Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Celestron Omni 22150 XLT 102

  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

#76 BigC

BigC

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,005
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2010
  • Loc: SE Indiana

Posted 15 November 2016 - 11:35 AM

So, if you stayed with a 1.25 eyepiece set then the balance is OK?

For this,and other scopes, if eyepiece weight is that critical buy a set of the Vite 4,10,23mm aspheric;they weigh very little .

Getting the widest possible FOV AND highest quality means adding weight.Bill Vorce has some lightweight Meade 2" plastic diagonals which may or may not be adequate depending on your personal standards.But good2" oculars tend to be heavy.

 

Wonder if makers of the Vite  oculars considered offering 2" versions?


  • JHollJr and aeajr like this

#77 JHollJr

JHollJr

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,040
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2006
  • Loc: Northern Virginia

Posted 15 November 2016 - 12:14 PM

So, if you stayed with a 1.25 eyepiece set then the balance is OK?

I think the scope and mount out of the box is just fine, but when I realized how nice the optics were, and how stable the mount and tripod are, I started upgrading with parts I had laying around for years. I had a Celestron star diagonal sitting in a box since 2006. I slapped that in. It made the scope better. Then I decided that I had never tried a crayford focuser on any scope. Did I need one? Nope? Did I buy one? Yup. Worked great. Then I saw others were putting rings and a dovetail on the scope. Did I need to do this? Nope. Did I do it? Yup. It stabilized everything and the scope with mount is just over 13 pounds. I can carry it out to my deck with one hand, and do.

 

Will I add anything else? I don't know. I have it pretty much the way I want it right now. It is not my high magnification scope, the Questar is. It is not my light gathering scope, the C8 is (with all its 2" stuff on the back). This is a scope that is as easy as binoculars to be looking through in seconds. And that's what it is to me.

 

Would I recommend it as a beginner's scope? Hard to say, because there is so much that goes into the hobby with experience that disillusion could set in pretty quickly. For example, on an alt az mount it is definitely a star hopping scope. Not everyone can do that right out of the shoot, unless they get atlases, (and optionally with a star diagonal get accustomed to the backward views), and put the time into exploring the skies. It takes a special beginner to want to put that kind of effort in. For that person it is a very fine beginner scope.

 

Here, one hand, arm extended, a yard off the floor, for almost as long as I want:

 

AZ 102 One Hand

Edited by JHollJr, 15 November 2016 - 12:45 PM.

  • tony_spina, BFaucett, aeajr and 2 others like this

#78 treadmarks

treadmarks

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,263
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Boston MA

Posted 15 November 2016 - 01:16 PM

 

So, if you stayed with a 1.25 eyepiece set then the balance is OK?

I think the scope and mount out of the box is just fine, but when I realized how nice the optics were, and how stable the mount and tripod are, I started upgrading with parts I had laying around for years. I had a Celestron star diagonal sitting in a box since 2006. I slapped that in. It made the scope better. Then I decided that I had never tried a crayford focuser on any scope. Did I need one? Nope? Did I buy one? Yup. Worked great. Then I saw others were putting rings and a dovetail on the scope. Did I need to do this? Nope. Did I do it? Yup. It stabilized everything and the scope with mount is just over 13 pounds. I can carry it out to my deck with one hand, and do.

 

Will I add anything else? I don't know. I have it pretty much the way I want it right now. It is not my high magnification scope, the Questar is. It is not my light gathering scope, the C8 is (with all its 2" stuff on the back). This is a scope that is as easy as binoculars to be looking through in seconds. And that's what it is to me.

 

Would I recommend it as a beginner's scope? Hard to say, because there is so much that goes into the hobby with experience that disillusion could set in pretty quickly. For example, on an alt az mount it is definitely a star hopping scope. Not everyone can do that right out of the shoot, unless they get atlases, (and optionally with a star diagonal get accustomed to the backward views), and put the time into exploring the skies. It takes a special beginner to want to put that kind of effort in. For that person it is a very fine beginner scope.

