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

Ed Ting's Orion 120 Review

  • Please log in to reply
232 replies to this topic

#76 Mitrovarr

Mitrovarr

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,217
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2004
  • Loc: Boise, Idaho

Posted 31 August 2020 - 01:05 PM

One note for anyone attempting AP with one of these - you probably want a UV/IR filter. Those wavelengths are even further off focus than blue/red and will bloat your stars a great deal.

Edited by Mitrovarr, 31 August 2020 - 01:05 PM.

  • tog, turtle86 and aeajr like this

#77 FirstSight

FirstSight

    Duke of Deneb

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 15,503
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Raleigh, NC

Posted 02 September 2020 - 01:51 PM

Moderator note:

 

The gradations of differences between product demonstrations and reviews of various technical depths has been well-explored above in this thread.

 

Let's return to keeping focus on useful practical information about this $250 scope for potential buyers to consider, and keep in mind that the extent of technical depth a potential purchaser of a $250 refractor will need will likely be different than the type of purchaser considering a $2500 and up refractor.

 

Thread is now re-opened for further constructive comments.

 

Chris M

Moderators


  • Daniel Mounsey, tog, Jim7728 and 6 others like this

#78 RLK1

RLK1

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 579
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2020

Posted 02 September 2020 - 03:04 PM

It appears a bit of shopping around the internet may payoff if a purchase of this item is contemplated. I found one vendor in New York offering it for $225.00. I checked a few of the Skywatcher sites for the same scope and it appears they're either more costly or out of stock but somebody else may have better luck searching for those, if interested. 

I've viewed through a couple of these at a busy dark sky site in the past with some delightful views of the double cluster in Perseus. Although I'm not into imaging, a few of the reviews relevant to this scope do mention good results with it, as evidenced in Ed Ting's review...


  • aeajr and 7Soeurs like this

#79 Daniel Mounsey

Daniel Mounsey

    Vendor (Woodland Hills)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 7,900
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2002

Posted 03 September 2020 - 09:00 AM

I think Ed did a wonderful job sharing practical hands on advice for a very low cost entry level into refractors. Really nice to see Ed doing these videos. waytogo.gif


  • tony_spina, tog, 3 i Guy and 15 others like this

#80 RichA

RichA

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,331
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 03 September 2020 - 06:01 PM

Cool review:

https://www.youtube....h?v=Y8OedyDOYwo

Wish he would have added a filter or two and discussed them for visual and imaging...

I wouldn't take those images to the bank.  The Stowaway has almost zero colour.  The Shortube has horrific colour error.



#81 RajG

RajG

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 143
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2020
  • Loc: Noo Joisey, aka the Armpit of America

Posted 03 September 2020 - 07:18 PM

Chromatic aberration might matter if you are imaging with an OSC, depending upon how picky you are. If you use a monochrome camera + filters, esp narrow band, the false color won't be an issue, though you will need to re-focus. 

 

If used in very light-polluted skies, it would likely go well with a UHC filter, which allows light around the 486 (F, or H-beta) and 656 (C, or H-alpha) lines, but filters out light in 520-610nm. Since achromats are typically designed to bring the F & C lines to a common focus but not the d or e lines, the UHC filter should get rid of the false color. But UHC filters are not good for broadband targets such as galaxies.



#82 N-1

N-1

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2019

Posted 03 September 2020 - 08:02 PM

I wouldn't take those images to the bank.  The Stowaway has almost zero colour.  The Shortube has horrific colour error.

The price of the Stowaway is equally horrific. I'd use neither scope for imaging.



#83 Mitrovarr

Mitrovarr

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,217
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2004
  • Loc: Boise, Idaho

Posted 03 September 2020 - 08:43 PM

I wouldn't take those images to the bank. The Stowaway has almost zero colour. The Shortube has horrific colour error.


Shockingly, the $3000+ telescope performs better than the ~$240 telescope.
  • turtle86, SandyHouTex and RLK1 like this

#84 LDW47

LDW47

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,171
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 03 September 2020 - 08:51 PM

Chromatic aberration might matter if you are imaging with an OSC, depending upon how picky you are. If you use a monochrome camera + filters, esp narrow band, the false color won't be an issue, though you will need to re-focus. 

