@VirgilTStone it's a great value scope. It'll show you a lot of stuff before getting big and bulky. If your goal is to casually view the moon, planets, and some deep sky stuff, then this is a great choice. Collimation is a one person job.
I picked up my Celestron Omni last fall for a bargain price of $200 for the OTA only. Used with my Berlebach Castor II mount, it makes for excellent grab-n-go deep sky observing sessions! Don't underestimate the size of this scope. Just as Ed pointed out at 10:08, a 6" reflector can show you so many popular objects, even from my Bortle 7 backyard! My Mother loves to view Jupiter and Saturn through this telescope. The views are sharp, it's lightweight, extremely cheap for the aperture, and heavily upgradeable. You can change out the extension tubes for ones with compression rings, you can upgrade the focuser, you can flock the interior of the tube, upgrade the included eyepieces, the sky's the limit! Plus, it's colored blue! :) Overall, I highly recommend anyone this scope! Just as long as you have the proper mounting, this scope will give you years of observing! Hopefully when the weather clears up I'll check out some open star clusters later this week. Thanks for the review! Note: The reason why I chose the Omni over the Celestron C6-N was due to it's focuser. The Omni has a 2" metal focuser that allows both 1.25" and 2" eyepieces. The C6-N however has a 1.25" plastic focuser that allows only 1.25" eyepieces. That was a big deal breaker for me.
Hmmm, my C6-N had a metal 1.25 focuser that I have in a drawer after putting a 2" Crayford on it. Upgrades? I did the ultimate upgrade and had my mirror refigured to 1/12th wave and a Strehl of .98 with 96% reflectivity. Near perfect is all I can say about it. edit; I bought it at a pawn shop.
I bought mine when it was $200.00 ! I got lucky with a "good" mirror. It is excellent condition, holds collimation very well. I do very limited imaging with it (yep, under mounted) it's my medium visual quick setup scope and I love the thing!
This scope was the first on my list when I started in the hobby, i didn't get it till last year, as I was afraid from collimation, however, with a laser collimation the process is a breeze and it is the second lightest scope after an 800mm refractor or a C90, in my opinion. One thing to mention, Celestron originally provided this OTA with a 1.25" rack & pinion focuser then silently updated it to 2" Crayford style
I have this scope on Orion's Skyview Pro GEM (manual), which, as far as I know, is one of the EQ5s. I use it for a visual work and I also use my ZWO ASI 224 to stack lunar and planetary images.
I bought this scope with the CG-4 mount about 3 yrs ago. This has been a great scope to get back into astronomy after a 25 yr hiatus. I've done some modification like flocking the tube and painting the edges of the mirrors but nothing too major or expensive. I did add an Astrogadget Goto to the mount for tracking which works great. Have had great luck with imaging with a non modified DSLR (no filters, correctors or reducers). Not professional quality but good. Good collimation is the helps too.
You forgot the Celestron C6-N Ed. It is the cheaper version of the 150. That's the one I had the mirror refigured to near perfect focus and had to put a JMI focuser on it because the 1.25" wasn't cutting it. I use a Celestron CG-4 and it isn't shaky at all with the C6--N. It handles the 12 lb. scope just fine. I've taken some pictures, but it is a manual mount so very short exposures. Guy in my club used it to take some photos, but he put it on a heavy mount.
I have one of those. Effectively I don't see the need to upgrade to other model, it does what I need for visual astronomy. I bought the motor for the CG-4, very convenient for tracking objects, specially when using high magnification.
i owned a 32mm omni plossl that had extreme seagulling coma. I wanted to give it away to a beginner but luckily tested it with a coma corrector prior to listing it. It greatly cleans up the plossl. I've had this combo together for about 3 years now.
I have a Orion 6” Astrograph. It comes with a metal 2” focus which was I wanted over the Orion Skywatcher. It’s a shorter tube which means it needs extensions tubes in the focuser. It works pretty well for my purpose of visual observation, but also trying some photography with it. I don’t have a tracker mount, so photography hasn’t gone far yet, but it’s a fast telescope at F4. The build quality is a bit suspect though, as a few screws were loose on the scope when I opened the box. One screw had even fallen out into the tube! I can’t really compare to another brand yet as I haven’t tried anything else like it. The views are comparable to my Orion XT8 dobsionian, just a bit dimmer.
Hey Ed! Very nice review of a scope I know well - my first one. You did well to buy the sample ;D! I graduated to costlier OTAs but cannot bring myself to part with it, and won't. Mine is a good one, splitting doubles right down to Dawes' limit and showing beautiful star colours. I'd be perhaps a little more sanguine about the mount: having used the kit for 2 1/2 years I think that the bundled CG-4 is A-OK for it (visual or full disk lunar photography), even ditching the 6x30 finder and loading it with a 1kg RACI finder and additional red dot. But admittedly I use light 1.25 EPs and skip the whole 2" hand grenade + coma corrector thing: a good 32mm Plössl gives me a nice wide field without too much curvature, so… long live the OMNI 150 and thanks for the review!
