Orion 80mm ED should i buy?

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 03:48:35 GMT, "Mike" wrote:



No. Face it, your getting 80mm when it should be at least 90. I have no
idea what the fluky mentality
with 80mm aperture is. 80 was good 15 years ago and I just don't understand
the fixation.


I own a 10inch dob and personally couldnt fathom spending as much or
more money on such a small scope (once mountings are added).

I think it's because 80mm makes for a reasonable wide field scope.

That said, I don't exactly disagree with you. An 80mm scope is really in the
toy category for intermediate and avid amateurs. It's a play thing.
Something you take along on the family trip. You convince yourself that it's
for observing nature, but deep down in your heart you know it's just a
pacifier for when you start jones'ing for the scope you would have brought,
if you hadn't brought the family. g

Personally I don't think an 80 mm scope is a toy at all.

When I go stargazing in the mountains I almost always take two scopes, one
70mm-80mm and one 8 inches or larger.

Small scopes like the ED-80 or the Pronto do things that larger scopes cannot
do.

It is certainly true that a small scope is good for viewing nature, I have a
thousands of images of birds to prove that point. I alway keep a small scope
setup ready to shoot/view an interesting bird passing through.

But they are also good because they do those things that a larger scope cannot
do, widefield views, from 10x-30x or more. 5 degree swaths of the sky provide a
different perspective and are just not available in the 10 inch DOB or and 5
inch MAK.

Another advantage of a small scope is that it can be built in a way that would
be unaffordable were the scope larger.

So small is good for somethings. When small is good, one can mistakenly get
tangled with Aperture fever and wish an 80mm were a 90mm when in fact an 80
will also do things that a 90mm will not do. 25% increase in light gathering
and 12% increase in resolution is not such a big deal, certainly no one is
trading in 8 inch DOBs for 9 inchers....

Of course in the case of the ED80, making it an APO was of paramount
importance, making it affordable was of paramount importance, and keeping
reasonably sized was important as well.

The cost would have increased significantly, the focal ratio, for the same
color correction would have increased from 7.5 to 8.5 and OTA would have grown
from a passable 24 inches to a now not a spotter at all 30 inches..

Someone one commented that appreciating the views in a small scope was
something that was more often the province of experienced observers who had the
observing skills to make the most of the subtleties of the small aperture. To
me, that made sense.

In my development I have certainly found this to be true, targets that were
once difficult from a dark sky are now doable from a light polluted sky in a
small scope.

jon

I think it's because 80mm makes for a reasonable wide field scope.

That said, I don't exactly disagree with you. An 80mm scope is really in the
toy category for intermediate and avid amateurs. It's a play thing.
Something you take along on the family trip. You convince yourself that it's
for observing nature, but deep down in your heart you know it's just a
pacifier for when you start jones'ing for the scope you would have brought,
if you hadn't brought the family. g

Personally I don't think an 80 mm scope is a toy at all.

When I go stargazing in the mountains I almost always take two scopes, one
70mm-80mm and one 8 inches or larger.

Small scopes like the ED-80 or the Pronto do things that larger scopes cannot
do.

It is certainly true that a small scope is good for viewing nature, I have a
thousands of images of birds to prove that point. I alway keep a small scope
setup ready to shoot/view an interesting bird passing through.

But they are also good because they do those things that a larger scope cannot
do, widefield views, from 10x-30x or more. 5 degree swaths of the sky provide a
different perspective and are just not available in the 10 inch DOB or and 5
inch MAK.

Another advantage of a small scope is that it can be built in a way that would
be unaffordable were the scope larger.

So small is good for somethings. When small is good, one can mistakenly get
tangled with Aperture fever and wish an 80mm were a 90mm when in fact an 80
will also do things that a 90mm will not do. 25% increase in light gathering
and 12% increase in resolution is not such a big deal, certainly no one is
trading in 8 inch DOBs for 9 inchers....

Of course in the case of the ED80, making it an APO was of paramount
importance, making it affordable was of paramount importance, and keeping
reasonably sized was important as well.

