Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_christmas_presents.thumb.jpg.587637e0d01baf4b6d21b73610610bbb.jpg

Greymouser

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

235 Excellent

About Greymouser

  • Rank
    Star Forming

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Astronomy, Doh! Fishing; gardening; hiking; music; history and too much more, time wasting nonsense. ( According to my wife! )
  • Location
    North Cheshire.
  1. The David Hinds site also says the weight of the Astro Fi OTA is 4.8 lbs: https://celestron.uk.com/productinfo.php/telescopes/astro_fi_series/astro_fi_6_sct/4221 If you scroll down you will see it there too. Flo do not give the separate weight of the OTA, just say the total weight is 6.7 KG, which is still a very light weight setup. Perhaps FLO also doubt the alleged weight of the OTA separately? I suspect you are right Michael and I am reminded of something my Grandma always advised: " If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is... " I have never seen a telescope described as " vapourware. " But hey ho, there you go. As I have already stated, it does seem way to good to be true. However I doubt it is fiction, just the advanced warning/advertisement, for what on the face of it are attractive setups. I find it hard to believe, ( though not imposible, ) that Flo; Rother Valley Optics and David Hinds are all telling fibs. Especially considering this on the Celestron website, which also seems to state the Asto Fi 6" OTA, will in fact weigh 4.8 lbs. https://www.celestron.com/products/astro-fi-6-schmidt-cassegrain-telescope I am not trying to argue with anyone, I just want clarification, is that asking too much? Edit: It is odd though that Celestron say the Astro Fi 5 weighs 6.8 lbs, which is in fact heavier than the ordinary C5! They also say the Fi 5 setup is heavier than the Fi 6 Maybe got the two specifications the wrong way around. ( I suspect that Celestron need to employ a better proof reader... )
  2. Yes, I think I will now be getting a 6 lb C5, though one of those versions is half a pound heavier... I too found it difficult to believe too Peter, especially considering the Astro Fi six inch version is in fact less than half the weight of the C6 version OTA. 4.8 lbs compare to the expected 10 lbs. Rother Valley say there is no difference at all in the optics, which to be honest is hard to understand. The Asto Fi six inch version is in fact lighter than the C5 spotting scope! I am baffled as to their logic. ( Celestron's ? )
  3. Greymouser

    Sirius B and E/F stars - what does it take!?

    That sentence alone, is a reason to emigrate to Australia. ( Other reasons are available... )
  4. As no one here can or wants to answer my question, I pursued it with Rother Valley Optics, which is perhaps where I should have gone in the first place. ( I just preferred to rely on the experience/independence, of those on this forum, never mind that the beginner section seemed a logical place for my question. ) Anyway, just to tie up a loose end and to make sure anyone who wonders about this in the future, who comes across this thread, finds an answer: Rother Valley say there is no difference in the optics, at all, but in their words: " In lightweight systems such as the SLT and Astro Fi etc, they may have changed the build design or quality to reduce the overall weight of the systems. " I am not sure this reassures me, other than to avoid the lighter OTA, just in case... ( Please forgive the bump and combine the two posts if it seems appropriate. )
  5. Greymouser

    Hi from Birmingham

    Hi and welcome to the forum. P.S. If you find that accessory, please let me know...
  6. I have been looking to get a compact travel scope for a while and seem to be settled on a 5" SCT from Celestron weighing 6lbs. However I then noticed That the 6" SCT only weighs in a four pounds more, tempting. https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/celestron-c6-xlt-optical-tube-assembly.html Thing is that not all versions of the 6" appear to be the same weight. The SE and upcoming SLT versions both weigh in at ( OTA only, ) 8lbs: https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/celestron-nexstar-6-slt-goto-telescope.html Then there is the upcoming Astro Fi version which claims it is going to weigh in at ( OTA only, ) 4.8lbs! https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/celestron-astro-fi-6-sct-wifi-telescope.html I had assumed that each 6 inch SCT , from the same manufacturer would be essentially the same OTA, with just a different paint job, but according to the above links, the Astro Fi version, has an OTA less than half the weight of the C6! What is going on? Can anyone explain? Is it just a typing error, somewhere along the line? If so it is not just Rother Valley which has the error. Because in other sizes, there is little difference in weight of the different versions, I think half a pound or so. Can anyone explain to stupid me please? I mean if the Astro Fi 6" is going to be lighter than the C5, it's a no brainer, eh?
  7. Greymouser

    Rare, ( and short, ) session.

