Meade Starfinder 8" Equatorial
william barrese
I am thinking of buying a Meade Starfinder Equatoral 8" f/6 telescope. I
would appreciate any comments good or bad anyone could give me on this scope
or any comparable scopes in the $700.00 to $900.00 price range. Thanks for
the help..
Bill
Charles
I to am thinking of buying this scope. Sky & Telescope has a review
online.
http://www.skypub.com/testrept/starfind.html
Can't wait to here from some owners.
Michael Bradshaw
On Mon, 29 Dec 1997, william barrese wrote:
> I am thinking of buying a Meade Starfinder Equatoral 8" f/6 telescope. I
> would appreciate any comments good or bad anyone could give me on this scope
> or any comparable scopes in the $700.00 to $900.00 price range. Thanks for
> the help..
>
> Bill
Hi Bill. I had the 8" starfinder. I sold it (not happy with performance,
too big) recently. Here's some pointers:
1)This is a BIG HEAVY scope. The pictures do not give it justice.
2)The optics are generally good to excellent. The drive is strong, but
needs tweaking sometimes. The tube accesories (finder, focuser) are
plastic garbage. They do not mount steadily. I suggest getting new
ones (8x50 finder, JMI 2" focuser).
3)There is no way to level the scope, exact polar alignment is VERY
difficult, and the tube is mounted with awful straps, not rings.
4)The Magellan II is not user friendly. The encoders, etc. are mounted on
the end of 'stalks' and are not sturdy. I don't know about the
Magellan I, but I bet the mechanical quality is the same.
5)The included eyepieces are garbage, naturally.
Basically, if you are willing to fight with it, it is an excellent scope,
after some modifications. If you need to break it down/transport/set up
like I did, you will grow to hate it. To make it an amazing scope, you
will need new finder, focuser, eyepieces, JMI levelers, and maybe Parallax
rings. This puts you into the big bucks region.
Mike Bradshaw
mbra...@shrike.depaul.edu
Jim Harris
So Mike, have you bought anything to replace the 8" Meade Starfinder
yet? I really appreciate your comments, as that was likely to be my
first scope (not any more).
Tim Sheets
william barrese wrote:
> I am thinking of buying a Meade Starfinder Equatoral 8" f/6 telescope. I
> would appreciate any comments good or bad anyone could give me on this scope
> or any comparable scopes in the $700.00 to $900.00 price range. Thanks for
> the help..
>
> Bill
Contrary to the opinions of Mr. Bradshaw, I think your making a very wise
choice. I bought the 8" Starfinder EQ last summer and could not be happier.
The scope has superb optics, the DC motor drive works wonderfully, and the
eyepieces that come with the scope are fine if your just starting out, though,
as with any scope, you'll be buying more.
I do agree that the straps use to hold the tube to the mount are poorly
designed, and a bit of a pain, but not to the point that it causes any grief.
As far as transportability. I do not know the exact weights, but the tube is
light, maybe 20 pounds, and fits in the backseat of my Century. The base
however is heavy, 50 pounds or so. It is also quite cumbersome. I remove the
legs from the base when transporting, but it only takes 10 minutes or so to set
up or tear down.
Though I have not yet upgraded, the focuser is a piece of junk. It works just
fine, but it's bumpy and shaky. I recommend upgrading to a JMI focuser when
finances permit.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Tim
Michael Bradshaw
On Mon, 29 Dec 1997, Jim Harris wrote:
> So Mike, have you bought anything to replace the 8" Meade Starfinder
> yet? I really appreciate your comments, as that was likely to be my
> first scope (not any more).
>
> Jim
> smiz...@dhc.net
> Michael Bradshaw wrote:
> > Hi Bill. I had the 8" starfinder. I sold it (not happy with performance,
> > too big) recently. Here's some pointers:
I'm in the process of buying a used C8. I also have a Questar, which
redefines portability! And, anyone who says that a 3.5" scope is useless
for deep space should look through a Questar. I spent three years
with that alone, and never ran out of things to view. And, it's not
affected by the atmospheric cells! ;)
Mike Bradshaw
mbra...@shrike.depaul.edu
Loren Coe
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.971229...@shrike.depaul.edu>,
Michael Bradshaw <mbra...@shrike.depaul.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Dec 1997, Jim Harris wrote:
>
>> So Mike, have you bought anything to replace the 8" Meade Starfinder
>> yet? I really appreciate your comments, as that was likely to be my
>> first scope (not any more).
