Orion XT8 Intelliscope
Gazer
I'm trying to decide between the "XT8 Classic" and "XT8 Intelliscope with
Object Locater".
I'm new to the hobby and would like to learn to search for objects
myself, but I'd also like to get a jump start and start seeing some stuff
quickly! Lest I get bored. ;-)
The price difference is substantial and I'd like to hear some personal
opinions on whether this was a good option to buy - or not worth it.
I realize this is a personal decision, but I'd welcome any comments you
might have.
Best Regards,
Eric
Well, what the sales pitches dont talk about much with these locaters and
goto's is that you have to align them each time you move the scope out to
use it or if you reposition to a new viewing spot. I guess the GPS units do
this pretty much automatically (havnt heard much said about those yet).
Anyway... Its a pain and if its wrong the locater/goto wont be accurate. My
first cope had a "goto", I stopped using it fairly quickly and just used
the motorized buttons to bring it around to where ever i wanted to go. If i
had a long distance to swing it, I'd pick up the tripod and move it to
point the scope in the general direction of my target first.
I just bought the XT12 - no locater (I like to call that a "push-to") and
so far I dont feel the need for it. If I change my mind later I can go buy
one.
BTW: If the XT8 is made the same way as the XT12 (I'm sure it must be, just
a bit smaller), you'll love it.
Eric
Dennis Woos
My sons and I don't use any kind of goto, and we wouldn't have it any other
way. However, we also don't have awful light pollution, and can see stars
up to mag 6 on good nights. If you have fairly dark skies, then you can
EASILY find plenty of targets to observe without a computer. Heck, you can
observe dozens of Messier objects with hand-held 7x50 (or smaller)
binoculars alone, and if you can see it in small binos you can easily find
it with your scope and a low-power eyepiece. Forget the Inelliscope, and
get a 24mm Panoptic eyepiece instead! Wish I had one.
Dennis
Starlord
something I've not seen before, I pull out my big book of sky maps and find
it in there and then wait until that part of the sky is up and go see the
object. For long years I lived in L.A. area and never saw much more than the
moon and one or two star patterns. Now I live out in the high mojave desert
and get to see just about everything. I've never been board either, if
hunting stars and other objects is boring, then a scope is not for you.
Read this:
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
--
There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across the
universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the
Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may yet be
brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the
heavens.
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html
"Gazer" <Ga...@thesky.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98A8ACA...@204.153.244.170...
en...@gazeta.pl
I am new to the hobby too. I got myself XT8 Classic and it is very
enjoyable. I have no problems locating the objects myself. It helps me
to learn the sky and gives certain satisfaction, like hey I found
Neptune myself :) I found Planetarium for Palm as a very useful sky
guide.
I would personally buy XT8 Classic and invest what you save in
eyepieces.
I have two issues with XT8:
- it is more heavy than you think and awkward to transport, I decided
to get a carrying case for the OTA, this way it is more manageable. I
am actually thinking about buying some 5" MAK as a more portable
alternative.
- the targeting scope is flimsy, but works, has to be realigned after
every transport.
Now if I could only do something about the light pollution :)
Enzo
Larry G.
I have long had an issue with GoTo mounts, and anything else
that *promises* (suggests) instant gratification. My chief
complaint is that GoTo, like Television, robs you of the
chance to achieve something on your own initiative, and instead
pacifies you with views that are often under-appreciated if they
aren't downright disappointing to the novice.
If all you want is to see things that few others have seen,
buy a book of Hubble (Space Telescope) photos, and save your
money for something else. The photos will be far prettier
and easier to appreciate without effort.
However, if you truly want to learn your way around the sky,
read first, practice with starmaps, naked eye and binoculars.
Then move up to a telescope once you know where to find at
least a dozen constellations and their brightest stars.
Also, no matter which way you go, you may enjoy the
experience more if you have someone (equally interested)
to share it with. If no friends, neighbors or family
members are interested, seek out a local astronomy club.
Good luck,
Larry G.
--
Your mind is a terrible thing to waste - TURN OFF YOUR TV!
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Starboard
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to decide between the "XT8 Classic" and "XT8 Intelliscope with
> Object Locater".
Hello Gazer,
These two scopes were commented on by the group on 12/02/06. Go back
and read some of those threads.
