Posts Made By: Mark Davis

Hi everyone!!
I currently own a Meade 12"LX200 Classic and want to upgrade. My main priority is the view recieved from the eyepiece (visual obseving)and I would want a goto scope. Would the extra 2" in aperture be worth the money the 2 mentioned 14" scopes would cost or would I be better off keeping the 12" (and the money.)Which out of the 2 should I choose if I went ahead, Meade or Celestron, I was also considering the Meade 16" because of the huge price-cut but have heard of bad reports on these.Or has anyone else got any ideas with visual observing in mind. Thanks to all who replies!!
Mark.

Just purchased a 10" Meade LX 90 GPS and need to purchase eyepieces. What are your opinions on which eyepieces to choose covering all aspects, contrast, largest FOV, DSO's and planetary viewing etc. The focal length is 2500mm and it's an f10. The choice would be purely for visual observing. Thanks to all who take the time to answer.

Sorry if this has already been covered.

The HD optics on the SCT's are going to be superior for the astrophotography minded person but are they superior for a visual observer like myself?
Would you benefit shelling out for a C14 EDGE HD or purchase a C14 XLT?

Thanks.

Hi guys,

Thanks alot for all your input it is much appreciated!! I think I may go with the Meade after origionally swinging towards the Celestron. I thought the optics on the Celestron were better than the Meade, but no-one has commented on this so I take it the Meade optics have improved? As for Astrophotography I will only be doing the odd bit with a Canon DSLR Rebel, no plans to use a CCD camera I just haven't got the time with only having the occasional session due to the awful British weather and working nights as I have already mentioned, some of you guys are so lucky with the amount of clear skies you get!
Chris is there any chance you could measure your Meade 14" height (at it's lowest inc: wheelie bar) so I can see how much clearance I would need to wheel it in and out of the shed, as I may need the wheelie bar if the fork-mount and the OTA weigh in around the 125lb mark, the last thing I would want to do is drop it, and for some reason I don't like the idea of asking the wife to take hold of one end to set the thing up.
Thanks again for all your replies!
Regards,
Mark.

Cheers Chris!

Any chance you can measure the height from the floor to the top of the OTA with 3" for the wheels included, so I can see if it will go into my shed or if I will need a new shed. I was thinking of purchasing a new scope but Meade unlike Celestron will not let dealers ship to the UK so probably my best bet will try and pick up a good second hand one off someone who will ship to the UK.
Mark.

Thanks Joel and Chris for the info and to all who have replied, the info you supply is what these sites are all about, giving info to the likes of myself and others who want to make sure they get the right package before shelling out the cash.
The scope I will get will be only used in my garden so it doesn't matter which I choose as they both have had good feedback. All I need to do now is wait until one comes my way.
I'll keep a check on things Chris for Saturday or you can get in touch with me through the classifieds as I have placed an ad on for either of the scopes.
Thanks again to everyone and keep up the good work!!

Regards,

Mark.

I tested both the 35mm Pan and the 40mm XL at f11 and found the sky background noticeably darker in the Panoptic, the view from the 35 Panoptic also seemed to be abit sharper and stars stood out better due to the darker background, it also had a more pleasing view, the XL at times had a somewhat soft look around the edges. Not sure how the XW stands up though! If the choice was mine and for my f11 scope it would have to be the 41mm Pan which would also give the larger FOV.
Another consideration if weight wasn't an issue would be the new Meade series 5000 40mm SWA, which gets a certain amount of criticism due to the manufacture being in China and not Japan. I tested this against the 35mm Pan and could decern no noticeable difference either in at the sweetspot or around the outer edges with both having the same dark sky background, the Meade is also abit easier on the pocket at around $400 but weighing in at 2.6lbs compared to the 35mm Panoptics 1.5lbs. I put them both up for sale as they were that closely matched and I kept the one that didn't sell, I now just have the Meade although I'm itching to try the 41mm Pan :-)

Mark.

Hi Chuck,

I tried many an eyepiece for my C14 to get the best out of it as I'm a purely visual observer. I kept away from focal reducers as I wanted to see the objects the best I could, if that mean't sacrificing FOV then so be it. Out of the many, many eyepieces I looked through I would highly recommend these eyepieces
41mm Pan ( gives 95x mag ) for max FOV, the 35mm Pan ( 112x ) is a very nice eyepiece also but is limited on objects like the double cluster where you need the max FOV of the 41mm Pan, If you go with the 35mm you would sometime down the line ask yourself why didn't you go with the 41mm.
Either ( I kept both ) 22mm Nagler Type 4 ( 178x ) or 17mm Nagler Type 4 ( 230x ) both have good eye-relief and are great medium power eyepieces. I have never viewed any globular cluster with any eyepiece I have tried better than with these 2 Naglers, they just seem to frame them perfectly.
If binoviewing, ( I must add that I used the Denk II with dual arm powerswitch ) again I tried lots of pairs but the best all-round performer I found for both deep-sky and planetary viewing are the 19mm Pans.

Good luck in which you decide to choose!

Mark.

Hi David,

I had a TMB 80 f6 and the Televue Nagler 3-6mm zoom was simply excellent in that scope and gave a great range of power. It's abit more than you wanted to spend but worth the extra $'s in my opinion.

Mark.