Orion spx 200 f8

[jakey]

I have always tended to lean towards lunar and plantery viewing.

Due to my son running out of money at uni I had to bite the bullet and sell my scopes. painful but it had to be done.

However I have a bit left over and despite some misgivings with OO I notice that they make an 8 inch f8 spx reflector.

In theory this should make a very good yet "reasonably priced" optically high end scope for where my interests lie.

Having dealt with OO before I would not mount on what they supply, I would go for the EQ6, but not goto as I know where the moon and planets are.

Before I purchase this I would welcome any opinions on the quality of this F8 scope or perhaps any alternatives that I may have missed.

[philsail1]

Hello "Jakey"

Well, I have an Orion Optics 8" "Europa" (De-lux" model) f4.5 Newtonian which I bought from Orion Optics late last year.

I also had an 8" Standard Skywatcher "Explorer" Newtonian at the time, so I was able to compare them.

I found that the Skywatcher was almost (and I mean almost!) as good as the Orion - despite the claims made by Orion that "I would notice a significant difference in the views between the two" - with the Orion giving the brightest and sharpest views.

I found the Orion only just proving to be the better scope with regard to brighter views. They both gave very sharp views of the Moon, Planets and stars. The Skywatcher (f5) gave the sharpest views right out almost to the very edges of the field of view. The Orion, with its shorter focal length, suffered a bit of "coma" towards the outer 3% of field of view.

The Skywatcher mirror (at least on the 8" Explorer anyway) is 3mm bigger than the Orion's mirror!

However, after some exhaustive testing, in the end I kept the Orion Scope and let the Skywatcher go - very reluctantly - only for the simple reason that the Orion Scope is very much lighter, and the tube 3" shorter than the Skywatcher's - and I had been looking for a lighter scope. Also, the Orion did give a wider field of view, which I wanted for Astro Photography.

I was able to swap my HEQ5 mount for a lighter Celestron CG5 mount, which easily takes the 7kg weight of the Orion Scope (Skywatcher weighed in at 9.2kg).

I cannot comment on the SPX scope (except to say that it is supposed to be Orion's "premier" instrument - so it should be good for the money!).

I had a little difficulty with Orion Optics - they put the wrong focuser on my scope, and supplied me with the wrong finderscope. In fairness they did correct these immediately. The tube and mirror are superbly finished, and the new "crayford" type focuser they fitted, is smooth (but nowhere near as smooth as the "Moonlite" - which I had fitted to my Skywatcher).

I'm sure other members of SGL will soon advise you on the SPX scope.

Regards,

philsail1

[ncjunk]

I have one of the Orion spx 200 f8 scopes and did my first photography with a webcam on some of the planets.

I have found it an excellent scope and have enjoyed using it. At present I have an EQ6 with 2 80mm scopes attached I aim to put this in the shed with the Orion spx attached instead and the 80ED as well.

I bought mine second hand and the collimation is easy, the only slight pain is that the tube length means I end up needing a step ladder to look through it.

http://www.neilchase.net/solar_system.html

That link contains all photos taken with the scope but trust me I could do a lot better job now and any problems with these pictures are due to the user and not the scope.

Also, I have a print out of a test of the mirror tolerances and they are very good (I will see if I can find it).

I don´t think you would regret it as long as you don´t mind the size of the thing.

Neil C

[jakey]

Thanks, I am leaning towards the spx, rather than the skywatcher. OO scopes are a known entity to me.I.E, I tend to know what will be wrong with them.

I have never looked through a skywatcher or seen one at first hand.

However cost wise the skywatcher plus an eq6 wll be somewhat cheaper than the OO and an eq6.

I would not touch with a barge pole what OO supply as a mount.

[ncjunk]

I don´t have any experience of the Skywatcher but from what I have read it is a good scope. For me I made the mistake of getting an LXD75 mount first off when I should have got the EQ6 (it cost me in the long run and I have just bought the EQ6 and it is easy to use and a damn fine mount).

I think that even if you have to go for the cheaper option you will get a great deal of use out of it.

Neil C

[beamer3.6m]

I thought OO got a bad press on this forum due to the poor finish of their scopes.

If I am wrong I apologise.

