6" Celestron refractor for astrophotography?

I'm considering a Celestron Advanced series C6-R (similar to the old?
CR-150?) for astrophotography, primarily of the moon and planets.

The telescope is described he
http://www.celestron.com/prod_pgs/tel/c6r.htm

(Another alternative is to get a Celestron G8 or Celestar 8 -- but I really
like the idea of a 6" refractor.)

Any comments and thoughts appreciated.

Thanks,
Jarle

For astrophotography, the crucial issue will be the stability of the
provided CG-5 mount. However, if you are imaging only the "moon and
planets" (short exposures), that should be less of an issue.

Before purchasing I would try to get feedback re this from someone who
knows this scope .. and maybe you will in reply to your message. I
searched for a review of it with Google and came up empty.

Phil

Jarle Aasland wrote:
I'm considering a Celestron Advanced series C6-R (similar to the old?
CR-150?) for astrophotography, primarily of the moon and planets.

The telescope is described he
http://www.celestron.com/prod_pgs/tel/c6r.htm

(Another alternative is to get a Celestron G8 or Celestar 8 -- but I really
like the idea of a 6" refractor.)

Any comments and thoughts appreciated.

Thanks,
Jarle

For astrophotography, the crucial issue will be the stability of the
provided CG-5 mount. However, if you are imaging only the "moon and
planets" (short exposures), that should be less of an issue.

Thanks, Phil.

Anyone familiar with Sky-Wathcer telescopes?

I can get a similar 6" refractor with a better mount (EQ6:
http://www.skywatchertelescope.com/EQ6.html) for a little more than the
Celestron model (which includes a CG-5 mount).

The 6" Sky-Wathcer refractor is described at
http://www.skywatchertelescope.com/15012EQ5.html

Which one would you choose?

Jarle

I have just perchased an 8" newt on an HEQ5 mount from skywatcher. It took me
weeks to decide, but after looking at all the reviews, including the EQ6 mount,
I thought that the HEQ5 was the better mount. It is a smaller version of the
EQ6, but with some improvements, such as the inclusion of an hour dial on the
polar scope. It is certainly designed to be a better and more ridged mount than
the CG5, and can take a more massive telescope. As for the optics, for the
price most people are more than happy with skywatcher.

Anyway, thats my two cents!

Regards,

Geoff GJ



I can get a similar 6" refractor with a better mount (EQ6:
http://www.skywatchertelescope.com/EQ6.html) for a little more than the
Celestron model (which includes a CG-5 mount).

I am FAR from convinced the EQ6 is a better mount than the CG-5,
given how many horror stories their have been about the EQ6
That, and the fact it looks very unlikely that the EQ-6 will ever be
upgradeable to GOTO...hardly better.....
Orion

"Jarle Aasland" wrote in message
...
For astrophotography, the crucial issue will be the stability of the
provided CG-5 mount. However, if you are imaging only the "moon and
planets" (short exposures), that should be less of an issue.

Thanks, Phil.

Anyone familiar with Sky-Wathcer telescopes?

I can get a similar 6" refractor with a better mount (EQ6:
http://www.skywatchertelescope.com/EQ6.html) for a little more than the
Celestron model (which includes a CG-5 mount).

The 6" Sky-Wathcer refractor is described at
http://www.skywatchertelescope.com/15012EQ5.html

Which one would you choose?

Jarle




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/4/2003

you will have lots of flare up blue around bright stars.. but perhaps some
sort of blue-ultraviolet blocking filter would help a bit.

You could always do tricolor work using 3 filters, but the problem is that
you may never get a sharp blue image.

On 14 Aug 2003 17:42:42 GMT, (Jon Isaacs) wrote:

My concern would be the false color in the 6 inch F8 refractor, it has to be
pretty substantial, after all, that is why people use APOs....

Anybody have any thoughts on the scope itself as being viable for
astrophotography?

jon

Herm
Astropics http://home.att.net/~hermperez

Owning both the EQ5 and EQ6, the latter is by far the better mount.
very easy to upgrade to various GOTO configerations, I did mine with the
Skysenser 2000 pc.Others have used the Meade Autostar system with DS motors.
Check this image of NGC 5139 taken with the EQ6/SS2K
with a Synta 150mm refractor.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~westsky/NGC5139.jpg
Whilst the image could be a lot better(note the slight field rotation ),this
was my fault not the mount's.My polar alignment was out by 7 degrees and as
this was a 20min unguided image I think the results are quite good,but I
took the shot so my opinion is slighty biased :-))
The EQ6 is rock solid with the 150mm and a 102mm f10 refractor mounted on
top.Just no comparision to the EQ5.

regards
David.

"Orion" wrote in message
...
I am FAR from convinced the EQ6 is a better mount than the CG-5,
given how many horror stories their have been about the EQ6
That, and the fact it looks very unlikely that the EQ-6 will ever be
upgradeable to GOTO...hardly better.....
Orion

"Jarle Aasland" wrote in message
...
For astrophotography, the crucial issue will be the stability of the
provided CG-5 mount. However, if you are imaging only the "moon and
planets" (short exposures), that should be less of an issue.

Thanks, Phil.

Anyone familiar with Sky-Wathcer telescopes?

I can get a similar 6" refractor with a better mount (EQ6:
http://www.skywatchertelescope.com/EQ6.html) for a little more than the
Celestron model (which includes a CG-5 mount).

The 6" Sky-Wathcer refractor is described at
http://www.skywatchertelescope.com/15012EQ5.html

Which one would you choose?

Jarle




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/4/2003

Check this image of NGC 5139 taken with the EQ6/SS2K
with a Synta 150mm refractor.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~westsky/NGC5139.jpg
Whilst the image could be a lot better(note the slight field rotation ),this
was my fault not the mount's.My polar alignment was out by 7 degrees and as
this was a 20min unguided image I think the results are quite good

7 degrees misalignment and 20 min UNGUIDED exposure. Are you joking??

Roland Christen

"Jarle Aasland" wrote in message
...
I'm considering a Celestron Advanced series C6-R (similar to the old?
CR-150?) for astrophotography, primarily of the moon and planets.

The telescope is described he
http://www.celestron.com/prod_pgs/tel/c6r.htm

(Another alternative is to get a Celestron G8 or Celestar 8 -- but I
really
like the idea of a 6" refractor.)

Any comments and thoughts appreciated.

Thanks,
Jarle



The CR 150 is okay for photography, but the CG5 is _completely_ outclassed
by the bulk and weight of the OTA. This is not to say that there is
anything wrong with the CG5, as this is a very capable mount, it's just that
it lacks the muscle for the heavy CR150. If you must do photography, the
mount which is sold with the C11 is better suited for your needs. BTW, I
own this scope on a CG5 mount and find that it's only a fair combination for
casual viewing only. If you use this rig for high power work, such a
planetary study...you will wish you had a heavier mount. Finally, the mount
on the advanced series is the same as the older CG5 less the GOTO.

Al

"Al" wrote in message
. net...
The CR 150 is okay for photography, but the CG5 is _completely_ outclassed
by the bulk and weight of the OTA.

I may be wrong, but it seems like the older CG5 had aluminum legs, while the
new one has 2" steel legs?

"These scopes come on NEW heavy-duty German Equatorial mounts with NEW
ultra-sturdy 2" stainless steel legs and center tray for superior rigidity
and vibration dampening":

http://www.celestron.com/prod_pgs/tel/adv_index.htm

I'm not sure if this makes any noticeable difference?

Jarle