Keyboard Shortcuts
ctrl + shift + ? :
Show all keyboard shortcuts
ctrl + g :
Navigate to a group
ctrl + shift + f :
Find
ctrl + / :
Quick actions
esc to dismiss
Likes
- C14EdgeHD
- Messages
Search
|
Re: [C14] What eyepiece to fill in the gap?
At least to my eye I find some kidney beaning around the edges. ?It is very similar to the 12T4 that I have. ?I just can't seem to find a comfortable eye position no matter how I look. ?I don't wear glasses or anything and they are are the only 2 naglers I do not like. ?I did not try the 22T2 nagler so I can't speak for it. ?Several I have talked to prefer that version to the T4.
|
|
Re: [C14] Does the C14 OTA visual back accept a 2" diaganol?
I use the 2" back that came with the C14 for the 2" Everbrite.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I use 45lbs (three WO weights) plus the heavy weight shaft to support the C14 on my WO GT1-HD and have room left to move the weights further down the shaft for supporting the MX7c camera and Optec TCF focuser. Side bar - I have not selected a finder scope yet (telrad only) and would like to get any suggestions/recommendations from other C14 owners. Jim -----Original Message-----
From: televue102 [mailto:televue102@...] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 10:00 AM To: C14@... Subject: [C14] Does the C14 OTA visual back accept a 2" diaganol? I am trying to determine if I need an adapter like Tele Vue and AP make to use my 2" Everbrite with a so-to-be-new C14. Also -- how much counterwweight is neccessary to blance a C14 with visual accesories on a G11 or CI700 mount? To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: C14-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to |
|
Re: [C14] Does the C14 OTA visual back accept a 2" diaganol?
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýIf you buy a C14 you get an adapter for 2" with it.
So you can use your 2" Everbrite with the C14 without an extra adapter. I have
the 2" Everbrite too.
?
The second question must answer someone
else.
?
Johannes
?
?
?
|
|
Re: [C14] Does the C14 OTA visual back accept a 2" diaganol?
Jim,
Don't get the Starbeam! ?It looks cool but is a pain. ?First, it is VERY easy to knock out of alignment. ?I am constantly realigning mine. ?Second, it offers no light gathering or magnification. ?As such, on nights when you might need a 50mm or 60mm finder to give you just enough light grasp to see something, you won't be able to with Starbeam. ?Of course, all that being said, the Starbeam is what I have, and the reason I am looking for something else. Paul Atkinson |
|
Re: [C14] Does the C14 OTA visual back accept a 2" diaganol?
I do not believe you need a special adapter to use a 2" Televue. ?My C14 came with a 2" SCT back. ?However, I use mine with the NGF-S focuser so I can't say 100%.
On my C14, I think at a minimum you will need about 45 to 50 lbs to properly balance depending on accessories. ?That is what I am using on my G11. Paul Atkinson |
|
Re: [C14] C14 vs Meade 12"
W. Gondella
Paul,
My answer, in a word is. . . TASCO. Celestron truely made grand scopes in the yesteryear (C22, C16, C10), which were targeted for schools, universities and the serious amateur. But that was a too-limited market for Celestron to remain viable. They had to cheapen things to meet a lower price point and be competitive with Meade. Meade is such a large company, they have revenue from other sales to fund the research and development of better goto, etc. Tasco, IMO, does not understand telescopes and thinks they should all be glorified toys. Celestrons great optics are a carryover from their much longer experience with them. I suspect the rough castings and blems are a result of older casting molds which have been used beyond their most serviceable life. They appear to be on a tight budget since they were bought out, and are now only grudgingly beginning to get the finances they need to be more innovative again. In the past couple years, you can see the influence of more money spent in the ads and products. Celestron has never been a marketing genius, something Meade definitely has the edge on. Marketing counts for a lot. Remember those ads from the '70s where they always had a pretty girl who had never touched a telescope in her life, next to their C8, like they were selling cars? Their best ad was the one with Leonard Nimoy. Meade