#395'ers: Experiences from #395 Users

#395'ers: Click here to see answers to these questions

December, 31, 1997
Larry Smith
lsmith@zianet.com

I've been doing some experimenting lately, and am very pleased with 
the result.  When using all "good" equipment with the scope (quality 
eyepieces AND quality barlow), the views are very nice.  I've been observing
Saturn lately, and am getting good views.  I only see the color "smear"
when looking a objects at a low elevation, virtually color perfect when
viewing at high latitudes.  

I still can only barely glimpse occasionally the Cassini division, but others
on the net I've talked to with much bigger scopes are having the same problem.
So it looks like the objective on the telescope is working quite
satisfactorily.

December, 9, 1997
Larry Smith
lsmith@zianet.com

Actually, I've got a Meade 392.  As I understand it (please correct me if
I'm wrong), the 392 is the same as the 395, except it has .975" eyepieces.

I'm actually a little disappointed with mine, though I'd rate it as fair.
I often see images with a color shift, seeing a slight "yellow" on one side,
and "blue" on the other.  Perhaps I have a slight misalignment somewhere.

None-the-less, I do find lunar images very enjoyable.  Jupter easily presents
2 dark color bands, with lighter bands visible.  No detail in the bands as
yet, but I don't think I've seen it on a really good night.  

Saturn's rings are easily definable, with the shadow on the planet, and some
faint banding on the planet.  I cannot as yet resolve Cassini's division,
tho I think I should be able to.

I did observe Mars (summer of 1997), when it was only about 13 arc-seconds.
Hint of one polar cap, and on a couple of occasions, some planet detail was
visible.  Not bad really, talked to a couple other observers using 10"
reflectors, and they saw nothing more.

I've found that by stopping down (yes, down) to 3" on bright planets, I can
virtually emiminate any color problems.  This changes the focal ratio to
about f/13.3, closer to the classic f/15 used in the past for astronomical
refractors.

I also use an apodizing screen for planets sometimes, which increases
contrast.  That's how I was able to see some details on Mars.

I have the clock drive with mine.  A simple device, not very accurate, but
it does help considerably in studying planets at high power. It's a DC motor,
using a transistor circuit of some kind to regulate. I modified it, putting
2 switches in a hand held box, with wires to the motor.  One switch is in
parallel with the original switch, but allows me to switch on and off without
touching the scope.  The other switch applies the entire voltage (3 batteries)
directly across the motor, bypassing the circuit.  This gives about a 50%
increase in motor speed. I cannot garantee that this won't burn out the motor,
but it hasn't hurt mine yet.

With this apparatus, I was able to engage the motor, yet still have a fine
RA control, with Off, Normal, and Fast, without touching the scope.  I was
able to take some pretty good Hale Bopp photos with a piggy back mounted
camera and a 135mm telephoto this way.  My best photo is enclosed.

Hale-Bopp Astrophoto by Larry Smith taken on March, 1997 with a Pentax SLR, 135 mm lens and Kodak Print Film 800 ASA. The camera was piggy-back mounted over the 395. Exposure was about 3 minutes

August, 13, 1997
Max Lattanci
m.lattanzi@unesco.org

I've been browsing you nice pages on the #395, which I've got mainly as
guidescope. Nevertheless it happens to me to carry it around when I am
travelling "light". I found out that this scope -- due to the relatively
easy optical figure -- has nice optics (*very* nice for the price).

Mine outperformed easily a SCT 5" on Jupiter (23 Jul 1997) with a Nagler
7mm, and showed the same details on Mars of a SCT 8" (4 April 1997).
Being more detailed, the image provided by the SCT 8" was brigther and
"easier"; but the SCT showed no additional details than the refractor at
200x (Nagler 4.8mm).

As of the 50x/inch rule, the night of Mars opposition (17 March 1997),
with a VERY good seeing (airy disks rather, but not totally, steady), I
found during an observation of almost 2 hours than a Vixen Lanthanum
2.5mm (400x !) showed better surface details than a Nagler 4.8 (200x).
Other two observers with me had the same visual result. It never
happened again as of today.

In general I get pleasant views using just a Nagler 7mm (140x).

The use of a Wratten #8 to kill the residual chromatism does not
actuallly improve the performances: I guess the 15%-18% light loss is
more important with this lens than the correction of chromatic
aberration (actually noisy only when using 2" eyepieces on bright
objects, e.g. panoramic view of Jupiter and satellites through a Nagler
II 20mm).

Hope it helps
Max

Jun, 19, 1997
Randall Trogdon
rwt@ix.netcom.com

Do you know if the Orion 90mm Skyview is the same scope as the Meade 395 
model?  They are both made overseas and look exactly alike.

