Re: [ap-gto] Re: 900GTO and C-11


Jun 26, 2000

 


----------------------------

#684 Jun 26, 2000

Just joined the group while waiting for the call on the mount.

Thought

I'd check out the posts for info. I will be using my C-11, NGFs

focuser with digital readout and ST-8 CCD camera. Anyone using a

similar setup? Any sugestions as to counter weights and other

accessaries? Most images will be at f6.3.



Thanks for any info.



Regards,



Steve



----------------------------

#686 Jun 27, 2000

I've done a fair amount of work with a similar setup: using a C9.25" and AP

600 instead. Had a lot of success with the combination; let me know if you

have any question. I've also used the NGF-S on other scopes; check out the

page on my web site (www.wodaski.com).



Ron W



-----Original Message-----

From: Steve Reilly [mailto:sreilly@...]

Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 8:17 PM

To: ap-gto@egroups.com

Subject: [ap-gto] AP900GTO and C-11





Just joined the group while waiting for the call on the mount.

Thought

I'd check out the posts for info. I will be using my C-11, NGFs

focuser with digital readout and ST-8 CCD camera. Anyone using a

similar setup? Any sugestions as to counter weights and other

accessaries? Most images will be at f6.3.



Thanks for any info.



Regards,



Steve





---------------

P.S. - You have to check this link out, it's pretty funny.

click.egroups.com/1/5994/7/_/3615/_/962116680/

---------------



----------------------------

#695 Jun 27, 2000

Steve Reilly wrote:

> Just joined the group while waiting for the call on the mount.

> Thought

> I'd check out the posts for info. I will be using my C-11, NGFs

> focuser with digital readout and ST-8 CCD camera. Anyone using a

> similar setup? Any sugestions as to counter weights and other

> accessaries? Most images will be at f6.3.



I use that setup, w/o the NGFS but with the CFW8 filter wheel.



I use two 18 lb. counterweights, but the scope does not quite balance in

dec, so i have ordered a counterweight set from Losmandy. For the

dovetail plate.



Great mount on 42" portable pier.



Regards,

Bob K.



----------------------------

#3871 Oct 19, 2001

Having always had a "light bucket" in the back of my mind if an occasion

would come along, I go for a good offer on a C-11 OTA these days. Delivery

is expected next week. Test reports that are spread over www about this

scope are a bit confusing to me because of the many different mount

configurations it is offered. Ratings seem to depend on that and sometimes,

wrong collimation might be the reason for bad ratings, too. Mine will find

its place on a 900 GTO. You Astro-Physics folks out there are diligent

users. Would you share your opinions/experiences with this scope, optics as

well as mounting on your AP mounts? Can you tell your most critical

observation? The pre-owner of mine claims that the encke _division_ can

steadily be seen under good seeing conditions.



Happy to hear from you!

Clear Skies!

Wolfgang



----------------------------

#3872 Oct 19, 2001

I have a C11 mounted on a 900GTO. Got both about 5 months ago.

(previously had a 10" LX200) I use my equip almost exclusively for

CCD imaging.



My first comment is that if you intend to do imaging, the mount is

the *most* important factor. An excellent mount like the 900GTO will

make a world of difference.



I think most commericially made SCT's perform reasonably well

considering their design limitations (field curvature, mirror flop,

need for collimation, etc) Some C11's will perform better than

others (I'm pretty happy with mine), but you're not likely to get

something of real poor quality. Yes, a good refractor or RC will

outperform the SCT's but they're pricey. In general, I have been

very happy with the C11/900GTO combination and have gotten some

excellent images.



As you stated, good collimation is essential for an SCT to perform at

it's best, but it's not a big deal once you get the hang of it.



Hope this helped,



Randy Nulman

--- In ap-gto@y..., Valentin Wolfgang astro@v...> wrote:

> Having always had a "light bucket" in the back of my mind if an

occasion

> would come along, I go for a good offer on a C-11 OTA these days.

Delivery

> is expected next week. Test reports that are spread over www about

this

> scope are a bit confusing to me because of the many different mount

> configurations it is offered. Ratings seem to depend on that and

sometimes,

> wrong collimation might be the reason for bad ratings, too. Mine

will find

> its place on a 900 GTO. You Astro-Physics folks out there are

diligent

> users. Would you share your opinions/experiences with this scope,

optics as

> well as mounting on your AP mounts? Can you tell your most critical

> observation? The pre-owner of mine claims that the encke _division_

can

> steadily be seen under good seeing conditions.

