Telescopes - Are all brands created equal?

I think a lot of us on POTN tend to lean toward Canon as a camera brand preference. I know I've always been very happy with the build and image quality of Canon bodies and lenses.

When it comes to telescopes, and mounts, etc., I don't want to rush out and buy the first shiny, sparkly one I see. (And FWIW, I'm not asking about types or features so much as I'm curious about brand.) The three brands that come to my mind first are Mead, Orion and Celestron. Are any of these brands considered superior or inferior for any reason? And/or, are there brands other than the ones I mentioned that should be considered? Or, are they all more or less the same and I should make my choice based solely on features? Is anyone seriously brand loyal (with a good reason)? Or is it possible that one brand may make a great refractor while maybe another brand makes a killer catadioptric or Newtonian? I'd just like to make sure I'm looking at something that will have good build and image (or tracking when talking mounts) quality and not be hard to find parts, modifications, accessories, for. This will be enough of an investment for me that I don't want to regret it later. I don't want to start down the wrong path and end up with some department store toy, wishing later I'd gone with a different brand. And a side note, as far as my own needs go, whatever I buy will have to be portable, so there's no point in worrying about large, fixed-mount scopes. If that ever happens for me, it won't happen where I currently live.

And one last question, there doesn't seem to be a single brick & mortar telescope dealer in my state. I know many of us are very loyal to B&H, Adorama, 47th St. etc. for photography equipment. Does anyone have a recommendation for a similar type of online telescope retailer with good prices, selection, customer service etc.?

I'll hang up and listen to your answer.

From what I've seen I would say that they are all fairly equal, but by that I mean they all have their good and bad products, and really need to be looked at on a case by case basis for the different models.

Lots of the lower end stuff is very hit and miss, with much of the lower end stuff really not remotely worth buying. (Lots of "The kids want a telescope... I'll just buy the cheap one in case they're not really that into it" gear. Which of course ends up being hard to use and kind of junky, so it gets taken out a few times for nights that end in frustration, then it sits to collect dust in a closet somewhere till it is sold off in a yardsale for next to nothing.)

So define what task you want to achieve, and then start looking at tool options to achieve your end goals seems to be the only sensible way to go about it.

Here's a link to the B&H telescope page. http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …nomy/ci/3389/N/​4100994442

I've owned Meade telescopes for many years and at one point their scopes were highly regarded. I still have and love my 14" LX-200 ACF (Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope). But Meade started cost cutting in all the wrongs ways. Many of their newer products were failures (I also own an LX80 mount which had to be discontinued). They've really fallen from grace and no longer regarded very highly.

Celestron, however, is regarded highly for their SCTs and some of their mounts are extremely popular. Orion is highly regarded for their Dobsonian mounted scopes (technically a "Dob" is a Newtonian Reflector ... "Dobsonian" actually refers to the mount).

But really... what is it that you want to do with the scope. The "best" scope is sort of like the "best" camera lens... it really depends on why you want it.

If you want to do imaging, then you don't want an alt/as mounted scope... you really want an equatorially mounted scope (alt/az scopes have a field rotation problem that requires adapting the scope to a wedge or using something called a field de-rotator and that just adds complexity. An equatorially mounted scope (GEM or German Equatorial Mount design) are oriented so that the movement is parallel to the Earth's axis of rotation and that means it doesn't have the field-rotation problem.)

Also... for visual observation, bigger is always better (assuming you can actually carry the beast... at some point the size becomes difficult to manage). The larger the aperture, the more fine detail can be resolved (Dawes' Limit or the Rayleigh Criterion).

There are many brands and types you haven't mentioned. For imaging (as opposed to visual observing), an apochromatic refractor has some very nice advantages (my personal favorite for imaging is my TeleVue apochromatic refractor. The top brands for apochromatic scopes are Takahashee and TeleVue).

The Celestron "EdgeHD" SCTs are flat-field scopes and many of them have a removable secondary mirror that can be adapted to Fastar/Hyperstar scopes (very very low focal ratio.... like f/2) for imaging.

But then there are companies like PlaneWave Instruments who make very high-end astrographs (scopes specifically designed for astrophotography).

I spent years doing astronomy on my own... before joining an astronomy club. I learned far more in just a couple of years in the club then all the years (decades) before. Often clubs have observing nights where you can look through other members scopes. You don't need to own a telescope to join an astronomy club and frankly... I tell people to join the club first... buy the scope later. This way you learn about scopes and get a chance to observe through scopes BEFORE you buy (and avoid buyers' remorse and wasting money on something that wasn't going to fit your needs). My club happens to have quite a few astro-imagers (and an astrophotography interest group that meets more often then the general club meetings). This really accelerated my learning far more than I could ever have managed on my own.