Randall Trogdon
PS: Nice Meade 395 Web Page

Jun, 16, 1997
Kevin Morrissey
mollydad@mwnet

Congratulations on your purchase; I own one too and am delighted!
In doing research, I have discovered that the Orion Sky View 90mm
refractor, the Alpha 90 refractor, and the International Optics 90mm
refractor, and the Meade 395 are all made in the same factory in Taiwan.
I also own a Pronto from TeleVue. There's just a touch more chromatic
aberration from the Meade 395 than from the Pronto. Nice job on the web
page. I'll add my 2 cents from time to time.

Kevin Morrissey

May, 30, 1997
J. McGrath
jmcg@frontiernet.net

GREAT PAGE!  I am thinking of a meade 395 for my "first" scope and this
page is PERFECT!!!  I am scared! of this step.  When I was young I had a
4 inch Edmund reflector that was on a primitive clamp mount and could
not find much of anything, or hold it for long.  I am debating about
purchasing a 4-6 inch reflector or a 3.5 inch refractor; or I may save
for another 2 years and buy an 8 inch Meade SCT.  There is a pretty good
chance I would be in astrophotograpgy in the intermediate to far future,
however I am reading "Nightwatch" by Terrance Dickerson and he claims he
rarely uses over 180x and uses his 3.5 inch refractor most of the time. 
This makes me think that the Meade 395 may be the best buy now (I may
still use it very much in the future if my hoby keeps growing).  I guess
my only concern is what magnitude objects will I see with this
instrument?  I have never seen this given...maybee it is a stupid
question.  If these data were on your page it could be cross referenced
to a Meiser listing and beginers like myself could know what we may see
with a given instrument.  

Again GREAT PAGE I know it takes alot of work and I truely appreciate
your page.
Thanks again!

Luis Arguelles here:
This Web site contains now interesting information about the Messier catalogue
under a #395 viewpoint.

May, 22, 1997
Carl Herceg
C_Herceg@fccc.edu

Well, I am very impressed with the Nagler. I know Jupiter is visible in the
pre-dawn hours, but in June it is supposed to be visible late at night. I
want to try the Nagler on Jupiter. I used it on the moon, but I think it is
too powerful for that unless there is a specific area to study.

The only drawback I have is that Mars (and any object) moved through the field
of view so fast that despite two hours of manually tracking and looking, I came
away with only one brief good view. I want to get the 531 drive also. It
will definitely help. But I spent a lot already. Maybe soon...

I read from your web page that you are already and experienced photographer.
I am not. I have used a Nikon N-2000 for several years, but I really do
not consider myself an expert. I just do it as best I can. Anyway, I have
just started my hand at astro-photography. My experiences were mixed.
I took several rolls of comet film (not through the telescope) and a lot of
moon pictures through the telescope. Many of my pictures did not turn out
because the film lab over-exposed the negative. The two rolls that came out
had "normal" well-lighted pictures in the beginning and gave the film lab
a reference point. I would recommend that you take one or two daylight or
flash pictures at the start of a roll. Of course, if you develop your own
photos (I do not), this does not apply to you. Good luck!

Carl

21st, May, 1997
Bernie
bernietheattorney@prodigy.net

I have tried to e-mail my comments. I hope it reached you.
If not, my use has been limited since it has rained or been cloudy almost
constantly since I purchased the 395.

In addition to the MA25, I bought the Celestron Ultima 12.5, Orion Ultrascopic
10mm and Sirius Plossel 7.5.  I also have 2x barlow, Meade 126.

the jury is still out. I used to have a Celestron Firstscope 60 and perhaps
because it was small, most images were sharp.  Here, even the moon does not
come in completely clear at time--perhaps it's the turbulence.  Also, MA25 does
not seem to have pinpoint stars, but colored ovals or shapes.  The moon in the
10MM Ultascopic did come in very sharp and even with the 2x barlow, was pretty
sharp. So i am impressed with that.

Mars was disappointing. Maybe because it's mars. I could never really see any
poles in any magnification. Only some light and dark areas.

Jupiter, the few times I tried in the morning, was OK, two major bands and no
red spot.  But perhaps because of turbulence, it was not sharp.

Also, in high magnification, the planets whiz by.  I have to move the slow
motion controls every 10 sec. So I ordered a 531 motor drive.

Also, I found from technical support at meade that you can't use the slow
motion RA controls if you are looking east and try to point the equitorial
mount north.  The controls are on the other side of the scope. that is another
reason to get the 531 motor.

My price was $499 at Focus Camera in NYC, mail order.

Again, I am pleased you did the web page, and am curious to see other users
comments.  Please try to get links to your page, since I could not locate it
via search engines and only read your comment in the newsgroup.

