Thinking of buying an Orion Compound Telescope.....what do people think?
jack
purchased a condominium in Sausalito, Calif with a view and am
thinking of getting a general purpose telescope that is used for
viewing the stars as well as terrestrial viewing. This is my first
scope and I am interested in purchasing an Orion C5+ scope. This is a
1250mm (f/10) Schmidt Cassegrain 5" telescope in an 11" tube. Very
compact and this is the reason why i like it. The salesman also highly
recommends this scope ( I am a bit leery though of his
recommendations). My questions are:
1) Is Orion Telescopes a good reputable place to buy telescopes or are
there mail order places that are cheaper? (the price for this scope
is $699 without tripod or mount.)
2) Is this telescope an overkill for my purposes of primarily
terrestrial viewing and some star and moon gazing?
Thanks for any insight anyone can provide.
Jack
JMark
I didn't get a feel for which Orion scope you were comparing the C5 to.
The C5 will be excellent for terrestrial viewing (watching sailors hump
out there in Sausalito Harbor) and very adequate for the night sky.
Very expensive with or without the mount....but if you live in
Sausalito, it probably won't matter much ;)
--
JMark
[return address may be spam deterrent]
JMark
>
> Well how would this compare to an Orion ShortTube Richfield Refractor
> with a 400mm focal length and f/5 aperture. The price for this is
> just $249.....is the price for the expensive one justified?
A C5 is a Celestron. It is an excellent scope and has an extra 2" of
aperature. I would love to have one as a second scope, due to it's
portability. The 80mm short tube refractor hasn't had much airplay in
the NG to my knowledge. Never looked through one nor kept up on the
pros and cons of a "short tube" refractor. It is probably a nice scope
for the price. It will probably not exceed the C5 in any regard. I did
look in the Orion catalog and the short tube should sell for $229, or
did a few months back. You also may want to look into the Celestron G5,
which supposedly has the same optics as a C5, but cheaper.
In either case, if you get a cheesy tripod, the discussion is moot.
And, a good tripod costs bucks, count on it.
If you are going to put the scope on your balcony and do mostly
terrestrial......the refractor (and savings) may be best. If you're
going to get into astronomy, and are confident you MUST have the
portability then the C5 is it. I think though that you should do much
more research on your own. It will be frustrating because scopes are
marketed to the max.....better than cars if you ask me....and
astronomers are just a fraction of the marketplace. When you find just
what you want, with everything you want.....bang....big bucks.
There's a guy with a website in your area (pretty sure) at
E-mail him and find some Astro Clubs in your area. Go and hang with
them at a star party or two or three......I have never met an astronomer
who wouldn't take the time to help out.....nice folks all around. You
will also get a line on their publications and may find a used scope
with more gear for less $ ....that meets your needs.
Take your time.....don't get hooked by the marketing.....and don't
overestimate your needs and confuse them with short term desires.
--
JMark
Bob Ashby
looking for and a couple others that might interest you. I spent a couple
of weeks in Sausalito last summer, I want you to know I'm jealous..:-) given
that here in Washington we haven't seen a clear night since October 1st.
http://www.weatherman.com/wxastrob.htm
jack wrote in message <36c1fbc5...@news.ricochet.net>...
jack
with a 400mm focal length and f/5 aperture. The price for this is
just $249.....is the price for the expensive one justified?
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:51:14 -0500, JMark <jm...@digit.net> wrote:
>jack wrote:
>>
>> I have been interested in astronomy for a while now. Recently i
>> purchased a condominium in Sausalito, Calif with a view and am
>> thinking of getting a general purpose telescope that is used for
>> viewing the stars as well as terrestrial viewing. This is my first
>> scope and I am interested in purchasing an Orion C5+ scope. This is a
>> 1250mm (f/10) Schmidt Cassegrain 5" telescope in an 11" tube. Very
>> compact and this is the reason why i like it. The salesman also highly
>> recommends this scope ( I am a bit leery though of his
>> recommendations). My questions are:
>>
>> 1) Is Orion Telescopes a good reputable place to buy telescopes or are
>> there mail order places that are cheaper? (the price for this scope
>> is $699 without tripod or mount.)
