158 replies to this topic

[tony_spina]

David

I forgot to ask you is the dew shield metal or plastic?

[dmerzbac]

The dewshield is metal. (aluminum, I think) Took the scope out tonight (w/filter) for a look at the full moon. I used Celestron Omni 32mm and X-Cel 12mm and the views were magnificent despite the lack of detail. Did not notice any CA. It will be interesting to see if that appears with planetary objects.

 

David

[ghostboo]

I'm interested in this Celestron 102 f6.6. The price is almost a steal. I am definitely NOT interested in the f9.8 as I have the desire to keep size manageable. I use a short tube 80 and love that smaller size of scope...length wise. Longer refractors cause a lot of trouble on my more portable mounts. 

 

My question is...will this scope be a nice improvement over my ST-80 for deep sky objects?  How much better is that extra inch of aperture in a refractor? Also, what about the CA?

 

My litmus test is the Ring Nebula which I can clearly see with my ST80 from my driveway. Hoping that extra inch will be noticeable for an object like M57.

 

I prefer using the 80 over my C5 for deep sky due to it's size and wide field. 

 

I use a Mak or my C5 for planets and the moon so I have high power covered.

 

Thanks,

Brian 

Edited by ghostboo, 07 November 2016 - 04:21 AM.

[bobhen]

I'm interested in this Celestron 102 f6.6. The price is almost a steal. I am definitely NOT interested in the f9.8 as I have the desire to keep size manageable. I use a short tube 80 and love that smaller size of scope...length wise. Longer refractors cause a lot of trouble on my more portable mounts. 

 

My question is...will this scope be a nice improvement over my ST-80 for deep sky objects?  How much better is that extra inch of aperture in a refractor? Also, what about the CA?

 

My litmus test is the Ring Nebula which I can clearly see with my ST80 from my driveway. Hoping that extra inch will be noticeable for an object like M57.

 

I prefer using the 80 over my C5 for deep sky due to it's size and wide field. 

 

I use a Mak or my C5 for planets and the moon so I have high power covered.

 

Thanks,

Brian 

The jump from 80 to 102mm is easily noticeable (not mind blowing of course) but easily noticeable and worth it if portability or budget is not an issue.

 

For deep sky visual at reasonable powers, the CA will not be a problem (not as good as an apo of course) but nothing to worry about.

 

For the planets and moon you will get some very nice views but a mild CA or light yellow filter will help sharpen the view and allow slightly higher powers.

 

The longer F9.8 version will be slightly better on the moon and planets and any deep sky objects that fit in the field but the tube will be longer. However, the tube is still very lightweight.

 

At one time I had the 80mm F5 version but now have the 102mm F9.8 version and a 102mm F5 version and enjoy them both.

 

Bob

Edited by bobhen, 07 November 2016 - 09:35 AM.

[sojourneyer]

The discussions here get confusing but are very informative to me.

The XLT and the  standard 102 AZ go back and forth

 

For those of you who still have the scope, are  you still using the original

mount/tripod? If you have changed would  you mind telling me to what replacement

and what was the problem with the mount/tripod..

 

Thanks

Edited by sojourneyer, 20 December 2019 - 11:07 PM.

[GreyDay]

For those of you who still have the scope, are  you still using the original

mount/tripod? If you have changed would  you mind telling me to what replacement

and what was the problem with the mount/tripod..

 

Thanks

The original mount tripod is Celestrons standard "PowerSeeker" tripod that comes with it's 60-102mm range. On it's own the tripod/mount is okay for smaller scopes but does have quirks! if you over tighten the Azimuth (horizontal) lock, it can deform the base! not permanently! (its just loose tolerances between head and base) when you ease off the lock it returns to normal. There arent any slow motion controls so the best way to use the mount is to adjust the locks for a little drag but allow some movement for easy "push to" use.

 

You must bear in mind the price of the bundle and not expect top shelf performance, tolerances aren't tight but still not a deal breaker. I have 3 of these mounts and use them regularly with 50/60mm scopes as grab and go setups. The mount is capable of carrying the 102 OTA and does so adequately, I've never had the OTA slip in the mount as theres the main fixing bolt and an extra locking screw on the shoe. I do still use the mount with the 102 but the OTA sees most use on my SkyTee2.

 

The OTA is fine for what it is. The 6.5 focal ratio means some CA is there but only as much as i expected, refractor lovers know the score and beginners shouldn't be put off. As a beginner setup it works well, my friends 10 year old daughter can carry and use it without difficulty. For the price i would recommend it to beginners without question, more experienced users should be able to work round any shortcomings.