Bernie

Luis Argüelles here:

Using your eyepieces you get 40x, 80x, 100x and 133x. Combining eyepieces
and the Barlow lens you get 80x, 160x, 200x and 266x. Until now, I only tested
the #395 up to 133x. At this magnification it only works well if the observing
conditions are good. If you use 166x or 200x you will need near perfect
observing conditions. 266x is out of use with the #395, because it breaks the
rule of 50x per aperture of inch of the frontal element of the scope (3.6").

Your comments about the MA25 are a bit strange to me. I was able to see the
four stars of the Trapezium in M42 with that eyepiece. Also, all stars except
those with magnitude 0 or 1 are rendered as perfect points with the MA25.
Never got trace of false colors.

I've observed the Moon at 25x, 40x and 133x. The images were always sharp and
totally false-color free. Of course, when turbulences appear then it's
impossible to see detail. Have you tried a trip to the countryside?. You know,
there is no thing like a deep-black night. It's the best trial for a scope.

21st, May, 1997
Bill Smith
wwssds@swbell.net

I recently purchased a Meade 395. It is my first scope. So far have found it
to work well. I live in El Paso and the light pollution is pretty bad here, but
good desert skies are not very far away.

I purchased a good Orion Apo 2x barlow for it on sale but found that a full
length barlow won't work with it. So have sent it back and ordered a Celestron
ultima barlow that is half as long. The problem with the full length barlow
was I ran out of focuser travel before it was focused. I am also replacing the
Meade star diagonal (mirror type) with an Orion fully coated prism diagonal.
Next will be some good plossal eye pieces.

I love to tinker with things like this so plan on doing other things with
this scope as well. If you do a web page on the scope what will it cover? I
will let you know how my up grades do. I have an idea involving sand or
lead shot and the tripod.

Bill Smith

#395'ers: Answers to questions

21st, May, 1997
Carl Herceg
c_herceg@fccc.edu

#1. Do you remember the first day using your #395?. Experiences?, Observing?

The first day I set up my 395, I had to attach my spotting scope. I set up in my
backyard and looked for a suitably distant object to sight on. I saw a chimney on
a house that was two blocks away. I could see no detail with my eyes. I found that
chimney with the scope and was amazed at the detail!

I managed to focus on the screws holding a TV antenna to the chimney! I attached
my spotting scope and couldn't wait for evening.

I had no plans on what to view that evening. I decided to just let the excitement
carry me. It was a clear night and Hale-Bopp was still spectacular.

I noticed what seemed like a faint star or two to the west of the comet. I trained
my scope on it and discovered the Pleiades! It is truly incredible what light
pollution hides from naked eye views.

#2. Which is you favourite observing site?. Conditions of the site (weather,
polluted sky,.., etc)?

I go to a state park near a small lake for some observing, and my backyard for most.
The park is nearly an hour's drive outside of Philadelphia, and the sky is so much darker.

#3. What type of sky objects do you prefer?

While I am still very new at astronomy, I have found the planets and the moon to be my
most viewed objects. I have not looked seriously at deep space objects yet.

#4. What is your best achieved view?. What is the most beautiful sky object observed
with your #395?

My best view has so far been Mars on a night with good seeing. I used a 4.8mm Nagler
and could briefly distinguish an ice cap.

#5. What eyepieces do you use?. Other accesories?

My eyepieces are 40mm Meade Super Plossel, 15mm SP, 4.8mm Nagler, and 25mm Meade MA.
I also have a Meade 2X Barlow, and a camera adapter. I will be buying an electric
drive soon.

#6. Are you happy with your scope?. Pros and cons?

I am quite happy with my scope. While I am jealous of those who have larger scopes
(aperature envy) I know that I have what I can afford, and what will last a very
long time. Living in a large city (even though I am on the outskirts) there is a great
deal of light pollution. A refractor provides better contrast than a reflector, so
rather than get a 6" reflector that is well suited for darker areas, I got a smaller
refractor that is great for my area. The scope is portable enough to take on a short
drive, but a long trip could cause a problem if room is needed for other things. I
also do not have to worry about collimation of mirrors when I do transport my 395.

#7.  Other comments

Meade support has been wonderful. My scope was actually returned by the previous
owner (although I didn't know it until later, but Edmund Scientific was very responsive
in helping straighten things out). The scope appeared fine, but the tripod was missing
some pieces and some of the bolts simply did not fit. I suspect the tripod was the
reason the scope was returned.

Anyway, I called Meade and got all the missing pieces. I later discovered that the
mount had a defective worm gear. Again Meade was quick to respond, sending me a new mount
right away, without requiring me to return mine until I received theirs.

Return to main Meade #395 Web Page, by Luis Argüelles.