 

I think you raise a good point. I do agree that most people probably wouldn't have the patience and dedication to learn the night sky.

 

I bought this telescope as my first telescope. My strategy was to focus on naked-eye objects like the Orion nebula, Pleaides, the solar system etc. to get value out of the telescope, avoiding the issue of grasping at straws in the dark and because I have a preference for nearer and brighter objects. When I tried to find "hidden" (to me) objects like the Hercules cluster and Andromeda galaxy it took me nearly a half-dozen long sessions before I succeeded.

 

This isn't just a problem for alt-az mounts though. The consensus pick for beginners, Dobsonian-mounted telescopes, also require you to know the night sky. It makes me wonder if go-to packages like the ETX-90 ought to be recommended more often. As you hinted at, I think this is really more of a personal choice and not one-size-fits-all.


  • BFaucett and aeajr like this

#79 JHollJr

JHollJr

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,040
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2006
  • Loc: Northern Virginia

Posted 15 November 2016 - 01:31 PM

Treadmark, my first telescope was a Newtonian 6" back in 1976. I started as all do with the bright objects, but with time one just starts looking for recondite wonders, and with perserverance finds them. I've never had a Dobsonian, so couldn't speak to that in my note above. This is my first refractor and it has taken me back to first principles. So I'm enjoying the Orion Nebula in the morning, and Lyra, Cygnus, Sagitta, and Vulpecula in the evening. I've found the Ring Nebula and the Dumbbell Nebula, but at 26x these are hardly interesting. I'm just enjoying a 2 degree TFOV and open clusters and star fields. It's just great to be under the stars, and I use different equipment on different evenings, including binoculars.

Thanks for all the interesting posts in this chain. We all learn something.
  • BFaucett and aeajr like this

#80 treadmarks

treadmarks

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,263
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Boston MA

Posted 15 November 2016 - 01:57 PM

Yes, the threads about this telescope have been very useful in giving me ideas for upgrades. However at this point I've realized having a clear dark sky is more important than having a good telescope. They can also be more costly than any telescope...


  • JHollJr, BFaucett and aeajr like this

#81 aeajr

aeajr

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15,725
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2015
  • Loc: Long Island, New York, USA

Posted 15 November 2016 - 02:31 PM

Thanks to the folks who responded to my questions.

 

Context is everything.   If you are looking at a scope that you would like to modify, that is great.   You guys have done some interesting things and I have learned from reading the discussion.

 

When I look at a product, whether an eyepiece or an OTA or a telescope package or a model airplane or a sound system for my home my first question is whether the package is useful as it comes out of the box.  Can one get the intended value out of it.   Or, are there so many flaws that you have to mod it to make it useful.   Clearly I misread your reasons for the modifications.

 

There is nothing wrong with making modifications.  It can be fun and that alone can be worth the money.    But when recommending something to a beginner or to someone who is fairly new I don't want them to immediaely have to start pouring money into the product to make it useful and useable.   Clearly this is targeted at the entry level buyer.   Some entry level scopes are a mess.  

 

So, again, the scope is useful and serviceable out of the box.  A newbie could get value out of it as a manual scope where they have to learn to star hop.   A fairly straightforward change of the star diagnal for about $35 seems to be suggested as a good addition.  It is not required but recommended.   Stay with the standard 1.25" focuser and the balance is OK.

 

For someone looking to add a grab and go to their BIG scope, out of the box this is adequate.  The usual better eyepieces are suggested and likely that person has them already, so not an issue.  No mods needed except maybe that star angle again.   Good to know.

 

 

 

As for Goto vs. manual.  That is an entire discussion by itself.   I am more of a computer assist guy.  My leaning is to full GoTo, like my ETX 80 or PushTo like my Orion XT8i Intelliscope.   But lots of people learn to star hop and enjoy the experience.

 

I bought the XT8i.  My buddy bought a Z8.   He got the charts and is hopping all over the place.   I run target lists at www.tonightssky.com , align the Intelliscope and work the list with little prep.  We are both having fun.