I have one of these. I added an Astro--Gadget motorized go to conversion kit to the CG-4 mount and it works quite nicely. Though being elderly and feeble, I find it difficult to put the 12 pound optical tube on the mount, so I usually use my Orion Spaceprobe 130 ST, my Celestron 6" SCT or my Sky Watcher Startravel 120 refractor and the mount handles all very well.
A few years ago I ordered a 150mm f5 Refractor from a local dealer here in Australia , they sent one of these instead , and I was so amazed with its performance I kept it , it was basically perfect optically . I used the difference in price to grab a few eyepieces and a drive for my EQ5 mount , a great telescope that I used and loved for years .
Ed, I’ve always liked the Vixen C6 even with the sliding focuser. I used an adapter to fit a 2 inch eyepiece, yes vignettes but visually ok. I’ll never forget the views of comets Hale-Bopp and Hyakutake in it. I wonder how these newer scopes compare to the old Vixen.
12:01 thats what a separate ir filter is for and honestly a non rich begainner is not going to be using expensive/new equipment if they can help it, this is the approach i took anyway.
Interesting - the double diffraction spike means the spider vanes are not collinear! The tube holes for the spider must not be evenly spaced. Never have seen this before.
In China,we have the sky-watcher version and it's probably the best seller for serious beginners especially for those who want to do astrophotography.The sellers have all the modifications to deal with all the problems this scope would come across.Maybe I would buy the newly-come-out f/4 version for nightvision in order to get larger exit pupil diameter.
I love your show. I’ve learned a lot and have enjoyed buying some telescopes you talked about and they were the right choice for me in my situation.. thanks
Hello Ed, love your channel. I'm in a tear right now between the celestron evolution 6 and the celestron advanced vx 6" Schmidt cassegrain scope. Would love to see a comparison video !
Ed.. I'm real surprised at your take on AP with this scope, so much so I think it could use further elaboration. I Think it's more than capable of good AP. The SW 130PDS for example has a very large AP following. I have a SW 150 f/4 as well as an AT80EDT and the newt produces better deep sky AP.
I was thinking about the same, what about the 130pds, and SW recently put out the quattro 6". Maybe with a few modifications (flocking, blackening mirrors, covering the back, etc) the Omni XLT should deliver good images.
The Omni 150 is a great bargain but it will always be a cheap scope. Compared to a first rate apo it feels like a toy. It won't come close to filling the frame of a full-frame sensor without distortion and even with an APS-C camera attached I had to crop 1/3 to 1/2 of the image so you wouldn't see what was happening at the edges. I also had to do tons of post processing to make the images look acceptable. As you saw the contrast was also lousy. The Stowaway's field flattener is an astonishing piece of optics that fills a full frame sensor all the way out to the edges, and images look great straight out of the camera. Then there's the unparalleled contrast of a fine refractor...
I use the 150pds for astrophotography and I can say it is fantastic, I don’t care how fine those apos are, a decent 150mm reflector will show better detail than a fancy 120apo simply because of aperture. Also a good coma corrector will be able to cover an APS-C sensor more than efficiently. I’m not here to start some beef but I feel like the quality of Ed’s images are due to his abilities as an astrophotographer not because of a cheap newt. Love this man channel tho.
I agree, I started with an Orion Starblast with an upgraded focused 😮and an Atik Infinity camera for EAA..and it was my go too. Night after night for deep sky objects that I could never see in my backyard. The 6” f5 Newtonian has a special place in my collection.
@@robertlautenslager9832 I still have my Orion Starblast 4.5 and have upgraded it as well. Flocked, bob's knobs, upgraded 1.25 focuser. Setting on the bench waiting are a 46.5mm secondary and 2" Skywatcher crayford focuser. The Cameras I use with it are my ASI585MC and SvBony 905C (The 905c is about the right size to show no-to minimal coma). Small sensors, but many of the targets I want to image are small. 3.75um pixels = about 1.72" per pixel and 2.9 is 1.33" per pixel.
Ed, I think it would be really nice if you could make a video reviewing other budget 5" astrograph reflectors (like the Skywatcher 130PDS, or the GSO, which I know you made a video about a year ago, although it was the F/6 and that review seem to have been dedicated to visual astronomy only). Any chance the mirror (spherical maybe?) in this celestron could be the cause of the low quality results? Always enjoy your videos. Thanks!
I bought the sky watcher version which came with the EQ3-2 mount. Found the mount to be a bit too small. I fitted sky watchers electric focuser which does improve the focusing experience. I did try imagining with it but found my results (excepting the moon) somewhat disapponting but that may have been due to my own inexperience at the time. Visually I found it to be fine for the money paid and still use it for lunar imaging.