 

[sojourneyer]

The original mount tripod is Celestrons standard "PowerSeeker" tripod that comes with it's 60-102mm range. On it's own the tripod/mount is okay for smaller scopes but does have quirks! if you over tighten the Azimuth (horizontal) lock, it can deform the base! not permanently! (its just loose tolerances between head and base) when you ease off the lock it returns to normal. There arent any slow motion controls so the best way to use the mount is to adjust the locks for a little drag but allow some movement for easy "push to" use.

 

You must bear in mind the price of the bundle and not expect top shelf performance, tolerances aren't tight but still not a deal breaker. I have 3 of these mounts and use them regularly with 50/60mm scopes as grab and go setups. The mount is capable of carrying the 102 OTA and does so adequately, I've never had the OTA slip in the mount as theres the main fixing bolt and an extra locking screw on the shoe. I do still use the mount with the 102 but the OTA sees most use on my SkyTee2.

 

The OTA is fine for what it is. The 6.5 focal ratio means some CA is there but only as much as i expected, refractor lovers know the score and beginners shouldn't be put off. As a beginner setup it works well, my friends 10 year old daughter can carry and use it without difficulty. For the price i would recommend it to beginners without question, more experienced users should be able to work round any shortcomings.

You must be talking about a different mount. The mount for the Omni AZ 102 as per Celestron

"New Omni manual slow-motion altazimuth mount uses worm gears for smooth, easy tracking of celestial or terrestrial targets and slip clutches for quick and easy pointing"

[GreyDay]

You must be talking about a different mount. The mount for the Omni AZ 102 as per Celestron

"New Omni manual slow-motion altazimuth mount uses worm gears for smooth, easy tracking of celestial or terrestrial targets and slip clutches for quick and easy pointing"

Sorry.. i was reffering to the original 102AZ mount that Wargrafix started the topic about and not the XLT version. The version i have is the same shown in post #38.

 

heres a catalog pic of the Astromaster 102AZ.

[sojourneyer]

Post 32 is what I was referring to  .. the problem is some people are talking about the astromaster and others the Omni 102 mm scopes

There is an omni XLT and and Omni 102 AZ. The only difference between these two it appears to be the coating

[SteveFour86]

I purchased the Omni 102 AZ at Costco for a grab and go as the dob is getting heavier in my old age. Paid 199.00 for it but it went down to 159.00. It isn’t the XLT version but the mount appears to be the same for both. The clouds haven’t cooperated since purchase so it will be interesting to see how the optics hold up since they aren’t the XLT coatings.  From what I can tell the mount should suffice with this OTA as I don’t mind waiting a few seconds for settling. I did buy a new budget Celestron prism diagonal as the supplied diagonal appears to be for terrestrial viewing. 

Edited by SteveFour86, 10 January 2020 - 01:33 AM.

[sojourneyer]

Steve

I have the same scope... Omni 102 AZ from Costco

I talked to technician at Celestron and he said the difference in coating between the

two is minimal and has a slight impact on CA. 

 

The price you paid is still good when compared to the XLT which runs about $100 dearer.  You get two Kellners vs one Plossl with the XLT and the finder is different. That is the difference between the two Omnis.

 

I am looking at obtaining a new diagonal as well but want to give the incumbent

a fair chance before I make any changes.. very cloudy here as well.

 

The mount/tripod suffices but when I use a heavy eyepiece and heavy barlow together it takes a while to settle after using the focuser. 

 

Did you get the cell phone adapter as well?  .

[SteveFour86]

Yes the cell phone adapter is included. I have noticed a bit of slop in the vertical slo mo control. I’ve tried to get into where the worm drive is but unable to remove the cover. I don’t want to reef on it and break it. Seems to be no data out there about adjusting this mount. 

[sojourneyer]

Yes the cell phone adapter is included. I have noticed a bit of slop in the vertical slo mo control. I’ve tried to get into where the worm drive is but unable to remove the cover. I don’t want to reef on it and break it. Seems to be no data out there about adjusting this mount. 

That cell phone adapter is quite substantial in weight. I question whether the mount

can handle a dielectric diagonal, a heavy eyepiece, a cell phone and the cell phone adapter. I think the slo motion controls would slip and you would have to put on

a counter weight in the front.. I will be using a velcro armband that holds a bag of about 20 steel bearings..LOL

[SteveFour86]

Not concerned about weight with 1.25 eyepieces and a star diagonal.  If you were to use 2” hang grenades and diagonal I would be worried about the mount slipping. My cell phone isn’t a brick either :-)  

[clearwaterdave]

Yes the cell phone adapter is included. I have noticed a bit of slop in the vertical slo mo control. I’ve tried to get into where the worm drive is but unable to remove the cover. I don’t want to reef on it and break it. Seems to be no data out there about adjusting this mount. 