Errol
PASNOLA
W. H. Greer
>I'm new to the hobby and would like to learn to search for objects
>myself, but I'd also like to get a jump start and start seeing some stuff
>quickly! Lest I get bored. ;-)
Computer assisted pointing devices are not now and have never been a
necessity for visual observers who want to learn how to search for
objects on their own. Thus, if you really want to search for objects
on your own you'll skip the electronic gizmos. Despite what others
may say, it's as simple as that.
For your "jump start", if you're sufficiently interested in astronomy
to justify purchasing a telescope you will acquire a 6th magnitude
star atlas and get out and identify the naked-eye stars,
constellations, and planets. Next, in the absence of moonlight,
you'll search for the Messier Objects, the Double Cluster in Perseus,
etc. with whatever pair of binoculars you can get your hands on. If
you can't acquire a pair of binoculars, use your naked eyes to
identify, on the real sky, where the above objects ought to be. A few
should be visible without optical aid. Some will probably not be
visible even with binoculars; but this doesn't matter. What matters
is that you'll gain a familiarity with the night sky; and you'll learn
where to look in the sky for a fair number of celestial objects.
After doing the above you'll be able to start off seeing some 'stuff'
quickly once your new telescope (regardless of type) arrives from
whomever.
--
Bill
Celestial Journeys
http://cejour.blogspot.com
Starlord
t.v. show. and I don't see where it robbed me of anything either.
--
There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across the
universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the
Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may yet be
brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the
heavens.
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html
"Larry G." <larryg@wattsamatta_u.edu> wrote in message
news:op.tlcn3...@techbox.hq2.ccsi.com...
Chris L Peterson
<larryg@wattsamatta_u.edu> wrote:
>I have long had an issue with GoTo mounts, and anything else
>that *promises* (suggests) instant gratification. My chief
>complaint is that GoTo, like Television, robs you of the
>chance to achieve something on your own initiative, and instead
>pacifies you with views that are often under-appreciated if they
>aren't downright disappointing to the novice.
Speak for yourself. Some of us prefer to invest our time in observing,
not finding.
(I have no problem with people who find pleasure in the latter, but your
implication that people who don't are likely to not appreciate the view
is simply wrong, and rather insulting.)
BTW, the OP isn't considering a goto scope. He's considering one with
digital setting circles- a wise option which can make learning the sky
easier, assist in finding things under less than ideal skies, and help
confirm that an object is actually what you think it is. DSCs do not in
the slightest impact the ability to star hop or otherwise use the scope
manually. They are just another tool- like a finder, for instance.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Walt
I posted a few times here about it after I got it (and before, when I
was considering a Meade LightBridge along with the Orion).
I decided to spend the extra money and get the Intelliscope thingie;
not because I thought I needed it (I've been into astronomy for about
50 years now and know my way around the sky) but because I could afford
it and wanted to play around with it.
And, it IS fun to play around with. But, as others have already
mentioned, it's more fun to find things in the sky on your own. And,
it's not all that hard once you get to know your way around. A Zen
thing, I think. "To travel hopefully is better than to arrive". :>)
BUT, the Intelliscope thingie looks cool mounted in its holster on the
dob, even though I hardly ever bother to go through the rigmarole of
aligning it.
SO, my recommendation is like everyone else's: forego the Intelliscope
thingie and invest in a good Mag 6 star atlas and an extra eyepiece.
BTW, my XT12 came with a free copy of Starry Night software. It's a lot
of fun to play with, and IMHO should be a great tool for a beginner.
Hopefully it'll come with an XT8 too.
--Walt
Bozeman, Montana
Walt
That's a good point; I hadn't thought about it after posting my own
experience with my new XT12 Intelliscope. Not to mention the fact that
using the Intelliscope function requires finding two stars to align it
with.
Looking at it from that point of view it could actually be a good
learning tool.
--Walt
Bozeman, Montana
Don't Be Evil
Do you have a light pollution problem? I do, and it makes locating
objects without the computer difficult since you can't see most of the
constellations with the naked eye. I can align my Intelliscope in
about 2 minutes (I do have both 9x50 and Rigel finders). And, it's
dead-on, as long as the scope is on solid ground.
If you're not sure, you could get the Intelliscope without the
computer. In addition to the option of adding the computer, this gets
you a better finder and mount (knobs instead of springs).
Either way, it's a great telescope.
Greg
googleu...@yahoo.com
What to some is a "must have" feature is useless to the next person.
And how much help you need to find things varies from person to person.
Even with experience, some people find it difficult to go from a chart
to the sky and star hop. Some find it easy to adapt to reversed views
while others struggle. And until you try it, you don't really know
which category you are in.