The cost would have increased significantly, the focal ratio, for the same
color correction would have increased from 7.5 to 8.5 and OTA would have grown
from a passable 24 inches to a now not a spotter at all 30 inches..

Someone one commented that appreciating the views in a small scope was
something that was more often the province of experienced observers who had the
observing skills to make the most of the subtleties of the small aperture. To
me, that made sense.

In my development I have certainly found this to be true, targets that were
once difficult from a dark sky are now doable from a light polluted sky in a
small scope.

jon

Subject: Orion 80mm ED should i buy?
From: (clyde crewey)
Date: 6/18/04 8:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


Chas,

Don't I remember reading you have a Tak 78? I doubt you'll find the
ED80 is an improvement over that scope.

Clyde
*************************
I sold the FS-78! It was a great star sweeper using a 22mm Nag...

Chas P.

Subject: Orion 80mm ED should i buy?
From: (clyde crewey)
Date: 6/18/04 8:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


Chas,

Don't I remember reading you have a Tak 78? I doubt you'll find the
ED80 is an improvement over that scope.

Clyde
*************************
I sold the FS-78! It was a great star sweeper using a 22mm Nag...

Chas P.

So small is good for somethings. When small is good, one can mistakenly
get
tangled with Aperture fever and wish an 80mm were a 90mm when in fact an
80
will also do things that a 90mm will not do. 25% increase in light
gathering
and 12% increase in resolution is not such a big deal, certainly no one is
trading in 8 inch DOBs for 9 inchers....


No, a C 9.25 carbon fiber OTA!

I think a 25% increase in LGP and 12% in resolution IS significant. Its the
difference between
a complete split and a figure 8 split on some double stars. Also, the 80mm
OTA is the same
OTA as a 90mm. They just don't bother putting in the 90.

So small is good for somethings. When small is good, one can mistakenly
get
tangled with Aperture fever and wish an 80mm were a 90mm when in fact an
80
will also do things that a 90mm will not do. 25% increase in light
gathering
and 12% increase in resolution is not such a big deal, certainly no one is
trading in 8 inch DOBs for 9 inchers....


No, a C 9.25 carbon fiber OTA!

I think a 25% increase in LGP and 12% in resolution IS significant. Its the
difference between
a complete split and a figure 8 split on some double stars. Also, the 80mm
OTA is the same
OTA as a 90mm. They just don't bother putting in the 90.

"Mike" wrote in message news:mFPAc.4162$7d2.3214@clgrps13...
So the question remains. Why an 80 after soooo many years?? What is it
with
the companies?

They are simply responding to market demand, that's what companies do.

The more pertinent question might be, why is there a demand for "fast" 80mm
refractors? My demand for a small refractor had to do with compensating for
a large scope that was difficult to manage in and out of the house Couple
that to the fact that a fast 80mm provides fields of view that compare
favorably with binoculars, and you have a compelling solution.

I purchased a Universal Astronomics UniStar Light Deluxe and the D&S Compact
CS Short Tripod that I use almost exclusively with a Celestron FS80-WA. The
entire setup weighs just 12 lbs. and breaks down into three small pieces,
one being the OTA, and the longest being the folded down tripod at 24
inches. With the 24mm Panoptic I get 3.9 degrees of field at 17x, and the
13mm, 9mm and 7mm Nagler T6's range from 31x to 57x with generous fields of
view from 2.5 to 1.4 degrees. And, since the TV eyepieces do very well at
surpressing the astigmatism that plagues the more simple eyepiece designs at
F5, the views remain quite sharp across the field.

I personally don't foresee myself replacing the "ST80" with an 80mm ED
because it would add unwanted weight and stress to the mount and ultra-light
tripod combo. I've also concluded from experimenting with other telescopes,
that although the planetary views could certainly be better, scopes under 4"
aperture just don't provide the exit pupil and resolution that I need to
enjoy planets, so the incentive to go with the extra expense of ED glass, a
longer (and more narrow) F7 ratio, and a more robust mount/tripod combo that
can handle the extra weight and moment arm, simply isn't compelling. Rather,
I choose to keep a 5" Mak for a "walk out" (it's on a GEM so I can't really
call it a "grab and go") planet and moon scope.