sold theirs with lab technicians in white lab coats and dark glasses, with neat, conservative haircuts. Major difference in the subliminal message. I argued with them about the CI-700, telling them they should have built a superb mount for their flagship instrument, the C14, and then put the C11 on it (if they didn't want to build 2 mounts) as overkill. That's the way to do it. They told me they DID design the 700 for the C14!! :-\ In answer to Ismael's questions: C14 celestron celestal views: 1. can you see color on planets ? Absolutely. I see many different shades even in the Saturn Ring System. A whole range of color on Mars and almost as much as one sees on decent amateur photos of Jupiter. 2. can you see the spirals of a galaxy ? Absolutely. Too many to list. 3. can you see color on deep sky objects ? Many planetaries and some nebula have distinct coloring. 4. ( MY 3yr old son ? ) Can you see GOD ? Yes, if you look at M13 at 300 power in a 13mm nagler eyepiece at a dark site, and yell out, "Oh my God!!" :-) Wayne E. Gondella AFA Engineering Company Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Here is what I don't understand. Celestron makes truly great optics. Why they can't seem to put it together with a winning tripod/goto system like the Meade is beyond me. Paul |
|
Re: [C14] How good are the views of the Giant CM 1400
If you have one on the way you will be thrilled (other than the mount). ?The views are spectacular to say the least and is way ahead of the Meade 12." ?Two weeks ago I spent time in Chiefland, Florida with mine. ?Even on mediocre nights I was able to see spiral structure in M51 as well as the bridge. ?Depending on the galaxy you can see quite a bit of detail. ?Fainter ones still look faint and don't show more generally, other than increased brightness. ?However, M64 (Sombrero) clearly show the dark dust lane, and the Black Eye Galaxy shows it's black eye. ?I had a guy tell me that the view of M51 was better in my 14" than his 20" Starmaster while in Chiefland. ?These views are great indeed. ?Many planetary nebula will show more details. ?The Cat's Eye exhibits a tremendous amount of detail as does M57. ?Globular clusters will blow you away. ?M3, M13, M22, M5, M15 are WOW objects. ?The scope gets down to the cores and they look 3D even without a binoviewer. ?Omega Centauri is beyond description if you can see it from your location. ?From the FL Keys it is the best object in the sky. Planets exhibit color to the degree that any telescope this size will show color. ?Obviously, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn are the ones where this will be true.
If you didn't read my review posted earlier in this forum (C14 vs. Meade 12") you might want to take a look at it. ?I HIGHLY recommend the C14 OTA but seriously recommend getting a mount other than the mount that Celestron provides. Paul Atkinson |
|
Re: [C14] How good are the views of the Giant CM 1400
JOHN W DOROTHY SINNAR
I can answer question #4 for you. You can see god in all of nature........................ ?
|
|
How good are the views of the Giant CM 1400
NOW Now now ! I know that you all?have been asked?many times about the celestal views of the CM14.? But now i am going to ask you all the same question ( Sorry for asking ).? How good is the C14 celestron celestal views:???? 1.? can you see color on planets ? ???????????????????????????????????????????????2.? can you see the spirals of a galaxy ? ?????????????????????????????????????????????? 3.? can you see color on deep sky objects ? ?????????????????????????????????????????????? 4.? ( MY 3yr old son ? ) Can you see GOD ? I really do appreciate for your time and patients, Thank You very much, and GOD bless you all P.S. you all dont have to answer my sons question, thank you Do You Yahoo!? - Your Yahoo! Music Experience |
|
Re: [C14] C14 vs Meade 12"
Joline and Alvin S.
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýTHANK YOU FOR THE INTERESTING REVIEW,YOU COVERED
ALLTHE MAIN POINTS THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO HELP MAKE A DECISION ON A PURCHASE
OF EITHER SCOPE.
|
|
Re: [C14] C14 vs Meade 12"
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýI didn?t ask you that questition but thank you very
much Paul for your opinion and good comparision. Now I feel anymore better with
my choice of the C14.
?
Johannes
?
?