May I make a different suggestion? Visit
http://skytonight.com/community/organizations and look up the astronomy
club nearest you. Go to one of their public nights. If possible call
ahead and tell them you are interested in buying a telescope and would
like to talk with some of the members. If you let them know what you
are trying to decide, you will probably get to try finding some objects
with different scopes, using a vanilla dob and possibly one with
digital setting circles. By the end of the night, you will know what
you want to buy. And, because someone is always looking to upgrade, you
are likely to find a used scope so you can get a lot more scope for
your money.
Clear Skies
Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/
****************************************************
Larry G.
<star...@sidewalkastronomy.info> wrote:
> Hay Larry, I could never have wrote, filmed, and brodcast my own Babylon
> 5
> t.v. show. and I don't see where it robbed me of anything either.
Perhaps you were too mesmerized by the flickering screen to notice.
Too much TV makes us lazy, fat, stupid, and lonely; all while
robbing us of our sense of self-worth and initiative.
Cheers,
Larry G.
When was the last time you were a novice?
And what size scope are you using now?
Among the complaints frequently voiced by newbies are:
- Gee! Is that all there is? (Speaking of faint smudges of light)
- Where is it? (Even fainter fuzzies.)
- It looks like a big bright ball, but I don't see any belts/markings
(Jupiter and Mars).
- I spent X hundred dollars just to see that? I could have gotten a
Nintendo.
Most people unfamiliar with amateur astronomy believe
the cosmos looks just like the Hubble pics and the
artwork on the telescope box. Reality is usually a
disappointment for those who seek only the destination,
and make no investment in the journey.
Cheers,
Chris L Peterson
<larryg@wattsamatta_u.edu> wrote:
>Among the complaints frequently voiced by newbies are:
>- Gee! Is that all there is? (Speaking of faint smudges of light)
Very common, regardless of whether the scope has goto or DSCs.
(Actually, I think it myself quite often <g>.) Learning to see is a
skill that takes practice, and time spent at the EP; it isn't related to
the effort required in finding objects in the first place.
>- Where is it? (Even fainter fuzzies.)
See above.
>- It looks like a big bright ball, but I don't see any belts/markings
> (Jupiter and Mars).
Can't say I've often heard this, although I suppose if the newbie
doesn't understand collimation it happens. Again, though, nothing to do
with whether the user had some automated help finding the target.
>- I spent X hundred dollars just to see that? I could have gotten a
>Nintendo.
That, I've never heard.
>Most people unfamiliar with amateur astronomy believe
>the cosmos looks just like the Hubble pics and the
>artwork on the telescope box. Reality is usually a
>disappointment for those who seek only the destination,
>and make no investment in the journey.
You think a newbie is less disappointed after spending twenty minutes
finding a faint fuzzy then he is after spending one minute?
Again, you are guilty of projecting your own feelings about astronomy on
everybody else. It is not necessary for an astronomer to have any
interest in looking for object, nor in learning the sky. We all seek
different things. Your opinion is welcome, but it is just that... _your_
opinion.
Starlord
all in my 100ft by 150ft garden in the desert field are my iris and the only
thing they need now is some water maybe once every two weeks. And with the
cold we've been having, that hurts not only my bad knees from the army, but
my hips and back from years of hard labor jobs. Otherwise I spend most of my
winter time inside, I have a whole 4 layer set of pants/shirts/jackets I put
on when I do set up and that takes me 2 hours to get ready and a double set
of asprin to keep my knees working too.
So I have my set on, at times I might have something playing in my dvd, or
my vcr as I have a lot of tapes and many times as I have the tv going, I'll
be working on my computer or working on a model rocket or a space model of
if by chance we get a 60F weather day I might work on B8 a bit. Maybe YOU
might waste YOUR mind by watching t.v., but until you've lived the life I
have and done all the things I've done or am doing with the tv playing, you
can't put everyone into that same class.
Slc.Dennis Bishop
SIAR Leader
Akumaizer Cattery Owner
Online gift shop owner
Gardener
Sci-Fi Writer
Photographer
--
There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across the
universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the
Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may yet be
brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the
heavens.
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html
"Larry G." <larryg@wattsamatta_u.edu> wrote in message
news:op.tlcyv...@techbox.hq2.ccsi.com...
AM
> Among the complaints frequently voiced by newbies are:
> - Gee! Is that all there is? (Speaking of faint smudges of light)
> - Where is it? (Even fainter fuzzies.)
