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 C5 tube weight difference

  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 tompa

tompa

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Sweden

Posted 25 September 2021 - 01:28 AM

At first I was interested in the new Celestron StrarSense Explorer DX 6" SCT. Actuallly, I still am. But I´ve read somewhere the mount is not sturdy enough for the 6" tube. Can anyone confirm this?

 

Second choice is the 5" version, and I´ve read many good reviews on this forum for the C5 scope. However, when I compare the tubes for the StarSense and the spotting scope version, there´s quite a difference in tube weight. The StarSense is 2,26 kg and the spotter is 2,72 kg. Thats almost half a kilo in difference. Quite a lot for such a small tube. Why is that?

 

The price for a complete StarSense is the same as for the C5 spotter only. Can´t help wondering about that.

 

Would very much appreciate if anyone with the 6" or 5" StarSense could tell me about your experince with the scope. Good or bad?

 

 

 

 



#2 adosaj

adosaj

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 178
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017

Posted 25 September 2021 - 03:34 AM

I think the difference is that the C5 spotting scope comes with a much heftier finder scope. The StarSense version has a simple red dot finder.  Though, I don’t know if they include the weight of the finder in the OTA weight. 
 


  • Echolight likes this

#3 Echolight

Echolight

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,036
  • Joined: 01 May 2020
  • Loc: Texas

Posted 25 September 2021 - 07:31 AM

I agree that the difference is probably the accessories. And not the bare tube itself.

 

I’m also torn between the C5 and C6. Many claim that optically, the C6 is a far more capable scope for astronomy. But then the C5 will have a wider field of view for ease of use on a manual mount.

And the lighter C5 will be more stable on a lighter mount. Which is big reason for me even considering either one. I have a C8 already. But the C8 is twice the volume in size over the C6. And I haven’t done the math, but from the looks of it the C6 has a nearly similar volume disadvantage over the C5... disadvantage that is, if small is the main goal.

 

I just wonder if the C6 is small enough for what I want in portability. And if the C5 is big enough for what I want visually. I guess if I’m keeping the C8, maybe it makes more sense to get the C5. But if I’m truly wanting to get smaller, downsize as a whole, then the C6 would make a good argument against having both the C5 and C8.

 

In the end, I’d be reluctant to think I’d be happy with the C6 on the Starsense Explorer DX mount. Although the Starsense itself might be worth having even if I were to put the scope on a slightly heavier platform... if the Starsense is something that could be separated from the DX mount.

 

As one astute observer likes to say, or most actually, “the mount is as important as the scope”.

 

Everything is a compromise.


Edited by Echolight, 25 September 2021 - 07:32 AM.

  • sevenofnine likes this

#4 whizbang

whizbang

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,225
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2018
  • Loc: NE of Seattle, WA

Posted 25 September 2021 - 08:50 AM

I've owned a C5, C6, and 127mm Mak, although not at the same time.  They are all good tubes.  I kept the C6.  Yes, images are just a tad brighter.  I won't venture a guess as to why there is a specified weight difference.  I have owned enough scopes to conclude that a lot of manufacturers weight specs are not reliably accurate.

 

Regarding the Starsense Explorer DX:  I buy most of my gear from three reputable, online retailers.  I searched their web pages as well as the web page for a large general merchandise retailer.  None of them even listed the scope.  Very odd.

 

One can tell by Celestron's photos that the Starsense Explorer is a small, light weight, inexpensive mount.  Concerns about a C6 overloading the mount are valid.  So, yes, the C5 version will be much more stable.

 

However, it looked to me like the C6 version had a standard Vixen rail on the tube.  So, the OTA can be removed and used on any standard mount.

 

The C6 will put up better views, but potentially over load or stress the mount.  If the price of the OTA and the Starsense explorer are about the same, why not go for it.  I believe the tubes are identical.