>>
>> Jim
>> smiz...@dhc.net
>> Michael Bradshaw wrote:
>> > Hi Bill. I had the 8" starfinder. I sold it (not happy with performance,
>> > too big) recently. Here's some pointers:
>
>I'm in the process of buying a used C8. I also have a Questar, which
>redefines portability! And, anyone who says that a 3.5" scope is useless
now you tell us. sheesh..., no wonder you were so hard on the 8"
newt...
>for deep space should look through a Questar. I spent three years
>with that alone, and never ran out of things to view. And, it's not
>affected by the atmospheric cells! ;)
Happy Holidays,
loren
Sue and Alan French
William,
In my opinion, the scope is somewhat under-mounted. The biggest problem
is that Meade did away with the nice solid hinged rings that used to hold
the tube onto the mount and replaced them with floppy straps. They are a
big pain for one person to manage while setting up the scope. Someone in
our club has this set up on his 6" Meade and he often asks for help with
the straps when setting up.
Clear skies, Alan
william barrese <Bar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<687i81$8...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> I am thinking of buying a Meade Starfinder Equatoral 8" f/6 telescope. I
> would appreciate any comments good or bad anyone could give me on this
scope
> or any comparable scopes in the $700.00 to $900.00 price range. [SNIP]
FBlockland
>Basically, if you are willing to fight with it, it is an excellent scope,
>after some modifications. If you need to break it down/transport/set up
>like I did, you will grow to hate it. To make it an amazing scope, you
>will need new finder, focuser, eyepieces, JMI levelers, and maybe Parallax
>rings. This puts you into the big bucks region.
>
>
>
>Mike Bradshaw
>mbra...@shrike.depaul.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Basically, if you are willing to fight with it, it is an excellent scope,
>after some modifications. If you need to break it down/transport/set up
>like I did, you will grow to hate it. To make it an amazing scope, you
>will need new finder, focuser, eyepieces, JMI levelers, and maybe Parallax
>rings. This puts you into the big bucks region.
>
>
>
>Mike Bradshaw
>mbra...@shrike.depaul.edu
I agree with mike. I still have my 8" starfinder, but I did get the JMI focuser
and the Parallax rings and the Magellen II. I used two levels and shims to get
the mount level and then expoxyed a bubble level to the mount noe I can level
it in the field with shims or tiles. It makes a big diferance. It is a monster
to move around. The tube is only about 18 lbs, but the mount is very auward to
move. I am about to do some CCD work with it, I just got a Srarlight Express
MX-5 16.
Fred Blockland
Stefan Revets
In article <687i81$8...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "william barrese"
<Bar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I am thinking of buying a Meade Starfinder Equatoral 8" f/6 telescope. I
> would appreciate any comments good or bad anyone could give me on this scope
> or any comparable scopes in the $700.00 to $900.00 price range. Thanks for
> the help..
>
> Bill
I bought one about a year ago and I am very happy with it. The price range
is very reasonable (it IS a 8") and leaves you with some money to get some
extra gear (I got myself the 6.4, 12.4 and 20 mm Super Plossls and I just
ordered a JMI Mini focusser).
I seem to have a pretty good mirror judging from star tests (I am still to
get a Foucault setup organised), the drive performs well, and I have
plenty of time to actually observe the marvels in the southern skies
without getting bogged down in the whizzbang of gizmo's around the 'scope.
I usually observe from my backyard here in Perth, and it takes me three
trips to get everything outside. The tube is easily handled, the
counterweights are all right, and the tripod needs a bit of care
(especially keeping those legs away from walls, doors, etc :-). I have
taken the whole thing out as well in my little Daihatshu Charade, and even
that went without too many problems.
If you don't mind the occasional fiddling with things, and are mostly
interested in learning about and looking at the skies, this is an
excellent buy.
I certainly do not regret it.
Good luck!
Stefan
--
Dr. Stefan A. Revets, QEII Fellow
Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Western Australia
Nedlands, WA6907
Australia
Bert Harless
I have the 10 inch and I love it. True! it's big and heavy but I can set it up
myself in about
15 minutes. I can't figure out how anybody could have serious trouble levelling one,
I mean it's only got three legs. I carry a few plywood disks about 3 inches in
diameter and put however many I need under the legs. I admit this won't work on the
side of a steep hill, but I can usually find a place thats close enough to get by
with one or two 1/4" disks.