The number one question asked is where is it.
#2 is how do I get there.
DSC's, and GOTO have done more to make this hobby
accessible to non astronomy people than anything else.
And yet you would have them NOT enjoy the night
sky unless they learn it in a fashion that you think
is proper. What is best for you might not be for others.
Geeze, we ALL should be thrilled there are soo many new
ways for people to enjoy this hobby ! Not be thinking of
how to make it harder for people.
--
AM
Larry G.
<c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 00:09:37 -0600, "Larry G."
> <larryg@wattsamatta_u.edu> wrote:
>> Most people unfamiliar with amateur astronomy believe
>> the cosmos looks just like the Hubble pics and the
>> artwork on the telescope box. Reality is usually a
>> disappointment for those who seek only the destination,
>> and make no investment in the journey.
>
> You think a newbie is less disappointed after spending twenty minutes
> finding a faint fuzzy then he is after spending one minute?
Yes! Newbies who spends twenty minutes finding a faint fuzzy
has a number of things going is their favor.
1. Preparation - This entails not only looking at star maps,
orienting oneself in the sky, and then narrowing down the field
of search; but includes reading about which objects are best
sought with which size instrument, and very likely what others'
visual impressions are who have gone before them.
2. Rewarded investment = a sense of accomplishment.
Those who invest their time, energy and attention on a task
successfully completed, often feel a sense of pride and
accomplishment at doing something they and most others
haven't done before.
3. Less disappointment - The process of seeking a faint fuzzy,
or quasi-stellar planet (Uranus, Neptune, Pluto) necessitates
learning how to "see" to detect the subtle differences between
a fuzzy patch of sky, and the sky's unblack background; or
between the Airy discs of stars and the slightly larger discs
of distant planets or planetary nebulae. This learning to see
is itself a rewarded activity, and when the object sought if
finally found, the view is associated with positive accomplishment,
not unfulfilled, and generally unrealistic expectations.
In the end, GoTo technology and digital setting circles serve
only to meet or increase our childishly incessant demand for
immediate gratification. Suggesting this is appropriate for
newcomers is to deny them the richness of a more rewarding
activity, and further impoverish the ranks of amateur astronomy.
> Again, you are guilty of projecting your own feelings about astronomy on
> everybody else. It is not necessary for an astronomer to have any
> interest in looking for object, nor in learning the sky. We all seek
> different things. Your opinion is welcome, but it is just that... _your_
> opinion.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
You're not getting defensive, are you Chris?
Please bear in mind that my opinions are based both on my own
personal experiences, and some learning of what motivates
people, including the factors that lead a newbie to adopt or
abandon a hobby.
Cheers,
Larry G.
--
Your mind is a terrible thing to waste - TURN OFF YOUR TV!
---- Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
---- East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption ----
Larry G.
These gadgets may have made the hobby more accessible to more
people, but they provide little incentive (reward) for them
to stay and master even basic skills.
If the path in (-to the hobby) is short, then so is the path out.
Easy come, easy go.
Chris L Peterson
<larryg@wattsamatta_u.edu> wrote:
>Yes! Newbies who spends twenty minutes finding a faint fuzzy
>has a number of things going is their favor...
IMO, you are describing yourself, not the typical newbie.
In any case, we obviously disagree about this. I will continue to give
the general advice that newbies seriously consider getting scopes that
are either goto or which have DSCs, since I think these tools enhance
the hobby for most, and remove a component that is unenjoyable drudgery
for the majority of observers, especially new ones. It is hard for me to
imaging a more appropriate scope for a beginner than an 8" Dob with
DSCs.
>In the end, GoTo technology and digital setting circles serve
>only to meet or increase our childishly incessant demand for
>immediate gratification. Suggesting this is appropriate for
>newcomers is to deny them the richness of a more rewarding
>activity, and further impoverish the ranks of amateur astronomy.
I assume you eschew driving? After all, it simply serves to meet our
childishly incessant demand for immediate gratification. If you don't
walk to your dark sky site with your scope on your back, you are being
denied the richness of your terrestrial environment.
>You're not getting defensive, are you Chris?
No. Your view that manually operating a telescope is best is shared by
many, and is perfectly valid. My objection is that you don't recognize
that this approach isn't universal. There are good arguments for doing
it that way, just as there are for using automated tools. There is no
right or wrong. You presenting it as an absolute does a disservice to
newbies.