 

I tend to introduce newbies via binoculars.  I have written a Quick Start Guide based on binoculars which includes star hopping to find the targets with binoculars.   One who has started with that approach could take this scope as a next step, using the finder in a similar fashion to how they did their binocular star hopping.

 

So thanks everyone for responding to my questions.  You guys are the best.


Edited by aeajr, 15 November 2016 - 03:03 PM.

  • JHollJr and BFaucett like this

#82 JHollJr

JHollJr

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,040
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2006
  • Loc: Northern Virginia

Posted 15 November 2016 - 03:06 PM

Ed, there is a lot to be said about a GoTo. My Celestron NexStar XLT 8i SE is goto, and I use it several times a month. It saves time for sure, and sometimes aggravation. You teach people how to view with binoculars and that's an excellent way to learn the sky, but for just seeing objects nothing beats GoTo.


  • aeajr likes this

#83 aeajr

aeajr

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15,725
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2015
  • Loc: Long Island, New York, USA

Posted 15 November 2016 - 03:39 PM

Ed, there is a lot to be said about a GoTo. My Celestron NexStar XLT 8i SE is goto, and I use it several times a month. It saves time for sure, and sometimes aggravation. You teach people how to view with binoculars and that's an excellent way to learn the sky, but for just seeing objects nothing beats GoTo.

Agree 100%



#84 aeajr

aeajr

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15,725
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2015
  • Loc: Long Island, New York, USA

Posted 15 November 2016 - 03:40 PM

Sorry that I took this discussion off track.

 

Back to the topic - Celestron Omni 22150


  • BFaucett likes this

#85 treadmarks

treadmarks

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,263
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Boston MA

Posted 15 November 2016 - 03:41 PM

Indeed, if I do manage to get dark skies and a yard my next "equipment" upgrade will be a go-to like the Nexstar Evo 8. Fortunately my living situation is not set in stone.


  • JHollJr likes this

#86 riverrat373

riverrat373

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2016

Posted 16 November 2016 - 02:58 PM

JHoll,

Thanks for confirming that the GSO96 is the correct focuser! I figured it might be but I hadn't measured the inside diameter of my scope yet. This saves me a little work. :)


I decided to trick out my C102AZ!

An Orion 6x30 RACI finder arrived today.

I ordered the following items today:

Rings and 8" dovetail bar
GSO Crayford 2 speed focuser
Agena dovetail shoe for Crayford focusers to mount the finder
2" length tube extension for the focuser

If this proves to be too much additional weight for the supplied mount then I can always use my Vixen Porta II. Currently, I only have 1.25" diagonals and eyepieces.

I think the upgrades are going to make this a really nice little telescope!

Cheers!
Bob F. :)

 

I am considering buying the Celestron Omni XLT 102mm scope. Can you tell me what size rings you purchased for this scope and where from?



#87 BFaucett

BFaucett

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,433
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2014
  • Loc: Houston, Texas 29.78° N

Posted 16 November 2016 - 04:00 PM

On Amazon, I ordered the "Orion 7383 8-Inch Dovetail Mounting Plate" and the "Orion 7371 100mm ID Telescope Tube Rings".

Bob F.
  • riverrat373 likes this

#88 riverrat373

riverrat373

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2016

Posted 16 November 2016 - 04:04 PM

I  thank you for the reply!


  • BFaucett likes this

#89 JHollJr

JHollJr

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,040
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2006
  • Loc: Northern Virginia

Posted 16 November 2016 - 04:47 PM

On Amazon, I ordered the "Orion 7383 8-Inch Dovetail Mounting Plate" and the "Orion 7371 100mm ID Telescope Tube Rings".

Bob F.

Based on Bob's order, which he kindly shared, I ordered the same dovetail and rings and they fit like a glove.


  • BFaucett and riverrat373 like this

#90 BFaucett

BFaucett

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,433
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2014
  • Loc: Houston, Texas 29.78° N

Posted 26 June 2017 - 09:44 PM

Well, I hope the folks here (and the mods) don't mind me bumping an older thread back up.