>

> Happy to hear from you!

> Clear Skies!

> Wolfgang







----------------------------

#3873 Oct 19, 2001

Randy,

How would you compare the optical image quality of the C11 vs. the Meade 10" ?

Richard



At 09:46 PM 10/19/2001 +0000, you wrote: >I have a C11 mounted on a 900GTO. Got both about 5 months ago.

>(previously had a 10" LX200) I use my equip almost exclusively for

>CCD imaging.

>

>My first comment is that if you intend to do imaging, the mount is

>the *most* important factor. An excellent mount like the 900GTO will

>make a world of difference.

>

>I think most commericially made SCT's perform reasonably well

>considering their design limitations (field curvature, mirror flop,

>need for collimation, etc) Some C11's will perform better than

>others (I'm pretty happy with mine), but you're not likely to get

>something of real poor quality. Yes, a good refractor or RC will

>outperform the SCT's but they're pricey. In general, I have been

>very happy with the C11/900GTO combination and have gotten some

>excellent images.

>

>As you stated, good collimation is essential for an SCT to perform at

>it's best, but it's not a big deal once you get the hang of it.

>

>Hope this helped,

>

>Randy Nulman

>

>--- In ap-gto@y..., Valentin Wolfgang astro@v...> wrote:

> > Having always had a "light bucket" in the back of my mind if an

>occasion

> > would come along, I go for a good offer on a C-11 OTA these days.

>Delivery

> > is expected next week. Test reports that are spread over www about

>this

> > scope are a bit confusing to me because of the many different mount

> > configurations it is offered. Ratings seem to depend on that and

>sometimes,

> > wrong collimation might be the reason for bad ratings, too. Mine

>will find

> > its place on a 900 GTO. You Astro-Physics folks out there are

>diligent

> > users. Would you share your opinions/experiences with this scope,

>optics as

> > well as mounting on your AP mounts? Can you tell your most critical

> > observation? The pre-owner of mine claims that the encke _division_

>can

> > steadily be seen under good seeing conditions.

> >

> > Happy to hear from you!

> > Clear Skies!

> > Wolfgang

>

>

>

>To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list

>see groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto

>

>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



----------------------------

#3874 Oct 20, 2001

The C11 I currently have is slightly better than the Meade I

previously owned (but the Meade was very good as well)..I have much

less mirror flop in the C11 (maybe I just got lucky!)



Again, I stress (for imaging purposes), a very good mount is

essential. A so/so scope on a good mount will produce better results

than a very good scope on a poor mount.



HTH,

Randy

--- In ap-gto@y..., Richard Seavey seavey@m...> wrote:

>

> Randy,

> How would you compare the optical image quality of the C11 vs. the

Meade 10" ?

> Richard



----------------------------

#3875 Oct 20, 2001

Thanks for the information Randy. You are absolutely right about the

importance of a good mount... that's why I have a 1200GTO g>



I am not happy with the optical quality of the my 10" Meade SCT. It is

about 10 years old, so maybe newer ones are better? I'm trying to find

something better than my current SCT, but can't afford a RC at this time. I

was thinking of getting a C11 or Meade OTA, but have no way of determining

the optical quality of such a purchase in advance. Can anyone think of any

other options?



Richard



At 04:16 PM 10/20/2001 +0000, you wrote: >The C11 I currently have is slightly better than the Meade I

>previously owned (but the Meade was very good as well)..I have much

>less mirror flop in the C11 (maybe I just got lucky!)

>

>Again, I stress (for imaging purposes), a very good mount is

>essential. A so/so scope on a good mount will produce better results

>than a very good scope on a poor mount.

>

>HTH,

>Randy

>

>--- In ap-gto@y..., Richard Seavey seavey@m...> wrote:

> >

> > Randy,

> > How would you compare the optical image quality of the C11 vs. the

>Meade 10" ?

> > Richard

>

>

>

>

>To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list

>see groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto

>

>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



----------------------------

#3876 Oct 20, 2001

Hi Richard, I myself also have a 1200GTO, and am thinking seriously about gearing up to buy a C-14 OTA, to compliment my Apomax 5.2" F-12 Refractor.



I have already purchased the Feathertouch Focuser to compliment the C-14 OTA, and this should be a benefit eliminating any focuser shift that may be encountered, and provide precision focusing as well.



