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.

Recommended Posts

Hey guys

A guy in my area is selling a 13.1" Coulter Odyssey, the 2 mirrors. I'd want to get an idea on the optical quality of them. He bought the many many years ago, and they still in the original package, hasn't been used.

1. Would the optics degrade over time if they were wrapped up?

2. What is the general quality of the mirrors. I have heard the optics can vary alot, and they generally not that great for planetary views.

3. He is selling them (and he mentioned the Rocker once) for around $350, is this good for a un-used mirror.

I'd like to build a really nice DSO / Planetary Dob, and this gives me hope if the optics are really good.

Any advice, tips etc would be greatly appreciated.

Tx guys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We rarely see the Coulter scopes in the UK. Here is a review by Ed Ting of the 13.1" which seems to confirm your comments on the quality of the mirrors:

http://www.scopereviews.com/page1b.html#7

I don't think it would be the basis for a planetary scope but as a low cost deep sky "light bucket" it could be a lot of fun.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issue I an worrying about is like if I build it and it horrible. Like will Jupiter be a blob, will stars never reach focus? I think that's not the case.

It's like comparing a $150 eyepiece to a $300 one. It's not that the cheaper 1 is bad it's just slightly less quality.

I just don't want to buy a 13" and it's worse than my 8".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issue I an worrying about is like if I build it and it horrible. Like will Jupiter be a blob, will stars never reach focus? I think that's not the case.

It's like comparing a $150 eyepiece to a $300 one. It's not that the cheaper 1 is bad it's just slightly less quality.

I just don't want to buy a 13" and it's worse than my 8".

The Orion XT's probably do have better quality mirrors in them than most of the Coulters did and it's quite possible that the Orion will show better planetary and lunar views than the Coulter would. The 13.1" would do much better on faint deep sky objects and thats the point of them.

If I was in your position I'd not commit to the Coulter until I'd had a chance to view though it and see what the optical quality and general build was like. The Coulters were basic scopes with basic focusers, no finder and rudimentary mirror cells and secondary support systems. Thats how they were designed. The Orion XT will seem quite a bit more polished and sophisticated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Orion XT's probably do have better quality mirrors in them than most of the Coulters did and it's quite possible that the Orion will show better planetary and lunar views than the Coulter would. The 13.1" would do much better on faint deep sky objects and thats the point of them.

If I was in your position I'd not commit to the Coulter until I'd had a chance to view though it and see what the optical quality and general build was like. The Coulters were basic scopes with basic focusers, no finder and rudimentary mirror cells and secondary support systems. Thats how they were designed. The Orion XT will seem quite a bit more polished and sophisticated.

 Its just the mirrors, so can't view through them before I buy. I'd make the telescope from aluminum/wood from my uncles factory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mirror is the original blue version, before it was mass produced and the quality went down. I'll take a week to think about it. Main thing is DSO > Planets/Moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By lalou
      Hi! I've recently acquired a new Astromodified Canon rebel XT and I've tried to take pictures of nebulas using it but I've noticed that there are these weird black artifacts that keep appearing in my images. Would like to know if anyone has experienced this before? Or are these dirt/dust specs on the camera, filter, and telescope glass? I've attached some of my edited and raw pictures for your reference. The black artifacts can already be seen in the raw image of the horsehead nebula and after stacking I think it got amplified. Anyway, advance thanks and I hope everyone's doing well.
       

    • By onefistinthestars
      To celebrate the 25th anniversary of Sir Patrick's DSO catalogue, I've added the available Caldwells to my basic Marathon search sequence. 
      Those interested may be pleasantly surprised by how many of the additional treasures are only a short hop from a given (or en route to the next) Messier.
      The sequence for 40°N can be found at the SEDS Messier Marathon homepage or at my blog.
      Peace, Stephen
    • By Lancebloke
      So, although I had some issues with my auto guiding (which I found out afterwards) I did manage to get 9x180s exposures and 5 darks of Andromeda and give both stacking (using DSS) and processing (using GIMP).
      My first attempted DSO....
       
      I am pretty sure that people could get far more information out of the TIFF file from the stack.
      Hopefully I will get another clear night soon. I am in a heavily light polluted area so I do have a clip in filter on my DSLR which I think took a lot away.
      More practise needed!
      Lance
    • By GTom
      I am thinking on grinding my own lightweight mirror (first f4 16", later f4 24"). The lightest and cheapest option is to get a thin blank and slump it in a decent kiln.
      Anyone has longer term experiene with slumped mirrors? Overall doesn't seem to be more work than a normal (not pregenerated) blank.
      Do I have to grind the backside as in case of normal flat back mirrors to avoid astigmatism? How do people support a convex back while grinding? Does it make sense to grind a hole in the middle for additional support? I am remotely considering a convertible Newtonian/Cassegrain system anyway...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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