Orion XT8 Classic vs XT8 Intelliscope

Hello all,

This is my first post to the group as I am new to the hobby - although
I have had a lifelong interest in Astronomy and Cosmology. I am
considering my first scope and have settled on the Orion XT8 - or, at
least an 8" Dobsonian (I've don't a LOT of reading here and elsewhere,
and the postings here have been invaluable).

My question is this: is there any reason to pay the extra money to get
the Intelliscope over the Classic assuming that I am not interested in
using the positioning electronics that the XT8-IS accept. Even without
the goto module, the IS is $120 than the Classic. If that $120 is
buying me higher quality, important features, etc., then I'll consider
it. But if the only meaningful difference is the electronics, then I
see no reason not to get the XT8-C intead. I am intersted in learning
the sky and it seems to me that the best way to do that is with a map
and manuala approach.

Am I missing something?

Thanks
Ken Sargent

KenS wrote:
Hello all,

This is my first post to the group as I am new to the hobby - although
I have had a lifelong interest in Astronomy and Cosmology. I am
considering my first scope and have settled on the Orion XT8 - or, at
least an 8" Dobsonian (I've don't a LOT of reading here and elsewhere,
and the postings here have been invaluable).

My question is this: is there any reason to pay the extra money to get
the Intelliscope over the Classic assuming that I am not interested in
using the positioning electronics that the XT8-IS accept. Even without
the goto module, the IS is $120 than the Classic. If that $120 is
buying me higher quality, important features, etc., then I'll consider
it. But if the only meaningful difference is the electronics, then I
see no reason not to get the XT8-C intead. I am intersted in learning
the sky and it seems to me that the best way to do that is with a map
and manuala approach.

Am I missing something?

Thanks
Ken Sargent

No difference in the optics -- XT-8 and XT-8 Intelliscope are the same
scope. The difference is in the Dobsonian mount -- the Intelliscope
mount has sensors built in that tell the handheld controller where the
scope is pointed.

I had an XT-8 that was drowned in Hurricane Katrina. I replaced it
with an XT-12 Intelliscope.

You DO NOT have to use the Intelliscope function. I use my XT-12
without the controller half the time. If you want to use the scope
without the electronics, just don't plug in the controller. Usually, I
drag out the scope and do not plug in the controller. If I am not able
to find the object I'm looking for, I plug in the controller, orient
the scope, and let the electronics help me find what I can't find on my
own.

Remember -- the Intelliscope is not a motorized function. That is, the
electronics do not drive the scope -- you move the Intelliscope the
same way you move the Classic -- just grab the scope and push or pull
it.


If I had it to do over again, I'd still buy the Intelliscope -- it's
nice to have the electronic help. In fact, I'm thinking about getting
an XT-6 Intelliscope because it's a lot more portable than the XT-12 --
besides, you can never have too many scopes.

For what it's worth, here's my take on things:
http://www.schlatter.org/Dad/Astronomy/my%20scopes.htm

Ken,

Your sentiments remind me of my own when I was shopping for a first
scope. Almost against the electronics for sake of becoming dependent.

I have an XT-8 classic and like it very much. I must admit though that
if I were buying another one, I would fork over the extra cash and buy
the intelligent model. You will learn the skies pretty good and once
you realize that you can do it (been there, bought the T-shirt), will
probably wish (like me) that you had the one with the brain (if for no
other reason), for the sake of convenience. Not to mention when time
is short or when the skeeters are so thick it makes the moon
twinkle....

Errol
pasnola.org

"KenS" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hello all,

This is my first post to the group as I am new to the hobby - although
I have had a lifelong interest in Astronomy and Cosmology. I am
considering my first scope and have settled on the Orion XT8 - or, at
least an 8" Dobsonian (I've don't a LOT of reading here and elsewhere,
and the postings here have been invaluable).

My question is this: is there any reason to pay the extra money to get
the Intelliscope over the Classic assuming that I am not interested in
using the positioning electronics that the XT8-IS accept. Even without
the goto module, the IS is $120 than the Classic. If that $120 is
buying me higher quality, important features, etc., then I'll consider
it. But if the only meaningful difference is the electronics, then I
see no reason not to get the XT8-C intead. I am intersted in learning
the sky and it seems to me that the best way to do that is with a map
and manuala approach.

Am I missing something?

Thanks
Ken Sargent


The question is, as always, what are your personal priorities, and how much
are you willing to pay to achieve those priorities...

This scope, without the Intelliscope option, will show you everything you
WANTED to see, unless, of course, what you need to see is beyond the
capability of the optics to SHOW it to you...

The optics are not an issue where your telescopic preferences are
concerned....

So, the real question is, how important is it for the SCOPE to show you what
you want to see, versus whether or not YOU are willing to learn how to find
the objects you want to see, on your OWN...

--
Jan Owen

To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
Latitude: 33.6
Longitude: -112.3
http://community.webshots.com/user/janowen21

On 2006-12-03 09:19 +0900, Jan Owen wrote:

So, the real question is, how important is it for the SCOPE to show you what
you want to see, versus whether or not YOU are willing to learn how to find
the objects you want to see, on your OWN...

There's also the potential issue of light pollution making star hopping
a total drag. I certainly face that here. Recently, we had a topic here
about the Little Dipper. For me, the only star visible in that asterism
is Polaris itself, and just barely visible without averted vision on a
typical evening. Given such conditions, having go-to lets me actually
spend time looking _at_ stuff rather than mostly _for_ it.

