i need opinions on these telescopes please

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kyle_baron

Guest
The Meade is a joke. You need more aperature, to utilize the computer and go to feature, when observing deep sky objects. It would be ok, for the moon, planets, and double stars.<br /><br />The Celestron is much better, simply because it has more aperature. However, you should have very dark skies to get the most out of it. Most people don't have easy access to dark skies. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
B

bobw

Guest
I have never used one of those Celestrons but I remember when I was shopping around for my LX200 I read that those one-armed Celestrons were a little unstable. I can notice some wiggling when I focus my telescope but with such a short focal length and consequent low magnification in the Celestron it might not be too much of a problem.<br /><br />I agree with kyle_baron about the Meade, more money in the electronics than the optics for sure. The only time I use the goto function on mine is to show people. The wow factor wears off real fast and I like star-hopping because it helps me learn the sky. I do use the motors in manual mode quite a bit, though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
crazyeddie makes a great point here. A cheap GoTo scope is an oxymoron. Or a unicorn. They don't exist. You pay so much for the GoTo, there's nothing left for the scope. For most bang for the buck visually, a dob is the way to go. If you want a GoTo, you must pay enough to have some money go into the optics.<br />Cheap need not apply. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY