136 replies to this topic

[Doug Culbertson]

It comes with a manual?

Yeah, I don’t know why, but I found it in the case today.

[CHASLX200]

Yeah, I don’t know why, but I found it in the case today.

So did mine.  I guess it came with a CG4 when it was new.

[Echolight]

I must have one tucked away in a drawer somewhere then. Probably next to a 45 degree diagonal.

[CHASLX200]

I must have one tucked away in a drawer somewhere then. Probably next to a 45 degree diagonal.

I got two of them diagonals that are junk. They make you think the scope has bad optics.

[gnowellsct]

The main limitation on the small Maks and scts and Newts is they really can't do anything with a long focal length wide field 2-in eyepiece. I use such eyepieces 100% of the nights I go out I wouldn't really have any use for telescope that couldn't do that.

Refractors can do that, in fact you might say it is their specialty. So for 5-in apertures and smaller I am a convert to refractors.

Greg N

Edited by gnowellsct, 12 October 2023 - 09:34 PM.

[Endymion]

I bought my daughter a C5 a number of years ago when she was into astronomy.  Freakishly sharp optics.  She's since moved on to other things and the C5 is now my grab and go with a AM5 mount.

[Echolight]

The main limitation on the small Maks and scts and Newts is they really can't do anything with a long focal length wide field 2-in eyepiece. I use such eyepieces 100% of the nights I go out I wouldn't really have any use for telescope that couldn't do that.

Refractors can do that, in fact you might say it is their specialty. So for 5-in apertures and smaller I am a convert to refractors.

Greg N

 

 

This is about travel/grab and go. And for that, for a lot of people, a C5 is just the right size.

 

In scopes that are equally grab and go as a C5,....

Wait...

that's not really fair...

Because not much is.. certainly not a 90mm triplet ..

 

Hmmm... how can I rephrase this.

 

Anyhow, not any scopes that are comfortable on a Bogen 3046 and a ball head can show as much detail on anything as my C5.

 

And just because you think it can't,

doesn't mean it cant 

 

But how,.... how can I get this across,.. to where it might be understood 

 

https://youtu.be/YY9...059J5856SYAQJwZ

Imagine that the big eyepiece was your girl, and the C5 was your best friend Bobby!

 

 

2.3 degrees is enough for most stuff.

 

A little refractor isn't all that for richfield anyway.

Edited by Echolight, 14 October 2023 - 01:59 PM.

[CHASLX200]

 

 

This is about travel/grab and go. And for that, for a lot of people, a C5 is just the right size.

 

In scopes that are equally grab and go as a C5,....

Wait...

that's not really fair...

Because not much is.. certainly not a 90mm triplet ..

 

Hmmm... how can I rephrase this.

 

Anyhow, not any scopes that are comfortable on a Bogen 3046 and a ball head can show as much detail on anything as my C5.

 

And just because you think it can't,

doesn't mean it cant 

 

But how,.... how can I get this across,.. to where it might be understood 

 

https://youtu.be/YY9...059J5856SYAQJwZ

Imagine that the big eyepiece was your girl, and the C5 was your best friend Bobby!

 

IMG_20230819_144640775~5.jpg

 

2.3 degrees is enough for most stuff.

 

A little refractor isn't all that for richfield anyway.

 Just tried my 2" diangonal on my C5 but you can't rotate it since it hits the focuser knob.

[Echolight]

 Just tried my 2" diangonal on my C5 but you can't rotate it since it hits the focuser knob.

Those darn equatorial mounts sure can be inconvenient! 

[CHASLX200]

Those darn equatorial mounts sure can be inconvenient! 

It's the knob bob. I can still use it and wanna see what a Meade 2" 40mm SWA smooth side looks like in it. I see your knob is gone.

Edited by CHASLX200, 14 October 2023 - 02:37 PM.

[Echolight]

It's the knob bob. I can still use it and wanna see what a Meade 2" 40mm SWA smooth side looks like in it. I see your knob is gone.

Yeah. That rubber thing is removeable. It's just a slip fit.

Just get a grip on it and it should slide off. 

I can't remember. I might have helped it along with a screwdriver. Like a pry bar. At the bottom.

I've removed the one from a C5, C6, and C8 at one time or another.

[RLB]

Can't believe Ed indiscriminately said not to use a photo tripod and then immediately suggests a Porta II that puts the focuser on top and the finder on the bottom!

 

The OTA in the StarSense Explorer DX5 is "mirrored" so it should be compatible with a Porta II or Twilight mount. I found out the hard way when I wanted to sell that OTA and use my NexStar Evolution OTA instead (mine are 6" but it's the same issue). Doesn't work!

I'm not sure why only the C8 and up are symmetrical.

Edited by RLB, 15 October 2023 - 08:11 AM.

[RLB]

Most C5's are left hand mount.  In order to keep the focuser on the bottom and the finder on top.

 

The only currently available left side one arm alt/az manual mount that I know of is the ES Twilight I.

Although there are several other small alt/az heads that allow mounting on either side.

StarSense Explorer DX5 is the exception

[Echolight]

The OTA in the StarSense Explorer DX5 is "mirrored" so it should be compatible with a Porta II or Twilight mount. I found out the hard way when I wanted to sell that OTA and use my NexStar Evolution OTA instead (mine are 6" but it's the same issue). Doesn't work!

I'm not sure why only the C8 and up are symmetrical.

Yes. The DX is right hand mount.

But Ed had an SE version.

 

The Twilight I is of course ambidextrous. Allowing mounting on either side.

The Porta II is not.

Edited by Echolight, 15 October 2023 - 08:27 AM.

[Sarkikos]

I prefer to attach scopes at the left of the mount because I am right-hand and right-eye dominant.   This positions the scope at my right side.  To me, it doesn't make sense to have the scope on my left side, because, like I just said, I am right-hand and right-eye dominant. 

 

Unfortunately, most scopes seem to have been designed to be attached at the right of the mount, even though most people are right-eye and right-hand dominant.  Yeah, makes sense, doesn't it?  

 

I set up my C5 so that I can attach a RACI finder to the top side of the OTA when the OTA is attached at the left side of the mount. 

 

The finder shoe at the lower left of the OTA is for a laser finder.   I don't need to actually look through the laser finder, so it can be positioned wherever convenient.  

 

I don't mind that the focuser knob is above the visual back.  That's not ideal, but at least I can have the C5 at my right side.   (See the toy truck tire on the focuser knob.)

 

I've also attached a 1.25" click-lock visual back.  I don't need no stinking 2" eyepieces on my little C5!    Though, I have experimented with 2" eyepieces, with and without a 0.63x R/C.  I just finally decided to let the C5 be a C5.

 

Another possibility is to direct connect a 1.25" diagonal to the back of the C5.   A Baader 1.25" BBHS with an adjustable ring would be nice.  I'm sure I've tried this in the past.  But I think the focuser knob gets in the way.  You might have to remove the rubber cover from the knob.  And definitely the toy truck tire.   A bother.

 

And look!  Bob's Knobs!  Oh, the horror! 

 

So far, I've logged 288 DSO with my C5.  Only 17 double stars, though.  

 

Mike

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 

Edited by Sarkikos, 15 October 2023 - 07:26 PM.

[Sarkikos]

The main limitation on the small Maks and scts and Newts is they really can't do anything with a long focal length wide field 2-in eyepiece. I use such eyepieces 100% of the nights I go out I wouldn't really have any use for telescope that couldn't do that.

Refractors can do that, in fact you might say it is their specialty. So for 5-in apertures and smaller I am a convert to refractors.

Greg N

Hmm ...    There are plenty of very nice 1.25" eyepieces with plenty of uses for them.  Planets.  Double stars.  The Moon.  Even most DSO don't need super-wide 2" eyepieces.   M45, the Coat Hanger, Sagittarius Star Cloud, a few other big objects, and then the whole of universe of everything else.

 

But, yeah, for the low-power, super-wide stuff, nothing beats a fast refractor.   I'd even go up to a 6" f/5 achromat for that.  

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 15 October 2023 - 10:22 AM.

[Bill Barlow]

Yes. The DX is right hand mount.

But Ed had an SE version.

 

The Twilight I is of course ambidextrous. Allowing mounting on either side.

The Porta II is not.

Does ES make the Twilight mount?

[Echolight]

Does ES make the Twilight mount?

The Twilight I is an ES product. Although I believe it was marketed by others at one time. I don't know who actually makes it.

[MarkMittlesteadt]

The Twilight I is an ES product. Although I believe it was marketed by others at one time. I don't know who actually makes it.

Having had one and modded it heavily, I'm more interested in who engineered it. Probably accountants. 

[Echolight]

Having had one and modded it heavily, I'm more interested in who engineered it. Probably accountants. 

I wonder how much they saved by leaving out that chunk of metal in the middle...

[MarkMittlesteadt]

I wonder how much they saved by leaving out that chunk of metal in the middle...

...and leaving the remainder made out of spaghetti noodles. Pasta has to be cheaper than aluminum. 

[Rayje1997]

I prefer to attach scopes at the left of the mount because I am right-hand and right-eye dominant.   This positions the scope at my right side.  To me, it doesn't make sense to have the scope on my left side, because, like I just said, I am right-hand and right-eye dominant. 

 

Unfortunately, most scopes seem to have been designed to be attached at the right of the mount, even though most people are right-eye and right-hand dominant.  Yeah, makes sense, doesn't it?  

 

I set up my C5 so that I can attach a RACI finder to the top side of the OTA when the OTA is attached at the left side of the mount. 

 

The finder shoe at the lower left of the OTA is for a laser finder.   I don't need to actually look through the laser finder, so it can be positioned wherever convenient.  

 

I don't mind that the focuser knob is above the visual back.  That's not ideal, but at least I can have the C5 at my right side.   (See the toy truck tire on the focuser knob.)

 

So far, I've logged 288 DSO with my C5.  Only 17 double stars, though.  

 

Nice to hear that you can get so many DSOs in such a small scope! 

 

As far as mount-sidedness, I have been thinking about getting a used OTA and then maybe using that on an ES Firstlight EQ mount. To that end, given the orientation issues, do you think it would be worth removing the vixen bar and finding a set of tube rings that would work well with it? That way I could use it in a similar way to how I use my refractors. I think one of those little EQ mounts would be a much better fit for a C5 than it would before my 90mm f10 achromat because the moment arm would be so much smaller with a C5.

[Sarkikos]

Having had one and modded it heavily, I'm more interested in who engineered it. Probably accountants. 

Yep.  That sounds like a lot of mounts out there, as well as other astronomical equipment.  Are any of them designed and tested by anyone who actually does any astronomical observing?   

 

Some companies have figured out how to make decent astronomical eyepieces, I will give them that much. 

 

Mike

[Sarkikos]

Nice to hear that you can get so many DSOs in such a small scope! 

 

As far as mount-sidedness, I have been thinking about getting a used OTA and then maybe using that on an ES Firstlight EQ mount. To that end, given the orientation issues, do you think it would be worth removing the vixen bar and finding a set of tube rings that would work well with it? That way I could use it in a similar way to how I use my refractors. I think one of those little EQ mounts would be a much better fit for a C5 than it would before my 90mm f10 achromat because the moment arm would be so much smaller with a C5.

Don't get me started on EQ (GEM) mounts!     I admit I don't like them, for all the usual reasons that visual astronomers who don't like them don't like them:  they put the observer in uncomfortable positions, the movements are unnatural for human beings, they're heavier than comparable alt-az mounts, they require polar alignment.   My first telescope came with a GEM, and I've had several telescopes since then that came with GEMs.  But over the years, I've gotten rid of all of the GEMs.  I like alt-az mounts. 

 

That said, I'm not really 100% satisfied with any mount I've ever owned, including the ones I own now.  There is always something - or several things - that doesn't quite work ideally.  They are all compromises in one way or another.

 

But the saving grace of a C5 is that it is light and compact, so it will work better on mounts that heavier and/or longer telescopes won't work so well on.  

 

One type of alt-az mount I'd stay away from for a C5 is one that has the telescope positioned directly on top of the mount, like a photo tripod, even one with a fluid head.  The C5 is just heavy enough that when it is pointed toward zenith, it will tend to fall backwards on these mounts.  I have a 501HD fluid-head.  The C5 is borderline - actually goes over the border - for that mount.

 

Get an alt-az mount that attaches the scope at the side.  

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 15 October 2023 - 06:30 PM.

[Bob Campbell]

Don't get me started on EQ (GEM) mounts!     I admit I don't like them, for all the usual reasons that visual astronomers who don't like them don't like them:  they put the observer in uncomfortable positions, the movements are unnatural for human beings, they're heavier than comparable alt-az mounts, they require polar alignment.   My first telescope came with a GEM, and I've had several telescopes since then that came with GEMs.  But over the years, I've gotten rid of all of the GEMs.  I like alt-az mounts. 

 

That said, I'm not really 100% satisfied with any mount I've ever owned, including the ones I own now.  There is always something - or several things - that doesn't quite work ideally.  They are all compromises in one way or another.

 

But the saving grace of a C5 is that it is light and compact, so it will work better on mounts that heavier and/or longer telescopes won't work so well on.  

 

One type of alt-az mount I'd stay away from for a C5 is one that has the telescope positioned directly on top of the mount, like a photo tripod, even one with a fluid head.  The C5 is just heavy enough that when it is pointed toward zenith, it will tend to fall backwards on these mounts.  I have a 501HD fluid-head.  The C5 is borderline - actually goes over the border - for that mount.

 

Get an alt-az mount that attaches the scope at the side.  

 

Mike

Agreed. There is no need for a GEM unless you are doing EAA or AP. Even EAA can get away with an alt-az mount and field rotation in most cases.

 

Bob