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

#101 aeajr

aeajr

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15,746
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2015
  • Loc: Long Island, New York, USA

Posted 31 October 2018 - 12:21 PM

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.

The   disappointment post was not the OP. This thread is from 2016.     The disappointment post was by another person who  resurrected the thread this week. 

 

The OP posted, in August 2016, that he was very pleased with the scope and expected to enjoy it for a long time.  



#102 treadmarks

treadmarks

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,264
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Boston MA

Posted 31 October 2018 - 01:38 PM

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.

The F/10 package is also much heavier. It's nearly 3 times heavier than the AZ version. Really hurts the grab-and-go potential for me.

 

 

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.

Well everyone has their own sensitivity to this. I used this scope on the Moon and Rigel (8th brightest star) a couple nights ago and the CA was barely there. I feel you have to go past 120X before the CA begins to intrude on the view. I think the issue is really overblown but if you're a perfectionist or this is your primary planetary scope (not advisable) it could be a big problem.


  • BFaucett and aeajr like this

#103 aeajr

aeajr

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15,746
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2015
  • Loc: Long Island, New York, USA

Posted 31 October 2018 - 02:46 PM

I get CA in my F5 refractors.   Never been a problem.  I know it is there and I ignore it.  What I look at in the sky is, for the most part, black and white.  If I see a little color fringing, I know it is the scope not the target.


  • JHollJr and BFaucett like this

#104 CChristakis

CChristakis

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 96
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2016
  • Loc: Maryland

Posted 31 October 2018 - 04:09 PM

I am also one of those people that enjoy my Omni 102AZ.  Its not perfect but I don't expect perfect and especially for something I paid $180 for. 

 

I have had it for two years and slowly upgraded its weaknesses and turned it into a nice little scope.   Hoping to upgrade the mount in the near future with Sky Watchers Go To AZ GTI.  

 

Here is a photo of the moon I took a month ago with my iphone held up to the eyepiece.  The CA is definitely present but tolerable for me.  I mostly use mine for grab n go and as a wide field scope.
 

Moon Pic 2

  • JHollJr, BFaucett, aeajr and 1 other like this

#105 JHollJr

JHollJr

    Vanguard

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

Posted 31 October 2018 - 04:20 PM

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.,

I’m glad you wrote this, because it was exactly my reaction. I have two 4” refractors and use them both. The last week I’ve spent my observing time with my 10x50 binoculars. That again is a very rewarding experience. I have an C8i and use it maybe 3 or 4 times a year. All the rest of my viewing is with 4” or 3.5. I’m amazed what these instruments can show.


  • barbie, BFaucett and aeajr like this

#106 Auburn80

Auburn80

    Apollo

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

Posted 01 November 2018 - 09:26 PM

The disappointment post was not the OP. This thread is from 2016. The disappointment post was by another person who resurrected the thread this week.

The OP posted, in August 2016, that he was very pleased with the scope and expected to enjoy it for a long time.


Lol, my bad! Thanks for straightening me out on that.
  • aeajr likes this

#107 Auburn80

Auburn80

    Apollo

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

Posted 01 November 2018 - 09:35 PM

Well, the CA is there. It is up to the individual to decide how much is tolerable. My 102AZ is a light, fun little scope for the $ but it IS an inexpensive, fast achromat and performs like one.


Edited by Auburn80, 01 November 2018 - 09:56 PM.

  • JHollJr, BFaucett and aeajr like this

#108 neccoboy

neccoboy

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 22 May 2016

Posted 11 December 2018 - 02:48 PM

I just bought the Omni XLT 102. I was debating over gettting an Orion ST120 or this one. I decided to give this one a go, I should see less CA?



#109 barbie

barbie

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,960
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2013
  • Loc: Northeast Ohio

Posted 11 December 2018 - 02:56 PM

You should see less CA in the 102 which will be better for lunar/planetary work.



