10" 12" or 14" meade?
Posted 25 May 2004 - 12:15 PM
Posted 25 May 2004 - 12:36 PM
Posted 26 May 2004 - 06:59 AM
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
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.
Posted 26 May 2004 - 10:41 AM
Posted 27 May 2004 - 11:39 AM
Posted 27 May 2004 - 01:31 PM
Posted 27 May 2004 - 03:51 PM
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.
Posted 28 May 2004 - 09:58 AM
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!
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.
Posted 28 May 2004 - 10:35 AM
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.
Posted 01 June 2004 - 05:01 PM
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
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.
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.
Posted 02 June 2004 - 10:48 AM
Posted 02 June 2004 - 11:37 AM
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.
Posted 02 June 2004 - 03:24 PM
Posted 03 June 2004 - 06:04 PM