|
|
Re: [C14] C14 vs Meade 12"
Paul,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Thank you for sharing your review. Having just received my C14, I am still in the introductory phase in mating it to my WO GT1-HD mount and look forward to having it out to a local dark site (weather in Toronto has been anything but cooperative - something about an omega weather pattern). I have found with the Kendrik dew shield attached, it takes the WO GT1-HD a couple of seconds to quiet down with 15-20KM breeze. Having come from a large reflector, I am amazed at the amount of time the scope requires to cool down as well as the need for learning to colimate better. The reflector was much more forgiving. As for the cometics mine came with a few scuff marks aswell and the finish on the rear cell mount is definitely second rate. But as you pointed out the optics are unbelievable. Even with soddy colimination, with seeing about 2/5 last night, temp 2'C, views of craters on the moon where 3D. I am not use to the brightness of the planets as Jupiter bands were barely discernable being almost washed out (is there some filter that would help?). I for one am very pleased that I was fortunate to get this scope. Jim Anderson -----Original Message-----
From: paulatkinson22 [mailto:paulatkinson22@...] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 8:01 PM To: C14@... Subject: [C14] C14 vs Meade 12" Many people asked if I would post my OPINION of the C14 vs the Meade 12" LX200 (non-GPS) that I own. The original post wanted to know which scope was better having only $7000 to spend. I reluctantly agreed to post this after so many responded. Please understand that these are my impressions and experience with each scope and my own thoughts and viewpoints. Each scope has strong and weak points. THE SCOPES: My Meade is approximately 4 years old and the C14 was bought new in February 2002 with the Fastar Optics and the new Carbon color tube. Both are housed in my garage on JMI wheely bars and used on my driveway. OPTICS: The Celestron is the clear winner here. Star test are near perfect for a SCT. Diffraction patterns in and out of focus are text book. After a minor collimation issue out of the box it has been perfect since. 2" of extra ap doesn't hurt either. Views of clusters and galaxies are what you dream of with sprial arms and the bridge showing in objects like M51. The Celestron is truly an Observatory grade instrument when it comes to optics. The Meade has great optics as well but they cannot hold up to the test against the Celestron. Views in the Meade are also impressive but here the extra ap of the Celestron will make all the difference as will the better optics. FIT and FINISH: Meade is the clear winner here. The Meade OTA and assembly are first rate. I could find no major flaws in the finish. The blue OTA is beautiful. Meade also uses a satin black vs. the Celestron using a black crackle style finish. This finish is sligtly shiny on the Meade. All screws and assembly look carefully done. On the other hand my Celestron has a few problems. In several areas the black crackle paint is over sprayed so heavy in some areas that it left rough patches that are clearly visible. Also, there are several areas where dings and blemishes in the metal appear to have been just painted over. Some corners on the rear of the OTA are more rounded and then suddenly become very sharp or flattened. My focuser also looks sloppily assembled (although it works flawless). Here there is clearly glue/silicone of some sort present that seeped out around the focuser assembly where it attaches to the scope. The Meade dust cover has felt all the way around the inside. The Celestron only has three small pieces. They will become worn over time taking it off and on and will need to be replaced. There are other things but I don't want to write a book. This may all sound minor and many will point out that the Optics are all that count. True the optics are clearly the most important. However, I say that you wouldn't accept a NEW car off the lot with dents and scratches just because the engine ran perfect. Celestron clearly needs to catch up here (at least on my scope). MOUNT: This is a tricky area. Again, only for simplicity sake, I say that Meade has the edge. It is easy to align, tracks realatively well out of the box and the goto is VERY good. I have my C14 on a Losmandy G11 with Gemini(also brand new in February). Do not get the Celestron mount. It is junk (just my opinion). The G11 is the smallest mount I would consider and only for visual. The Losmandy 200 or AP900/1200 is a much better choice if you plan to try photo/CCD unless you are in a very protected enviornment. The downside to GEM mounts is that they are very quirky. They require a much more precise alignment and multiple extra alignments to really get them on track. Once done they operate very well. That can be said for the AP900 and 1200 I have used. They cost more but are still inherent to the GEM problems nonetheless. However, they are much more precise than the Losmandy and much more capable of carrying the 14. The Meade, on the other hand, I simply pick two stars and away I go. In Meades HP mode, it is VERY accurate. If you can't see it, it isn't because it isn't there, it is because you can't see it. GEM mounts also require more assembly, extra weights, tube balance issues, more cables and wires, and more setup time. They don't travel well in my opinion compared to the Meade