Chris L Peterson
<larryg@wattsamatta_u.edu> wrote:
>These gadgets may have made the hobby more accessible to more
>people, but they provide little incentive (reward) for them
>to stay and master even basic skills.
Do you spend your spare time hitting yourself on the head with a hammer
so that you can enjoy the "reward" of the feeling when you stop? You
have to understand that for many people, there is no value in the hunt;
the reward is the object itself. You also have your own ideas of what
"basic skills" are. Knowing the sky and finding objects are not basic
skills; they are specialized skills that only some people are interested
in. Are you less a fisherman if you don't tie your own flies?
>If the path in (-to the hobby) is short, then so is the path out.
>
>Easy come, easy go.
And that's bad? Come on, it's a hobby, not a punishment. Modern tools
make it more accessible to everyone; more people give it a try, and not
all stick around. That's healthy! You remind me of the people who still
think you should have to learn Morse Code to get a radio license. You
want to enforce a kind of hobby protectionism by artificially creating a
steep learning curve.
Larry G.
You have posted many valid points, and I am all for an open
discussion (debate) of the pros and cons of our respective
preferences. Let the newbies read and decide for themselves.
That being said, I fear one of the consequences of such
accessibility and a more modest learning curve is that
we dilute the enthusiasm of everyone in the field when
a fervent desire to learn and explore, is replaced by
an influx of people with little more than idle curiosity
and very misguided expectations. Such would tend to have
a distracting influence, if not demoralizing, for the rest
of us.
Cheers,
Larry G.
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
--
W. H. Greer
>BTW, the OP isn't considering a goto scope. He's considering one with
>digital setting circles- a wise option which can make learning the sky
>easier, assist in finding things under less than ideal skies, and help
>confirm that an object is actually what you think it is. DSCs do not in
>the slightest impact the ability to star hop or otherwise use the scope
>manually. They are just another tool- like a finder, for instance.
As with any tool, DSCs and go-to telescopes have their strengths (some
of which have been pointed out above) and weaknesses. Comet hunting
is yet another area in which DSCs can be a cost-effective,
labor-saving aid.
I would like to expand upon: "and help confirm that an object is
actually what you think it is." In many cases Electronic Pointing
Aids (EPAs) are effective in this area; but in my experience, with
sufficiently detailed charts, object identification can be even more
precise.
It's not difficult to find telescopic fields where two or more
galaxies (or other deep sky objects) are visible. In such situations
EPAs may actually contribute to mistaken identifications (or missed
comet discoveries). OTOH, atlas charts such as those in the
Uranometria or Millennium atlases (or PC generated charts) will often
show the relative positions of such close proximity galaxies in
relation to stars that are identifiable in the main telescope's
eyepiece. Similarly, when only one of several galaxies in a
telescopic field is visible a sufficiently detailed chart can better
reveal which galaxy is being seen -- or if one is seeing a comet
instead!
An extreme example of a similar situation is Pluto. EPAs can aid in
directing a telescope to Pluto's position; but charts can accomplish
the same feat (and have been effectively used for this purpose for
many years prior to the availability of EPAs). Furthermore, a
sufficiently detailed chart can narrow the candidates down to a single
'suspect' object.
As for learning the sky, this is more effectively accomplished without
the use of EPAs. With DSCs a person is looking at a display while
moving the telescope. Sure, after finding the object one can, if one
is so inclined, check the finder(s) to see where the telescope is
pointed (assuming one can identify the constellation and/or some of
the nearby stars); but when one uses charts, finders, the naked-eye,
and perhaps even the main telescope as finding tools one becomes much
more aware of exactly where the telescope is pointed. One sees not
only the final position; but one also sees how that position was
arrived at relative to other visual features, such as star patterns,
*that had to be identified* prior to completing the finding process.
I'm not trying to imply that charts are always superior to EPAs for
all individuals in all situations. They're not; but quite a few EPA
users seem to be unaware of the drawbacks of their object
finding/IDing methods and even more unaware of the advantages and
capabilities associated with chart use -- particularly when
appropriate charts for the task on hand are effectively utilized by an
amateur who knows how the chart scales, orientation, and limiting
magnitudes compare to his finder and telescopic views.
I can fully understand why some photographers, imagers, urban
astronomers and others might prefer to rely upon EPAs; but please
don't underestimate what others can accomplish and gain via the use of
charts.