I also make some other changes to mine, you might want to check out at
http://www.du.edu/~pryan/meadfix.htm
The eyepieces that I got with it are a 26mm, a 12mm and a 9mm, they are not great
but they arent as bad as everybody says, they are ok to start out with.
I just purchased two of the new Pentax ep's a 7mm and a 28mm, they are truely
incredible,, so's the price, ouch! I just got to try them out tonight. They have an
appearent 65deg FOV not as wide as some but impressive none the less. The top glass
in the 7 must be an inch and a 1/4 in diameter, they both give enough eye relief to
be comfortable if you wear glasses.
So I'd say if you don't mind a little tinkering with things these are good scopes. I
always enjoyed being able to improve my toys and make them better than they were
when new.
remove the eatmyshortsyouspammingbastards to email me if you want more info.
Bert
>
Phil Harrington
In article <687i81$8...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "william barrese"
<Bar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > I am thinking of buying a Meade Starfinder Equatoral 8" f/6 telescope. I
> > would appreciate any comments good or bad anyone could give me on this scope
> > or any comparable scopes in the $700.00 to $900.00 price range. Thanks for
> > the help..
FWIW, I rate it a "best buy" in my book STAR WARE. Optics are good, the
mounting isn't bad (sorry, but I still prefer an equatorial over a Dob,
especially on scopes <=10" aperture), and the size and weight aren't
overwhelming. The drive system is adequate for short-exposure lunar and
planetary photography as well as longer exposure, guided exposures with
the camera piggybacked on the side of the telescope tube.
Like I say, overall, a good buy.
Phil
***********************
Phil Harrington
Go ahead...make my day! Visit the Star Ware Home Page
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pharrington
David Nakamoto
Michael Bradshaw wrote:
> I'm in the process of buying a used C8. I also have a Questar, which
> redefines portability! And, anyone who says that a 3.5" scope is
> useless
> for deep space should look through a Questar. I spent three years
> with that alone, and never ran out of things to view. And, it's not
> affected by the atmospheric cells! ;)
Just to put this in perspective, the Questar is one of the top of the
line for 3.5 inch telescopes. Optics are first rate, and the price
reflects this. I think it's unfair to point to the Questar and say that
this disproves the notion that 3.5 inch telescopes don't offer much in
the way of viewing. We're talking about the exception that makes the
rule. Almost every other 3.5 inch telescope commercially available out
there performs WAY below the Questar, as I've seen on a couple of
occasions. It even outperforms my C5 in terms of clarity of image, but
the C5 does offer slightly brighter views.
So it's still true that, if you buy a commercially available 3.5 inch
telescope, that with one or two exceptions on the market you're not
going to see much in the way of a long list of deep sky objects.
That's my opinion.
David Bush
Also, leveling is not necessary for polar allignment. A common
mis-conception.
David
Bert Harless wrote in message
<34A8AF07...@eatmyshortsyouspammingbastardshenge.com>...
... I can't figure out how anybody could have serious trouble levelling one,
Tim Sheets
Sue and Alan French wrote:
> William,
> In my opinion, the scope is somewhat under-mounted. The biggest problem
> is that Meade did away with the nice solid hinged rings that used to hold
> the tube onto the mount and replaced them with floppy straps. They are a
> big pain for one person to manage while setting up the scope. Someone in
> our club has this set up on his 6" Meade and he often asks for help with
> the straps when setting up.
> Clear skies, Alan
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand the complaint everyone has with the straps.
Granted, I think there are much better ways they could have accomplished this task,
but the idea that someone with a 6" starfinder needs help with the straps seems
absurd to me. I have never had any help setting up my 8", and I have no problems
with the straps at all. My only complaint is that they make balancing a bit
annoying. But they are not difficult to use, and certainly shouldn't cause someone
not to buy the scope because of them.
Tim
AndersonRM
In article <01bd14c0$de2fe8c0$10032399@sue-alanfrench>, "Sue and Alan French"
<Sue_and_A...@msn.com> writes:
> In my opinion, the scope is somewhat under-mounted. The biggest
problem is that Meade did away with the nice solid hinged rings that used to
hold
the tube onto the mount and replaced them with floppy straps
The biggest problem is the general public is too cheap to
pay for those rings, along with fully metal focusers, good finderscopes,
good eyepieces, well constructed mountings, non-cardboard tubes,
decent drives, and proper mirror cells. The scopes are built to a
price point that attracts a certain type of people to buy.
They could build them with quality features but it's unlikely they
would sell very many at $2000/ea. If people want good rings, there
are aftermarket sources to get them from.