On doing some recent research about the new C-14 OTA's, I have found out that the new tubes are done in a grey finish (I hate this color), and also have 2 handles on the rear Cell.



I have no idea why they changed the color of the OTA, as I'm pretty sure all the other Celestron OTA's Tubes have stayed Black in color. In Nov. Astronomy, one is pictured with what appears to be just one Handle, and the Pic also gives the impression that it is still Black.



With many more folks currently going to full-blown GOTO mounts, who needs Handles? I'm sure they're of no use for mounting the OTA, as they would most likely come loose, or bend under the weight.



Sure wish they would go back to a White OTA. I think all the Celestron OTA's would look more attractive in this color. (I guess an auto shop could always repaint it any color you desire) Sorry folks for wandering off topic a bit with my post. Mark







----------------------------

#3878 Oct 20, 2001

Hi, Richard,



You might want to look into the Takahashi Mewlon 250. This 10 inch

f/12 Dall-Kirkham Cassegrain has a number of good points:



1) Focusing by electrically moving the secondary - no focus shift.

2) Electric focusing is fun - well controlled for fine adjustment.

3) Movable focal plane range is large as in SCT for binoviewing, etc.

4) Primary does not move - solidly mounted - no mirror flop.

5) No corrector so open tube with vents for quick flow-thru cooling.

6) Light weight - only 27 lbs with rear cap and visual back removed.

7) Foot-in-shoe attachment is quick, light and strong.

8) 7x50 illum. finder is very solidly mounted - use to carry scope.



There are some negatives, also:



1) Mirrors get dusty, need cleaning, but back is easily removed.

2) Dall Kirkham has some coma, but most judge it not objectionable.

3) Price - $6090 shipped, but recommend add $23 for 2 day select.

4) Availability - may be a bit of a wait - no used for a long time.



However a used Mewlon 250 just appeared (yesterday!) on Astromart for

$1000 off new price, and it went in the first minute (my guess - - I

responded for a friend but there were 22 hits ahead of me and the

seller hasn't returned my inquiry).



I've owned my 250 for about two months and find its performance to be

very satisfactory (excellent Saturn imaging with binoviewer in good

seeing).



Or you could wait and see what Roland has up his sleeve.



Chuck

--- In ap-gto@y..., Richard Seavey seavey@m...> wrote:

> Thanks for the information Randy. You are absolutely right about

the

> importance of a good mount... that's why I have a 1200GTO g>

>

> I am not happy with the optical quality of the my 10" Meade SCT.

It is

> about 10 years old, so maybe newer ones are better? I'm trying to

find

> something better than my current SCT, but can't afford a RC at this

time. I

> was thinking of getting a C11 or Meade OTA, but have no way of

determining

> the optical quality of such a purchase in advance. Can anyone think

of any

> other options?

>

> Richard



----------------------------

#3880 Oct 20, 2001

Mark,



Since the tube color is so important to you, It's probably a good idea to

get the tube repainted. It shouldn't be to difficult. Good luck!

Richard





At 06:08 PM 10/20/2001 +0000, you wrote: >Hi Richard, I myself also have a 1200GTO, and am thinking seriously about

>gearing up to buy a C-14 OTA, to compliment my Apomax 5.2" F-12 Refractor.

>

>I have already purchased the Feathertouch Focuser to compliment the C-14

>OTA, and this should be a benefit eliminating any focuser shift that may

>be encountered, and provide precision focusing as well.

>

>On doing some recent research about the new C-14 OTA's, I have found out

>that the new tubes are done in a grey finish (I hate this color), and also

>have 2 handles on the rear Cell.

>

>I have no idea why they changed the color of the OTA, as I'm pretty sure

>all the other Celestron OTA's Tubes have stayed Black in color. In Nov.

>Astronomy, one is pictured with what appears to be just one Handle, and

>the Pic also gives the impression that it is still Black.

>

>With many more folks currently going to full-blown GOTO mounts, who needs

>Handles? I'm sure they're of no use for mounting the OTA, as they would

>most likely come loose, or bend under the weight.

>

>Sure wish they would go back to a White OTA. I think all the Celestron

>OTA's would look more attractive in this color. (I guess an auto shop

>could always repaint it any color you desire) Sorry folks for wandering

>off topic a bit with my post. Mark

>

>

>

>To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list

>see groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto

>

>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



----------------------------

#3881 Oct 20, 2001

Chuck,

I hadn't thought of the Mewlon option. Sounds like something I should look

into. I wonder if Roland is going to make any more of the 10" Mak's?