having taken both to the Winter Star Party in the Keys and others around the country. The downside to the Meade is that with a fork assembly the scope is much bulkier and heavier as a whole unit to hoist and mount. I prefer to use mine in Alt/As vs. the wedge. Again, this is really a personal choice. I would say to a novice you are better off with the Meade. EASE OF USE: If setup permanently, or say JMI wheely bars in and out of a garage, both scopes are equal. If taking in the field, the fact that the Meade breaks down into basically two pieces, the OTA/Forkarm and Tripod, give it the advantage in setup time. The GEMS require much more assembly, putting on and taking off weights, balancing the scope, ect... I do not like the Losmandy hand controller compared to the Meade. You have to push more buttons to get it to the proper menu, object, goto. However, the AP's are much better in this regard and are equal to the Meade in friendliness. Once aligned they are about equal in terms of ease of use. VALUE: The Meade is hard to beat. At $4000+ it is a lot of scope. The Celestron 14 OTA cost that much alone. Add a G11 with Goto and you are talking near $8000 with taxes, then add extra counterweights, motor covers, and other needed extras and the cost continues to rise. That is a lot of money. Pick an AP900 or Losmandy 200 and you are $11,000+ and it goes up from there for the AP1200. Clearly, the Meade is the winner in value. FINAL THOUGHTS: I hope everyone remembers that these are my personal impressions with the the two scopes I currently own. I am sure that there are others that have differing views. As such, my views are just that, my views and not the final word. That being said, if I had only $7000 to spend, as was the original question posted, I would buy the 12" and get a lot of extra's with the other $3000 or so, you have left. If money is not an object then clearly the C14 with a great mount will give you the views that take your breath away. In any event I love both scopes and don't want to get rid of either one. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: C14-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to |
|
Re: [C14] C14 vs Meade 12"
W. Gondella
Paul,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Excellent review! I enjoyed reading it very much! I would say that was a pretty clear and realistic comparison of the two. I would only add that I use the HGM-200 mount and have found it to be an excellent mount, approximately between the AP900 and 1200, but there have been a couple of problems I had to resolve myself, problems definitely beyond the average person, though, but it comes down to a matter of preference in many areas. I did try the Gemini when it came out on that mount and was not satisfied with it. I cared not for the DC motor mounts which really stick out and caused problems with going back into my cases, which I had already made (I cannot use a garage like you). Also there were electronic/software glitches, and the one gear train froze up/ broke on one of the motors. If one needs / wants goto and can afford it, I would recommend the AP mounts above all. On the matter of cosmetics, my tube fared better than yours. My only cosmetics, which aren't noticable to most, are some light "scuffs" in the paint on the metal tube. Wayne E. Gondella AFA Engineering Company Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 00:01:03 -0000 |
|
Re: [C14] C14 vs Meade 12"
Thanks for the reply and sorry if I seemed a little terse in response to your post on the whole dew/dust issue.
I am alright with the G11 and getting more comfortable with it. ?I would love the AP900 but cannot afford it at the present moment and didn't feel like waiting for one. ?I do love the views through the 14. ?They are spectaclar. ?? Here is what I don't understand. ?Celestron makes truly great optics. ?Why they can't seem to put it together with a winning tripod/goto system like the Meade is beyond me. ?Their tripods are flimsy, mechanics poor. ?It is like they are constantly trying to put too much scope on too little tripod or mount. ?Perhaps you read the review of the 9.25 in the current S&T or Astronomy (forgot which)? ?The reviewer clearly states the same thing about the mount they put this scope on. ?If Celestron did come up with something they would be able to compete better. ?My fear is that if Meade decides to come out with a 14" LX200 that Celestron could be in trouble. ?Although it would be a large scope with the fork mount the goto is just so nice and easy to use. ?Fortunately, or unfortunate depending on how you look at it, Meade probably won't do this as it would mean casting a new fork mount or modifying the 16" version to accept the 14" scope. ?Clearly neither appeals to them. Paul |
|
C14 vs Meade 12"
Many people asked if I would post my OPINION of the C14 vs the Meade