-Rich
Peter Besenbruch
On 1 Jan 1998 01:36:56 GMT, ander...@aol.com (AndersonRM)
wrote:
>The biggest problem is the general public is too cheap to
>pay for those rings, along with fully metal focusers, good finderscopes,
>good eyepieces, well constructed mountings, non-cardboard tubes,
>decent drives, and proper mirror cells. The scopes are built to a
>price point that attracts a certain type of people to buy.
>They could build them with quality features but it's unlikely they
>would sell very many at $2000/ea. If people want good rings, there
>are aftermarket sources to get them from.
I suspect you are right about some of this. My concern lies more
with the beginning public. One thing I like about the newsgroup
is that we can alert some people to the fixing up required on a
scope like the Starfinder. If they buy anyway, it's an informed
purchase.
As I have said elsewhere, I think the 6" Starfinder EQ is
serviceable. The focuser is still one of the worst in the
industry, but the mounting strap arrangement is not so bad at
this size, and the mount can hold a 6" tube assembly.
Where I fault Meade, is on the 10" Starfinder EQ. In addition to
the notorious focuser, f4.5 is not a beginner's f ratio. The
mount supports the tube poorly, and the straps are an instrument
of torture. When so much is badly wrong with a scope aimed at
beginners, the very people who lack the ability to evaluate a
telescope, then Meade has crossed a line. It's an ethical line.
___________________________________________________
Hawaiian Astronomical Society http://www.hawastsoc.org
HAS Deepsky Atlas http://www.hawastsoc.org/deepsky
Delete the "nobulk." for the true e-mail address.
PaulHBock
Rich said:
>If people want good rings, there
>are aftermarket sources to get them from.
You can also build your own hinged hex rings from oak at a fraction of the
price. Although you *can* do it using a jigsaw and hand sanding, a 10" bandsaw
and 4" tabletop belt sander make the job much easier and allow you to turn out
good, solid rings (assuming you reinforce the stress points, of course) which
are also very attractive. A nice Danish walnut stain, some self-adhesive felt
inside the ring halves, threaded inserts in the bottom (properly spaced for
your mounting plate), and a little ingenuity in making your own swivel bolts
will yield you a durable set of rings for a 5", 6", 7", or 8" diameter tube
assembly for about $20 in materials plus a few hours work.
I've been using my prototype set for eight years with the 5" refractor,
and have built about three dozen sets for others in various sizes. Items like
this represent only one of many areas where I believe the enterprising amateur
can save money and improve drastically on some of the schlock stuff being sold
with the lower-priced instruments; all it takes is the willingness to try a
little "do it yourselfing."
Oak tripods are another, but that's another story.....
Happy New Year to all!
Paul
Paul H. Bock, Jr. Hamilton, VA U.S.A.
Paul F. Gustafson
AndersonRM wrote in message
<19980101013...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>>
>The biggest problem is the general public is too cheap to
>pay for those rings, along with fully metal focusers, good finderscopes,
>good eyepieces, well constructed mountings, non-cardboard tubes,
>decent drives, and proper mirror cells. The scopes are built to a
>price point that attracts a certain type of people to buy.
>They could build them with quality features but it's unlikely they
>would sell very many at $2000/ea. If people want good rings, there
>are aftermarket sources to get them from.
>-Rich
>
Good point. Unfortunately, those very people are also the least able to
determine the inadequacies of the cheap scopes, and some manufacturers take
advantage by deliberately misleading them.
Paul
Hamp
Actually, I would like to buy a "good" 10"f/7 or 12 f/6.
Perhaps a Cave or a Starliner. Any recommendations?
Frank
Peter Besenbruch
On 1 Jan 1998 06:11:47 GMT, paul...@aol.com (PaulHBock) wrote:
> You can also build your own hinged hex rings from oak at a fraction of the
>price.
>
> I've been using my prototype set for eight years with the 5" refractor,
>and have built about three dozen sets for others in various sizes.
Do you have pictures of any of your scopes anywhere? This is neat
stuff to share.
William Hamblen
On Thu, 01 Jan 1998 12:52:11 -0500, Hamp <ha...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Actually, I would like to buy a "good" 10"f/7 or 12 f/6.
>Perhaps a Cave or a Starliner. Any recommendations?
>
Cave hasn't made telescopes in a long time and Starliner ads no longer
appear in Sky & Telescope, so if you want a new telescope like those
the one choice appears to be Parks. Otherwise look for a used one.