[TheThing]

I thought OO got a bad press on this forum due to the poor finish of their scopes.

Light blue touch paper and retire!

There was an ongoing thread regarding someone who bought an OO and the finish on it was not up to standard. Some OO owners got very upset about non OO owners dissing their scopes!

I'd tread carefully!

[GazOC]

The 8" f8 is a VERY long scope to mount equatorially, I know a vouple of people who have ended up selling them purely because they were to big to use comfortably.

If the Moon and planets are your interest have you considered the Skywatcher 7" 15 Mak/ Cass? It gives up an inch in aperture (not a lot in practical terms) to the OO Newt but is much easier to use and mount.

[ncjunk]

GazOC has a point with the length, that is why I thought the cheaper shorter skywatcher would be a bit more fun to start off with.

The SPX I think should be ok when I have it permanently set up but if you have to set it up each time it is awkward to handle, this is why I am using the 80ED and skywatcher 80 as I can leave then attached to the scope and drag the whole thing outside.

Ahhh another scope option enters the mix....Mak/Cass..if you are anything like me you will now get totally overwhelmed with the different choices and go and rest in a darkened room!

Neil C

[jakey]

Light blue touch paper and retire!

There was an ongoing thread regarding someone who bought an OO and the finish on it was not up to standard. Some OO owners got very upset about non OO owners dissing their scopes!

I'd tread carefully!

I was an OO owner who actually "dissed" the scope. But it seems that their service has since improved.

Anyway, good point an f15 mak type set up could well be the answer. Has anyone looked through one of them? I would very much like an opinion on optics and build quality.

[GazOC]

I've owned a 180mm f15 Mak for the last couple of years, its great lunr/ planetary double star scope. Optically its very good, the build quality is fine without being stunning in any area. The only downside is the cool down which can take an hour or so if the scope is brought from indoors to the outside during the winter, I keep mine in a shed so thats not an issue.

[jakey]

I've owned a 180mm f15 Mak for the last couple of years, its great lunr/ planetary double star scope. Optically its very good, the build quality is fine without being stunning in any area. The only downside is the cool down which can take an hour or so if the scope is brought from indoors to the outside during the winter, I keep mine in a shed so thats not an issue.

What sort of detail do you get on planets. We have both owned an oo 14 inch dob, can you give a comparison on how that performed compared to the MAK.

I know it is a bit like comparing apples and oranges but it will give me a comparison with a scope I have actually looked through.

[philsail1]

Hello Jakey!

Good to see you havn't rushed off out and bought a scope!

I have an Orion Optics f4.5 "Europa" (De-lux) Newtonian, and a Celestron C8 f10 Schmitt Cassegrain (I think it is basically the same as a Maksutov - someone correct me there!).

I'm about to do a simultaneous side-by-side comparison test on the two scopes, but as far as I can remember, although the Orion has a much shorter focal length, it does give superb views of the Moon and Planets, as well as stars, constellations, and deep sky objects. It has a wide field of view, easily taking in the likes of the whole of Orion.

Its tube is short at 850mm - and light in weight. Very easy scope to set up and use.

The Celestron f10 8" Schmitt Cassegrain, is a short tubed scope, again nice and light in weight and easy to set up and use. It gives excellent views of Moon and Planets, and double stars, galaxies, and deep sky objects - but it does have a much narrower field of view than the Orion.

When I get a steady clear night, I will test them both and post results, but for now, on balance I would say that the Orion Optics Europa does have the edge - in terms of its versatility.

Regards,

philsail1

[GazOC]

At the risk of starting "something";), where planets are concerned a SCT isn't basically the same as a Mak/Cass IMHO. I've always found planetary views noticably sharper in Maks than in simlairy sized SCTs.

TBH I'd say both the Newt and SCT are more versatile than the Mak but IMHO its a better purely planetary scope than either. Just my 2p...;O)

Jakey, the comparision with the Dob is really hard one make. On good nights the moon shows noticeably more detail in the Dob esp things like valleys and rille, the planets show more detail esp Jupiter but it does take an exceptional night before I could see any large difference on Mars or Saturn. TBH though I tend to use my Dob for DSOs with maybe a quick look at any planets that may be about at the time, I've never spent a great deal of time using on the planets or the moon.