Meade LX200

[Cassini12]

<p>&nbsp;</p><p>Hi all,</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; I am thinking about making the jump to a Meade LX200 8". There is a few I am looking at, I think one is EMC, one is "Classic", They both seem to look very nice from the pictures atleast. </p><p>My question is, Are these scopes even if old very reliable and nice? This should be a HUGE jump in size of planets such as Saturn right? compared to my Meade DS2114 4.5".. Thanks all.. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Also, Does anyone have any info on Meade ETX125? 1900mm f/15, should probably also show Saturn prety dam close right?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>-Cassini</p>

 

[crazyeddie]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Hi all,&nbsp;&nbsp; I am thinking about making the jump to a Meade LX200 8". There is a few I am looking at, I think one is EMC, one is "Classic", They both seem to look very nice from the pictures atleast. My question is, Are these scopes even if old very reliable and nice? This should be a HUGE jump in size of planets such as Saturn right? compared to my Meade DS2114 4.5".. Thanks all.. &nbsp;Also, Does anyone have any info on Meade ETX125? 1900mm f/15, should probably also show Saturn prety dam close right?&nbsp;-Cassini <br /> Posted by Cassini12</DIV></p><p>It's hard to say without a star test. &nbsp;I've got the impression that Meade has quality-control issues, so that sometimes you get a lemon and have to go through the hassle of returning it. &nbsp;They also assemble their schmidt-cassegrain scopes differently from their rival, Celestron, which results in a product that can sometimes produce superb images, and others that stink. &nbsp;Celestron makes a consistently better product, in my opinion, which is probably one reason they can afford to offer a two-year warranty over Meade's one-year warranty. If you are buying this LX200 used, I would not do it unless you could return it if you find any problems with it.</p><p>The ETX 125 is not a scope I would recommend over the LX200 unless the only thing you were interested in looking at were the moon and planets. &nbsp;It's a "specialty" scope which has a very long focal ratio and is not capable of wide-angle views, so it is not well-suited to deep-sky observing, although it's supposed to excel at observing the moon and planets. &nbsp;But LX200 has a 3-inch advantage in aperture, so it can probably still outperform the ETX 125 in terms of resolution, in spite of it's larger secondary mirror obstruction.</p><p>My top recommendation for a schmidt-cassegrain scope is the Celestron 9.25. &nbsp;It has a slightly different optical configuration from any other scope on the market, and it enjoys a legendary reputation for outstanding planetary images.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Cassini12]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's hard to say without a star test. &nbsp;I've got the impression that Meade has quality-control issues, so that sometimes you get a lemon and have to go through the hassle of returning it. &nbsp;They also assemble their schmidt-cassegrain scopes differently from their rival, Celestron, which results in a product that can sometimes produce superb images, and others that stink. &nbsp;Celestron makes a consistently better product, in my opinion, which is probably one reason they can afford to offer a two-year warranty over Meade's one-year warranty. If you are buying this LX200 used, I would not do it unless you could return it if you find any problems with it.The ETX 125 is not a scope I would recommend over the LX200 unless the only thing you were interested in looking at were the moon and planets. &nbsp;It's a "specialty" scope which has a very long focal ratio and is not capable of wide-angle views, so it is not well-suited to deep-sky observing, although it's supposed to excel at observing the moon and planets. &nbsp;But LX200 has a 3-inch advantage in aperture, so it can probably still outperform the ETX 125 in terms of resolution, in spite of it's larger secondary mirror obstruction.My top recommendation for a schmidt-cassegrain scope is the Celestron 9.25. &nbsp;It has a slightly different optical configuration from any other scope on the market, and it enjoys a legendary reputation for outstanding planetary images.&nbsp; <br />Posted by crazyeddie</DIV></p><p>Thank you very much for your reply. I am on a budget of course and i think $800 would even be pushing it at this point. My main concern is Planets as of now. Saturn is my favorite and in my 4.5"&nbsp; it just plain sucks. There HAS to be something wrong with my 4.5" DS-2114 because saturn is TINY, I am talking almost not there. and blurry. I had someone who knows what they are doing "collimate" the scope but I am starting to think maybe its just a POS or it has a "smudge" somewere that I cannot see. I really just dont know. I looked up on google all day today for pictures that people were taking of Saturn with a 4.5" DS-2114 telescope and although it wasnt HUGE it was CLEARLY MUCH bigger than mine. </p><p>I would LOVE a celestron but the fact is, I cannot afford a decent one right now. MAYBE the $600 5" Nexstar with GOTO. but i dont even think that would show me Saturn in a nice,big,bright way??? </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank you very much for your reply. I am on a budget of course and i think $800 would even be pushing it at this point. My main concern is Planets as of now. Saturn is my favorite and in my 4.5"&nbsp; it just plain sucks. There HAS to be something wrong with my 4.5" DS-2114 because saturn is TINY, I am talking almost not there. and blurry. I had someone who knows what they are doing "collimate" the scope but I am starting to think maybe its just a POS or it has a "smudge" somewere that I cannot see. I really just dont know. I looked up on google all day today for pictures that people were taking of Saturn with a 4.5" DS-2114 telescope and although it wasnt HUGE it was CLEARLY MUCH bigger than mine. I would LOVE a celestron but the fact is, I cannot afford a decent one right now. MAYBE the $600 5" Nexstar with GOTO. but i dont even think that would show me Saturn in a nice,big,bright way??? &nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cassini12</DIV><br /><br />Perhaps you have unrealistic expectations?</p><p>I mean Saturn is never really Big and Bright. Don't forget, photos are blown up, and integrate light over a period of time. That's not how the eye works. Have you ever seen Saturn through a bigger scope?</p><p>Before you spend your money, I would STRONGLY suggest that you go to an astronomy club and look through some different styles and sizes of scopes to get a feel for what the capability of each is.</p> <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>