Meade also made "research grade" newtonians that probably were the
best telescopes Meade ever built, except they didn't make enough
profit to continue the line. Years ago the State of Tennessee bought
a bunch of 12.5" Meade newtonians for rangers to use putting on
astronomy programs at state parks. They were nice instruments, just
huge. A neighbor who was a photographer for the state would borrow
one every so often and told me about them. I don't know if the park
programs are still being held.
PaulHBock
When I wrote:
>> You can also build your own hinged hex rings from oak at a fraction of
the price. I've been using my prototype set for eight years with the 5"
refractor,
Peter followed up with:
>Do you have pictures of any of your scopes anywhere? This is neat stuff to
share.
Peter, you are absolutely right; although not of interest to everyone, it
*should* be shared - in fact, I was going to write an article for S&T several
years ago to show how to make your own oak rings and tripod at low cost, but
never got a "round tuit." So I apologize for not sharing something which never
became a commercial enterprise anyway and might have benefited someone else.
No excuses, I was just too lazy.
Well, as it happens the article has resurrected itself because I just
finished up a new mounting system which allows me to use a second-hand Meade
Starfinder GEM on a homemade oak mounting cap & tripod with the same oak rings.
The only mods to the GEM itself are four holes drilled into the saddle plate
to hold an adapter & ring mounting plate.
The result is a *very* sturdy mounting system for a 5" f/10 refractor (16
lbs, 55" long with dewcap) for less than $500 (I gave $385 for the used mount
w/tangent-arm slo-mo for declination) which probably would also suffice for a
somewhat heavier, short-focus 6" refractor (say f/8 or so).
This adaptation of the Meade Newtonian GEM provides solid support, ease of
focusing (no "focusing wiggles"), smooth adjustment in RA and declination, and
DC RA drive. It is *NOT* "state-of-the art" but IMHO is entirely adequate for
visual observing and makes spending $1500-up for a 5"-capable refractor mount
(A-P 400, Losmandy GM8 and G11, the older Losmandy GM100) unnecessary *unless*
you need all the bells & whistles of dual-axis drive and "smarts", precise
polar alignment for photography without using an iterative "star-drift"
alignment process, etc.
I've started on the article and of course it will have pictures. I will
also make available templates for the ring sections and instructions on how to
make them, and the same for the tripod legs and top cap, for the cost of return
postage. The instructions include mail-order sources for various parts. I
think I have templates for 5", 6" and 7" rings still lying around somewhere.
If someone has the capability to scan photos and put them on a Web page
somewhere, I'll send closeups of the old system which used a Super Polaris
mount on a heavy oak tripod with the self-same rings I'm using on the Meade
GEM. The best that can be said about that system is that it was usable (with
"ShakeEnders) but it basically sucked (and I lived with it for 8 years - talk
about lazy *AND* cheap!). As clunky as the Meade GEM is and as many
"niceties" as it may lack, in terms of stability it is light-years ahead of the
S-P when you're trying to use a 16 lb, 55" long OTA.
And, it is easily convertable back to a Newtonian mount should you desire.
Next step is to design & build a decent pier so that one can take full
advantage of the latitude adjustment on the GEM (the tripod limits it to
between about 25-43 degrees).
Cheers,
David Bush
There sure seems to be a lot of carping about the quality of the
rack-and-pinion focuser on the Starfinders. I have owned two Starfinders, a
12.5" and currently an 8". In both cases I found that focuser to be fine. It
is smooth and has no backlash. I only use 1.25" eyepieces in it so perhaps
with 2" 'ers it may have trouble.
Be aware of "high-tech snobbery" (If you don't have a $200 Crayford focuser
your scope aint worth @#&%!)
David
Jeff Medkeff
I am pretty sure that "David Bush" <re...@this.group> said
the following, though I may be wrong:
>There sure seems to be a lot of carping about the quality of the
>rack-and-pinion focuser on the Starfinders. I have owned two Starfinders, a
>12.5" and currently an 8". In both cases I found that focuser to be fine.
I'm glad you have had good experiences, but I only wish that
two Starfinders (both 10") in a nearby club were as good as
yours. If these Starfinders are any indications of the
average quality of the focusers, then most of the focusers
must be pretty bad.
>Be aware of "high-tech snobbery" (If you don't have a $200 Crayford focuser
>your scope aint worth @#&%!)