There is probably a long, long waiting list already!



Richard



At 06:58 PM 10/20/2001 +0000, you wrote: >Hi, Richard,

>

>You might want to look into the Takahashi Mewlon 250. This 10 inch

>f/12 Dall-Kirkham Cassegrain has a number of good points:

>

>1) Focusing by electrically moving the secondary - no focus shift.

>2) Electric focusing is fun - well controlled for fine adjustment.

>3) Movable focal plane range is large as in SCT for binoviewing, etc.

>4) Primary does not move - solidly mounted - no mirror flop.

>5) No corrector so open tube with vents for quick flow-thru cooling.

>6) Light weight - only 27 lbs with rear cap and visual back removed.

>7) Foot-in-shoe attachment is quick, light and strong.

>8) 7x50 illum. finder is very solidly mounted - use to carry scope.

>

>There are some negatives, also:

>

>1) Mirrors get dusty, need cleaning, but back is easily removed.

>2) Dall Kirkham has some coma, but most judge it not objectionable.

>3) Price - $6090 shipped, but recommend add $23 for 2 day select.

>4) Availability - may be a bit of a wait - no used for a long time.

>

>However a used Mewlon 250 just appeared (yesterday!) on Astromart for

>$1000 off new price, and it went in the first minute (my guess - - I

>responded for a friend but there were 22 hits ahead of me and the

>seller hasn't returned my inquiry).

>

>I've owned my 250 for about two months and find its performance to be

>very satisfactory (excellent Saturn imaging with binoviewer in good

>seeing).

>

>Or you could wait and see what Roland has up his sleeve.

>

>Chuck

>

>--- In ap-gto@y..., Richard Seavey seavey@m...> wrote:

> > Thanks for the information Randy. You are absolutely right about

>the

> > importance of a good mount... that's why I have a 1200GTO g>

> >

> > I am not happy with the optical quality of the my 10" Meade SCT.

>It is

> > about 10 years old, so maybe newer ones are better? I'm trying to

>find

> > something better than my current SCT, but can't afford a RC at this

>time. I

> > was thinking of getting a C11 or Meade OTA, but have no way of

>determining

> > the optical quality of such a purchase in advance. Can anyone think

>of any

> > other options?

> >

> > Richard

>

>

>

>

>To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list

>see groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto

>

>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/







----------------------------

#3882 Oct 20, 2001

I have a Takahashi TSC 225 (9" SCT) that I'll sell for $4000. It became

somewhat redundant after I purchased the Astro-Physics 10"

Maksutov-Cassegrain. Takahashi only made a few of these. This one is number

12. It has excellent optics, and the tube color is white. :-)



Regards,

Robin



Astro Accessories by Robin Casady

Stainless Steel Weights & Dovetail Saddles

www.CarmelCoast.com/Astro/sales.html



Casady & Greene, Inc.

www.casadyg.com





On 10/20/01 9:59 AM Richard Seavey wrote:



> Thanks for the information Randy. You are absolutely right about the

> importance of a good mount... that's why I have a 1200GTO g>

>

> I am not happy with the optical quality of the my 10" Meade SCT. It is

> about 10 years old, so maybe newer ones are better? I'm trying to find

> something better than my current SCT, but can't afford a RC at this time. I

> was thinking of getting a C11 or Meade OTA, but have no way of determining

> the optical quality of such a purchase in advance. Can anyone think of any

> other options?

>

> Richard

>

> At 04:16 PM 10/20/2001 +0000, you wrote:

>> The C11 I currently have is slightly better than the Meade I

>> previously owned (but the Meade was very good as well)..I have much

>> less mirror flop in the C11 (maybe I just got lucky!)

>>

>> Again, I stress (for imaging purposes), a very good mount is

>> essential. A so/so scope on a good mount will produce better results

>> than a very good scope on a poor mount.

>>

>> HTH,

>> Randy

>>

>> --- In ap-gto@y..., Richard Seavey seavey@m...> wrote:

>>>

>>> Randy,

>>> How would you compare the optical image quality of the C11 vs. the

>> Meade 10" ?

>>> Richard

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list

>> see groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto

>>

>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>

>

>

>

> To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list

> see groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>

>



Contact Us
This Site's Privacy Policy
Google's privacy policies

S
e
n
i
o
r
T
u
b
e
.
o
r
g