 

[TahaSiddiqui]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank you very much for your reply. I am on a budget of course and i think $800 would even be pushing it at this point. My main concern is Planets as of now. Saturn is my favorite and in my 4.5"&nbsp; it just plain sucks. There HAS to be something wrong with my 4.5" DS-2114 because saturn is TINY, I am talking almost not there. and blurry. I had someone who knows what they are doing "collimate" the scope but I am starting to think maybe its just a POS or it has a "smudge" somewere that I cannot see. I really just dont know. I looked up on google all day today for pictures that people were taking of Saturn with a 4.5" DS-2114 telescope and although it wasnt HUGE it was CLEARLY MUCH bigger than mine. I would LOVE a celestron but the fact is, I cannot afford a decent one right now. MAYBE the $600 5" Nexstar with GOTO. but i dont even think that would show me Saturn in a nice,big,bright way??? &nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cassini12</DIV><br /><br />If your budget is $800 or less, you can still buy very nice telescopes with appertures around 8-12". At telescope.com there is an 8" Dobsonian for only $299. This would give you a well sized Saturn because you can push the magnification up to 406X compared to a 4.5 that only has&nbsp;a max. useful magnification of 200X. However, at 406X Saturn will drift rapidly through the field of view and will be tough without an equatorial mount I think. You may want a reflector which comes with one. For around $600-700 you can get a 8" reflector witha&nbsp; great mount. Here are a few telescopes you may want:</p><p>http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=reflectors/~pcategory=telescopes/~product_id=09738</p><p>http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=dobsonians/~pcategory=telescopes/~product_id=09707</p><p>http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=dobsonians/~pcategory=telescopes/~product_id=09708</p>

 