If you are interested specifically in Astro-imaging, then the mount is actually a very important consideration. In many ways the mount is more important than the scope that sits on the mount.

If you give me some hints as to what you want to do (visual observing vs. imaging.... Planetary objects vs. Deep-Space objects, etc.) then I can probably give you more specific suggestions.

Tip: Taking Hubble-quality Astro-images may be well-within your reach as long as you have an infinite amount of money.
(Otherwise some level of compromise may be required.)

BTW... optcorp.com (Oceanside Photo & Telescope) is the "B&H Photo" of the Astronomy world. They carry everything. That said... I buy from lots of telescope dealers... not just OPT.

I have a Meade 826 (8" f/6) with a massive steel GEM from the late 80s. It's a Newtonian and has a clock drive so ought to be ideal for astrophotography. However, the drive has never been reliable so I have to limit myself to short exposures. Other than that, though, the optical quality is superb and I still haul it out periodically for moon and planet work. These days it seems hard to find a similar scope of high quality, so I'd probably have to start looking all over again if I were in the market today.

GregDunn wrote in post #17938158
I have a Meade 826 (8" f/6) with a massive steel GEM from the late 80s. It's a Newtonian and has a clock drive so ought to be ideal for astrophotography. However, the drive has never been reliable so I have to limit myself to short exposures. Other than that, though, the optical quality is superb and I still haul it out periodically for moon and planet work. These days it seems hard to find a similar scope of high quality, so I'd probably have to start looking all over again if I were in the market today.

Newer scopes are usually much better than older scopes with respect to optical quality. SCTs now often have flat-field correctors built into the optical path (e.g. such as any Celestron "EdgeHD" scope) whereas previous scopes are sharpest in the center and get mushy toward the outer edges of the field. (Hint: place your focusing star roughly 1/3rd of the way from center to outer edge and focus at that position. This should give you a better overall focus across the field than you'd get if the star you used to lock in focus was dead-center.

The mount is a really big deal for imaging (a REALLY big deal... btw, did I mention that the mount is a REALLY BIG deal?) First time buyers tend to under-estimate the importance of this and are usually giving most of their attention to the scope and not to the mount.

For a lot of reasons (mostly due to mechanical imperfections) even if a mount is nicely aligned and tracking, there will be some variation in the accuracy of tracking. Better mounts allow for creating a "PEC profile" (PEC = Periodic Error Correction and allows the mount to recognize that due to imperfections in manufacturing the worm, the scope may track fractionally faster or fractionally slower for part of the worm cycle. The profile tells the computer to very slightly speed or slow the timing of the worm to compensate for this.) An auto-guider helps correct for non-periodic error by using a second camera to take frequent images of a star somewhere in the field and then checking each frame against a master frame to detect if the star appears to be drifting (star is not precisely at the same location from frame to frame) and sends a correction to the mount. That means you probably want a mount that has an auto-guider port so it can receive the corrections.

I went through a few mounts before ultimately landing on my Losmandy G11 mount (but that's not a cheap mount. Losmandy is precision machined and not a mass-produced product -- which means the price tag is a lot higher but the quality is definitely there.) Astro-Physics is possibly the most well-known for top-of-the-line quality but the "cheapest" mount they make is about $5500 and the next model up is over $10k... and the next model up from that is $20k. (it's like buying the Rolls-Royce of telescope mounts. Exceptional quality but you will definitely pay for what you get.) Takahashi and Software Bisque "Paramount" series mounts are also very very high end (Paramounts require a computer to drive them. They have no internal computer of their own.)

Anyway... entry-level imaging mounts start at about $800 and go up. At about $1500 you're getting into the higher end of the entry-range and these mounts are probably sufficient for most users. When you start to get to around $3k you're getting into much higher quality products but usually these are designed to carry moderate loads... if you want a high quality mount that can carry "heavy" loads then this gets into the $5k and up category (and these tend to be used by people who build permanent observatories - not portable setups. Although they do make portable piers that can hold these beasts.)

Computer? Oh, you're talking modern stuff now. My Meade is a synchronous motor with a friction clutch. The mount is massive and really well made, but that drive system... ew. I've tightened it to rigidity and it still tracks for a couple of minutes, then stops, then tracks again... If I loosen it at all, it pretty much won't move. I know I need a proper drive but that means replacing the mount too, most likely, and I'm not excited enough to spend another $1K (in 1988; then inflate that to today's dollars) trying to upgrade it.

