Greymouser

It is that sort of image vernmid, that makes me want to dip my toes in the imaging part of the hobby. My wallet keeps saying: NOOOOO!

I too have had similar problems with the sky portal app, for me with my Evolution mount, it is just not well thought out imo. Geoff Lister sums it up really well. It is just not an improvement to my mind over a hand controller and is little more than a gimmick. Luckily for me the Evolution mount came with the optional hand controller too and it has without any doubt vastly improved my enjoyment of using my Evolution mount. There is just no comparison. I would suggest you contact whomever sold you the scope/mount, and ask them which hand controller will work with it. You will not regret it.

However that said I use the Sky portal app on an Android tablet and just yesterday there was an update to a newer version, ( I presume it was a little later with Apple, ) which they allege means you can tilt the tablet to move the mount, instead of trying to find non tactile buttons on screen. If true it would perhaps be a huge improvement. I may try it out at some time, but as Geoff says, that is not the only problem with the app, so I think I will stick to the hand controller. That is as soon as I can motivate myself to observe at all again. 

This worry over the app is what is putting me off a little bit, when I  am considering getting the Skywatcher version, with a AZ GTI mount. All gimmick. less function? 

Edit: Incidentally I have read of several Astro Fi users say they have bought a hand controller for it, but they do not mention which controller... I have heard the same of the AZ GTI.

EDIT 2: Oops I just noticed the old date of OP of this thread, sorry about that mods...

2 minutes ago, gtis said:

I would get the 6" nexstar

I assume you mean the Nexstar SLT, which weighs in at 18lbs, altogether? The Nexstar Evolution at 35.4 lbs, for the entire kit, is probably a bit much as a backpack scope...?

Apologies about what may be inferred as a blatant bump, but another loose end...

However, the six inch  Asto Fi is now a reality with Rother Valley Optics offering at £649, though not in stock yet: https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/celestron-astro-fi-6-sct-wifi-telescope.html

The five and six inch SLT are also now with a quoted price; £ 549 for the five inch and £ 649 for the six: https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/celestron-nexstar-5-slt-goto-telescope.html

https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/celestron-nexstar-6-slt-goto-telescope.html

Neither are expected in stock before next month, according to Adam, at RVO, ( fingers crossed, ) which is nice and will give me time to persuade my wife of my need...

Now all I need to do is decide which one to go for, or maybe just the OTA? Ah well, there are worse problems to have.

4 hours ago, festoon said:

have you perhaps tried asking this to other vendors of the Astro fi version

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... )

46 minutes ago, happy-kat said:

Has it helped in your travel kit dilemma?

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 ? )

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. ? )

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? ?

I received my second order from this wonderful company on Friday. Again very well packaged and quickly delivered by DPD, the best courier too imo. I do like the sticker: " May contain clouds ", brought a grin to my face that did, does every time I see it as it is now on the box that contains my OTA. In fact I would say FLO are missing a trick there, I would pay good money for this kind of humorous sticker, they should produce  and sell more varieties! ?

All contact with the company has been very prompt and very good. Not so much with the second order which was very straight forward, but the first required some back and forth e mails, between me and the firm. I would say that other suppliers could learn a thing or two from this company, not mentioning names or anything... If there is a choice I will be using this company in the future, before any other, because of that excellent customer service. 

Thank you FLO, keep up the good work. ?

My shopping list gets bigger and bigger... ?

12 hours ago, Owmuchonomy said:

I went to a Baader Click-Lock and 2” EPS for my 9.25” SCT which gave better results. Using a .63 reducer you just end up with terrible vignetting. I now have a 2” Moonlite in orange anodised finish ???.

Could you tell me which click lock you went to exactly. In fact could you break down to a real easy level, ( for someone quite stupid, like myself, ) exactly what you did please. 

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

Probably the widest format you could obtain would be with a 32mm TV Plossl

I was under the impression that they were only a 50 degree FOV, is my assumption wrong?

9 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Unless the design of the scope has been altered I think you can acheive the same FOV without the reducer as with it if you have a 2 inch visual back. The field is limited by the baffle tube in both cases so it can be reached with a widefield 2 inch EP at F10.

Olly

You are not the first to suggest this and I had in fact been considering that, but for two reasons, it could be a possibility. The cost would be considerable, to put it mildly and any field flattening correction would then be lost, unless you can then buy another correcter for the two inch visual back? I wish I could afford it though, especially the top of the range eyepieces! ??

1 hour ago, cloudsweeper said:

but I might as well just have used longer FLs without the reducer!

I will check again, without the full moon! It wouldn't surprise me though...?

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reducersflatteners/celestron-f63-focal-reducer.html

Well I have now used the scope with the focal reducer in place. ?

Whilst it is billed as mainly to improve imaging, it certainly seems to improve visually too. I will have to experiment further, because I first used the scope on a moonless night at F10, last night with the focal reducer in place, F6.3, there was a full moon, which made things a littler more interesting!  Certainly the view of M31 was wider and seemed sharper, but that may have been my imagination. I am sure I saw more detail, which is surprising considering the full moon, I suppose it may have been just me, if I am being negative, but it did seem better.

It really does make a two scopes for one in my opinion alone, not least because it makes it easier for lower magnifications. The 40mm eyepiece at F10 gives a Magnification of 58.75, at F6.3 it is 37, I think, even though they advise not to use an eyepiece longer than 35mm at 6.3! Never mind, with several eyepieces it seems to have improved things.

Considering the thing cost £99, it seems to be a good buy, especially when you consider that I spent £2349 on my scope. Even more so considering the future benefits when I dip my toes into imaging... As well as it also gives a flatter field.

I can heartily recommend it for those with a similar scope, even if like me it is only for visual versatility. ?

My first impressions of the Nexstar 9.25 Evolution can be found here: 

Thank you and interesting. ?

It would be visual, initially. I did look at the option of a Skytee II and the Uni28, ( seeing it mentioned by you I think...) Telescope House sell it with a metal tripod too. FLO claim a load of 10 KG, TH one of 15KG, I presume slightly different mounts? Even though they look very similar from the pics. 

Considering the light pollution at home, I need portability though I think.  If you consider the ED150 to be not really worth considering as portable, what would consider a good scope for portability?  Sorry if it is a stupid question, but I just do not know enough, but do know Dobs are not as good as some say, more " moveable ". ?

Thank you for your reply.

Can I ask bot you and John about what you would advise as the minimum mount for this telescope? FLO are selling it with an EQ6-R, which I suspect will not be remotely portable? ?

Can I ask you just how good the case it come supplied with is? I don't think you mentioned it, other than it arrived undamaged. It is just that I have come across some flight cases that were not too good to be honest, which is not good when transporting scopes etc.

Thanks.?