Celestron C5+ owners- your experiences
Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:48 PM
Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:42 PM
I use both on a Manfrotto 475 tripod w/half-hitch head. The C5/BIPH, Lunt 60DS and my Canon 15x50IS are my most used. The Miya Saturn III is mounted in a window. All are great for travel and rousing-up wonder in the grandkids.
Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:29 PM
any balance issues?
if you had a choice of either a 8mm vixen lvw in mono or wo binos with 13mm tv smoothie plossls,
which would you go with?
Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:18 PM
Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:21 PM
Posted 09 December 2012 - 04:25 PM
I will say that a well made sct is every inch a superb lunar and planetary scope. You'd be amazed how well the image holds at higher magnifications on a small mars for example. Just make sure it's cooled at least an hour and have it collimated. Beyond that the the focus (sky willing) is gratifyingly sharp and lunar and planetary is rewardingly detailed. What it can't do is worth a shrug because it is so very highly capable everywhere else and at a price point no refractor can touch. Don't overlook some nice double star observing on better nights that are at the diffraction limit.
Eddgies spot on just thought I'd mention the contrast variability of festoons and for a lot of Jovian features really. It's always shifting and in that is ever present the fact that every time you set up and look something can have changed and so new things appear.
The fives a great scope.
Posted 10 December 2012 - 06:09 AM
Posted 16 December 2012 - 05:15 PM
Posted 18 May 2013 - 03:54 PM
I've found that the C5+ fits perfectly on the old Nexstar 5 tripod, and the views through the Thousand Oaks filter have been great today, so I'm chomping at the bit to get it out tonight at our public viewing event.
Did Celestron ever make a case for the scope on it's base? I've seen cases mounting the OTA itself, but I like to carry the whole thing at once by the handle because it's so convenient. Also, if anyone ever comes across the original white finder and/or hand controller, let me know The scope is in super-excellent shape, but there were a few things missing.
Posted 28 February 2014 - 10:14 PM
Posted 01 March 2014 - 09:46 AM
Posted 01 March 2014 - 11:32 AM
I have a 4mm Celestron Ultima eyepiece and a 4.8mm TV Nagler that I use for high magnification. The rings are indeed concentric. I also have collimated with and without the diagonals to see if there was some other factor. They are the original Celestron 1.25" and a TeleVue 1.25" mirror diagonal. Nevertheless, I will follow your advice and see if there is an improvement.
Posted 01 March 2014 - 03:08 PM
Iv'e had 3 white tube C5's over the years.
However, my own scope appears to exhibit rather heavy spherical aberration. The extra focal rings on a star test are not identical. The focused image does not snap into focus, but rather eases into it. Planetary images aren't as sharp and detailed as they could be on mine. Would anyone care to comment on star test performance on their C5+s?
The first was perfect with diffraction rings on both sides of focus, The second was not nearly as good, and did not show rings properly on both sides of focus. I sold it and bought my current white tube C5 that shows good diffraction rings on both sides, and does snap to focus on the planets.
There was talk back in the 1990's that some of the white tube C5's had corrector plates that were a tad too small, as a result they would shift out of alignment. Double check that yours is correctly aligned. Some people have also used 2 inch diagonals on their C5's. It's a bit of a waste as the central baffle limits the amount of light getting to the eyepiece. I tried a 2 inch diagonal and found that the longer optical train added spherical aberration to the in and out of focus star test image. C5's work best with a 1.25 inch diagonal.
Hope it all works out for you.
They are really nice portable little scopes.
Posted 02 March 2014 - 02:09 AM
Thanks for the insight. I removed the corrector and cleaned out all the gunk on the inside. I also noticed that yes, the corrector on my C5 is undersized. It did have a mark at the 3 o'clock position, so I placed it back in the proper alignment as best I could. I took my time collimating the secondary and there was a slight improvement in image quality. Jupiter was a little better at about 125x as the sky was nicely steady, but kind of hazy. They really are great portable scopes, but I still am not impressed with this one. I guess I got an average to below average scope. I was planning on getting a C6, but that was sidetracked for a while. This gives me a better rationalization on getting that C6 now.