The mirror, though - it's tested at < 1/8 wave according to the notes written on the back and I have no reason to doubt it. It produces very nice images of things which will hold still long enough. I've been able to visually identify Mars surface features and even see some detail on Jupiter's moons with it - I only wish I could photograph them.

I'd love to have a SCT but really can't justify one that would satisfy me today - especially with the terrible seeing around here and the few opportunities I'd have to take it elsewhere...

GregDunn wrote in post #17939177
Computer? Oh, you're talking modern stuff now. My Meade is a synchronous motor with a friction clutch. The mount is massive and really well made, but that drive system... ew. I've tightened it to rigidity and it still tracks for a couple of minutes, then stops, then tracks again... If I loosen it at all, it pretty much won't move. I know I need a proper drive but that means replacing the mount too, most likely, and I'm not excited enough to spend another $1K (in 1988; then inflate that to today's dollars) trying to upgrade it.

The mirror, though - it's tested at < 1/8 wave according to the notes written on the back and I have no reason to doubt it. It produces very nice images of things which will hold still long enough. I've been able to visually identify Mars surface features and even see some detail on Jupiter's moons with it - I only wish I could photograph them.

I'd love to have a SCT but really can't justify one that would satisfy me today - especially with the terrible seeing around here and the few opportunities I'd have to take it elsewhere...

I got tired of shoveling coal into the steam engine connected to the belt drive with reduction gears and it was difficult to regulate steam pressure for reliable tracking rate. So I decided to join the modern age and go all electronic.

On a more serious note...

The "clutch" is typically just a couple of metal plates that are pressed together. As they get dirty, they slip easily. The "fix" is to open it, wipe the plates clean, and put it back together.

Peterson Engineering makes a clutch upgrade (aka "the Peterson clutch") which basically applies a cork gasket between the clutch plates. Depending on your scope model, you may be able to order a sheet of cork gasket material and cut out your own bit of cork to sandwich between the plates.

One all-important point... a balanced mount is a happy mount. My 14" LX200-ACF does ok all by itself. But as soon as I put a dew-shield on the front it becomes extremely nose-heavy and the clutches slip as the motor tries to overcame the imbalance. The solution was to add additional weight to the back so that the optical tube is neutrally balanced in all positions. Now there's really no reason for the clutch to slip.

TCampbell wrote in post #17938641
...The mount is a really big deal for imaging (a REALLY big deal... btw, did I mention that the mount is a REALLY BIG deal?) First time buyers tend to under-estimate the importance of this and are usually giving most of their attention to the scope and not to the mount....

Yep, I understand. I've been paying more attention lately to the mount than the telescope. For this reason, I have been leaning heavily toward a Celestron CGEM DX Equatorial Mount & Tripod ($1,799.00) and then a Celestron 8" EdgeHD SC. The 8" EdgeHD is available as a package quite a bit cheaper with a lighter duty mount, but I'd rather get a mount that will handle far more than this scope. I'd like to go even heavier duty with the mount but this one is about at the limit of how much I can push my budget and still be able to afford that scope.

I am also very anxious to get involved with my local astronomy group. There's a meeting scheduled for tomorrow night but I have plans and won't be able to make it until the following month. However, I don't think the stars are going anywhere anytime soon.

Phil Light wrote in post #17937497
.....there doesn't seem to be a single brick & mortar telescope dealer in my state. I know many of us are very loyal to B&H, Adorama, 47th St. etc. for photography equipment. Does anyone have a recommendation for a similar type of online telescope retailer with good prices, selection, customer service etc.?

You haven't looked here? http://www.adorama.com …elescopes?term=​telescopes

A couple of comments for you to ponder ..

You said that you wanted something portable in your original post. Portable means different things to different people but the CGEM (and similar sized mounts) are reasonably heavy and awkward to carry. If you just want to get it in and out of the car, it may not be a problem. If you have to carry everything up 7 flights of stairs, you may soon get sick of astrophotography.

I have an 8" and 11" SCT and think that they are the most versatile style of scope for visual use as well as lunar/planetary photography. However, if you are wanting to do deep-sky photography, I'd advise against them for a first scope. Sure, it's possible but it's jumping in at the deep end. Both the focal length and focal ratio are against you and there are a few other difficulties in imaging with them. All are solvable but you'll be spending more money and time solving them.

If you are looking at a CGEM sized mount and wanting to go for deep-sky objects, I'd probably go for an 8" f/4 or f/5 Newtonian astrograph. You'll need to learn how to collimate the scope which isn't a big deal if you are a methodical sort of person. If not, or you are in a breezy location or are short of car space or just want to keep it simple, then an 80mm Apochromatic refractor is a really good instrument to start with. Just put it on the mount and go for it. Either of these scopes can be used for lunar/planetary as they are or you can use a relatively cheap barlow or powermate to get more focal length.