 

If used in very light-polluted skies, it would likely go well with a UHC filter, which allows light around the 486 (F, or H-beta) and 656 (C, or H-alpha) lines, but filters out light in 520-610nm. Since achromats are typically designed to bring the F & C lines to a common focus but not the d or e lines, the UHC filter should get rid of the false color. But UHC filters are not good for broadband targets such as galaxies.

The Baader / Celestron UHC might be better than some of the others ?



#85 LDW47

LDW47

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,171
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 03 September 2020 - 08:53 PM

Shockingly, the $3000+ telescope performs better than the ~$240 telescope.

Why is it shocking ?? To most I would think it isn’t probably even to Ed T !



#86 dan boyar

dan boyar

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2016

Posted 03 September 2020 - 10:47 PM

I enjoyed Ed's review and seeing his image comparison of M-27.  Informative, introductory and entertaining with a touch of subtle humor (love it Ed!)  Indeed a well made achromatic refractor can be satisfying performer when used to best advantage.  Yes they have CA but its visual impact is a function of magnification used, brightness of the object viewed, aperture and focal length.  Small apertures show it less. The more power one uses, the more the CA is seen.  Longer focal length achromats of the same aperture can handle higher powers than short focal length ones can before CA becomes obvious/intrusive.  Also it is important to keep the eye centered on-axis to minimize CA.  For this reason it's best to observe comfortably seated.

 

My 5" F/5 Jaegers shows virtually no CA on the first quarter moon at 50X.  Push it to 200X and the CA is quite intrusive.  My 5" F/10 D&G at 125X shows only a hint of CA on the quarter moon or Jupiter but at 200X it is seen but not intrusive.  Horsing the ST 120 to 250X will display much CA, especially on bright stars, Jupiter, the moon and Venus.  But that is not what the scope is best designed for (it's best for lower power, wide-field views.)  CA can be reduced a number of ways.  Use lower powers, stop the ST 120 it down to about 3.5" with an aperture mask/annulus, view the moon and planets just after sunset before it gets dark, or use color filters (green and yellow green work very well for a sharp image but you'll see the image in green or yellow green light). The brighter the object viewed the more CA is seen.  The larger the aperture, the more CA. The higher the power, the more CA.  As an approximate/general guide to keep CA at bay in good achromats (say in the 4-6" range): for short focal lengths (F5-F7), keep the powers below 15-20X per inch; for the same aperture in the F8-12 focal lengths, stay below 25-30X per inch; and for long focal lengths (F15) keep the power below 35-40X per inch.  Above 35-40X per inch magnification becomes empty because one is magnifying diffraction disks above the visual threshold, decreasing contrast on extended objects like the moon an planets.  Close double stars, however, can handle higher than 40X per inch if seeing allows.  Your individual mileage may vary.  Good observing...enjoy!  Dan B., FL


  • turtle86 and daquad like this

#87 3 i Guy

3 i Guy

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 527
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Central Texas

Posted 03 September 2020 - 11:06 PM

Shockingly, the $3000+ telescope performs better than the ~$240 telescope.

 

Why is it shocking ?? To most I would think it isn’t probably even to Ed T !

Sar´casm
n. 1. A keen, reproachful expression; a satirical remark uttered with some degree of scorn or contempt; a taunt; a gibe; a cutting jest.
 


  • tog, RogerRZ, turtle86 and 5 others like this

#88 LDW47

LDW47

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,171
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 04 September 2020 - 07:24 AM

Sar´casm
n. 1. A keen, reproachful expression; a satirical remark uttered with some degree of scorn or contempt; a taunt; a gibe; a cutting jest.
 

Don’t worry I knew exactly the meaning of that statement, you are being kind using just the word sarcasm maybe more like .......... ? I just wanted to see the posters next response but as usual ...... ! 



#89 Daniel Mounsey

Daniel Mounsey

    Vendor (Woodland Hills)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 7,900
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2002

Posted 04 September 2020 - 07:58 AM

I wouldn't take those images to the bank.  The Stowaway has almost zero colour.  The Shortube has horrific colour error.

It’s a $240 telescope. What do you expect? It would be good to encourage others to work with what they have rather than make them feel the only way they can image is with a fancy ED scope costing several times as much. I could share countless imaging stories with people using the best gear possible with far worse results than that achromat even years later. Ed Ting actually displayed a pretty dang good image considering what he was using. That’s a lot more than I can say for some of these gear-heads who got more than they know what to do with. If Edward Emerson Barnard could accomplish what he did using achromats, then there should be no reason why imagers today with all their fancy gadgets, polar alignment aids and technology shouldn’t be able to do the same.