Chris L Peterson
<larryg@wattsamatta_u.edu> wrote:
>That being said, I fear one of the consequences of such
>accessibility and a more modest learning curve is that
>we dilute the enthusiasm of everyone in the field when
>a fervent desire to learn and explore, is replaced by
>an influx of people with little more than idle curiosity
>and very misguided expectations. Such would tend to have
>a distracting influence, if not demoralizing, for the rest
>of us.
That's a valid concern, but I haven't seen any sign of it. Newbies who
are just testing the waters don't seem to stay around long enough to
dilute any enthusiasm. And the ones who get hooked are extra
enthusiastic.
Maybe this is an issue at the handful of really large clubs in the
country, but that's hardly typical. There are hundreds or thousands of
clubs around the country with 20 or 30 members. I can't believe that
newbies are flooding into any of these fast enough to dilute anybody's
enthusiasm! I know that our club, Colorado Springs Astronomical Society,
would love to have more newbies show up at our meetings. We usually only
see a couple of new faces each month, and probably half only come to a
few meetings. Anybody who hangs with us for a while will have a broad
opportunity to explore amateur astronomy, with all sorts of equipment
from the simplest homemade to the highest end semi-pro. I would hope
that's true for most clubs.
Outside of your local club, what newbies do in some other venue can't
possibly have much affect on you. So all the people who are buying goto
scopes without getting any advice first, trying them a few times and
then dropping out of the hobby (to the extent they were ever a part of
it) aren't causing any harm to the rest of us. If anything, they help
subsidize us by supporting the commercial side of things.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>I can fully understand why some photographers, imagers, urban
>astronomers and others might prefer to rely upon EPAs; but please
>don't underestimate what others can accomplish and gain via the use of
>charts.
I hope I didn't give any such impression. I consider charts and DSCs to
be complementary tools. While the DSC I use is accurate enough to
positively identify an object even at high power, I recognize that many
are not. In general a good set of charts (or online data) is essential.
DSCs are not, of course, but they are great for quickly homing in on the
chart section needed.
I should point out that I have two modes of visual astronomy. In some
cases, I have specific targets I plan on viewing. Normally I've worked
those out ahead of time, and printed out charts. I wouldn't dream of
wasting my time finding those without a DSC. I just want to study the
objects. However, sometimes I'm interested in exploring. In that case, I
have no target in mind, just some constellation that I want to wander
around in. My DSC is great for this, and I normally don't use a chart. I
scan around, and when I find an interesting object I note its
designation on the DSC. If my readout accuracy were somewhat less, I'd
use the DSC and a chart, of course.
My goto scopes are primarily used for imaging, not visual work. IMO an
imager who doesn't use goto is a masochist of the highest order <g>.
Starlord
--
There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across the
universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the
Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may yet be
brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the
heavens.
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:ms3dp2pcl1qi0u0e5...@4ax.com...
Are you less a fisherman if you don't tie your own flies?
>
>
>
Chris L Peterson
<star...@sidewalkastronomy.info> wrote:
>Hay Chris, flys don't work when your out deep sea fishing!
Don't do a lot of that here in the Rockies! <g>
Gazer
> If you're not sure, you could get the Intelliscope without the
> computer. In addition to the option of adding the computer, this
> gets you a better finder and mount (knobs instead of springs).
Can you elaborate on this. I assumed the Intelliscope version was simply
a classic version with encoders (and interface stuff). You are implying
the hardware is better with the Intelliscope?
Gazer
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to decide between the "XT8 Classic" and "XT8 Intelliscope
> with Object Locater".
>
> I'm new to the hobby and would like to learn to search for objects
> myself, but I'd also like to get a jump start and start seeing some
> stuff quickly! Lest I get bored. ;-)
>
> The price difference is substantial and I'd like to hear some
> personal opinions on whether this was a good option to buy - or not
> worth it.
>
> I realize this is a personal decision, but I'd welcome any comments
> you might have.
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
Thanks for all the great feedback.
(Sorry if I started a minor flamewar. I also post in alt.food.bbq (for
meat smoking discussions) and a similar flamewar erupts when a newby
brings up "liquid smoke" or "boiling ribs" - heresy!)
OK, I'm still considering the Intelliscope because I'm in a high
ambient light environment and I figure a push-to might help me out.
The suggestion of a better eyepiece is intriguing too. Where will an
improved eyepiece help out. Higher clarity? Less chromatic
aberration?
Lastly, I've also tossed around the XT10 (classic) version. This is
perhaps another avenue to get a bigger bang for the buck. However,
portability is a consideration and I figure the XT10 would be too much
of a handful. True?