 

If the mount works great, congratulations!  And if the mount is buggy or shaky, well, you can upgrade the mount.  The C6 will fit most anything, an EVO, SE, Porta, Twilight 1, and lost of EQ mounts.  My C6 goes back and forth between an Evolution and a Twilight 1.



#5 Bill Barlow

Bill Barlow

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,167
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Overland Park KS

Posted 25 September 2021 - 11:42 AM

I own a very nice C5 and had a C6 at the same time and did three side-by-side observing sessions with them over the past three months or so.  The C6 is a tad brighter on all objects but stresses my lightweight mount and tripod more than the C5 with much longer vibration dampening times.  The optics in the C5 were noticeably shaper than the C6, so I let the C6 go.  I also have an 8” Meade so the C6 was kind of sandwiched in between the other two.  If you have a lightweight mount and tripod, the C5 is a better option.  Really a nice grab and go with sharp optics.  I use mine a lot as it punches above the Tak 76 I have.  Good luck with your choice.

 

Bill


  • Echolight likes this

#6 TONGKW

TONGKW

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,348
  • Joined: 16 Jan 2007

Posted 25 September 2021 - 09:29 PM

------------------ 

I have the three OTAs, namely C5 , C6 and C8 and their bare weight are respectively 2.54 kg, 3.63 kg and 5.67 kg.
The views of all three are quite sharp as appears to me.
Herewith is a photo of them for size comparison.

------------------  

C5_C6_C8.jpg

------------------ 


  • jjack's, vtornado, sevenofnine and 2 others like this

#7 sevenofnine

sevenofnine

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,591
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2016
  • Loc: Santa Rosa, California

Posted 25 September 2021 - 09:51 PM

A picture is worth a thousand words isn't it? wink.gif  The C-5 is a true grab-n-go, the C-6 on a solid mount...not so much. The C-8 is a classic that needs a h/d mount. Your move...waytogo.gif


  • Echolight likes this

#8 Echolight

Echolight

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,036
  • Joined: 01 May 2020
  • Loc: Texas

Posted 25 September 2021 - 10:05 PM

I own a very nice C5 and had a C6 at the same time and did three side-by-side observing sessions with them over the past three months or so.  The C6 is a tad brighter on all objects but stresses my lightweight mount and tripod more than the C5 with much longer vibration dampening times.  The optics in the C5 were noticeably shaper than the C6, so I let the C6 go.  I also have an 8” Meade so the C6 was kind of sandwiched in between the other two.  If you have a lightweight mount and tripod, the C5 is a better option.  Really a nice grab and go with sharp optics.  I use mine a lot as it punches above the Tak 76 I have.  Good luck with your choice.

 

Bill

This is kind of my thinking. I would get the C5 as a visual upgrade over an 80mm ED or 90mm Mak, while still being short and light enough for a small mount. And more of a one hand carry than the 80mm ED refractor. 



#9 Echolight

Echolight

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,036
  • Joined: 01 May 2020
  • Loc: Texas

Posted 25 September 2021 - 10:09 PM

------------------ 

I have the three OTAs, namely C5 , C6 and C8 and their bare weight are respectively 2.54 kg, 3.63 kg and 5.67 kg.
The views of all three are quite sharp as appears to me.
Herewith is a photo of them for size comparison.

------------------  

attachicon.gifC5_C6_C8.jpg

------------------ 

A case could be made for having all three I guess.


  • Old Man likes this

#10 Anony

Anony

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 502
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2018
  • Loc: Long Island, NY

Posted 26 September 2021 - 12:22 AM

I'm considering the DX5 (waiting for guinea pigs here to test it out first)... and although the DX6 probably would provide somewhat brighter views, I expect it wouldn't play so nice with the mount. Now if the OP is willing to buy a new mount/tripod and try to get the starsense holder thingy working with the new mount, that could work. But if one is willing to go that route, one probably would be better off just buying a $170 starsense refractor, ripping off the holder, and moving it to a dob or whatever.




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