#110 neccoboy

neccoboy

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 22 May 2016

Posted 11 December 2018 - 03:12 PM

Would the Orion ST120 be better otherwise?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

#111 Auburn80

Auburn80

    Apollo

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

Posted 12 December 2018 - 10:44 AM

Would the Orion ST120 be better otherwise?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

The 120 has about 44% greater light gathering power and will go "deeper" than a 102. However, being an even faster achro, one should normally limit the magnification and just enjoy the lower power views of DS objects.

I'm sure there are others who have made direct-ish comparisons and can elaborate on the differences.

Edited by Auburn80, 12 December 2018 - 10:44 AM.

  • Sarkikos likes this

#112 tony_spina

tony_spina

    Gemini

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

Posted 12 December 2018 - 07:48 PM

You can always mask a ST120 to a 102mm to get better CA performance,  but you can't increase the aperture of the 102mm to 120mm grin.gif


  • Sarkikos likes this

#113 BigC

BigC

    Fly Me to the Moon

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

Posted 13 December 2018 - 10:16 AM

You can mask a 150f5 down to a 100f7.5 but probably isn't grab n go.

#114 neccoboy

neccoboy

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 22 May 2016

Posted 13 December 2018 - 10:23 AM

I just got the 102mm yesterday. Now I'm contemplating returning it for the ST120. I can never make up my mind



#115 BigC

BigC

    Fly Me to the Moon

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

Posted 13 December 2018 - 11:49 AM

I have all three and the 102 is easily the quick look grab n go ;the larger ones show more of any nebula when used at the same magnification .Larger glass means better heavier mount needed. 102 azel is fine.120 hmmm.150 needs CG4 or similar.
  • BFaucett likes this

#116 BigC

BigC

    Fly Me to the Moon

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

Posted 13 December 2018 - 11:54 AM

I feel 4" is the largest easily set up and carried. Even the 4.7" seems another step in effort. So it depends on time and muscles available.
  • JHollJr and BFaucett like this

#117 deriksss

deriksss

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2017
  • Loc: Cibolo, TX

Posted 20 March 2019 - 03:27 PM

Does anyone know what the weight of the ota is for the Celestron omni 102 az?

#118 deriksss

deriksss

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2017
  • Loc: Cibolo, TX

Posted 20 March 2019 - 03:32 PM

I want to put it on a slt go-to mount but it has a capacity of 8lbs. If anyone could find the Celestron omni 102 az ota weight it would be the first on the internet and I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks



#119 tony_spina

tony_spina

    Gemini

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

Posted 20 March 2019 - 04:19 PM

I want to put it on a slt go-to mount but it has a capacity of 8lbs. If anyone could find the Celestron omni 102 az ota weight it would be the first on the internet and I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks

4.2lb

 

See here

https://www.cloudyni...drop/?p=7472834


  • deriksss likes this

#120 deriksss

deriksss

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2017
  • Loc: Cibolo, TX

Posted 20 March 2019 - 07:03 PM

thank you very much!



#121 Furio

Furio

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 65
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Quebec, Canada

Posted 01 April 2020 - 01:16 PM

Hello all,

 

I own this scope (which I love) and I would like to improve it, so I have a couple of questions to those who did upgrade it.

 

  • Which GSO Crayford focuser did you buy? The standard one or the linear bearing one? Did it affect positively the weight and balance on the stock mount? I read most of the posts in the current topic, I know I would need to add a 2" extension tube as well as a finder shoe.
  • Did you guys managed to keep the stock mount? I must say that I really like the light weight and the fact that it can be grabbed one hand and ready to go in seconds. I really like the slow Mo controls and the way they are placed on the Mount. The only other mount I can compare (alt az) is the AZ3, which is maybe sturdier but the controls are nowhere as great to use.
  • So far I only added a 2" diagonal which caused balance issues, so I swapped the dovetail bar with a longer one (7" from FarPoint). My heaviest EP is the 4000 14mm UWA. It works fine but give some challenges to the mount.

Thanks !


Edited by Furio, 01 April 2020 - 01:18 PM.



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