If you are refering to the black covers.,they pop off with a screwdriver.,

[LDW47]

I am actually glad it inspired a healthy debate. I do have my eyepiece and a 1.25 diagonal. Wish i had a 2" adapter for attaching my dslr or a 2" diagonal. It a nice starting scope for beginners even with the vertical pointing flaws. For us it a good scope to modify. I actually bought it for my wife and its the right weight for her.

You did it right, the perfectionists are right but they are wrong ! You did it right for not a lot of $, thats the key most times ! Have fun and keep looking up !

[LDW47]

Not concerned about weight with 1.25 eyepieces and a star diagonal.  If you were to use 2” hang grenades and diagonal I would be worried about the mount slipping. My cell phone isn’t a brick either :-)  

The 2” Russell Optics sure aren’t ‘ hand grenades ‘ and they perform great !

[LDW47]

As a good alternative the ES Nano AZ mount is pretty good for $100 US, at least the one I just got is ! I don’t think you need a Twilight I or an AZ4 or similar ?

[sojourneyer]

I would stay with your original mount if it is no problem.

Otherwise I suggest you consider Skywatcher AZ5, TWILIGHT 1or 2, Vixen Porta 2.

The nano is too light. I believe your Omni mount is as good as the Nano 

[wargrafix]

Hi all. I gifted the mount and ota to relative of my wife and he is having a blast with it. He went with a cg4 mount and its a solid performer. Honestly I am in the market for a new scope, and since pricemart is only having the 114EQ with the godawful mount.

 

 

Like seriously, does celestron hate astronomy? Their low range mounts are just bad, not tiida bad.....just crap.

[sojourneyer]

Not concerned about weight with 1.25 eyepieces and a star diagonal.  If you were to use 2” hang grenades and diagonal I would be worried about the mount slipping. My cell phone isn’t a brick either :-)  

Steve,

The nanos have a weight capacity of 14 lbs so they say. Others have told me to reduce that figure by half.  Lets say 25%

So now you have 10 lb capacity.  The diagonal (2") will be about 1.3 lbs alone.  Will you be using 2 inch eyepieces?

 

I had a posting  Good Replacement AltAz Mount/Tripod for Omni 102 F/6.5 

but got no replies.. However, on another posting of mine many of the people had the Omni 102 AZ f/6.5  (standard and XLT coating). None recommended the nano.. too light. 

 

 And I have about 6 friends with the same scope. All have recommended to go with a heavier alt/az mount/tripod...

Edited by sojourneyer, 20 January 2020 - 04:51 PM.

[LDW47]

I would stay with your original mount if it is no problem.

Otherwise I suggest you consider Skywatcher AZ5, TWILIGHT 1or 2, Vixen Porta 2.

The nano is too light. I believe your Omni mount is as good as the Nano 

Have you used the Nano ? For a scope that size it will perform at least as good as the original with probably better AZ travel !

[LDW47]

Steve,

The nanos have a weight capacity of 14 lbs so they say. Others have told me to reduce that figure by half.  Lets say 20%

So now you have 10 lb capacity.  The diagonal (2") will be about 1.3 lbs alone.  Will you be using 2 inch eyepieces?

 

I had a posting  Good Replacement AltAz Mount/Tripod for Omni 102 F/6.5 

but got no replies.. However, on another posting of mine many of the people had the Omni 102 AZ f/6.5  (standard and XLT coating). None recommended the nano.. too light. 

 

 And I have about 6 friends with the same scope. All have recommended to go with a heavier alt/az mount/tripod...

Have you ever slung a TW I around or the other mounts similar ? If you need one of those for that scope for $200 or more then you talk about overkill, I have a couple of those mounts and boy ....... !

[LDW47]

The other strange issue is when researching the scope, everything points to the fact that it is / was mounted on a Celestron Omni mount which is about equivalent to the Nano, I have both of them for my g ‘n’ g scopes ! So why the mount shown, did I miss something along the route ?

[Auburn80]

It appears as though Celestron offers 2 102 achros on altaz mounts. The 102AZ is on a photo tripod head design and the XLT 102 AZ on the one-arm style with slo-mo controls. I have the Omni one-arm version and it's ok for low power, fair for moderate power and . . . tedious. . . at high powers although the slo-mo controls help a lot. I suspect the photo head style would be more difficult to control.