[crazyeddie]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank you very much for your reply. I am on a budget of course and i think $800 would even be pushing it at this point. My main concern is Planets as of now. Saturn is my favorite and in my 4.5"&nbsp; it just plain sucks. There HAS to be something wrong with my 4.5" DS-2114 because saturn is TINY, I am talking almost not there. and blurry. I had someone who knows what they are doing "collimate" the scope but I am starting to think maybe its just a POS or it has a "smudge" somewere that I cannot see. I really just dont know. I looked up on google all day today for pictures that people were taking of Saturn with a 4.5" DS-2114 telescope and although it wasnt HUGE it was CLEARLY MUCH bigger than mine. I would LOVE a celestron but the fact is, I cannot afford a decent one right now. MAYBE the $600 5" Nexstar with GOTO. but i dont even think that would show me Saturn in a nice,big,bright way??? &nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by Cassini12</DIV></p><p>I think your solution is simple. &nbsp;Buy an 8" F/6 dobsonian and maybe a couple of good planetary eyepieces, such as the Abbe orthoscopics from University Optics, they are a great bargain at only $60 each. &nbsp;The 4mm will give you a magnification of 300x, which is probably the highest you can push this scope under normal seeing conditions. &nbsp;When the seeing is exceptionally steady, you may be able to go higher with a barlow lens.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[TahaSiddiqui]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think your solution is simple. &nbsp;Buy an 8" F/6 dobsonian and maybe a couple of good planetary eyepieces, such as the Abbe orthoscopics from University Optics, they are a great bargain at only $60 each. &nbsp;The 4mm will give you a magnification of 300x, which is probably the highest you can push this scope under normal seeing conditions. &nbsp;When the seeing is exceptionally steady, you may be able to go higher with a barlow lens. <br />Posted by crazyeddie</DIV><br /><br />Yeah I agree with crazyeddie however, Dosonian mounts are&nbsp;Alt-AZ and when your viewing an object under&nbsp;200X+ the object moves so fast out of view it would be very frustrating wouldn't it?

 

[nashville]

<p>I had a 10" LX50, great scope, the tracking ( Megellan II ) was worthless.</p><p>I upgraded to a ( used )&nbsp;12" LX200 Classic about a year ago and love it. All my astro gear has been bought used, eyepieces, dew heaters, barlows, solar filter, DC power supply etc, etc....</p><p>The LX200 scopes are known for their spot on 'go to', and a very large group of happy owners.</p><p>Looking for a scope or anything 'astro', Astromart.com is the place to go.<br /></p>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yeah I agree with crazyeddie however, Dosonian mounts are&nbsp;Alt-AZ and when your viewing an object under&nbsp;200X+ the object moves so fast out of view it would be very frustrating wouldn't it? <br />Posted by TahaSiddiqui</DIV><br /><br />You get used to placing the object so it drifts through the FOV pretty quickly. After a while, moving it to keep up becomes second nature. <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>

 

[crazyeddie]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yeah I agree with crazyeddie however, Dosonian mounts are&nbsp;Alt-AZ and when your viewing an object under&nbsp;200X+ the object moves so fast out of view it would be very frustrating wouldn't it? <br /> Posted by TahaSiddiqui</DIV></p><p>This can be mitigated somewhat by using eyepieces with very wide field of views, such as the Televue Naglers. &nbsp;It takes much longer for the object to drift across the field of view this way, so you don't have to "nudge" as often. &nbsp;Unfortunately, these eyepieces can be pretty expensive.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nashville]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This can be mitigated somewhat by using eyepieces with very wide field of views, such as the Televue Naglers. &nbsp;It takes much longer for the object to drift across the field of view this way, so you don't have to "nudge" as often. &nbsp;Unfortunately, these eyepieces can be pretty expensive.&nbsp; <br />Posted by crazyeddie</DIV><br /><br />A 'nice 'go to' scope can be bought used for less than two Naglers. I own a 20mm type 2 Nagler and love it, however I wouldn't recomend Naglers to solve the 'bump to' of a dob. A Dob is a dob, a light bucket of low cost that requires a good knowledge of the night sky to make useful. My old 'push to' scope was made much more useful when I added a Telrad finder, if you go with a Dob, dump the stock finder and get a Telrad.</p><p>A Telrad and a good chair are the best upgrades for any scope.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>