Posts Made By: Paul Boerner

Hi Brian,

I've used meade's 416 and 1616, sbig's st7 and st9, and an apogee ap7 and ap8. I'd advise against the meade; I know the sbig is quite a bit more $$ for a camera built around the same chip, but it really is worth it. It's not so much for the built-in guider (which is nice, but not always useful), but the overall build quality of the sbig -- the mechanics, the electronics, and the software -- is vastly better than the pictor series cameras.

I'm not a general meade-basher. I own and like a lot of their stuff. But I really don't like their ccds. For one thing, the pictor software is truly awful; if you do wind up getting the meade camera, at least look into getting a 3rd party software package (MaxIm DL is fantastic). Meade cameras require an absurd amount of backfocus (with the Meade filter wheel). The cooler doesn't work very well. The SCSI download is buggy, and the serial download is slow. The included autoguider is a pain to use.

I know the pictor is a lot cheaper for the same imaging chip, and I know that a lot of people have gotten good results with meade cameras, but they really are 2-3 steps below sbig in quality. There are other options out there in the same price territory as meade's cameras (starlight xpress, the mythical apogee lisaa...) that you might check out (I haven't tried those), or if you can possibly afford the higher price, go for the sbig.

Hope you enjoy whatever you get.

PB

Thanks for the replies; looks like there are some memorable bad ads out there. I just hope the students learn enough to understand how bad they really are...

Didn't catch the make, but I think it must've been a broken Cass instead of a Newt...the focuser was at the primary end of the tube, behind the tube ring.

Excelsis (2/5)
Pro: Large database; the only site to get reviews on a lot of products (esp. cheap eyepieces). Lots of different reviewers makes it less vulnerable to a particularly good or bad sample.
Con: Written reviews are relatively rare, and usually quite short (1 paragraph). Generally anonymous, and tend not to be well-thought-out or supported. Numerical ratings almost useless without written justification. Anyone remember how this site used to be, a few years ago? There were a LOT more written reviews, and the whole thing was much more fun & useful.

Todd Gross's Mini-Reviews (2/5)
Pro: Similar to Ed Ting's, only his reviews are shorter, less entertaining and less detailed.
Con: Even more out-of-date than Ed Ting's. Reviews are shorter, less entertaining and less detailed. Like I just said.

A few companies (incl. TV for the high-end and Bushnell at the low end) sell porro prism assemblies (like the ones used in some binoculars) for 1.25" eyepieces; they're a little bulky and have a lot of elements to introduce scatter and aberrations, but they work. There's also a 1.25" Vixen straight-through erect image adapter that's a little cheaper than the TV version; I'm not sure how well that one works.

Also, check out www.scopestuff.com; $18 including shipping in the US for a pair of rings.
pb

I know some people have gotten very nice pictures with Meade cameras, and I know they're a lot cheaper than SBIG or Apogee cameras that use the same CCD chip, but still I'd strongly recommend against the 416XTE. I've used a 416 and 1616, and SBIG ST-6, 7, 9, and an apogee AP-8. There's no comparison between the meade packages and SBIG or apogee cameras -- meade's are louder, bulkier, have buggier electronics, and horrendous software. I'm not anti-meade in general, and I don't mean to insult anyone's property; if you own a 416 and like it, great. But I'd never, ever buy a meade CCD again. Look for a used SBIG, or pay more and get a new SBIG or apogee, or look at the Starlight Xpress cameras (I haven't used them, so I can't really comment, but I'd try one of those before I tried another Meade).

paul

One option is to buy a NexStar 80, sell the OTA and buy a Baader bracket (from, eg, Alpine Astro). This works ok with short, light scopes, but is annoying to use if you overload it. Also, it's a little tricky to adapt it to a tripod other than the cheesy one it comes with. But it's cheap and the mount arm itself is pretty solid.

Just out of curiosity, why do you want a motorized altaz?

If you can find a Pentax 75SDHF, I think you'd like it. Optically it's second only to the FS-78 on your list (and for astrophotography it might actually offer more flexibility than the Tak), and it's smaller and lighter than everything except the Borg. It's a really nice, well-made scope, but I don't know if you can easily order a new one.

I believe the new CG-5s have a better tripod, fixing one of the major problem areas on the old mounts. I don't know if they have finally decided to use grease instead of glue on the gears and bearings.

You might check out the SkyView Pro mount from Orion; I haven't used one, but I played with it in the store and it felt more substantial than a CG-5. The guy at Orion said it was more like a clone of the GP-DX, while the CG-5 is a clone of the GP, and it only costs a little more than the CG-5. There're also the Giro altaz mounts in the $300 range, which are worth a try if you're not sold on using a GEM.