home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: calloway@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Frank Calloway)
- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 14:48:44 GMT
- Subject: Re: Super Polaris vs. Classic C8?
- Message-ID: <1550034@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM>
- Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hplextra!hpfcso!hplvec!calloway
- Newsgroups: sci.astro
- References: <1993Jan7.111200.701@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
- Lines: 26
-
- > The Super Polaris is a good mount. I am not very impressed with Celestron
- > fork mounts, after experiancing a C-8, C-11 & C-14 that are fork mounted.
- > I find the german equatorial mounts that Celestron are now producing a lot
- > more stable.
-
- > One C-8 was so bad (and it was BRAND NEW) that it was unusable (visually)
- > over 200X magnification, and since I am mostly interested in
- > AstroPhotography, this certainly couldn't work - I got rid of it.
-
- > So, German Equatorials are the way to go.
-
- > Steven Williams - Astronomer.
-
- I think Steven's comments are an oversimplification. The Ultima 8 from
- Celestron is very stable; none of the gross wandering at 200X that Steven
- has seen in other models. Its fork arms and tripod are massive in
- comparison to the other C8s. Thus, it depends on which C8 you use.
-
- As a counterpoint, I've used the Super Polaris mount on a couple of
- scopes and thought it was a bit crude compared to the fork mounts. For
- me, the setting circles were marginally useful and the slow motion
- controls and clutches felt coarse and cheap. On the other hand, I'd
- expect the new Celestron German equatorial mounts made by Losmandy to
- be quite good.
-
- Frank Calloway
-