This looks like a nice equatorial scope. I have a Meade 4" that I got as a Christmas present over 10 years ago, but since I can't get parts for it anymore, I'm looking to upgrade to a 6 or even 8 inch. Since I'm only looking at things like Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, I probably only need a Dobsonian mount, but a computerized equatorial would be nice.
Mr. Ting you are spot on and hit all the pros and cons points. I have owned one for over 4 years now and experienced what you have described. The CG-4 mount is okay but to light due to the fact it only takes a couple of accessories to run right up to the weight limit. Why oh why is the eyepiece draw tube painted silver?! I airbrushed it ultra flat black with better results with viewing now especially using Tele Vue Panoptics. So why did I buy it? Yes for the price and because it is blue in color. I'm a blue-a-holic so there you go. As for the coma corrector (yes I purchased one) it would have been better to put the money towards another Tele Vue eyepiece. Anyway clear skies and congratulations for buying another telescope. 🤣😅🤣😅 I am laughing with you because I have five now and have other to get. 🔭🔭🔭🔭🔭👍 Besides, in another 100 years it isn't going to matter.
Have had one for 15 years or so on an Atlas mount. I use it quite often here in southwest TX even though I have many larger and more expensive scopes. Not sure if the new ones from Celestron come standard with a 2" focuser.
SW Texas has some of the darkest and clearest skies I've ever witnessed. Went to McDonald Observatory few times and did some AP south of Van Horn once. Beautiful place for astronomy.
I looked at one of these from a fellow club member when I was looking to upgrade my 130 mm Meade reflector. We ran it on his AVX. His price to me was $200 but I ended up passing. I knew I needed a good mount as well. I would suggest a 8 inch AD Dob from High Point Scientific instead. It would be a similar price but comes with a mount. The weight would be more, but I think that it is a much more flexible instrument. I ended up buying a 10 inch AD Dob, so I may be biased.
i was undecided & had already ordered the Orion AstroView 6 but it was on 2 month backorder... after listening to your video, i cancelled & ordered this one today.😀
Had the Sky-Watcher version of this as my first scope spesifically for astrophotography. Bought as a bundle with an EQ3 Pro. Undermounted, as you say, and the scope is optically "OK" but doesnt really produce sharp stars. The stars in your images are well representative to what this scope can manage to offer.
I've been looking into getting one of the Orion SkyQuest dobs and noticed something off. I was under the impression that the XT8 comes with a metal 2" Crayford focuser and the XT6 uses a plastic 1.25" rack & pinion focuser. But when looking at Orion's website listings they both say and show a "precision 2" Crayford focuser with 1.25" adapter". Looking through their online e-catalogue which hasn't been updated past 2020 still shows what I thought to be the case, XT6 uses a plastic 1.25" focuser and the XT8 uses a metal 2" focuser. Before I purchase anything I just want confirmation that the focusers on the XT6 and XT8 have changed since 2020 and if the new ones are any good (I've desperately tried looking into the new focusers on reviews/forums/etc to no avail).
I own this telescope, bought used, and it is not bad for the price. I've added the Lacerta dual speed microfocus upgrade for a more precise focus setting. With a good Coma Corrector like the Baader MPCC Mark III, it can be good. I would have a picture of M51 taken Tuesday night to share with you, but unfortunatly it is not possible here.
Ed is the mirror parabolized? I had to jump in at the last moment and stop a friend from buying a 5" Celestron with a spherical mirror (I know from experience) - that scope had HORRIBLE SA and was IMO just about useless.
The Omni XLT series also has 102mm & 120mm doublet refractors. Would love to hear your thoughts on those. I got the 102mm. Yes, there is some CA, but for my needs of beginner visual astronomy it is perfect!
Love your channel, Ed..... I just bought a pair of Celestron 8X21 binoculars to stow in the console of my SUV for quick object inspection. Are these still your choice for small, inexpensive binoculars under $25? Amazon reviews are mostly positive, but I don't mind spending up to $50 for better quality. I have Leica Trinovid 8X42s for serious general viewing. Thanks for your thoughts, Michael
It looks like you might have been slightly miscollimated for some of your astro photos there; I see a distinctive double-image in your vertical diffraction spikes, and I usually get that when I've got something misaligned in my 6" f/4 newtonian. With everything aligned, it's an excellent astrophotography tool; I pair mine with the Quattro 4-element (GPU) corrector which produces very sharp and well-corrected results for the price. I think this type and class of telescope is under-rated for astrophotography; being reflectors they're fully free of chromatic aberration, and if you have a good figure on the primary and a good coma corrector, they're free of spherical aberration and coma too (leaving only some largely unnoticeable astigmatism as possible errors). Even with a coma corrector factored in, they're substantially cheaper than triplet refractors of similar light-gathering capability (with better resolution owing to the larger aperture), and can produce fabulous views either visually or photographically.
