My review of New Celestron Celestar 8
RA
I've owned a Meade LX-200 F10 10" for almost 2 years now. Because of
a back injury last year, I've been forced to put up my beautiful Lx-200
for sale. After each observing session, I found I had real back pains
for at least a week afterwards. Because of this, I've investigated
smaller lightweight telescopes to contunue to enjoy my hobby.
Recently I bought an excellent Intes Mk67 F12 6" which in my opinion
I thought has absolutely excellent optics. I thought of keeping the 6"
as well as the 10", but practically speaking it didnt make since to me
since the 10 was literally a pain in the back and I knew would seldom
get used. From this, I've returned the 6" with much sadness and pretty
much have my 10" sold, again with much sadness. I'll know for sure this
weekend whether the 10 has a new home.
After much investigation, I've deceided on a Celestar 8, the basic
model. I spoke to both a Jason, Lance and John from celestron several
times on the Celestar and we deceided that it was what I was looking
for. I wanted a telescope that I can sit at in a chair and observe. I
thought the Fixed height tripod would be too limitiing, but they said it
was designed to be used by people of average height of 5ft 8" to 5'10".
Being a one piece tripod, wedge combo, I was looking forward to a very
fast set-up, something the intes 6" was excellent for with a GP mount
and something I deceided I wanted very much. Also, the Celestar needs
only a 9 volt battery to run for 50 hrs, I'd lug a 33 amp gel cell every
where my LX-200 went. The quick set-up was a major factor in chosing the
celestar. I'm not a photographer and have no interest in
astrophotography, so this was going to be strictly a visual scope. I
just wanted great optics and fast set-up. The guys at Celestron told me
they do not pick the mirrors for each of their scopes, if its an 8"
mirror, they go into the 8" optical tubes. Since the tubes are painted
before they do their testing, there is no way to seperate the Ultima
2000 optics from the Celestar 8's since all the final colmination is
done at the end of the manufacturing process. Once completed, scopes can
be cherry picked at that point for what ever reason, but the chances of
getting an excellent Ultima 2000 are as good as getting an excellent
Celestar 8. Contray to the rummers of people who like to stir up
issues, this made since to me. I spoke to a friend of a friend who had a
deluxe model which he recently dropped and destroyed due to a very loose
tripod leg ( can you imagine your telescope crashing on the hard
pavement like that) so he said he would sell me the larger finder, the
hand controller and dec motor for $50.00. Based on that, I ordered a
Celestar 8 with the wedgepod from Astropix. It was less than $1000.00,
contrary to what others are selling theirs for. The guy at the phone
Fred, treated me like a member of his family, I was very comfortable
doing business with him. This is unusual to me from a wholesale
distributer. 5 days later, two large boxes arrived.
Immediately I began comparing what I was use to (the LX-200 10" F10)
to this new telescope. I knew there would be compromises, but to what
extent I didnt know. I opened up the Tripod box first. It was very
cruedly packaged with expandable foam at both the wedgepod and tripod
feet ends. Nothing in the middle. I slid it out of the box and set it
up. It was covered by a layer of white powder from the foam. I blew it
all off. The finish of the tripod was a very glossy heavy black with a
very nice decal of the word Celestron on the front of the tripod. The
Latitude scale was just a sticker with numbers on it located on the side
of one of the side plated of the wedgepod. The wedge had a notch in it
to line up the latitude. It was simple and seemed ok for me. I set the
latitude to 38 degress, 17' as best as I could eye ball it, tightened up
the 2 allen screws on the side of the wedge with the supplied allen tool
and called it good. Close enough for visual tracking I figured. At this
point, I noticed a small crack in the west side plate of the wedgpod. It
must have been due to shipping. I called Astropix about it and they told
me to call the Lance or Jason at Celestron and they would take care of
me. I made the call and they said they would have a new side plate sent
to me that same day. Later that day, I received a second call from a
Customer Service guy from Celestron and asked me if I was happy with the
scope aside from the crack. He said he would gladly accept the entire
scope back from me or the entire wedgepod back if I wanted to replace
the whole thing. I definately didnt think that was necesary, so I said
replacing the plate would be fine. That to me was a very welcome feeling
coming from Celestron. Those who have claimed bad customer service
should note this.
I didnt think the small crack would affect stability so I called it
good for now and proceeded to unpackage the second box, the optical
tube.
