Author Topic: Which would you pick?  (Read 1054 times)

bersrorexnutg

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Which would you pick?
« Reply #15 on: January 11, 2018, 06:55:08 AM »
I do not believe the StarSeeker IV is based on the Celestron LC mount. The LC, for example does not have the abiltiy to be moved manually without losing alignment, the Starseeker IV does.

Starseeker IV 150
https://www.youtube....h?v=Z7goOnANFZQ

Jacob Cota

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Which would you pick?
« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2018, 11:34:02 AM »
Quote
I do not believe the StarSeeker IV is based on the Celestron LC mount. The LC, for example does not have the abiltiy to be moved manually without losing alignment, the Starseeker IV does.

Starseeker IV 150
https://www.youtube....h?v=Z7goOnANFZQ


There maybe differences and it maybe a different mount but my concerns are not electronic but rather mechanical. And unless the Orion website is wrong, the 1.25 inch legs are the deal killer for me.

Jon

vertcalnorsdef

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Which would you pick?
« Reply #17 on: January 12, 2018, 10:11:26 PM »
Kevin,
Looks like you're either in a red/yellow zone, or a green zone, depending on exactly where you are. Even if you are a red/yellow zone, it doesn't appear to be too far to drive to get to a green zone.

GIven your two choices, I would say that the Dob would be the way to go. I don't say that because I prefer Dobs, actually I don't, but I don't like the Orion StarSeeker mount.

I would recommend the Meade ETX 125 as a good 'GoTo' scope. Meade recently reintroduced this telescope with the Meade Audiostar hand controller. It's five inch aperture and long focal length should make viewing planets and smaller objects a pleasure. I had a comparable Orion Mak Cass as my first telescope and I was able to see the Orion Nebula, including a small amount of color.

https://www.astronom...ter_p20478.aspx

Here's the Celestron 6SE that people were talking about.

https://www.astronom...ope_p12175.aspx

For a little less money, the 5SE

https://www.astronom...ope_p12189.aspx

The Meade has a longer focal length than either the Celestrons, which means more magnification, but with a loss of light gathering capability. Better for planets, not so great for faint fuzzies. However, I like the fork mount of the Meade over the single side arm of the Celestron, but that's just me. I think either the Meade or the 5SE would be a better choice than the StarSeeker, and if you're looking for GoTo capability, they are really the only choice if you want quality builds. I would recommend the 6SE for that extra inch of aperture, but the $200 difference could be spent on eyepieces.

Because Astronomics owns Cloudy Nights, if you put your CN Username in the box at check out, there's a variable discount for CN members.
Go with the Cats here, instead of the Dob. Your choice of which one.

pmethinxlamna

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Which would you pick?
« Reply #18 on: January 13, 2018, 07:41:09 AM »
Quote
Kevin,
Looks like you're either in a red/yellow zone, or a green zone, depending on exactly where you are. Even if you are a red/yellow zone, it doesn't appear to be too far to drive to get to a green zone.

snip...
Yellow or green? Wow! I would have to drive 70miles to get to a Yellow zone. Green? Probably 150 miles.

One should be able to see a lot with a 6" scope from a yellow or green zone. I am in a Dark white and I don't lack for targets.

Randal Samuels

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Which would you pick?
« Reply #19 on: January 18, 2018, 02:46:47 AM »
Quote
Quote

I do not believe the StarSeeker IV is based on the Celestron LC mount. The LC, for example does not have the abiltiy to be moved manually without losing alignment, the Starseeker IV does.

Starseeker IV 150
https://www.youtube....h?v=Z7goOnANFZQ


There maybe differences and it maybe a different mount but my concerns are not electronic but rather mechanical. And unless the Orion website is wrong, the 1.25 inch legs are the deal killer for me.

Jon

Understood. You are concerned about 1.25" steel legs.

It depends on which Starseeker IV 150 is being discussed. I have assumed it is the 150 reflector.

The mount is rated for 13 pounds. The reflector OTA weighs 8.3 poundsabout 63% of the rating of the mount.Not sureif that includes the finder scope. Add 1.5pounds for finder and eyepiece and you are still at 75% of the rating for the mount.