Well, I don't have and never did have an instrument with
either a Crayford, or a $200 focuser, or both. But I have
used some nice, smooth focusers, and some bad ones, and I
know the difference.
Jeff Medkeff | Check out the s.a.a. photos page at
Rockland Observatory | http://shutter.vet.ohio-state.edu/saa.htm
Sierra Vista, AZ |
Chris Sanborn
I think it was David Bush that wrote:
>
> There sure seems to be a lot of carping about the quality of the
> rack-and-pinion focuser on the Starfinders. I have owned two
> Starfinders, a 12.5" and currently an 8". In both cases I found
> use 1.25" eyepieces in it so perhaps with 2" 'ers it may have
> trouble.
>
> Crayford focuser your scope aint worth @#&%!)
>
David,
I have an 8" as well. I had a lot of trouble with the focuser at
first with dragging, notchy-ness, and backlash. Then I saw that
it was actually dragging on the opening in the tube. I enlarged
the hole slightly with an exacto knife and it's a thousand percent
better. It's still not real smooth, but good enough for now. I'm
used to using high-end focusers on microscopes, so that's the feel
I would eventually like to have on my scope.
Chris Sanborn
--
Anti-Spam Note: Replace nospam with my last name for email replies.
Michael Bradshaw
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, David Bush wrote:
>
> There sure seems to be a lot of carping about the quality of the
> rack-and-pinion focuser on the Starfinders. I have owned two Starfinders, a
> 12.5" and currently an 8". In both cases I found that focuser to be fine. It
> is smooth and has no backlash. I only use 1.25" eyepieces in it so perhaps
> with 2" 'ers it may have trouble.
My focuser was poorly mounted, and allowed some ambiant light in through
the sides. It was serviceable. However, for what you pay for, Meade
could put a focuser in the scope that:
1) At least had a chromed brass tube, AT LEAST!
2) Didn't allow light in
3) Didn't wander on the tube, since the screws/screw holes are poorly done
> Be aware of "high-tech snobbery" (If you don't have a $200 Crayford focuser
> your scope aint worth @#&%!)
> David
I'm the last person to suggest spending money! I'm a poor student who got
rid of my Starfinder because I couldn't afford the, what I felt, needed
upgrades (rings, finder, focuser, leveler).
Mike Bradshaw
mbra...@shrike.depaul.edu
Matt Gomes
In article <34A7F538...@wdigitech.com>, Tim Sheets
<t...@wdigitech.com> wrote:
> Though I have not yet upgraded, the focuser is a piece of junk. It works just
> fine, but it's bumpy and shaky. I recommend upgrading to a JMI focuser when
> finances permit.
I just bought the 6" model, so I'm now looking at focusers and other stuff.
How much do SMI focusers cost usually? And how difficult is it to install them?
Thanks for the help!
-M
globular...@gmail.com
Mark
Quadibloc
> I am thinking of buying a Meade Starfinder Equatoral 8" f/6 telescope.
Equatorial mounting? Wonderful.
f/6 focal ratio? What kind of a telescope _is_ this?
But that's just a gut reaction, without actually knowing anything about the telescope in question.
Ah. It's a standard Newtonian telescope. It is more commonly sold as a
Dobsonian, but you can get it on a German Equatorial mount.
The focal ratio is actually the standard for the aperture for a Newtonian - 6"
f/8 and 8" f/6 both have a 48" inch focal length, making it convenient to look
through the eyepiece.
So my instinctive reaction was an error, as the result of being too used to the high focal ratios of catadioptrics.
In general, this is a great kind of 'scope. Better views of the planets than a
6", at the cost of the primary mirror needing to be parabolized accurately. From
a reputable company like Meade, instead of you having to grind the mirror
yourself, this shoulc be no issue.
I would expect this telescope to be significantly less expensive than an 8"
Schmidt-Cassegrain, despite having higher optical quality (fewer and less
complex optical parts to make are the cause of both things). What you give up
for the lower price is convenience, it is bulky and heavy. Particularly with the
equatorial mount and counterweight.
And today, Meade is making some Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes that have coma-
free designs, so the optical quality of an S-C from them today is much better
than in the early days when the reputation of that design was so-so.
Can't find it on their site. An LX70 8" with German Equatorial mount, f/5 rather
than f/6, lists for $699.95. In comparison, an LX200-ACF 8" f/10 Advanced Coma-
Free with a standard tripod - and an altazimuth fork mount - lists for
$2,699.00.
So a Newtonian is a better bargain, and should be a good telescope.
John Savard