There is fun to be had with thrill of the hunt, but that works best
under dark skies that are chock-a-block with naked-eye stars. IMO.

trane
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

"KenS" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hello all,

This is my first post to the group as I am new to the hobby - although
I have had a lifelong interest in Astronomy and Cosmology. I am
considering my first scope and have settled on the Orion XT8 - or, at
least an 8" Dobsonian (I've don't a LOT of reading here and elsewhere,
and the postings here have been invaluable).

My question is this: is there any reason to pay the extra money to get
the Intelliscope over the Classic assuming that I am not interested in
using the positioning electronics that the XT8-IS accept. Even without
the goto module, the IS is $120 than the Classic. If that $120 is
buying me higher quality, important features, etc., then I'll consider
it. But if the only meaningful difference is the electronics, then I
see no reason not to get the XT8-C intead. I am intersted in learning
the sky and it seems to me that the best way to do that is with a map
and manuala approach.

Am I missing something?

Thanks
Ken Sargent


A friend or ours has the XT8 without electronics, and he is very happy with
it and I have enjoyed the views as well. We have relatively dark skies
(pushing mag. 6) and so have no problem seeing enough stars to find
anything. I wouldn't pay anything for the electronics, as I don't want them
and they would detract from my/our style of observing, where finding the
object is at least as important as observing it. I helped my friend rebuild
the bearings with teflon and Ebony Star, and I think we both think that a 2"
focuser would be an improvement for low-power widefield viewing with 2"
nebula filters. The primary mirror is good, but not great.

I would like to recommend building a basic dob with a great mirror.
Building a dob is a basic woodworking project, easily doable with hand
tools. A decent homemade dob will ergonomically out-perform an XT8, and a
top-quality mirror will provide better views. You will not save any money,
and in fact you can spend quite a bit more if you buy top-notch parts
(focuser, secondary, spider, primary) - better parts than those found on an
XT8. However, you will understand your scope inside and out, and you will
never have to ask how to collimate it, or be frustrated by some lack in its
performance, etc.

Dennis

The purists and homebrewers will say build your own or get the manually
operated telescope.

Get the new model! You may not always use it, but when you need it, it may
save a lot of time. Viewing things are just as important as finding them
yourself. So few nights are good for viewing, so why waste your time
manually looking for something. Yes, there is a satisfaction finding it
yourself, but only when I have time to do it.



"KenS" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hello all,

This is my first post to the group as I am new to the hobby - although
I have had a lifelong interest in Astronomy and Cosmology. I am
considering my first scope and have settled on the Orion XT8 - or, at
least an 8" Dobsonian (I've don't a LOT of reading here and elsewhere,
and the postings here have been invaluable).

My question is this: is there any reason to pay the extra money to get
the Intelliscope over the Classic assuming that I am not interested in
using the positioning electronics that the XT8-IS accept. Even without
the goto module, the IS is $120 than the Classic. If that $120 is
buying me higher quality, important features, etc., then I'll consider
it. But if the only meaningful difference is the electronics, then I
see no reason not to get the XT8-C intead. I am intersted in learning
the sky and it seems to me that the best way to do that is with a map
and manuala approach.

Am I missing something?

Thanks
Ken Sargent

"KenS" wrote:

This is my first post to the group as I am new to the hobby - although
I have had a lifelong interest in Astronomy and Cosmology.

Welcome to saa! Hopefully you'll be making more posts soon.

My question is this: is there any reason to pay the extra money to get
the Intelliscope over the Classic assuming that I am not interested in
using the positioning electronics that the XT8-IS accept. Even without
the goto module, the IS is $120 than the Classic. If that $120 is
buying me higher quality, important features, etc., then I'll consider
it. But if the only meaningful difference is the electronics, then I
see no reason not to get the XT8-C intead. I am intersted in learning
the sky and it seems to me that the best way to do that is with a map
and manuala approach.

If you don't plan on using something (computer assisted pointing), and
you have the option of not paying for that something, then common
sense says: "Don't buy it."

The IS comes with a 30mm finder. The Classic comes with a 50mm
finder. In the Orion catalog there's a $30 price difference between
the two finders. It hardly seems reasonable to pay $120 more in order
to get the larger finder. Perhaps if you asked, Orion would let you
get the Classic with a 50mm finder for $30 more.

The IS hardware seems like a waste of money to pay for if you're not
also going to get the Object Locator. IOW, the IS will end up costing
$240 more than the Classic -- unless you never get the Object Locator,
in which case you have wasted $90 ($30 less than the $120) for
hardware that will be unusable. (If it's relevant to you, the 10"
Classic is $170 more than the 8" Classic -- and it comes with a 50mm
finder.)

Am I missing something?

Not if you've been receiving and reading the replies ;-)

I've been pointing telescopes without computer assistance since the
late 1960s. It can be done! My first telescope didn't even have a
finder and I *still* managed to find the Sun, Moon, various planets,
double stars, deep sky objects, etc.

The choice is yours. Go for whatever you feel is best for your money,
needs and desires; and enjoy the starry skies!

Willie R. Meghar

Thanks for the answers. You've given me some things to think about.
Perhaps it would be worth the extra money to have the option of using
the locator software later on. I'm watching my budget however, so that
is a factor as well.

I very much appreicate everyone taking the time to offer their
experience and thoughts.

Regards
Ken Sargent

I have an XT8 Classic and am quite happy with it.

I have "relatively" dark skies (depending on neighbors security
lights) for the most part and never wanted to use the electronic
finder.

Part of the enjoyment for me personally is to use a Telrad and the
finder scope (I did upgrade to a 9x50 right angle scope out of
preference) to locate the objects I am interested in viewing.

What better way to not only challenge yourself but learn the layout of
the celestial sphere at the same time? It's not only about the views
(imho).

You won't be disappointed no matter which way you decide to go.


Blues

Live Free Or Die