 

I just realized that I took the attached photos about three months ago and that I forgot to post them here!  foreheadslap.gif

 

I've been enjoying my C102AZ so much that I decided to trick it out a little more.  

 

I gave it its own dedicated Porta II mount.  Now my C80ED and my C102AZ each have their own dedicated Porta II.  No more swapping scopes between one mount.  This makes it great for grab-n-go! whee.gif

 

Also, I decided to try out 2 inch EPs for the first time.  I bought the Agena SWA 70 deg 26, 32, and 38mm eyepieces in a bundle when it was on sale for $220.  I also purchased the GSO 2 inch dielectric diagonal and the GSO 2 inch 2x ED Barlow.  I've only had a chance to use them a few times so far but I think I'm going to like them.  I can also use them with my C80ED and my SV102 although I have not done so yet.  Dang ol' clouds!!  4.gif

 

Anyway, here's a couple of newer pics of my C102AZ.

 

 

20170130_201723.jpg

 

20170130_201742.jpg

 

 

Cheers!

Bob F.  smile.gif


Edited by BFaucett, 26 June 2017 - 10:11 PM.


#91 tony_spina

tony_spina

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,148
  • Joined: 14 Jun 2004
  • Loc: So. Cal.

Posted 26 June 2017 - 10:21 PM

Nice tricked out scope!


  • BFaucett likes this

#92 JHollJr

JHollJr

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,040
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2006
  • Loc: Northern Virginia

Posted 27 June 2017 - 05:31 AM

I use my Omni 102AZ all the time, because I leave it set up on my screen porch. I switched out the focuser to a GSO and the diagonal to a WO 2" dielectric. I have in mounted on a UniStar Light on a medium tripod. I find it to give really nice looks.


  • BFaucett likes this

#93 Hartscope

Hartscope

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2018

Posted 24 September 2018 - 02:48 PM

I have one for sale in Canada if interested

#94 CN_102NE

CN_102NE

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 133
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2018

Posted 30 October 2018 - 09:01 PM

Bought this scope for my wife from Amazon - as she picked it out.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why anyone would pay even half what it costs.

 

Bought a new diagonal for it as I thought that might help - but with negligible benefit.

 

Planets are out of the question.

 

Looking at the moon, M45 (Pleiades), and M31 (Andromeda Galaxy) are fine with it.

Perhaps some of the brightest and largest Messier clusters might be fine.

I could just barely see a tiny M57 (ring nebula) with it.

 

It would be an awesome daytime scope in a national park somewhere overlooking birds gliding over a mountain cliff etc.

But most of the Messier objects I've tried to look at with it - IMHO - are simply a waste of time.



#95 clearwaterdave

clearwaterdave

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,313
  • Joined: 27 May 2014
  • Loc: Western Maine

Posted 31 October 2018 - 01:13 AM

It's a 4" achro CN102NE., I don't know what your used to using for a scope.,but 4"s is 4"s..it ain't the Hubble.,This scope has been a treat for me to use.,and the views have been very pleasing.,YMMV.,but the scope is not a waste of time.,expecting too much from 4"s can be though.,I hope your wife enjoys her scope.,


  • JHollJr and BFaucett like this

#96 Jond105

Jond105

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,555
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2018
  • Loc: Detroit

Posted 31 October 2018 - 02:14 AM

Dave is right though 4" is 4". Unless you have some dark skies it's a great sweeper and I'd imagine great on more clusters than just Pleiades.

Edited by Jond105, 31 October 2018 - 02:15 AM.

  • BFaucett likes this

#97 aeajr

aeajr

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15,725
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2015
  • Loc: Long Island, New York, USA

Posted 31 October 2018 - 06:48 AM

Bought this scope for my wife from Amazon - as she picked it out.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why anyone would pay even half what it costs.

 

Bought a new diagonal for it as I thought that might help - but with negligible benefit.

 

Planets are out of the question.

 

Looking at the moon, M45 (Pleiades), and M31 (Andromeda Galaxy) are fine with it.

