Orion 80mm ED should i buy?

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

Stephen Paul wrote:

"Mike" wrote in message news:nIOAc.2723$7d2.174@clgrps13...


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 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



Depends on what you want to look at, I reckon. Aside from quick setup
(assuming an Az-El mount) and portability, there are those of us who
like the wide-field view -- which is why I travel with binos on a
UniMount much of the time.

My C5+ (the C5+ is pretty easy to travel with) and NexStar8GPS let me
look deeper; but they are not all that useful for wide views.

Phil

Stephen Paul wrote:

"Mike" wrote in message news:nIOAc.2723$7d2.174@clgrps13...


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 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



Depends on what you want to look at, I reckon. Aside from quick setup
(assuming an Az-El mount) and portability, there are those of us who
like the wide-field view -- which is why I travel with binos on a
UniMount much of the time.

My C5+ (the C5+ is pretty easy to travel with) and NexStar8GPS let me
look deeper; but they are not all that useful for wide views.

Phil

Geoff wrote:

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).

10 inch Dobs are nice (I have one of those, too). But it cannot rival a
small wide-field refractor nor binos for certain applications. Won't
travel well by air either.

Phil

Geoff wrote:

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).

10 inch Dobs are nice (I have one of those, too). But it cannot rival a
small wide-field refractor nor binos for certain applications. Won't
travel well by air either.

Phil

Stephen Paul wrote:

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.

I have my AT-1010 mounted similarly: MicroStar Light Deluxe and the same
tripod for air travel (and a taller Bogen for local work).

I do find the AT-1010 to be a major improvement over my 80WA, especially
at higher magnifications. With the light shield retracted, it fits in
my Orion ST-80 case, so the size is much the same. But the 1010 is at
least two lbs heavier.

A relatively recent acquistion, but I expect it will become my most-used
scope; even more portable and easy to set up than my binos and UniMount.
Hard to grab-and-go with my NexStar8GPS or 10" Dob -- and the tripod
and wedge of my C5+ makes even that less than portable.

But I'm told the C5+ can be used successfully on the MicroStar -- and I
will try that one of these days (er evenings!)

Phil

Stephen Paul wrote:

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.

I have my AT-1010 mounted similarly: MicroStar Light Deluxe and the same
tripod for air travel (and a taller Bogen for local work).

I do find the AT-1010 to be a major improvement over my 80WA, especially
at higher magnifications. With the light shield retracted, it fits in
my Orion ST-80 case, so the size is much the same. But the 1010 is at
least two lbs heavier.

A relatively recent acquistion, but I expect it will become my most-used
scope; even more portable and easy to set up than my binos and UniMount.
Hard to grab-and-go with my NexStar8GPS or 10" Dob -- and the tripod
and wedge of my C5+ makes even that less than portable.

But I'm told the C5+ can be used successfully on the MicroStar -- and I
will try that one of these days (er evenings!)

Phil

"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
news
But I'm told the C5+ can be used successfully on the MicroStar -- and I
will try that one of these days (er evenings!)

Indeed you should give it a go. I bought the Deluxe UniStar Light with the
dovetails. Originally I bought the mount for a C5, and got the extra
dovetail for the FS80-WA just in case... funny how that worked out. Turns
out that the high powers easily reached with a C5 are too sensitive to the
vibrations in the D&S Compact tripod for my liking. However, using the EQ-3
tripod from the StarMax, the UniStar Light can _easily_ handle even the
127mm Mak (which is considerably heavier than the C5).

-Stephen

"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
news
But I'm told the C5+ can be used successfully on the MicroStar -- and I
will try that one of these days (er evenings!)

Indeed you should give it a go. I bought the Deluxe UniStar Light with the
dovetails. Originally I bought the mount for a C5, and got the extra
dovetail for the FS80-WA just in case... funny how that worked out. Turns
out that the high powers easily reached with a C5 are too sensitive to the
vibrations in the D&S Compact tripod for my liking. However, using the EQ-3
tripod from the StarMax, the UniStar Light can _easily_ handle even the
127mm Mak (which is considerably heavier than the C5).

-Stephen

I think a 25% increase in LGP and 12% in resolution IS significant.

What you gain by going from 80mm to 90mm you loose because of the longer focal
length and slower focal ratio required for the color correction. If the goal
is a widefield view, then the shorter FL is better.

Its the
difference between
a complete split and a figure 8 split on some double stars.

This is aperture fever thinking for a scope that is supposed be primarily a
widefield scope. What one loses is that large field of view.

If small is good, then making smaller bigger is not necessarily better.

jon