difficult part of the setup would be lifting the 39 pound OTA. I hear people saying that a fork mounted OTA is easier to set up than a GEM, but I don't see how. Quicker maybe, by five to ten minutes, but a lot tougher on the back with a 12" to 14."

#27 BluewaterObserva

BluewaterObserva

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • ***--
  • Posts: 5809
  • Joined: 18 May 2004

Posted 25 May 2004 - 12:36 PM

Plus if you start searching.. You can find unbelievable deals on older 12" LX200's. I wouldn't even hesitate to jump on a deal on one of those if I were looking for a real large SCT.

#28 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 26 May 2004 - 06:59 AM

I have always believed that heavy things must be well made...but i supose there is a limit to this. For some reason Meade just seemed to stand out at this end of the market for its quality. I have to say that i also prefer the look of the meade- blue and a little edgy, i feel the celestron looks a little too streamlined. This is all just aesthetics though and really has nothing to do with it.
I saw an ad on a UK site for the 14" ex display with £1000 off (£4000 in total), still more expensive than the same model in the US but it got me thinking.
I am in favour of the fork mount even though it may be a bit trickier to align and set up, it just suits what i am going to do with the scope.
Thanks for the replies guys

#29 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 35433
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003

Posted 26 May 2004 - 08:00 AM

Plus if you start searching.. You can find unbelievable deals on older 12" LX200's. I wouldn't even hesitate to jump on a deal on one of those if I were looking for a real large SCT.


Yes - that one is one of the best deals available on the used market. I see OPT has one listed at a heckuva price right now.

#30 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 26 May 2004 - 10:41 AM

I think i am going to emigrate to America!!! It is definately going to be cheaper in the long run.

#31 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 27 May 2004 - 11:39 AM

I wouldn't get a 14 unless you can put it on wheels and roll it to your observing site, or unless you have a roll top shed. I would stick with a 12 and that won't be real fun to get around. The Nexstar 11 is probably the best choice for a large sct you will actually use a lot.

#32 john-AZ

john-AZ

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2003

Posted 27 May 2004 - 01:31 PM

If portability is your limiting factor why don't you consider a 14" Starmaster with goto and setting circles? Don't get me wrong, I love my CAT but it sounds like a newtonian would be worth considering based on what you are saying (cost does not seem to be your limitation and you are wanting portable large aperture).
John

#33 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 27 May 2004 - 03:51 PM

If you can spend the money take a serious look at the Celestron CGE 1400. It's heaviest component is under 50 pounds and its 14"

#34 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 35433
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003

Posted 27 May 2004 - 03:55 PM

If you can spend the money take a serious look at the Celestron CGE 1400. It's heaviest component is under 50 pounds and its 14"


Yes, but there are a lot of 'em. The tripod weighs 50 pounds, the mount weighs 50 pounds, the counterweights weigh 50 pounds, and the optical tube is near that. It means lots of trips to set up in the field. :p

#35 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 28 May 2004 - 09:58 AM

Celestron do seem to have significantly lighter OTA's. I wonder why that is. Why do meade not make there's lighter. I think there is another thread on this subject but even though weight is a problem i always have the feeling that something heavier must be made better (all things being equal).
I really have my heart set on a CAT, the newtonian just doesn't do it for me like the CAT's do! Probably similarly emotional reason why i prefer the meade to the celestron!

#36 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 35433
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003

Posted 28 May 2004 - 10:12 AM

Celestron do seem to have significantly lighter OTA's. I wonder why that is.


Some of the extra weight comes from the fact that Meade uses oversize primary mirrors.

#37 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 28 May 2004 - 10:35 AM

what afect does this have (if any) on the quality of the scope (in your opinion)?

#38 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 35433
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003

Posted 28 May 2004 - 11:28 AM

what afect does this have (if any) on the quality of the scope (in your opinion)?


In my opinion it makes no difference at all - just makes the telescope heavier. :foreheadslap:It would avoid or reduce turned edge problems but that's not known to be an issue with either brand.