There was an ordinary white postal box tightly packed in the shipping
carton. Upon opening the second box, I noticed also the expandable foam
protecting the OTA and accessories. This must have been a significant
way celestron used to cut costs. The packaging was very basic but did
surround the entire OTA, unlike the tripod packaging.
The OTA and fork lifted out very easily. It was an extremely light
welcomed weight. I attached the scope to the wedge with the 3 lower
bolts and looked at the new scope. The Black paint of the OTA was
protected by paper and after removing it, the OTA had a very nice coat
of black paint. It didnt have nearly the thickness and quality of my
blue Meade OTA, that was immediately obvious. The RA and Dec locks were
very basic and effective. A quick quarter turn on either one would
locked or unlocked them. Again, compared to the LX-200's these are crude
and fragile, but they do seem acceptable to me and definately acceptable
for a fast set-up, light weight scope.
I looked at the supplied visual back and 1.25" diagonal and supplied
25mm MA eyepiece. Since I have a nice collection of 2" Naglers and a 2"
Televue Diagonal, these supplied accessories will probably never come
out of their plastic wrap.
The finish of the forks and base were your basic flat black on cast
parts. They all seemed light weight and fagile compared to the
masiveness of my LX-200, but again, they were what I was hoping for in a
lightweight package. The parts all fit together very nicely and the
control panel was very simple, basic and well made. The scope came with
the 9 volt battery already installed, a welcome to the 33 amp gel cell
of my LX-200. I attached the hand controller, the finder and the 2"
diagonal that I had bought and carried the entire package out the back
door to my Sacramento light poluted back yard.
The corrector plate cover locks in place once installed, a simple
twist of a half inch and it come right off. It fits perfectly. I noticed
that looking into the corrector plate that the inside of the OTA is 100%
black. This was very nice to see. My Meade had lots of different shades
of black and what seemed like irrigular surfaces on the inside, though
it never seemed to affect its performance. The inside of the Celestron
looked like it was put together better.
I first viewed roof tops and TV antennas from far away to very
close at various powers. The optics seemed unusually sharp. The focus
knob was the best I had ever tried. Very light feel with absolutely no
image shift at all. The meade focus was very crude by comparision. I
went as high as I could with my eyepieces. Using my 4.8mm nagler, I
could see the details of feathers of birds on the TV antennas next door.
The scope had that very positive "snap" to the focus. When you hit the
point that was just right, you knew it and didnt have to go beyond that.
Using all eyepieces, the 55mm 2" televue, 20mm, 12,9, 7 and 4.8, they
all had that very welcomed snap to the focus. This is very similar to my
Nikon Superior E binoculars.
Once dark, put the vibration supression pads under the tripod, did a
quick eyeball polar align and looked to the sky. I looked at a few stars
out of focus and noticed a perfect donut, on both sides of focus with
the sought after airy discs at focus. Observing the moon, I noticed the
"snap" in the focus was stil there. The scope would easily accept all
eyepieces all the way to my 4.8 and still remain crisp and clear. At
400+ power on the moon using the 4.8 Nagler, I could see the familar
shadows inside of craters and hills, rills and mountains. The hand
controller was a little awkward to use at first but I got use to it and
it gave me a nice tour of the surface of the moon at 400+ power. Tapping
the OTA at this power took only a couple of seconds to settle down with
the Vibration supression pads installed. This scope was sharp than the
intes 6" Mak was which I though gave me very clear sharp images of the
moon. The C8's images were brighter, especially when using the full
power 4.8mm Nagler. I picked M13 out of Hercules, my favorite global
cluster. Its was competing with the moon and loosing badly but I could
make out the very fine cluster of stars. This scope definately did not
have the light gathering ability of my 10" Meade F10. This was
immediately obvious in the way that I typically observed M13. The
cluster did not have the brightness I was use to, nevertheless, I was
impressed that the 8" Schmidt had so much to offer is such a small
package. This was definately a far superior scope to the Intes 6" Mak
for deep space. With the intes 6", M13 was a small fuz with only a very
few number of resolved stars. This is not surprising.
I found M57 and M27 also, the dumbell and the ring. Both were easy
to find with the 55mm 2" eyepiece. Again, neither of these had the
visual awe in the 8" Celestar that they did in my 10" LX-200. I'd
imagined that the differeces between the two scopes wouldnt be that
much. But the differences were very obvious, the 8" did not have the
light gathering ability that the 10" and the differences were very
obvious. This is not a flaw of the Celestar, just a comment that 10"
gives you more than 8, and contrary to what I have read, the differences
are immediately obvious.