Thanks again for the feedback.... I'll be making a purchase next year.
;-)
Best Regards
Walt
Yes. Check Orion's web site for specifics, but the Intelliscope comes
with different hardware. A lot of it is to accomodate the encoders.
And, the object locater (the handheld computer) is an extra $120, over
and above the extra $110 or so for the Intelliscope.
When I bought my XT-12 a few months ago I went ahead and bought the
object locater.
--Walt
Paul Winalski
>Hello,
>
>I'm trying to decide between the "XT8 Classic" and "XT8 Intelliscope with
>Object Locater".
>
>I'm new to the hobby and would like to learn to search for objects
>myself, but I'd also like to get a jump start and start seeing some stuff
>quickly! Lest I get bored. ;-)
>
>The price difference is substantial and I'd like to hear some personal
>opinions on whether this was a good option to buy - or not worth it.
>
>I realize this is a personal decision, but I'd welcome any comments you
>might have.
>
>Best Regards,
My own personal opinion is that you're better off buying the XT8
Classic and saving the extra $200 you would have spent on the
Intelliscope option for later purchase of eyepieces and whatnot (once
you have enough experience to know what you need).
You will have to learn to find your way around the sky anyway in order
to locate the stars needed to set up the digital setting circles (aka
"Object Loctator"). And approached properly, learning to find things
by star-hopping can be both fun and rewarding.
Clear skies,
-Paul W.
----------
Remove 'Z' to reply by email.
Walt
And that's one advantage to the Intelliscope, from a beginners point of
view. You need to use two stars to align the thing. It's a good start
for a beginner to learn the sky. You gotta know where those stars are.
Personally, I like having the Intelliscope option on my XT-12. I don't
use it that much, but it's nice to have. Worth the extra $200, IMHO.
Fun to play with too.
--Walt
Walt
Yeah, just a minor flamewar. :>)
I'd say it depends on how much money you want to throw at it. I'm a new
XT-12 owner with the Intelliscope option and object locater and love it
I decided to spend the extra cash. I also watch television. :>)
The extra money I spent for aperture and geeky stuff was worth it,
IMHO.
Go for the XT10 if you can afford it. The XT12 is a handful to move
around by yourself, but doable. Friend of mine has a 10" Dob (not an
Orion) and it's a piece of cake to move around.
Let us know what you wind up getting and how you like it.
--Walt
Don't Be Evil
The Intelliscope uses two knobs to control tension between the main
tube and the cradle. The Classic uses two springs to create enough
friction to keep the tube from losing its altitude. Both work very
well. However, the Intelliscope is better if you add heavy things to
the eyepiece end like a Telrad or 2" eyepiece.
The other major difference is that the Intelliscope includes a 9x50
finder vs. 6x30 for the Classic. However, their current promotion
includes a 9x50 right-angle finder with either.
If I had to choose, I'd take an 8" Classic over a 6" Intelliscope, but
I'd choose the 8" (or larger) Intelliscope even if it meant I had to
postpone additional eyepieces.
Greg
AstroApp
>Hello,
>
>I'm trying to decide between the "XT8 Classic" and "XT8 Intelliscope with
>Object Locater".
>
>I'm new to the hobby and would like to learn to search for objects
>myself, but I'd also like to get a jump start and start seeing some stuff
>quickly! Lest I get bored. ;-)
>
>The price difference is substantial and I'd like to hear some personal
>opinions on whether this was a good option to buy - or not worth it.
There is a big argument here between "classic star hop" observers and
those of us who actually own and use GOTO scopes, or PUSHTO scopes.
This argument cannot be 'settled' because there are two quite opposing
schools of thought; nor SHOULD it be settled, since that would take
away one or the other group's sense of comfort.
I don't find the argument the slightest bit useful. What one might
offer instead are the trade-offs, and pro/cons.
I started using conventional star hop methods in 1976 when I got a
largely home brew 10" scope put together on a pipe mount: NO setting
circles; BEFORE the Telrad. Real drudgery to use it, with a
straight-thru inverting finderscope.
Because I already had at least fifteen years experience with a small
refractor for solar system observing, I "got into" painfully slow,
plodding deep sky star hopping; and friends of mine -- like Don
Machholz and Rich Page, with whom I often observed -- were around to
help.
But, some of us are not "gifted" as star hoppers, nor able to retain
in memory for a long time the mental constructs of star positions from
a chart, and to apply them to what is seen in a finder. My wife, who
very much enjoys observing, is NOT good at it. I am probably just
about average, if that...