12" LX200 (non-GPS) that I own. The original post wanted to know which scope was better having only $7000 to spend. I reluctantly agreed to post this after so many responded. Please understand that these are my impressions and experience with each scope and my own thoughts and viewpoints. Each scope has strong and weak points. THE SCOPES: My Meade is approximately 4 years old and the C14 was bought new in February 2002 with the Fastar Optics and the new Carbon color tube. Both are housed in my garage on JMI wheely bars and used on my driveway. OPTICS: The Celestron is the clear winner here. Star test are near perfect for a SCT. Diffraction patterns in and out of focus are text book. After a minor collimation issue out of the box it has been perfect since. 2" of extra ap doesn't hurt either. Views of clusters and galaxies are what you dream of with sprial arms and the bridge showing in objects like M51. The Celestron is truly an Observatory grade instrument when it comes to optics. The Meade has great optics as well but they cannot hold up to the test against the Celestron. Views in the Meade are also impressive but here the extra ap of the Celestron will make all the difference as will the better optics. FIT and FINISH: Meade is the clear winner here. The Meade OTA and assembly are first rate. I could find no major flaws in the finish. The blue OTA is beautiful. Meade also uses a satin black vs. the Celestron using a black crackle style finish. This finish is sligtly shiny on the Meade. All screws and assembly look carefully done. On the other hand my Celestron has a few problems. In several areas the black crackle paint is over sprayed so heavy in some areas that it left rough patches that are clearly visible. Also, there are several areas where dings and blemishes in the metal appear to have been just painted over. Some corners on the rear of the OTA are more rounded and then suddenly become very sharp or flattened. My focuser also looks sloppily assembled (although it works flawless). Here there is clearly glue/silicone of some sort present that seeped out around the focuser assembly where it attaches to the scope. The Meade dust cover has felt all the way around the inside. The Celestron only has three small pieces. They will become worn over time taking it off and on and will need to be replaced. There are other things but I don't want to write a book. This may all sound minor and many will point out that the Optics are all that count. True the optics are clearly the most important. However, I say that you wouldn't accept a NEW car off the lot with dents and scratches just because the engine ran perfect. Celestron clearly needs to catch up here (at least on my scope). MOUNT: This is a tricky area. Again, only for simplicity sake, I say that Meade has the edge. It is easy to align, tracks realatively well out of the box and the goto is VERY good. I have my C14 on a Losmandy G11 with Gemini(also brand new in February). Do not get the Celestron mount. It is junk (just my opinion). The G11 is the smallest mount I would consider and only for visual. The Losmandy 200 or AP900/1200 is a much better choice if you plan to try photo/CCD unless you are in a very protected enviornment. The downside to GEM mounts is that they are very quirky. They require a much more precise alignment and multiple extra alignments to really get them on track. Once done they operate very well. That can be said for the AP900 and 1200 I have used. They cost more but are still inherent to the GEM problems nonetheless. However, they are much more precise than the Losmandy and much more capable of carrying the 14. The Meade, on the other hand, I simply pick two stars and away I go. In Meades HP mode, it is VERY accurate. If you can't see it, it isn't because it isn't there, it is because you can't see it. GEM mounts also require more assembly, extra weights, tube balance issues, more cables and wires, and more setup time. They don't travel well in my opinion compared to the Meade having taken both to the Winter Star Party in the Keys and others around the country. The downside to the Meade is that with a fork assembly the scope is much bulkier and heavier as a whole unit to hoist and mount. I prefer to use mine in Alt/As vs. the wedge. Again, this is really a personal choice. I would say to a novice you are better off with the Meade. EASE OF USE: If setup permanently, or say JMI wheely bars in and out of a garage, both scopes are equal. If taking in the field, the fact that the Meade breaks down into basically two pieces, the OTA/Forkarm and Tripod, give it the advantage in setup time. The GEMS require much more assembly, putting on and taking off weights, balancing the scope, ect... I do not like the Losmandy hand controller compared to the Meade. You have to push more buttons to get it to the proper menu, object, goto. However, the AP's are much better in this regard and are equal to the Meade in friendliness. Once aligned they are about equal in terms of ease of use. VALUE: The Meade is hard to beat. At $4000+ it is a lot of scope. The Celestron 14 OTA cost that much alone. Add a G11 with Goto and you are talking near $8000 with taxes, then add extra counterweights, motor covers, and other needed extras and the cost continues to rise. That is a lot of money. Pick an AP900 or Losmandy 200 and you are $11,000+ and it goes up from there for the AP1200. Clearly, the Meade is the winner in value. FINAL THOUGHTS: I hope everyone remembers that these are my personal impressions with the the two scopes I currently own. I am sure that there are others that have differing views. As such, my views are just that, my views and not the final word. That being said, if I had only $7000 to spend, as was the original question posted, I would buy the 12" and get a lot of extra's with the other $3000 or so, you have left. If money is not an object then clearly the C14 with a great mount will give you the views that take your breath away. In any event I love both scopes and don't want to get rid of either one. |
to navigate to use esc to dismiss