Never the less, I was very very impressed by the Celestar 8. I feel
like I'm part of the 3 little bear story where my 6" intes was not
enough, the 10" was too much, and the 8" is just right! This is an
overall evaluation taking into account portability, lightweight,
light gathering and overall simplicity of set up.
Overall, I'd say that the optics on my Clestar 8 are as good as any
schmidts I've seen anywhere. I'd have to say they are even sharper than
my 10" LX-200's were, which people who have viewed through that scope
have said those optics were very nice. The "snap" effect I see on the
focus is so obvious and excellent, with absolutely no image shift at
all, you can almost hear it snap into focus. This also appears to have
much sharper and more contrast images than my former Meade 4" APO.
Considering its size difference, thats no surprise. Actually, my Intes
appeared slightly sharper overall than my 4" APO also.
The eyeball polar alignment keeps images in the field of view for at
least a half hour minumum, (nothing I looked at I viewed for over this
time and had no problem at all with drift.) The fit and finish are all
very nice, well done keeping in mind low cost yet effectiveness. The
portability of the telescope is excellent. Overall lighter than the
Intes 6" on a GP mount.
I'd have to say this scope is a compliment to Celestron. They made a
very light weight inexpensive telescope with a simple yet sturdy tripod
with an excellent OTA optically and mechanically.
Great Job Celestron!
Ralph
Chris Marriott
Ralph,
Purely as a matter of interest, is there any reason you didn't consider an
8" LX200 as a replacement for your 10"? The 8" is about half the weight of
the 10", and hugely more portable. I bought my 8" because I felt that I
wasn't physically capable of handling the 10" on my own.
Chris
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marriott, SkyMap Software, UK (ch...@skymap.com).
Visit our web site at: http://www.skymap.com
Astronomy software written by astronomers, for astronomers.
RA
Yes definately there was a reason I choose the Celestar over the
LX-200 8". The Answer is Weight. The total package of the 8" LX-200
weighs over 70 lbs, the Celestar weighs 37 pounds. I like to move my
telescope as a whole package across the yard in once piece. Also, the
Computer of the LX-200's are nice to have and if you've never had one you
should all consider owning one at one point. I grew ignorant to the sky
after having my LX-200. I have a small daughter I want to learn the sky
but if I cant remember what is what because the computer is doing all the
work, I cant realistically teach her the way I would like to and her to
know it. Finally, the OTA and fork of the Celestar is less than 30 lbs.
The LX-200 is almost 40 lbs. The LX-200 is not a fast set up scope. I
wanted to kick out the legs of the tripod and go for it. This cant happen
with the LX-200. The celestar can be set up in less than 2 minutes and is
ready to go. The LX-200 is 15 minutes minimum, my 10" LX-200 took over a
half hour when I had to set up tables and get everything calibrated and
ready to go. I loved my LX-200 but it was more bells and whistles than I
was really looking for this time around. Basically I wanted great optics,
light weight and simplicity. The Celestar gave me all 3, at 1/3 the cost
of an LX-200. Mine was $994 dollars shipped to my front door.The optics
on my Celstron are unbelievabily sharp.
Ralph
Chris Marriott
RA wrote in message <353A03...@softcom.net>...
>The LX-200 is not a fast set up scope. I
>wanted to kick out the legs of the tripod and go for it. This cant happen
>with the LX-200. The celestar can be set up in less than 2 minutes and is
>ready to go. The LX-200 is 15 minutes minimum, my 10" LX-200 took over a
>half hour when I had to set up tables and get everything calibrated and
>ready to go.
Was your LX200 equatorially mounted? My 8" LX200 is alt-az mounted and, like
your C8, is "ready to go" in about 2 minutes!
I do agree with you about the weight, though; the LX200 is not a lightweight
scope. On the other hand, the positive side is that it's a lot more stable
than the C8's wedgepod - my LX200 gives a totally stable image on windy
nights when a friend's Celestar 8 is vibrating and unusable at high
magnifications. Everything has pros and cons - I wish you the best of luck
with your new telescope!
Chris
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marriott, SkyMap Software, UK (ch...@skymap.com).
Visit our web site at: http://www.skymap.com
Astronomy software written by astronomers, for astronomers.
I loved my LX-200 but it was more bells and whistles than I