 

The problems today are often the imagers themselves. They themselves are the ones that are not good enough for the gear they have. In my opinion, too many beginners get way too OCD over false color. Just work with post processing or better yet, just do B&W for a while and learn what’s actually involved with imaging. Personally, I can’t stand these imagers with all their flashy deep colors and overly saturated nebulas pumped up like steroids. Reminds me of woman with these long painted fingernails  and ten pounds of makeup. Many enthusiasts seriously need to take a step back and learn to appreciate what they have and most of all, learn some humility for a change.


Edited by Daniel Mounsey, 04 September 2020 - 06:22 PM.

  • tony_spina, tog, Jim7728 and 13 others like this

#90 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,156
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 04 September 2020 - 09:09 AM

It’s a $240 telescope. What do expect? It would be good to encourage others to work with what they have rather than make them feel the only way they can image is with a fancy ED scope costing several times as much. I could share countless imaging stories with people using the best gear possible with far worse results than that achromat even years later. Ed Ting actually displayed a pretty dang good image considering what he was using. That’s a lot more than I can say for some of these gear-heads who got more than they know what to do with. If Edward Emerson Barnard could accomplish what he did using achromats, then there should be no reason why imagers today with all their fancy gadgets, polar alignment aids and technology shouldn’t be able to do the same.

 

The problems today are often the imagers themselves. They themselves are the ones that are not good enough for the gear they have. In my opinion, too many beginners get way too OCD over false color. Just work with post processing or better yet, just do B&W for a while and learn what’s actually involved with imaging. Personally, I can’t stand these imagers with all their flashy deep colors and overly saturated nebulas pumped up like steroids. Reminds me of woman with these long painted fingernails  and ten pounds of makeup. Many enthusiasts seriously need to take a step back and learn to appreciate what they have and most of all, learn some humility for a change.

I have to say well said (!) Daniel.  I call it Astro-imaging-nervousa.

 

Some of the members of our club do just wonderful imaging with very "modest" equipment.  In fact, one member says his jury rigged system has made his skills even better.  This 120 achromat is also a favorite of many narrow band imagers, who have produced some compelling images IMO. 

 

There are some real refractor optical gems out there for less than the price of many "high end" eyepieces.  My Orion 80ED and Celestron 100ED immediately jump to mind, and mine are not lucky, one off, samples either.

 

I would still like to DPAC test a few samples of this 120mm achromat though, just out curiosity.  If anyone has one and would like that done, contact me via PM.

 

Jeff


Edited by Jeff B, 04 September 2020 - 09:11 AM.

  • LDW47, BFaucett and 7Soeurs like this

#91 gjanke

gjanke

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 446
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2016

Posted 04 September 2020 - 10:40 AM

For a good number of us here on CN Ed has been a staple of the hobby for over two decades on the internet. I also loved Todd the weatherman but he didn't have the longevity that Ed has had.

 

In Ed's video, I thought he did a great job describing the difference of what a first time viewer might take away when viewing through a $250 and $3600 telescope, not much.

 

My greatest surprise from the video is two fold; one: that it has taken him this long to hit YouTube and two: that someone actually gave him a thumbs down,

 

I found it a fun review but think he is getting kinder and gentler as he ages. He has been really very critical of some of the cheaper scopes he has reviewed. The Celestron 6" refractor comes to mind.

 

One of best things he does with his reviews is to lay the ground work in a story telling fashion. One of my favorite reviews of his was his analysis of the Meade 7" refractor. I read that review like 4 or 5 times. When I was done reading it I felt like I had been on adventure.  

 

I am glad he has found new pastures...thanks for sharing RLK1


Edited by gjanke, 04 September 2020 - 11:31 AM.

  • RogerRZ, turtle86, daquad and 6 others like this

#92 LDW47

LDW47

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,171
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 04 September 2020 - 10:42 AM

It’s a $240 telescope. What do expect? It would be good to encourage others to work with what they have rather than make them feel the only way they can image is with a fancy ED scope costing several times as much. I could share countless imaging stories with people using the best gear possible with far worse results than that achromat even years later. Ed Ting actually displayed a pretty dang good image considering what he was using. That’s a lot more than I can say for some of these gear-heads who got more than they know what to do with. If Edward Emerson Barnard could accomplish what he did using achromats, then there should be no reason why imagers today with all their fancy gadgets, polar alignment aids and technology shouldn’t be able to do the same.