>>
>> 2) Is this telescope an overkill for my purposes of primarily
>> terrestrial viewing and some star and moon gazing?
>>
>> Thanks for any insight anyone can provide.
>>
ja...@us.ibm.com
jl...@hotmail.com (jack) wrote:
> Well how would this compare to an Orion ShortTube Richfield Refractor
> with a 400mm focal length and f/5 aperture. The price for this is
> just $249.....is the price for the expensive one justified?
>
I just found the ShortTube Refractor (as a "second") on the
web specials page at the Orion website... http://www.telescope.com.
The "seconds" are $190 instead of $229 online catalog price. Shipping
is about $10 or so.
I ordered myself one... I'll use it in a couple different ways, but
eventually it will get an illuminated reticle eyepiece and become
a finder scope for the in-progress homebuilt.
You might also want to check in Deja-News -- search for
"improving short tube 80 refractor" for some tips from some
people with telescope "tweaking" expertise.
Dan Janda
IBM VSE/ESA Systems Center, Endicott
mailto:ja...@us.ibm.com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Rich N.
experienced people there that are willing to answer your questions.
The ShortTube 80 is a nice, inexpensive telescope for low power
viewing. It can be use up to about 100x. It will not show deep
sky objects as brightly as a larger scope like a C5.
The C5 is a nice telescope but a C8 is a much better value. A
C8 will give you much more light gathering power for only a little
more money than the C5. A Celestar 8 is about $1000. A C8
plane tube assembly (no mount) is $699.
Rich
JMark wrote in message <36C247...@digit.net>...
>jack wrote:
>>
>> Well how would this compare to an Orion ShortTube Richfield Refractor
>> with a 400mm focal length and f/5 aperture. The price for this is
>> just $249.....is the price for the expensive one justified?
>
JMark
>
> You people should try the ng sci.astro.amateur. You find more
> experienced people there that are willing to answer your questions.
>
Be aware saa has a very high s/n ratio, and a repetitive question may
foster "unwillingness" more than willingness....once you sort through
the noise.
Rich N.
It isn't unusual to see some questions come up
over and over again in a very short span of time.
Questions that are answered in the FAQ. However,
people usually get their questions answered. If I see
someone has asked the same question that came up
a few days earlier I'll send an answer via email.
I also see some not so good answers on this ng.
Rich
JMark wrote in message <36C840...@digit.net>...
JMark
>
> There seem to be off topic posts to this ng.
>
> It isn't unusual to see some questions come up
> over and over again in a very short span of time.
> Questions that are answered in the FAQ. However,
> people usually get their questions answered. If I see
> someone has asked the same question that came up
> a few days earlier I'll send an answer via email.
>
> I also see some not so good answers on this ng.
>
Yep, alot of answers that don't address the original question, just like
saa. I stayed on saa for a long time and finally got enough of wading
through the gibberish. This NG has just begun to accumulate a good
following and I am hopeful it can maintain some of it's innocence.
Which "not so good info" did this original poster receive?
Rich N.
on this ng. This may be true. There has been a lot about
the ShortTube on sci.astro.amateur.
It might help the original poster if someone mentioned another
option like a 6" Intes Mak. He might also like to hear about
a high end compact refractor like the Astro-Physics 130EDF.
The answer by Alan ("dikkers") on Things to be seen with binoculars,
telling the person to look for "..a distinct difference in the color of the
deep space..." is very strange and seems rather misleading to me
when you consider how difficult it is for the human eye to see color
in dim light.
It would be too bad if someone wanting answers about amateur
astronomy didn't know there is another ng like sci.astro.amateur.
There are a number of very newbie questions being answered
nicely on saa.
Rich
JMark wrote in message <36C859...@digit.net>...
JMark
>
> You mentioned there was little about the Orion ShortTube 80
> on this ng. This may be true. There has been a lot about
> the ShortTube on sci.astro.amateur.