The ST80 I keep assembled and ready for wide field views of bright objects,
for terrestrial and solar (Baader filter), and for cruising the Milky Way.
It is also the first scope I think of whenever I am going on a trip, or just
stepping out back for a minute before bed. No doubt the 80mm sucks for
serious observing of dim, nebulous objects under urban/suburban skies. Under
such conditions, it is at best, a DSO "detection" device. But, there's
nothing wrong with that.

-Stephen

"Mike" wrote in message news:mFPAc.4162$7d2.3214@clgrps13...
So the question remains. Why an 80 after soooo many years?? What is it
with
the companies?

They are simply responding to market demand, that's what companies do.

The more pertinent question might be, why is there a demand for "fast" 80mm
refractors? My demand for a small refractor had to do with compensating for
a large scope that was difficult to manage in and out of the house Couple
that to the fact that a fast 80mm provides fields of view that compare
favorably with binoculars, and you have a compelling solution.

I purchased a Universal Astronomics UniStar Light Deluxe and the D&S Compact
CS Short Tripod that I use almost exclusively with a Celestron FS80-WA. The
entire setup weighs just 12 lbs. and breaks down into three small pieces,
one being the OTA, and the longest being the folded down tripod at 24
inches. With the 24mm Panoptic I get 3.9 degrees of field at 17x, and the
13mm, 9mm and 7mm Nagler T6's range from 31x to 57x with generous fields of
view from 2.5 to 1.4 degrees. And, since the TV eyepieces do very well at
surpressing the astigmatism that plagues the more simple eyepiece designs at
F5, the views remain quite sharp across the field.

I personally don't foresee myself replacing the "ST80" with an 80mm ED
because it would add unwanted weight and stress to the mount and ultra-light
tripod combo. I've also concluded from experimenting with other telescopes,
that although the planetary views could certainly be better, scopes under 4"
aperture just don't provide the exit pupil and resolution that I need to
enjoy planets, so the incentive to go with the extra expense of ED glass, a
longer (and more narrow) F7 ratio, and a more robust mount/tripod combo that
can handle the extra weight and moment arm, simply isn't compelling. Rather,
I choose to keep a 5" Mak for a "walk out" (it's on a GEM so I can't really
call it a "grab and go") planet and moon scope.

The ST80 I keep assembled and ready for wide field views of bright objects,
for terrestrial and solar (Baader filter), and for cruising the Milky Way.
It is also the first scope I think of whenever I am going on a trip, or just
stepping out back for a minute before bed. No doubt the 80mm sucks for
serious observing of dim, nebulous objects under urban/suburban skies. Under
such conditions, it is at best, a DSO "detection" device. But, there's
nothing wrong with that.

-Stephen

Jon Isaacs wrote:
Me, too, Jon. But I am still enjoying the new (tho not APO) AT-1010 I
recently acquired. Big improvement over the 80WA/ST-80 I was using for
travel.


I have an 80WA and I have a Pronto as well. If I didn't have the Pronto, I
would probably spring for the ED80...


How do you mount the Pronto, Jon (I assume the 80WA came with a GEM as
mine did -- bought from Eagle a few years back and a great bargain)?

I have the AT-1010 on a Universal Astronomics MicroStar (similar to but
smaller than the UniStar) and Bogen tripod. Works really well for the
wide looks with a WA scope and I've had it up to around 125x for
planets; quick setup and easy to use. I'm told I can put my C5+ on that
mount too, but I've not yet tried it.

My first trip to use the AT-1010 under dark skies in Sequioa this week
was a failu Clear in the morning but clouded up around mid-day and
only one brief viewing opportunity the last evening we were there.

A plus of the MicroStar is that, with a shorter tripod, the whole system
fits in a carry-on case for air travel. I think Tony Flanders used a
similar system (longer refractor on a UniStar) for the trip to Chile he
wrote up in a recent S&T

Phil