 

The problems today are often the imagers themselves. They themselves are the ones that are not good enough for the gear they have. In my opinion, too many beginners get way too OCD over false color. Just work with post processing or better yet, just do B&W for a while and learn what’s actually involved with imaging. Personally, I can’t stand these imagers with all their flashy deep colors and overly saturated nebulas pumped up like steroids. Reminds me of woman with these long painted fingernails  and ten pounds of makeup. Many enthusiasts seriously need to take a step back and learn to appreciate what they have and most of all, learn some humility for a change.

Very well put !  You just shake your head many times with their mentality in the context of the subject ? This happens a lot on these forums with any posted subject !



#93 Mitrovarr

Mitrovarr

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,217
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2004
  • Loc: Boise, Idaho

Posted 04 September 2020 - 11:01 AM

I had my ST120 put last night and used it on Jupiter/Saturn. I have to say, it's not as bad as you would think. Sure, there is tons of CA, but you see a lot of detail. The Cassini division was easy, and there was a lot of detail on Jupiter.

I do have an upgraded focuser, though, which helps a lot.
  • BFaucett likes this

#94 eyeoftexas

eyeoftexas

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 707
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2019

Posted 04 September 2020 - 11:03 AM

I had my ST120 put last night and used it on Jupiter/Saturn. I have to say, it's not as bad as you would think. Sure, there is tons of CA, but you see a lot of detail. The Cassini division was easy, and there was a lot of detail on Jupiter.

I do have an upgraded focuser, though, which helps a lot.

Did you try using any filter with it to cut down the CA?  



#95 Mitrovarr

Mitrovarr

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,217
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2004
  • Loc: Boise, Idaho

Posted 04 September 2020 - 11:58 AM

No. Do you have any suggestions? I have the standard deep sky filter assortment (broadband, narrowband, O-III) and some random colored planetary filters.

I know a minus-violet or something might help but it hardly makes sense for me to buy anything for this use case (I have much better planetary scopes available).

#96 tony_spina

tony_spina

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,081
  • Joined: 14 Jun 2004
  • Loc: So. Cal.

Posted 04 September 2020 - 12:00 PM

I use my ST120 at high magnification and get great details on the moon and Jupiter without the scope bursting into flames.

 

Despite what some folks on CN will lead you to believe that this scope is useless above 40x.. 

 

Enjoy the scope do what you want to do because ultimately it's what pleases YOU


  • turtle86, BFaucett, CQDDEMGY and 1 other like this

#97 RLK1

RLK1

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 579
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2020

Posted 04 September 2020 - 01:07 PM

Anybody know anything about this website, do you think it's a legit deal?

https://www.lpostini...ducts_id=518328



#98 Mitrovarr

Mitrovarr

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,217
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2004
  • Loc: Boise, Idaho

Posted 04 September 2020 - 01:56 PM

Anybody know anything about this website, do you think it's a legit deal?
https://www.lpostini...ducts_id=518328


Those "way too good to be true" deals almost never pan out.
  • Jeff B likes this

#99 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,156
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 04 September 2020 - 02:35 PM

I had my ST120 put last night and used it on Jupiter/Saturn. I have to say, it's not as bad as you would think. Sure, there is tons of CA, but you see a lot of detail. The Cassini division was easy, and there was a lot of detail on Jupiter.

I do have an upgraded focuser, though, which helps a lot.

Good testimonial.  

 

Convention internet wisdom (as opposed to real wisdom based on experience), would have you believe that such a lens would be completely useless for planetary observations.   So why is it that people report seeing excellent detailing and levels of features on the gas giants and the moon with such instruments?  My 11" F12 and 8" F9 achromats are in the same bloated blue boat, yet even experienced observers are shocked at the high level of detailing they see.  Also, the Harvard 9" F12 Clark was used to visually see the spokes in Saturn's rings, either in the late 70's or early 80's.  

 

So much for conventional wisdom.

 

Jeff


  • BFaucett likes this

#100 Magnus Ahrling

Magnus Ahrling

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: Visby, Gotland, Sweden 57:30N.

Posted 04 September 2020 - 03:21 PM

I had the ST120 for 4 years. Had a lot of fun with it on a Vixen Porta sweeping the sky with low power. Too bad I sold it 6 years ago. Miss it though I have a 120 f/7.5 ED now.

 

Clear Skies,

Magnus




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