Reports I have read on the 150 reflector have been quite good including statements that the mount is solid.If it is the Starseeker IV 150 Mak-Cas, thatOTA is 12 pounds and right at the limit of the mount. I can see the concern for that configuration. I have not read any reports on this one except on the Orion web site which are all 4 or 5 star and they all recommend it.

naiciareamu

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Which would you pick?
« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2018, 01:00:34 PM »
Neither of those options would be my choice.
For go-to/track capability, the Celestron 6SE is a nice package.
For more capability, I'd go with an Orion XT8i. The intelliscope electronic finder works well and makes the scope a "push-to" scope. It gives you 2 numeric readouts and your zero them by moving the scope left-right and up-down to find an object. Easy-peasy. Tracking is manual and also easy.

adectisun

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Which would you pick?
« Reply #21 on: January 20, 2018, 04:14:01 PM »
I would agree the Orion XT8i is a good option if the budget is in the $700 range. I own the XT8i. It is my primary scope. Love the intelliscope object locator and the 8" aperture.

vidysriret

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Which would you pick?
« Reply #22 on: January 20, 2018, 07:16:06 PM »
I started out with a 60mm refractor...

http://www.highpoint...7R-oaAmXm8P8HAQ
102mm of clear, unobstructed aperture is considerable, and at f/10, false-colour when viewing brighter objects would be at a minimum.

http://www.chuckhawk...tron_XLT102.htm

Now, that's a durable kit, and heirloom-ish. The overall build, the pride-of-ownership, would be a given.

The mount is mechanical, wonderfully so, and would make for a very good teaching experience. The mount can be motorised for automatic, hands-free tracking of any object.

https://www.cloudyni...6281_483801.png

Cesar Taylor

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Which would you pick?
« Reply #23 on: January 21, 2018, 08:25:01 AM »
My $0.02...

About 15 years ago, I wanted to get into the hobby. Started with a 6" dob, then wanted more and sold the dob. Got myself a fine ED refractor, and then... got myself an early GEM GoTo mount for it. Big mistake. Just a lot of trouble to align, physically cumbersome, didn't work out well. Hated it. I came at it with the expectation that it would reduce hassle, and instead it increased it. Life got busy, trees overgrew my lot, and I put it aside.

Fast-forward to now, I'm in a different location and decided to restart. Got a decent alt-az mount for my refractor, and for first light invited my grandson over. I've got a planetarium app on my ipad, and he's got one on his phone. We had a fine time star-hopping with those and had no need of go to. I won't be going back. No doubt the go to's are better now, but at this point, I'm happy without them. FWIW...

Me, I'd buy the dob...

flasattecof

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Which would you pick?
« Reply #24 on: January 22, 2018, 07:55:08 PM »
Kevin, Based on Devonshire's comment, I will add that a Dob and the addition of a Smartphone with SkySafari software will give you a very nice PushTo capability. Simply decide where you want to go, and then hold the phone up at right angles to the telescope, and push the telescope to where you want to go. Very inexpensive and easy to do, although of course, you'll need to keep nudging the scope to keep the object centered.

Sky Muse also recommended the Celestron 102 Refractor on a manual EQ mount, and I would also up the ante a little bit on that by going to a 120mm version of it, same mount.

https://www.astronom...ope_p13749.aspx

There are a LOT of possibilities for your son, and to be honest, I suspect that a lot of this is going to be used by Dad as well!

proporasat

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Which would you pick?
« Reply #25 on: January 22, 2018, 08:17:32 PM »
I'd recommend the dob for several reasons: I have had both 6 and 8 inch scopes and compared them from my red zone back yard.

1. The 8 will show lots more objects than the 6.

2. The dob is inherently very stable much more so than the Starseeker

3. Even though the Starseeker has a huge database most of the time you won't see anything (unless you travel to a black zone).

4.8 inches is the minimum aperture I would recommend for deep sky

micnoasolos

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Which would you pick?
« Reply #26 on: January 22, 2018, 11:04:38 PM »
Quote
Quote

Quote

I do not believe the StarSeeker IV is based on the Celestron LC mount. The LC, for example does not have the abiltiy to be moved manually without losing alignment, the Starseeker IV does.

Starseeker IV 150
https://www.youtube....h?v=Z7goOnANFZQ


There maybe differences and it maybe a different mount but my concerns are not electronic but rather mechanical. And unless the Orion website is wrong, the 1.25 inch legs are the deal killer for me.

Jon

Understood. You are concerned about 1.25" steel legs.

It depends on which Starseeker IV 150 is being discussed. I have assumed it is the 150 reflector.

The mount is rated for 13 pounds. The reflector OTA weighs 8.3 poundsabout 63% of the rating of the mount.Not sureif that includes the finder scope. Add 1.5pounds for finder and eyepiece and you are still at 75% of the rating for the mount.

Reports I have read on the 150 reflector have been quite good including statements that the mount is solid.If it is the Starseeker IV 150 Mak-Cas, thatOTA is 12 pounds and right at the limit of the mount. I can see the concern for that configuration. I have not read any reports on this one except on the Orion web site which are all 4 or 5 star and they all recommend it.