Steve.

TCampbell wrote in post #17939190
I got tired of shoveling coal into the steam engine connected to the belt drive with reduction gears and it was difficult to regulate steam pressure for reliable tracking rate. So I decided to join the modern age and go all electronic.

I understand steampunk is all the rage these days, though...

Mine seems to have a phenolic plate and a metal plate. I guess it's worth taking it apart and checking the mating surfaces; other than the motor, I'm not sure what else to look at.

Mine has a cradle which is infinitely adjustable - you slide the tube back and forth till it's statically balanced and then cinch it down. Of course, once you attach a camera, you've unbalanced it along the rotational axis of the tube, which means that as the drive moves, the balance still changes unless you position the camera in exactly the right place. Which is usually not the right place for access to the viewfinder or controls...

SteveInNZ wrote in post #17942396
A couple of comments for you to ponder ..

You said that you wanted something portable in your original post. Portable means different things to different people but the CGEM (and similar sized mounts) are reasonably heavy and awkward to carry. If you just want to get it in and out of the car, it may not be a problem. If you have to carry everything up 7 flights of stairs, you may soon get sick of astrophotography.

I have an 8" and 11" SCT and think that they are the most versatile style of scope for visual use as well as lunar/planetary photography. However, if you are wanting to do deep-sky photography, I'd advise against them for a first scope. Sure, it's possible but it's jumping in at the deep end. Both the focal length and focal ratio are against you and there are a few other difficulties in imaging with them. All are solvable but you'll be spending more money and time solving them.

If you are looking at a CGEM sized mount and wanting to go for deep-sky objects, I'd probably go for an 8" f/4 or f/5 Newtonian astrograph. You'll need to learn how to collimate the scope which isn't a big deal if you are a methodical sort of person. If not, or you are in a breezy location or are short of car space or just want to keep it simple, then an 80mm Apochromatic refractor is a really good instrument to start with. Just put it on the mount and go for it. Either of these scopes can be used for lunar/planetary as they are or you can use a relatively cheap barlow or powermate to get more focal length.

Steve.

Steve, very good, and very appreciated advice. I completely understand (and agree with) your point about starting with an inexpensive refractor as a great way to learn. However, when I compare starting in AP to my history starting in digital photography, what I want to avoid doing is spending far more money in the long run, ramping up to what I want to do. I can't tell you how many camera bodies, lenses and tripods I've been through over the past few decades trying to make do with something inexpensive, rather than just take the hit and spend real money at the start.

I've been doing a tremendous amount of research and I completely get your point about jumping in at the deep end. I am very intimidated about the complexity and technicality of AP. As much as I don't take that lightly, I have confidence that as long as I keep with it, I'll eventually be able to get my head around it.

So having said that, and against excellent advice, I'm going to leap head-first for the deep end. Considering that the scope that I want is a Celestron 8 Inch EdgeHD (about 14 lbs.), my first decision is to buy far more mount than I need, so I've settled on a Celestron CGEM DX. It seems like a moderately high-quality mount that claims to support up to 50 lbs. In fact, it's used as a mount when it's sold as a set with the 14" EdgeHD. So I believe I'll have room to upgrade the OTA in the future without having to invest in a second mount. I also understand what a difficult thing it can be to get polar alignment good enough for AP. For that reason, I decided to cheat a little and get a PoleMaster camera (http://www.qhyccd.com/​PoleMaster.html#PoleMa​ster). I'm also going to get a Celestron Off-Axis Guider. I realize that as much as these things can help with tracking, I'm probably increasing the complexity curve exponentially. I am prepared to accept the fact that it may take many months, if not years to get comfortable with what I'll need to know, and to get the images I hope to get.

I also realize I'm really pushing the limits of portability but I'm ready to sacrifice my back for good images.

Celestron's EdgeHD optical tube is "FASTAR" (Hyperstar) compatible. This option means the secondary mirror (mounted on the secondary obstruction on the front of the scope) is modular and can be removed -- and replaced with the FASTAR adapter. This combines an optical focal reducer which is installed in place of the mirror and a camera mounts to the front of the telescope... it both widens the angle of view (so you image larger areas of the sky) and also drops the focal ratio down to f/2.

The upside is the wider field of view and, at f/2 each 1 second of imaging is worth roughly 25 seconds of imaging at f/10. The downside is that the adapter isn't cheap -- I seem to recall it's around $800-900 range.

Starizona makes them.

Most SCTs are not FASTAR/Hyperstar adaptable (without a lot of modification).