Celestron vs Meade 8"

[joeyttk]

Hi, I been doing a lot of reading up for the past months and is close to deciding on a scope.

appreciate your advise on whether should I spent on the NexStar 8SE or the Meade 8" Lx200 ACF. the price differences is about 500 USD more.

http://www.shopatron.com/products/categ ... 4280.0.0.0
http://www.celestron.com/c3/product.php ... 16#idTab14

is the Meade worth the 500 USD more ? especially in the context of singapore where apperture seems likely to be more important than anything else.

appreciate your advise and comments

thanks!

[yybmage]

I personally thinks so, the alignments with the 8SE maybe a little bit of a problem for you, its alignments can be inaccurate at times and the tracking systems are rather poor. The meade LX200s are more expensive than the nexstars but they do pay off. The tracking systems are better and although the systems may prove to be confusing to control or set up, it will work with presicion if you finally get through to it. You may not need the coma-free opitic though, it just increases the viewing, you can make use of it if you want to try out astrophotography. As for the aperture, yes, in sg you will definitely need them, but both of the scopes are of the same aperture, there is not a need to worry about that.

P.S I have a 12" LX 200 ACF that costed me almost 12K if not for the discount at that time.

[weixing]

Hi,
IMHO, you cannot compare NexStar 8SE and Meade 8" LX200 ACF directly as they are quite different. At the moment, Celestron don't have a whole package product that you can directly compare with the Meade 8" LX200 ACF... the Meade 8" LX200 ACF is a modified SCT on a double fork mount while NexStar 8SE is a normal SCT on a single fork mount.

The Meade 8" LX200 ACF is basically a modified SCT with lesser coma and flatter field than a normal SCT which is more useful for Astrophotography. The equivalent OTA (Optical Tube Assembly) from Celestron will be the Celestron EdgeHD series, but the Celestron EdgeHD series don't come with double fork mount at the moment... they only package with an EQ mount which I think is more logical since EQ mount is a better choice if using for Astrophotography.

The NexStar 8SE is a normal SCT on a smaller and relative portable single fork mount. The disadvantage is that it's not that stable because of the single fork mount. The advantage is that it's smaller, more portable and you can easily remove the OTA and use it on other mount, such as an EQ mount as long as it's accept the Vixen style dovetail. Celestron does have a double fork mount SCT which is the CPC series.

I haven't see through the Meade ACF and Celestron EdgeHD yet, so not sure how much improvement does it really had over a normal SCT for visual observation, but I think the improvement might not be that big for visual use... so might not worth the extra $$ if you use only use it for visual. Those who had both scope might want to comment on this.

Have a nice day.

[acc]

I have owned and used various variants of these two scopes.

For visual I would get the Nexstar8SE without hesitation as its cheaper, more portable and easier to set up than the LX200 (less bulky and heavy). Furthermore, the Celestron OTA can be easily removed from its mount so you can use other OTAs if you so desire.

The Meade's advantage is a more intuitive software, faster slew speed and probably better tracking if you are into photography.

[yybmage]

Hehe, better tracking is better for astrophotography, but i do agree that is costs too much...

[VinSnr]

The Meade ACF has far better visual quality. You can see it from tighter stars and sharper views.

Even the star test is quite super. Both side of focus is pretty identical. In SCTs, normally one side of focus is pretty sharp but the other side is a little softer. This is actually normal. But for ACFs, both sides are equally sharp and similar.

[Airconvent]

Over the years, both Meade and Celestron has been one-upping each other. Celestron has their sky align but their control unit is simpler and has lesser features. If portability and price is not an issue, go for the Meade. Else go for the Nexstar which offers more bang for buck.

[weixing]

Hi,

Hehe, better tracking is better for astrophotography

The problem for fork mount is that it's not Astrophotography "friendly" in equatorial area.

Have a nice day.

[joeyttk]

Over the years, both Meade and Celestron has been one-upping each other. Celestron has their sky align but their control unit is simpler and has lesser features. If portability and price is not an issue, go for the Meade. Else go for the Nexstar which offers more bang for buck.

Portability is really subjective, given that one is around 24kg (celestonr), and the other is 35kg.

How about getting a separate computerized mount, and a celeston ota ?would that be the best combi given the consideration of stability, better tracking / slew speed, and also lower cost ota (celestron) ?

for that extra $, I summarized the advanatage as described by the fellow forumer
a. better tracking software
b. better optics given same aperture

c. better stability
d. includes GPS

all seems to be just frills except for the point about the better optics.

[Airconvent]

Advances invariably lead to better performance. However, while the new bells and whistles from the ACF is great, the optics do fine as it is.
And if you need it for visual and an occasional planet photo, it should prove a good machine for the price.
I loved my Nexstar8 but selling it because I thought the new features were cool too. That's the thing about the N8SE. You end up with a core set of fearures in a more portable configuration and a good price. If you need more, you can upgrade.
But I agree the Meade with dual forkmount is much more stable but for this class, you should really be comparing with the dual fork mount Celestron CPC series instead. Meade does not really have a product in the same class as the N8SE.