>
> It might help the original poster if someone mentioned another
> option like a 6" Intes Mak. He might also like to hear about
> a high end compact refractor like the Astro-Physics 130EDF.
>
> The answer by Alan ("dikkers") on Things to be seen with binoculars,
> telling the person to look for "..a distinct difference in the color of the
> deep space..." is very strange and seems rather misleading to me
> when you consider how difficult it is for the human eye to see color
> in dim light.
>
> It would be too bad if someone wanting answers about amateur
> astronomy didn't know there is another ng like sci.astro.amateur.
>
> There are a number of very newbie questions being answered
> nicely on saa.
>
> Rich
Without bouncing into deja news to read some of the short tube posts, I
would imagine there is a great deal of technicality in the info. When
Jack posted that he had some misgivings about the recommendations of his
local shop guy......I read between the lines and assumed he might have
been fed too much information. In the interim, I also received my new
Orion catalog and noticed the referenced short tube was on the cover.
To my mind it kind of confirms that he wants an easy answer....no
offense to Jack.....and does not want to spend too much money....wanting
primarily to have a handy, easily portable scope for his condo balcony
for the incredible views of Sausalito which is primarily harbor seascape
and distant views of Alcatraz and SF beyond.
The C5+ price he quoted is for the tube and finder only, (maybe an
eyepiece), and is probably old stock. A C5 on a camera tripod is $700
of wasted optics.....as is the short tube most probably but less $. So,
general nudges may make Jack see the nature of his task and encourage
him to make his own descision.....which I believe to be an invaluable
conclusion to the original quest.
I did not see your referenced post about the binocs, and it may not be
in the best interest of someone seeking an easy answer to see such a
post, but, someone with some wherewithal (sp) would hopefully see it as
questionable and learn on their own, as opposed to getting heavy
straight dope from a more knowledable (and opinionated...myself
included) grouper who leaves him/her feeling as Jack may have felt after
leaving the local shop guy. Who knows, maybe Jack perused saa and ended
up here where the conversation is less intimidating.
The other nice aspect of the lack of high technical postings here is
that it makes discussion of Astronomy more fun IMHO.....and I get to see
some feelings and perplexed dialogue that takes me back to my roots.
Then again, I may be incorrect, but I enjoyed the segway you provided to
bounce to the NG the alternative options between two entities. Nothing
personal by any means.
Rich N.
What bothers me is that since you seem to be upset with
sci.astro.amateur you ignore informing others of its existence.
Jack may not want to spent too much money but unless you
know for sure it wouldn't hurt to at least let him know of other
options. Maybe if he gets move involved with the hobby he
will be happy to know about companies like Astro-Physics
and Takahashi.
The next time you send me an email please supply a valid
return address.
Rich
JMark wrote in message <36C86C...@digit.net>...
JMark
>
> Hi JMark,
>
> What bothers me is that since you seem to be upset with
> sci.astro.amateur you ignore informing others of its existence.
Nope...I just apply some discretion based upon the post with my
referals. As far as being upset with saa, that's not the case. There
is room for both NG's....but I would be distressed to see them too
similar. I quit subscribing to saa for many reasons
personally.....mostly due to the wait as all those messages load and
then being disappointed with the material as a whole. As of late, this
NG is a bit more traveled and quite refreshing. Maybe it will develop a
"flavor" of it's own and more knowledgable posters will migrate here for
refreshment.
>
> Jack may not want to spent too much money but unless you
> know for sure it wouldn't hurt to at least let him know of other
> options. Maybe if he gets move involved with the hobby he
> will be happy to know about companies like Astro-Physics
> and Takahashi.
Based upon his post, I doubt he would have any initial interest in such
expensive options. If he were to develop such an interest, I would bet
he would find saa, or some valuable assistance on his own.
>
> The next time you send me an email please supply a valid
> return address.
>
Appears that I clicked "post & mail option" in error, and for this I do
apologize. I usually only post with no mail as each time I include the
proper return address.....spam mail appears post haste.