• Welcome to Orpington Astronomical Society.
 

News:

New version SMF 2.1.4 installed. You may need to clear cookies and login again...

Main Menu

Celestron vs Meade Showdown!

Started by Simon, Jun 21, 2004, 01:06:00

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Simon

Looking for a first telescope, have been coping with binoculars for years.  With a budget of around £1500 I'm down to two telescopes - Celestron C8-SGT (Goto 8") and Meade LX90 (also Goto 8"). Would like a telescope useable for both planetary and deep sky observing, but which is also portable and easily adapted for possible future astro-photography.  Am I on the right track with these scopes, how do they match up to one another?  
Any advice greatly appreciated.
Thanks

Rocket Pooch

Hi,

I have an LX90 and its ok for nearly everything I want, I got a package of the LX90 including the LPI; but, if your going to do serious photography I'd get a wedge (£200 extra).

also, portable? if you can pickup about 50lb and cart it around, you will need a reasonabel sized boot, but I'm ok with mine.

Go have a look at some of the images I've taken on http://www.jumpers4goalposts.org.uk there's a few LX90 one's there.

Paul, your turn :smile:


[ This Message was edited by: csuddell on 2004-06-20 20:46 ]

Mike

Why do you say OK and not 'great or 'crap' ?
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. Carl Sagan

Ian

also, what does telescope ownership have to do with the size of your feet?

On an aside, I have a friend selling a 10" LX200GPS and stuff. Anyone interested?

Mike

Price? And WHY is he selling (honest answers on a postcard please).
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. Carl Sagan

Simon

I take size 12s so my boot size isn't a problem.  Has anyone used both the Meade and the Celestron, how does the quality of the optics differ.  I've heard that the celestron tubes are carbon fibre, a fair bit lighter than Meade but would this compromise on stability.

Mike

The carbon fibre should be just as strong as the metal ones. I guess it would be prone to distortion by heat as much, but would maybe take a bit longer to cool down?!
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. Carl Sagan

Rocket Pooch

CAR BOOT children, and its OK, not the best, you all know you need more than one telescope :smile:

Whitters

The word on the street re: Meade vs Celestron is that Meade usually have more toys but the Celestron optics have the edge, though I must add that I haven't seen any recent reviews. All the UK Supernova boys use Celestron scopes, but on $10,000 Paramount ME mounts.
Have you considered UK telescope makers Orion Optics? you could get more mirror for your bucks.

[ This Message was edited by: whitters on 2004-06-22 11:38 ]

[ This Message was edited by: whitters on 2004-06-22 12:49 ]

Simon

Hmmm, thanks for the info.  Like the look of the celestron scope at the mo even though I discovered the tube is aluminium not carbon fibre.  I'll take a look at the Orion scopes though.  Anyone that has used the celestron scope or similar, interested to hear what you think.

Rick

A tube that conducts heat well makes a scope that'll reach equilibrium quicker....

Unless the weight is an important factor, an aluminium tube is better than a carbon-fibre one.

[ This Message was edited by: Rick on 2004-06-23 21:37 ]