    I find myself wearing two hats sometimes!
  8. Greymouser

    Eyepiece caps.

    Thanks that is the site I remembered!
  9. I need advice on where to get replacement caps for eyepieces, as well as the little inserts that go into a visual back / barlow, etc. I did come across a site that offered such, but like a fool did not bookmark it and cannot find it now. Can anyone point me in the right direction please? I am not the best at keeping such things ordered.
  10. I just though I would post about my rare session observing last night, not because it is out of the ordinary, in fact it would be most ordinary to most people! Anyhow, the forecast was good and I was not feeling too bad, nor too tired, which was rare in itself lately. I have not been sleeping well at all, for one reason or another, so have found it difficult to motivate myself. So, even though the moon was half full last night, I set up my Celestron Evolution 9.25 and left it to find equilibrium. I came back about an hour later, plenty of time I thought; which it was. Now I have not had the scope out since before Christmas and have always before, used the Sky Portal app to control the scope. That has always been fine, except when the app crashes causing the mount to go off on a wild slew, often causing the diagonal and eyepiece to crash into the mount! ( Ouch! ) This has been an added motivation to avoid using the scope to be honest. Last night however I thought I would try a different approach and used the supplied hand controller to control things, after all it cannot be that hard eh? Its not! Not shocking to most, but it was to me as I had always assumed the app would be far easier, not so, the controller method is much better! ( However I did enter the latitude and longitude the wrong way around at first, which left the mount thinking I somewhere off the coast of Somalia! ) I entered the time; location and went for a two star alignment, using Polaris, then Betelgeuse, not expecting too much to be honest, but I was wrong, easy peasy! Then sent it slewing to nearby M42 which then appeared almost dead centre, wahay! Why did I not use the controller sooner? Goodness knows, it is so much better and easier, even without looking at the manual for it first... I was using the 6.3 reducer and a Baader 10 mm eyepiece, giving me a magnification of around 148, I think. The image was good but not great, it is not the best of eyepieces, so I changed it out for my favourite 16 mm eyepiece, ( not sure of the make... ) giving about 92x. Much better this time, clear and sharp. The trapezium easy and obvious and I thought I could see a few stars in the centre of the trapezium, is this possible, or just wishful thinking? Either way, a lovely view with loads of nebulosity on show, does this never end? I spent what seemed like ages just looking at the nebulae, which seemed to expand with detail and extent as I watched: lovely. Next I went to have a quick look at M31, which again was almost centre, though hard to see because of both the moon and that tree, which even though leafless, was in the way. Good to see an old friend anyway. Next I stayed with the 16mm and went to have a look at the Pleiades, M45. This was one of my favourites as a child, just starting out with my little 50mm frac, I find it still is, though it is much better with more aperture! I changed out to a 40 mm eyepiece, about 37x, better and better. Do I see a hint of nebulosity or not, I just cannot decide, though find myself doubting my observation, even though it seems to be in the right place, even more of a hint in the 16mm. The easy control given from the hand controller leaves me wandering around M45 for what seems ages, again. Now I am starting to tire and getting a little nippy with the cold. ( I am not so young any more... ) I decide to have a last wander over to the moon. Aarrghhh, I'm blind! Foolish me forgot to add my moon filter and the 16mm, leaves me half blinded from the searchlight! Anyway, I spend the next hour or so wandering around the surface of the moon, keep coming back to one crater in particular, not sure which one, so I will not speculate on naming it, but it had an interesting shape and degree of detail. I went up to a 5mm and about 296x, loads of detail and an interesting texture in the centre of he crater, several mounts and maybe other very small craters,( ? ) below. Either way, fascinating, as ever the moon is. Starting to get numb fingers now, time to pack up. Good job I did because I nearly juggled the OTA to the floor, with numb fingers, as I dismantled! Not sure how long the session lasted, but not really long enough! My conclusions: Why did I not use the hand controller sooner? I am now re motivated to get back to more regular observing. I need to make sure I have a list of targets and choose a moonless night next time. I wonder if I can get away with chopping that tree down, it is on a school playing field... What a wonderful versatile scope the Celestron 9.25 is and how much closer is that C5 travel scope? Well chuffed. ( Not out tonight, it is my weekly bottle of wine night! )
  11. Greymouser

