Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [sct-user] Meade ETX scopes

Expand Messages
  • RMOLLISE@aol.com
    In a message dated 1/31/02 9:20:50 PM Central Standard Time, ... Hi: A C5 is not really THAT much more portable than a C8....that and the price, not too far
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 1, 2002
      In a message dated 1/31/02 9:20:50 PM Central Standard Time,
      dkinston@... writes:


      > Why aren't these decisions easier? SIGH
      > Does the Celestron 5" have any drawbacks?
      >

      Hi:

      A C5 is not really THAT much more portable than a C8....that and the price,
      not too far from that of a C8, are the main drawbacks this little scope has
      had over the years.

      Peace,
      Rod Mollise
      Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
      <http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html>


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • messier27
      Are you referring to the C-5 or the Nexstar 5? A ton of difference between these two. John & Bobbie Hilliard No sight is more provocative of awe than is the
      Message 2 of 11 , Feb 1, 2002
        Are you referring to the "C-5" or the Nexstar 5?
        A ton of difference between these two.

        John & Bobbie Hilliard

        "No sight is more provocative of awe than is the night sky."
        -Llewelyn Powys

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <RMOLLISE@...>
        To: <sct-user@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 5:26 AM
        Subject: Re: [sct-user] Meade ETX scopes


        > In a message dated 1/31/02 9:20:50 PM Central Standard Time,
        > dkinston@... writes:
        >
        >
        > > Why aren't these decisions easier? SIGH
        > > Does the Celestron 5" have any drawbacks?
        > >
        >
        > Hi:
        >
        > A C5 is not really THAT much more portable than a C8....that and the
        price,
        > not too far from that of a C8, are the main drawbacks this little scope
        has
        > had over the years.
        >
        > Peace,
        > Rod Mollise
        > Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
        > <http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html>
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        > Visit the sct-user home page at:
        >
        >
        >
        > http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index4.html
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
      • RMOLLISE@aol.com
        ... Hi: Well, you could say the NS5 bears the same relation to the NS8 as the C5 did to the C8 (or Celestar 8)... Peace, Rod
        Message 3 of 11 , Feb 1, 2002
          In a message dated Fri, 1 Feb 2002 9:04:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, "messier27" <messier27@...> writes:

          > Are you referring to the "C-5" or the Nexstar 5?
          > A ton of difference between these two.
          >

          Hi:

          Well, you could say the NS5 bears the same relation to the NS8 as the C5 did to the C8 (or Celestar 8)...

          Peace,
          Rod
        • messier27
          To rephrase the question, are we comparing the ETX125EC to a C-5 or an N5? Doesn t matter...own and have owned Meades and Celestrons, would not trade our two
          Message 4 of 11 , Feb 1, 2002
            To rephrase the question, are we comparing the ETX125EC to a C-5 or an N5?
            Doesn't matter...own and have owned Meades and Celestrons, would not trade
            our two N5's for ETX's, wish we still had our Celestar 8, would not trade
            our 8" LX200 for an N8, the question of the 12" for a C-11 is not a
            question, but the C-14 would depend on the amount we could spend on a
            'proper' (whatever that means) mount.

            John & Bobbie Hilliard

            "No sight is more provocative of awe than is the night sky."
            -Llewelyn Powys

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: <RMOLLISE@...>
            To: <sct-user@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 8:27 AM
            Subject: Re: [sct-user] Meade ETX scopes


            > In a message dated Fri, 1 Feb 2002 9:04:26 AM Eastern Standard Time,
            "messier27" <messier27@...> writes:
            >
            > > Are you referring to the "C-5" or the Nexstar 5?
            > > A ton of difference between these two.
            > >
            >
            > Hi:
            >
            > Well, you could say the NS5 bears the same relation to the NS8 as the C5
            did to the C8 (or Celestar 8)...
            >
            > Peace,
            > Rod
            >
            > Visit the sct-user home page at:
            >
            >
            >
            > http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index4.html
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
          • ngc5466
            ... OK, as I recall from reading this and an earlier thread, you wanted a 5 scope. There is an adapter for the ETXs made by Apogee that permits putting
            Message 5 of 11 , Feb 1, 2002
              "David Kinston" <dkinston@o...> wrote:
              >Why aren't these decisions easier? SIGH
              >Does the Celestron 5" have any drawbacks?

              OK, as I recall from reading this and an earlier thread, you wanted a
              5" scope. There is an adapter for the ETXs made by Apogee that
              permits putting SCT-type rear-cell accessories, such as the focal
              reducer, filters with same mounting, etc., on the back photo port of
              the ETX.

              Having just bought an ETX105, I pondered the usefulness for this
              adapter, and finally decided against. Because my ETX is a planetary,
              f/14 scope! (As far as my personal plans anyway.) There is little
              point putting on a reducer to have an f/~9 MCT.

              The recommendation was made, unless there were astronomer types to
              operate it, to avoid getting a goto scope due to the complication of
              setting it up. I agree with that assessment completely. Since this
              is for kiddies, and smaller is in your budget, I definitely recommend
              the C5 if you can get your hands on one.

              SCTs are great general, all-purpose scopes.

              Leroy
            • rander3127@aol.com
              In a message dated 2/1/2002 4:56:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... If you want a better diagonal, the rear cell adapter accessory makes sense. -Rich [Non-text
              Message 6 of 11 , Feb 1, 2002
                In a message dated 2/1/2002 4:56:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                sct-user@yahoogroups.com writes:


                > Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 17:37:05 -0000
                > From: "ngc5466" <ngc5466@...>
                > Subject: C5 vs. ETX125 (the story so far?)
                >
                > "David Kinston" <dkinston@o...> wrote:
                > >Why aren't these decisions easier? SIGH
                > >Does the Celestron 5" have any drawbacks?
                >
                > OK, as I recall from reading this and an earlier thread, you wanted a
                > 5" scope. There is an adapter for the ETXs made by Apogee that
                > permits putting SCT-type rear-cell accessories, such as the focal
                > reducer, filters with same mounting, etc., on the back photo port of
                > the ETX.
                >
                > Having just bought an ETX105, I pondered the usefulness for this
                > adapter, and finally decided against. Because my ETX is a planetary,
                > f/14 scope! (As far as my personal plans anyway.) There is little
                > point putting on a reducer to have an f/~9 MCT.

                If you want a better diagonal, the rear cell adapter accessory makes sense.
                -Rich


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.