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_lunar_landings.thumb.jpg.b50378d0845690d8a03305a49923eb40.jpg

Greymouser

Celestron 6" SCT, different weights?

Recommended Posts

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? ?

 

 

 

Edited by Greymouser
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. ? )

Edited by Greymouser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it difficult to believe that this latest version of the C6 OTA has had over 3lb shaved off the weight of the previous ones. The originals were designed to be as light as is practically possible, a 3lb saving would take at least a CF tube and leaving out either the primary or corrector to achieve.    :dontknow:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :huh2: ( Celestron's ? )

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw this thread...if you ever do come across a 4.8lbs C6 it would be very nice!!! Can't believ the answer you were given...have you perhaps tried asking this to other vendors of the Astro fi version?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OTA of the C5 in the same astro-fi series weighs 6.8 lbs (3.08 kg) according to Celestron's figures. It is highly unlikely that the C6 in the series will weigh less than 8 lbs.

8lbs also seems to be the weight limit for the astro-fi mount used on these models.  Anyway, the C6 model has no price and no availablilty, so why argue about a piece of vapourware?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? :unsure:

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:ohmy: Maybe got the two specifications the wrong way around.

( I suspect that Celestron need to employ a better proof reader... :rolleyes2: )

 

 

 

Edited by Greymouser
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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... :rolleyes2:

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. :undecided:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

if it was me buying it and I had the money  I would get the 6" nexstar

has I have the 6" evolution and you would get better views with the 6""

over the 5" and I got mine from Adam at RVO

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, did you find out anymore about Celestrons 6" SCT's weight discrepancy, I did find that there's so many specified weights for these OTA's.

Celestron Nexstar 6SE 10lb, 4.54 kg

https://grovers.biz/optics/optical-tube-assemblies/7200-celestron-c6-6se-orange-ota-050234101097.html

Celestron Nexstar Evolution 6 10lb 4.54 kg

https://grovers.biz/optics/optical-tube-assemblies/7509-celestron-nexstar-evolution-6-ota.html

But Rothervalleyoptics Nexstar 6SE OTA weight description says 8lb, 3.6 kg , does this mean the SLT version, stated as 8lb, is the same OTA as the 6SE and 6" Evolution  version and there's no cost cutting on any version.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bearpolar said:

Hi, did you find out anymore about Celestrons 6" SCT's weight discrepancy, I did find that there's so many specified weights for these OTA's.

Not really, the only answer I got was that it is an error of the human kind. I ended up getting the C5 for a travel scope and mighty fine it is, but it is not the weight stated the the advertising. I cannot remember the discrepancy, but think it is lighter than they stated. :icon_confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know the Celestron C6 has never weighed 4.54kgs, despite Celestron's consistent documentation. Whenever people have actually weighed theirs it seems about a kilo lighter. I don't have one, but I have had me eye on a C6 for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thanks for reply, I was looking at the C5 for a grab and go on a Alt Az mount, the SLT version seems better value then the spotter version. 

Agnes, I noticed you have a Skymax 102, how would you rate that scope, what would be the highest practical magnification.

Edited by Bearpolar
Added sentence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most likely no one had an answer... but I'd say it's a typo.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Bearpolar said:

Thanks for reply, I was looking at the C5 for a grab and go on a Alt Az mount, the SLT version seems better value then the spotter version. 

That was my first thought too, but I was dissuaded by several people telling me that the SLT mount was not that good, had problems. I got the Omni one, which basically got me a CG4 Mount and tripod for very little. It is not a goto mount, but I already had one of those and I intend to get a AZGTi for the C5. ( It's on a Horizon tripod at the moment. ) The CG4 is basically a EQ3-2 mount, but is better than the Skywatcher one, with a heavier payload capacity. I am not sure what I will do with the CG4 yet. It is just a shame that the two companies cannot get it together properly, after all they are owned by the same parent company. A C5 on a AZGi would be a great package. :smiley:

Edited by Greymouser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Greymouser said:

That was my first thought too, but I was dissuaded by several people telling me that the SLT mount was not that good, had problems. I got the Omni one, which basically got me a CG4 Mount and tripod for very little. It is not a goto mount, but I already had one of those and I intend to get a AZGTi for the C5. ( It's on a Horizon tripod at the moment. ) The CG4 is basically a EQ3-2 mount, but is better than the Skywatcher one, with a heavier payload capacity. I am not sure what I will do with the CG4 yet. It is just a shame that the two companies cannot get it together properly, after all they are owned by the same parent company. A C5 on a AZGi would be a great package. :smiley:

I read the same about the SLT mount, was going to sell the mount, or try fitting a L bracket and try my dslr and lens for some wide fied astrophotography, but not sure if that would work with a Alt Az mount like this, thanks for reply.

Edited by Bearpolar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Bearpolar said:

Agnes, I noticed you have a Skymax 102, how would you rate that scope, what would be the highest practical magnification.

It's pretty good. You can go up to 200x on some targets, but this Jupiter season I have been using 80x as the larger exit pupil suits my eyes better (at 200x all I see is floaters - but the scope cannot be blamed for that). Your eyes may take higher magnification than mine can!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really interesting, looking at RVO and other sites a C6 OTA is £679 and the Astro Fi is £649, so if the scopes are exactly the same, going the Astro Fi route is cheaper with a mount thrown in? I get your points about the weights as well, what a minefield. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, JG777 said:

This is really interesting, looking at RVO and other sites a C6 OTA is £679 and the Astro Fi is £649,

When I got my C5 from FLO, they were also selling the C6 for exactly the same price: £499, though have put the price up now. I also considered the Astro Fi, but after seeing a review for it on You tube was put off, as it was stated that the wifi aspect of the mount was poor. 

Edit: @JG777 In fact I have just discovered there is one seller still selling the C6 for £ 499. the SE OTA in this case. https://grovers.biz/optics/optical-tube-assemblies/7200-celestron-c6-6se-orange-ota-050234101097.html

 

 

Edited by Greymouser
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Grovers sell the C5, C6SE and C6 Evolution ota's for £499, along with mount and tripod spares etc. Good if you want the dovetail on the side, will fit a few Alt Az mounts nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahem! - just come across this topic/thread.

I have a C6/XLT. Now curious and will have give it a 'weigh-in' to see what the tare weight is without any add-on accessories is, (i.e. 2" SCT star diagonal, crayford focusser, etc.), except for the finderscope. I know my Vixen GP is at its maximum payload limit, as per the image below...

IMG_0050.thumb.JPG.c0872271f6c819c91bd27977562ef11f.JPG

...and report back.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Philip R did you get a chance to weight the OTA?

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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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