At this price point, my experience is that mount ratings have little meaning. The mount and particularly the tripod is the easiest place to cut corners and yet a solid , stable mount is an important part of the achieving what is possible. A 6 inch F/5 Newtonian or a 6 inch Mak can provide good views of the planets but it requires a solid mount so that one can focus precisely and so it doesn't vibrate and spoil the view.

The tripod is an important part and the importance of the diameter in the stiff of the tripod is somewhere between the 3rd and 4th power of the diameter ratio, a tripod with 1.5 inch diameter legs will be about twice as stiff as a 1.25 inch legs.

This is the explanation, my experience has been that tripods with the 1.25 inch diameter legs are just not stiff enough for a scope this size. The 130 SLT uses this tripod, the TW-1 uses it. This mount with this scope should be stiffer.

I am not one who trusts website reviews. It's not that the reviewers are not doing their best, it's that their knowledge and understanding, their experience with a variety of mounts and Scopes is limited. I trust my own experience and knowledge.. A 150 mm F/5 needs a solid mount, Celestron puts the 150xlt on the CG-4, that has 1.75 inch legs and is solid..

There's a message there..

Jon

multalumiff

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Which would you pick?
« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2018, 11:06:44 AM »
Quote
Kevin, Based on Devonshire's comment, I will add that a Dob and the addition of a Smartphone with SkySafari software will give you a very nice PushTo capability. Simply decide where you want to go, and then hold the phone up at right angles to the telescope, and push the telescope to where you want to go. Very inexpensive and easy to do, although of course, you'll need to keep nudging the scope to keep the object centered.

Sky Muse also recommended the Celestron 102 Refractor on a manual EQ mount, and I would also up the ante a little bit on that by going to a 120mm version of it, same mount.

https://www.astronom...ope_p13749.aspx

There are a LOT of possibilities for your son, and to be honest, I suspect that a lot of this is going to be used by Dad as well!

A 4.7" f/8.3 achromat should really be mounted on a sturdier EQ5-type mount...

https://www.bhphotov...s=REG&A=details

jumphindnore

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Which would you pick?
« Reply #28 on: January 23, 2018, 05:39:20 PM »
Sky Muse, correct me if I'm wrong, but both the CG-4 and the LX70 mount both have 20 pound weight capacities. I believe you'll find that both of them are the same mount.

Miguel Alvarado

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Which would you pick?
« Reply #29 on: January 25, 2018, 02:10:52 PM »
Quote
Sky Muse, correct me if I'm wrong, but both the CG-4 and the LX70 mount both have 20 pound weight capacities. I believe you'll find that both of them are the same mount.

I have the Celestron CG-4. It's an EQ3-class mount. The Meade LX70 is an EQ5-class(as was the older LXD75, and the LXD55 to an extent). Synta Optical makes both the CG-4 and the LX70; including the Sky-Watcher mounts, EQ-1 through EQ-8.

Compare the structure of the LX70 to that of the "flagship" Sky-Watcher EQ-5...

https://www.optcorp....l-mount-e62.jpg
http://sargeplus.com...o/neq5_zoom.jpg

This is the Sky-Watcher EQ-3 with the tubular-steel legs, and exactly like the CG-4...

http://skywatcher.co...h-steel-tripod/

Note the listed payload capacity: 5.5 kg =12.1254 lbs.

That's the weight of the 6" f/5 Newtonian that Synta bundles with the CG-4, and the most that I could ever mount on my own...
It's not just the weight, but the moment-arm effect to consider in addition. This is the Synta (Orion) 8" f/5 Newtonian, and at 16.5 lbs. bare...

http://www.telescope.../345/p/9788.uts

I could never mount that on a CG-4 with a straight-face.

The Sky-Watcher EQ-5...http://skywatcher.co...h-steel-tripod/

...9.10 kg =20.0621 lbs.

I'm aware that Synta states 20 lbs. as the load-bearing capacity for the CG-4, but I have to take that with a grain of salt, and a shot-glass of something or other.

Which one of these 120mm f/8.3 achromats appears to be undermounted...

https://www.valkanik...ctor-9346-1.png
http://www.analytica...4_i50_w605.jpeg

If it quacks like a duck...

Incidentally, the Celestron CG-3 is an EQ2-class, not an EQ3-class as you had stated here...

https://www.cloudyni...help/?p=7847957

An EQ-3 would, in fact, hold a 5" Maksutov quite rigidly, as would a CG-4 like my own.

Oh, and the CG-2 is an EQ-1...http://www.astronomo...60126#msg160126

Wasn't that clever of Synta in forwarding the numerals for the Celestron line?