    Meade ETX 125 PE with Case and Tripod - Reduced...

    Another decent set up, just too far away again! This time four and a half hours away! Ah well no need to persuade my wife I need thissss. Every cloud and all that I guess... Good luck with the sale anyway. ( No I don't want to risk the couriers either thanks. )
  12. Greymouser

    Hi From Ellesmere Port New to Forum

    Hello and welcome to the forum, plenty of good information here. I don't think even this forum will help with clear skies though!
  13. Greymouser

    NexStar SLT mount

    Yes that is what FLO says too, however David Hinds claim that the SCT that will be supplied with a SLT mount weighs eight pounds, the one supplied with the Astro FI weighs 4.8 pounds. Are they then in fact quite radically different OTAs?
  14. Greymouser

    NexStar SLT mount

    I think that is just a case of them not having arrived yet, but I do find it odd too. They also have the C6 on a SLT mount, which is odd if a C5 is about max load you say. https://celestron.uk.com/productinfo.php/telescopes/nexstar_slt_lcm_series/nexstar_6_slt/4215 What is odder still is that whilst David Hinds claim the weight difference between the C5 and C6 is two pounds, FLO claim there is a four pound difference. I know what you mean about travel scopes, in fact I would consider my C9.25 to be portable enough to take on holiday, in the car that is. However as I wish to put it in a backpack and carry it quite far, the extra pounds will count a lot. A 9.25, or 8 or just not even close to being an option. In another thread I started about a backpack scope, someone posted their own MAK in a pack picture, which certainly got my interest. The MAK is in fact only a little heavier that the C5 too. The reason I am leaning towards the SCT is simply that I already own the C9.25 and like it, just a shame it is not really viable in a backpack, at about 20 pounds in weight! I have also been tempted by the Astro FI, but as you say about the SLT, there are sometimes issues with that mount too, it seems, though I have seen a good review on Yous Tube. I think maybe I should just get the C5 OTA and attach it to a photo tripod, saving yet more weight. Edit: Odder and odder, I have just noticed on the David Hinds site, that they claim the Astro Fi 6 SCT has an OTA which weighs only 4.8 pounds! Lighter than the C5! What is going on, it there a difference then after all between the different OTAs?
  15. With my search for my perfect travel scope, I have been pointed in the direction of the NexStar SLT mount, as well as the Skywatcher equivalent. Thing is, they now have the NexStar 5 SLT on the horizon, according to David Hinds: https://celestron.uk.com/productinfo.php/telescopes/nexstar_slt_lcm_series/nexstar_5_slt/4217 Thing is that I am a little confused, is the weight accurate? Then just to make it more complex, there is the C6 SLT coming up too, just a little heavier, if I can believe that... I like the SCT design and to be frank prefer it over the MAK design, ( at least in my head, ) so I continued to look, saw the upcoming Astro Fi 6 SCT , so am not even more undecided which direction in which to go. Help! https://celestron.uk.com/productinfo.php/telescopes/astro_fi_series/astro_fi_6_sct/4221 So in conclusion, how accurate is the weight stated on the internet? Where should I go? I mean just two pounds, gives me an extra inch of aperture, for little extra expense, or weight. Just how good is the NexStar SLT mount? I am beginning to think there is too much choice in the telescope market...
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.