Posts Made By: Adam Albino

Check with Gary Russell (Sponser). He makes awesome RA finders - He could probably make something for you with long eye relief.

What info are you looking for?

6 pounds:
http://downloads.celestron.com/manuals/spotting_scopes/11029_c5spottingscope/C5_spotter_11029.pdf

Well there are two obvious ones:
used - Astromart!!
new - Call Celestron

I've said it many times here on AM, it's hard to beat the Russell 2" eyepieces for most scopes. I've compared them many times to my TV Pans and Naglers, and while the TV's are better, it's not by much. Of course fit and finish arent TV quality, but if your looking for a cheap way to get into 2" eyepieces there is probably not a better way.

While I've sold most of my Russells off, there are a few sizes and designs that have performed so well I refuse to sell them.

Paul Smith said:

Hello,

My permanent pier / deck addition is nearly complete and now I need to decide which scope to purchase. It will primarily be used for visual use in Alt/Az mode. I reside on a hill on the west side of a city with a population of 60k. On nights of good seeing, the Milky Way is easily visible. I'm also able to see Mizar's 4 mag companion.

I've learned through research that the 9.25's have a more contrasty image. I'm curious to know things such as:

Is an 11" scope is too much for "in town" use due to light pollution?
Will the larger scope be more affected by unsteady skies?
Does the light gathering capability of the 11" make a significant difference? Any thoughts, ideas or opinions would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance,

Paul

This is how I see it (much of this is relative to each individual user, but...)

1. A bigger scope will always show you more. You can always "stop down" using a Hartman mask, or some such, a larger scope, but you can't make a small scope larger. I opt for getting the largest OTA your mount/body can handle.

2. Unsteady sky's.... This has been debated to ad-nausea... Many folks - including some very experienced amateurs and even "pro's" think larger scopes magnify the "problem" (this is the argument I hear most from the APO folks on why 80mm scopes are nicer then 11" SCT's). Then again there are others just as qualified who don't agree (at least 1 S&T articles in the early 90's stated as much) - I fall into this camp myself. The way I see it, why limit yourself to the bad seeing day's - always get a scope that will show you the best view for the best day (within limits - see #1). Again, you can always stop down if you find you are sensitive to unsteady skies.

3. Is the 11' better then the 9.25" - yes and no - Optically bigger is better given all things equal. A good 11" scope with experienced eyes will show more detail then the 9.25 - size just wins IMO. With that said I stuck with the 9.25 for several reasons over the 11" - lighter - I am able to carry more toy's on my mount (I tend to piggyback and side by side all sorts of toys), Easier to move around - more compact, A slower Primary F/ratio then any other prod. SCT - which in theory gives flatter views across the FOV - an advantage for astophoto stuff (let alone easier to manufacture accurately) - and may be the biggest reason these 9.25 sct's have such a good optical rep.

If I were strictly an observational amateur I would opt for the 11"...

They haven't been made in a long time - but this web site seems to discuss how to use:
http://www.cav-sfo.com/KnifeEdge.html#1mfft

The white tubes in the 90's (as opposed to the original 60's and 70's Celestron Pacific scopes which were also white) where for the Japan market (and may continue today?) as the ad said.

It has never been stated by Celestron that they were any better, but that has been the "rumor" for years. Todd Gross had a white 9.25 SCT that was from the Japan market - and he mentions the rumor in his review.

The rumor was that:
1. The Japanese prefer white tube scopes of any maker - they "seem" more professional
2. The Japanese are more discerning of there optics because there market is flooded with higher end scopes - so that Celestron would pick out the best optically and send them to Japan.

I have an excellent Black tube version - so either the rumor is false, or they missed this one :-)

Vixen Polaris. The little brother to the Super and Great Polaris mounts. The Current Chinese CG-4 (eq-3) mounts are it's clones.

I've owned several and they are excellent mounts for 90mm Refractors, 6" Newts, and 5-6" cats.

Only Celestron could possibly answer that - and I doubt they would tell you. But, if I had to guess, I'd say they are nothing more the the same OTA's in a different color. The only time I've ever heard of Celestron creating different quality OTA's in the same line were with the Japan only "white" tubes - which were rumored to be hand picked and assembled - but this was never official - or really proven.