Yet I've probably had more than 2,000 hours of observing just at one
particular site, let along during all the various trips to rural or
mountain sites on the west coast. And it STILL is hard to do, chewing
up precious observing time.
I now alternate between a GOTO (C-11 NexStar) and standard star
hopping via other scopes (a Dob, small refractors, both equatorial and
alt-az mounted, and a small RFT, alt-az.) On a night with the GOTO, I
will usually -- in eight hours' time -- observe about three dozen
objects, down to 15th magnitude. With my Dob, it's cut in half; and
often it's less than that if I am just using my very small scope, with
its "red dot" site.
Yet, as I've said, I've been observing with at least a 10 inch
aperture scope since 1976. How many more years will it take for me to
become "really good" as a star hopper? I have decided that I will
*never* become "really good". It is simply not a particular gift that
I possess. (Yet, my eyesight is excellent and I find that I often can
see more detail, and fainter objects, than other observers I
encounter. There is a definite 'personal equation' to be considered:
not ALL people have the same skill sets.)
Goto:
Not as easy to set up as the sales literature, and telescope store
employees, would claim, if you want ACCURACY. But, with effort, you
can get good results from the internal databases of the scopes. It's
often not quite as good with star chart software control via a
computer, where many issues of latency and connectivity complicate
things. But, no matter how skilled you are as a star hopper, if you
align your Goto scope very accurately, you cut down on the time spent
LOOKING FOR objects, and increase the time spent LOOKING AT objects.
Period.
Pushto:
A bit more frustrating than Goto in some cases, depending on the
software in the hand controller (for instance: I would not like one
that shut itself down after a fixed period of time, just to conserve
batteries.) There are also installation problems, and matters of the
delicacy of the encoders and external gadgets added to scope mounts.
But, when properly aligned, once again time can be devoted more to
observing objects than finding them. Is this BAD?
Mechanical Setting Circles:
I found large ones, such as were built into large aperture SCTs or top
notch high end equatorial mounts, to be reasonably accurate. With
care one could get just as close to an object as when using, say, a
Telrad. With an equatorial mount, it is then quite easy to move the
scope a bit in RA or Dec, or both, and zero in on an object. The
setting circles on smaller equatorial mounts are often nearly useless.
Star Hop:
Everybody should have experience doing this, if for no other reason
than to be able to observe with ANY kind of telescope mount, and as a
backup method if some mechanical or electrical failure occurs with the
Pushto or Goto system. Your results can be enhanced if you use more
than one kind of finder. Experts suggest two, or more. A reflex
non-magnifying illuminated site can get you into the ballpark of an
object (but, your star chart SHOULD have adequate guide stars. The
Orion DeepMap 600, for instance, does not have enough for many of the
objects listed therein!) Then, a *non-inverting, correct image* finder
with a field of view of at least 5 degrees, showing stars below 8th
magnitude, will enable you to match the star fields shown in, say, the
Sky Atlas 2000 or the Uranometria. Some observers actually use THREE
finders, or employ a magnifying finder that can accept different
eyepieces (that's what I did with my 17" Dob) so that one can use the
finderscope as an "alternative wide field telescope" if the objects
don't fit into the FOV of the main scope.
I don't see how anybody can claim that star hopping is a skill not
useful; nor do I see how one can make the claim that there is NO
virtue in having software-assist.
I used to struggle to use a large aperture observatory instrument with
a focal length of nearly 4000mm, and a FIXED setting circle,
converting to RA using sidereal time. THAT is a royal pain, I can
tell you; yet it was the only way that the beast could be put upon an
object since star hopping wasn't practical, and there was no direct
computer control nor digital setting circles. Be glad that you don't
have to do THAT!
AstroApp
Larry G.
-snip-
You bring up a number of very valid points, most of which I've
snipped. However, you caught my attention by pointing out the
physical discomforts and memory requirements of using a straight-
thru, inverting finder on most scopes.
As I age, I am "painfully" aware of the contortions involved, which
I used to take for granted, and routinely perform, in my youth.
And when one is in a state of discomfort, memory is quickly
distracted, rendering the venerable practice of star-hopping to be
an exercise in masochistic futility.
So, perhaps the limitations of age, agility, time and equipment
should be factored into any future recommendations of technique.
Hence, I retract much of my previous criticisms of GoTos and DSC's.
Best regards,
Larry G.