Perhaps some of the brightest and largest Messier clusters might be fine.

I could just barely see a tiny M57 (ring nebula) with it.

 

It would be an awesome daytime scope in a national park somewhere overlooking birds gliding over a mountain cliff etc.

But most of the Messier objects I've tried to look at with it - IMHO - are simply a waste of time.

Is this your first experience with a telescope?   What eyepieces were you using?  The stock eyepiece is just the starting point.   Many of us have spent more on eyepieces than scopes.

 

What were you expecting?   Certainly nothing like the pictures in magazines.  That requires astrophotography and astro-imaging equipment then extensive post processing on the computer.

 

A great deal depends on your light pollution level in the sky and on the ground.  My conditions are awful at Bortel 8 and lots of ground light.   But my 80 mm showed me a lot before I added the 8".  Certainly this 102 mm will show more as it gathers 62% more light than my 80 mm. 

 

 

 

With my 80 mm F5 refractor I have seen Saturn, its rings and cloud bands.  I have seen the great red spot on Jupiter, the cloud bands and its moons.   Mars, especially this year, is an orange ball with some subtle shadings even in my 8" scope.  Venus is covered in clouds but I can see it going through its phases.   Mercury looks like a star is almost any scope. And the Moon is wonderful!

 

Certainly an F5 80 mm is not the optimal telescope for planets but you can observe them with it and you can certainly observe planets with this 102 mm scope.   

From my home location the Andromeda Galaxy is a gray smudge in the sky.  On the other hand the Pleiades, the Orion Nebula, the Ring Nebula look great.  With the 80 mm I really like open clusters.   I split Albiero and other easier double stars.  And all of this from an absolutely awful observing location.    Galaxies and nebula are not good targets from my home location even in my 8" scope. 

 

 

So, a LOT depends on your expectations. 

  • Was the scopes performance too low or were your expectations too high?
  • What eyepieces are you using?
  • What are your sky and ground light pollution conditions?

 

BTW, from a moderately dark location, you can see most of the Messier list in 8X40 binoculars. But don't take my word for it, see the Astroleague binocular list of Messier objects.   

https://www.astrolea...s/binomesa.html

 

I quote:

 

The point is that anyone, with any pair of binoculars, no matter what their size, shape, condition, or cost, can do serious astronomy, and acquire a Binocular Messier Program certificate. To prove that point, all 76 objects (Easy, Tough, and Challenge) were observed with a pair of 7x35 Tasco binoculars purchased at Wal-Mart for $19.00.

 

 

If you would like help to understand what this scope can do, start a new discussion in the beginner forum and people will flock to the discussion to help you. 


  • BFaucett likes this

#98 Auburn80

Auburn80

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,159
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2013

Posted 31 October 2018 - 09:45 AM

I feel the OPs disappointment somewhat. But, I got mine on sale and fully expected that the accessories and mount would be . . . sub optimal. I was not surprised 😊
The scope itself though is OK

for the $.

As others have confirmed here; with good eyepieces, the GRS, zones and belts are there on Jupiter, Saturns rings and some of the Cassini division on Saturn and many many craters, mountains and rays on the Moon. Lots of CA color though.

Edited by Auburn80, 31 October 2018 - 09:46 AM.


#99 csrlice12

csrlice12

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 28,998
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 31 October 2018 - 09:58 AM

Sorry to hear that.  I can say the 102mm  f9.8 version of the scope on a CG4 mount is an absolute pleasure to use.  It takes a couple of minutes to setup/polar align, but the CA is almost nonexistent. 



#100 Auburn80

Auburn80

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,159
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2013

Posted 31 October 2018 - 11:05 AM

Sorry to hear that.  I can say the 102mm  f9.8 version of the scope on a CG4 mount is an absolute pleasure to use.  It takes a couple of minutes to setup/polar align, but the CA is almost nonexistent. 

Probably very true.  However, your package is 2x - 2.5x the price of the version in discussion.  And, its deep sky capability will be the same.




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics