Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User
psi_chemie
sage
   
Reged: 05/01/11
Loc: Leawood, KS, USA
|
This vs. that and what minimum mount/tripod
#5563232 - 12/09/12 10:02 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I'm dreaming of a setup I can get part in a backpack and the other parts of the setup on the luggage rack of a bike. I want to go out on all the paved paths we have to find dark pockets to observe from.
I've got a small dob, but for this I want a different observing experience. I want to be seated on a small collapsible chair or just kneeling, and looking through a diagonal with a scope on a tripod mount.
Is a good photo tripod out of the question for even the lightest of these?
I also would like slow motion controls. I suppose an eq mount is out of the question.
Also tracking I suppose out of the question considering the weight of these items?
The OTA weights would have maybe a 1.25" barlow and a small not the huge giant heavy but small quality plossl eyepieces, light but decent 1.25 diag, and a rdf, so I am thinking with mount plate the weights I am dealing with are the OTA weights below plus maybe 1.5 lbs.
Here are the three:
celestron c6a 6" sct, 37%co, 10lbs, 1500mm, 25 mm mystery ep, 6x30 finder, star diag starbrigtht xlt coating, 399highpoint, no case
orion 5" mak, 31%CO, 8.6lbs, 1540mm, 25mm plossl, 6x26 finder, 45 erect diag, multi-coated, 399orion, soft case
celestron c5 5" sct, 37%co, 6lbs, 1250mm, 25mm mystery eyepeice, 8x20 finder, 45" erect diagonal, xlt coatings, 539optcorp, soft case
of these, the c6 seems the greatest value. it's also the biggest so if i would have a miserable time with a small mount vibrating that i'd need a bigger then non-portable mount?
The orion apex 127 is a good price also but I loose an inch and it's only 1.8 lbs lighter?
so to really go light the more expensive of the three, Celestron c5 and I loose an inch to the c6.
Really how much does the aperture differences and COs matter when I am going to be biking to dark pockets to observe from? if the 1 inch is worth the extra weight I really don't mind.
I figure I can carry a 15 lb pack on my back, fairly good size, and another 15 lb fairly good size pack, even something like a small mount and collapsed tripod.
So should I consider a 4th scope- the new etx 90 package for 399??
I think the tendancy of recommendations would be for some kind of quality alt-z mount and tripod. budget is not unlimited but I'll save up a little for quality.
Thanks for reading my spelling errors and bad grammar and all. I'm pumping out lots of text in lots of places right now.
ALSO note I will have a smartphone with skymaps, 12x50 binos and a planisphere.
Kind regards!
-mike
Edited by psi_chemie (12/09/12 10:08 PM)
|
psi_chemie
sage
   
Reged: 05/01/11
Loc: Leawood, KS, USA
|
Re: This vs. that and what minimum mount/tripod
[Re: psi_chemie]
#5563281 - 12/09/12 10:45 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Ahh, then I found this:
http://www.optcorp.com/product.aspx?pid=1115-13718
Vixen 110 on porta II mount. Just the ticket.. researching.
|
orlyandico
Carpal Tunnel
   
Reged: 08/10/09
Loc: Singapore
|
Re: This vs. that and what minimum mount/tripod
[Re: psi_chemie]
#5563383 - 12/10/12 12:07 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I think a small refractor is more convenient. SCTs have long focal length. Narrow field. More vulnerable to jiggles. Why not something like the 80mm Stellarvue ED with carbon tube?
|
Mkofski
professor emeritus
   
Reged: 07/19/11
Loc: Greenfield, Indiana, USA
|
Re: This vs. that and what minimum mount/tripod
[Re: psi_chemie]
#5563704 - 12/10/12 08:16 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I think a sort focal length 80 to 100mm refractor would transport better than a Mak or SCT. If you wanted to do astrophotography a ioptron IEQ30 is very light but for visual with goto Celestron makes some lightweight mounts.
|
Hikari
scholastic sledgehammer
   
Reged: 01/05/11
Loc: Maine, USA
|
Re: This vs. that and what minimum mount/tripod
[Re: Mkofski]
#5564651 - 12/10/12 06:14 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
What about a nice chair and a nice pair of binos?
For small telescopes, a Mini Borg might be your thing.
|
psi_chemie
sage
   
Reged: 05/01/11
Loc: Leawood, KS, USA
|
Re: This vs. that and what minimum mount/tripod
[Re: Hikari]
#5564900 - 12/10/12 09:03 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Yes, I meant to include that my first plan is to locate and study object with binos and then use the scope for a different view.
I will check out the Mini Borg. There are too many options. I may just right some dob-style mount for this project.
Thanks for your replies, -mike
|
JMW
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/11/07
Loc: Nevada
|
Re: This vs. that and what minimum mount/tripod
[Re: psi_chemie]
#5566433 - 12/11/12 06:46 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I think a Gitzo carbon fiber tripod is the best performer for rock solid steady and low weight. I use one with a DM4 for my grab and go. It handles a SV115T without any problems. A used Mini-Hitch mount would be lighter and have slow motion controls. It weighs about 3 pounds. The mini-hitch on a Gitzo could be under 9 pounds and handle a 80mm refractor without compromise.
This isn't a cheap solution but it shows what is possible when low weight and stability are most important.
|
psi_chemie
sage
   
Reged: 05/01/11
Loc: Leawood, KS, USA
|
Re: This vs. that and what minimum mount/tripod
[Re: JMW]
#5566494 - 12/11/12 07:41 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Mini Hitch, Mini Borg, and the Gitzo,
Thanks!
|
BuffaloTri
member
Reged: 04/23/12
|
Re: This vs. that and what minimum mount/tripod
[Re: psi_chemie]
#5567223 - 12/12/12 09:39 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
You may want to switch to a RACI if you plan on kneeling or sitting low to the ground. A straight through finder will get uncomfortable really quickly.
|
psi_chemie
sage
   
Reged: 05/01/11
Loc: Leawood, KS, USA
|
Re: This vs. that and what minimum mount/tripod
[Re: BuffaloTri]
#5568384 - 12/12/12 10:22 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I'm processing this and I'll post an update and hopefully an evaluation of the system I end up with early next year;)
|
TONGKW
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 01/16/07
|
Re: This vs. that and what minimum mount/tripod
[Re: psi_chemie]
#5568679 - 12/13/12 05:09 AM Attachment (4 downloads)
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I often have to carry my OTA/mount/accessories in my backpack, traveling on public transport and walk long distance to a dark site to carry out visual observation of sky objects. I consider a C5 OTA weighing 5.5 lb is comfortable to carry. A Manfrotto 410 grarhead with slow motion control (2.7 lb) is very suitable. A photo tripod (Series 2, with the top leg at 28 mm diameter, weighing about 4 lb) can do the job. All add up to less than 15 lb. http://www.adorama.com/BG3275.html http://www.adorama.com/SIBSRN2004.html
K W TONG C8+CG5 GT, TSA102+HEQ5 PRO, MK67+Voyager, NexStar 6SE, C5+Mizar K, WO ZS80FD+Kenko NES, Megrez 72FD+Kenko KDS, Mini Borg 50, PST
|
|
34 registered and 28 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Bowmoreman, bilgebay, iceblaze
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 775
|
|
|
|
|
|
|