#39 john

john

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 310
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2004

Posted 01 June 2004 - 05:01 PM

Hi,
I need info from people with these scopes. How are they to transport, is it impossible to set up the 14" on your own. What is the noticable difference between all these scopes. Has anyone bought a 10" and then had to upgrade to a 12"/14"? I need to go to the US to get this scope so i don't fancy having to upgrade any time soon. Is there anything you could rig up to assist with asembling the 14".

By the time i am going to get this scope i should have the money for the 14" with some acessories. I will not have to move it much except into and out of the house (i live in a v dark skies site). I am just wondering whether it would be better to go for more portability and more accesories or more appature. (just how much more portable is the 12"?)

This is a conundrum and probably very difficult for you lot to answer but i would teally appreciate any advice from people who know. Thanks :help:


I recently bought a lx200gps 10" and was considering a 12" but since the magnification limit for seeing most nights is around 400X(and that is nights of good seeing) except for maybe 5 nights of the year or less, the 12" would be a waste of money. I find the 10" is great and probably all I will ever need unless they come out with some great upgrade toy(maybe a built in computer with a LCD screen). I have had the 10" up to 500X mag and it was very good(on a perfect night). And it is still portable - but barely.
Personally I would reccomend the 10" f/10 amd get some EP's like panoptics/radians and a couple of orthos and a plossl or 2.
Really if you do decide to go bigger then I would reccommend you go to a celestron 11" or 14" on a CGE mount cause then you can lift the OTA by itself with no help. It seems as if it is a much easier setup for 1 person.
In retrospect I wish meade had designed their lx200gps 10" and larger scopes like that.

John

#40 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 35433
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003

Posted 01 June 2004 - 09:51 PM

I recently bought a lx200gps 10" and was considering a 12" but since the magnification limit for seeing most nights is around 400X(and that is nights of good seeing) except for maybe 5 nights of the year or less, the 12" would be a waste of money.


The 12" certainly isn't very portable, but the extra aperture is there and usable every night if you have it. I rarely manage over 300X here so if I thought aperture was only good for increased magnification I'd have a 6" telescope. The 8" Meade would handle your 400X with no problems so long as the sky permits it. As it is, my 14" sees deeper than my previous 10", 11", and 12" SCT's did.

If portability is a MAJOR concern I'd recommend the Nexstar 11GPS. It's a forkmount so there's no assembly required, but it's easier to set up than any of the 10" or larger Meades.

#41 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 02 June 2004 - 10:48 AM

It is the aperture that i am after, not the magnification. Thanks for the info i am begining to think that thw 14" is not possible for one person but am still struggling with the thought of the 12". I would hate to lose another 2" of aperture. I think i will be able to cope with the 12 and so that is what i have my mind set on at the minute. I get the impression that the meade 12 is better than the nextar 11 but will have a look at them both. Have there been any comparrisons does anyone know?

#42 BluewaterObserva

BluewaterObserva

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • ***--
  • Posts: 5809
  • Joined: 18 May 2004

Posted 02 June 2004 - 11:37 AM

The comparisons run neck and neck on the two. At the prices I see the older meade's going for, I can almost see one in my future even and I am a die hard ultra fast, large newt fan.....

#43 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 35433
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003

Posted 02 June 2004 - 11:44 AM

The comparisons run neck and neck on the two. At the prices I see the older meade's going for, I can almost see one in my future even and I am a die hard ultra fast, large newt fan.....


I had 'em both and agree that the optical performance is very similar; 1" isn't that much difference at that size. For portable use, the 11" wins in a very big way because of ergonomic issues with the 12" Meade (low handles, tube won't park between the forks). For fixed use, the Meade Giant field tripod is far stronger. The 12" Meade Classic is just an awful lot of telescope for $2000 and they do turn up from time to time.

#44 BluewaterObserva

BluewaterObserva

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • ***--
  • Posts: 5809
  • Joined: 18 May 2004

Posted 02 June 2004 - 03:24 PM

There is an old C14 on astromart for $2200, I'll bet he'd take a lot less if offered....

#45 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 03 June 2004 - 06:04 PM

Weight of the single component is the reason that I choiced the the Celestron 11" CGE over the Meade 10" or 12". Celestron's C11 is only 27 lb because it doesn't have the heavy fork arms attache to the OTA. Howevr, Celestron is more expensive than the Meade. If you plan to set it up on a permanent pier then weight won't be a issue.


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