Celestron C5

[Earl]

Any coments on this little scope? I here that it is the same ota as the 5SE just not the nice metallic orange?

[kniclander]

it's nice but i don't think it would be able to answer the phone quickly enough for you

[Earl]

Just had a quick play with this and its not a bad little scope, it would be interesting to compare it to a 127 Mak.

[Psychobilly]

There's a Shoot comparison between a 127 Mak and the C5 over the pond...

Orion 127 Mak Cass Vs. Celestron C5 SCT - Shootout

Peter....

[Earl]

Cheers for the link.

Well im very pleased with this little scope a nice grab and go, but the supplied 8x20 finder and bracket is awful and always in the wrong place, i found it difficult to get my head close to the eyepiece at times and had to constantly adjust to get comfy.

The focus is very smooth and mirror flop minimal much better than my old LX10 I had.

Saturn was nice and crisp M13 was a nice smudge, i was unable to resolve it to stars but my eyes were not the best as i had not adapted enough to the dark.

I must try a skymax 127 vs it at some point.

[JamesM]

I'm thinking of getting the other half a C5 as a spotter scope for her birding interests as that is how I've frequently seen it advertised because due to it having a minimum focus distance of 12 feet. When I talked about this scope with Ed of Harrison Scopes (nice guy) he argued that the Mak127 was more of an astronomy type scope as the lens at the front was suited for greater magnification and was more refractor like in its purpose. As I have not looked through either yet I can't really qualify if he's correct but the C5 seems to have that all rounder feel to it which allows for terrestrial use rather than the Mak which is purely astro.

James

[BinocularSky]

Any coments on this little scope?

Lovely scope -- I used to have one. Details here.

[rowan46]

I have the nexstar 5 and everybody who looks through like the sharp optics, however it seems quality can be variable on these tubes which is a shame because they are not cheap. the focusser takes a little getting used to as it's very smooth but cool down is quick about 10- 30 mins depending on temp rarely need collimating and with bobs knobs it's very easy a little lighter than the 127mak but not by much and of course takes all the celestron c fittings focal reducers etc mine is nice but as I said there are some who have had real horrors one person on this forum described it as the worst scope he had ever had and he has had many. and yes it does have nice close focus

[amillego]

I've had a C5 since December 2010 and it's been really great. I only wish the skies were clearer here in Shanghai. I've been able to see Saturn very well (down in Hainan Island, China). That was a great thrill as it was my first planet sighting. The other evening, we had a fairly clear sky and I got some great photos of the moon. Good detail and contrast. I also use it, at the moment, for viewing ships from our apartment window. All in all, great value for money if you're looking for power and portability!

Gordon

[amillego]

Here's a picture of mine all dolled-up and ready to take some pictures. The tripod will be replaced with the Astro-Tech Voyager listed below, when I get back to the USA in a couple of months.

[Teal Rain]

I've had two of them - if you include the re-shelled version the 127 SCT that I still have. The other was the white tube spotter version made in California. Both had/have cracking optics or any discernible image shift.

M

[John]

I've owned a couple of C5's in the past and I've recently bought Earls C5 from him. It's a cracking little scope from the couple of sessions I've had with it so far