I couldn’t agree more, I use the 1500pds with the GPU coma corrector and after some mods and good collimation it delivers stunning results. A friend of mine owns a skywatcher esprit 120 and his images aren’t superior in any way despite the price difference.
Can't find review of 6" Orion Starblast with poor optics which Ed mentioned at 1:15. Please help. (Looked here, and at scopereviews, but haven't found)
@@edtingThanks Ed, I thought it's a different one, as it's written there that "Optically the scope is pretty good", and "I had some trepidation about buying it, as a recent sample of Orion's 6" f/5 Imaging Newtonian (same OTA as the Starblast) left much to be desired optically. ", so I suggested that there's another review of the not-so-good Orion 6" f5
I found that Baader MPCC works pretty great for this family of telescope models (I'm using ts-photon branded one), and crucially, is adjustable. With coma managed, it's a remarkably versatile imaging telescope. One point of interest, however, is that open cell design for primary can introduce light leaks - I am not sure how prevalent of a problem it is though.
Even tho i already have a couple of telescope, a 6" newt is something ill probably get at some point. Very nice size and also fits well with many cameras.
Part of my gripe with these faster newts and the "cheap" coma corrector is the lack of dial adjustment - like the parracor - (IMO required) You need to play with spacer rings for each eyepiece. Seriously detracts from the enjoyment of observing. If you upgrade to a paracorr, it cost more than the entire OTA, putting you at the same price as a 6" SCT.
Another great video Mr. Ting, thank you for your efforts. Any chance of reviewing the cousin to that reflector, the Omni XLT 120 refractor? Is it worthwhile? Thanks again. Clear skies, warm nights to you.
@@edting You honor me with your reply, thank you sir. A loyal viewer from Ohio in a Bortle 23 or so area. Yes, I know the scale as 1 to 9, but you should (try to?) see our sky.... Long time subscriber, Mak user. Looking at first steps into refractor world, other than the department store 60mm I've been using since high school (too many decades ago). Time to get a Chevy or Buick, rather than a Cadillac or Bentley, figuratively speaking, of course. "Decent" will be good enough, don't need (or want to afford) the really "nice" ones. Thanks again for your efforts, and your reply. Good health to you and yours. P.S. the humorous moments are a nice touch. Well done!
what is the highest feasible limiting magnitude reachable with a solid budget as an amateur? currently really demotivated to pay solid money for something that shows way less than the sdss9 or dss or hsc surveys in stellarium..
After a lifetime of hardwork finally can afford a couple of decent telescopes. So I bought a 6" Celestron F-8 refractor on a VX mount, an Orion 10" F-4 Newtonian Astrograph (mount pending), and a Celestron 7" F-15 Mak. Upgraded to 2" star diagonal. Due to eye issues (I'm 62) my eyepieces are all 2". So far have Baader Hyperion 31mm, 17mm and 8mm. Have heard that not all eyepieces are optimal in all type of telescopes. What would be a good selection of two eyepieces for the otas listed. I'm looking at Explore Scientific 2" eyepieces, but not sure what size. Any suggestions?
Good job getting into the hobby! You are going to have mount issues with all three optical tubes. The AVX is not strong enough to hold that 6" refractor. I had the Astro-Tech variant of the 10" f/4 and my G11 would not hold it. You are going to spend many thousands on a mount for it. I don't know where you live, but our conditions here in the northeast can rarely support the focal length of that Mak. It needs a VERY sturdy mount.
Hey, Im searching for a good first time telescope and came across the Skywatcher N 150/750 Star Discovery P1 50i SynScan WiFi GoTo and was wondering if its a good option. What do you trunk about IT?
The issue is the mount. That mount is sold in the US as the NexStar SLT and Orion had a variant as well. You might get an accurate one, you might not. I also have concerns about long term reliability.
I paid someone to remove the IR filter on the T3i. This is a good, but not great modification. It works well enough for the purposes here in the video.
In astronomy, it's common for your eyepieces to be worth more than your telescope. It's common for your telescope to be worth more than your car. Astrophotography is even more counterintuitive. The optical tube is far down the list of what's important. Imaging is all about the mount. Then it's the post processing, then the camera, then the field flattener/coma corrector and autoguider, and then maybe the optical tube.
As long as it hasn't been abused or dropped, used scopes are usually very safe buys. The owner is probably just looking to get something else. One exception - if you are buying a fancy goto scope, *assume* the electronics are dead or will die at some point (hint: it's a good assumption).
There's something about the contrast of a refractor. The field flattener for the Stowaway costs more than the entire Omni 150 tube and is an amazing piece of optics. It will fill the frame of a full-frame sensor with no distortion. The cheap FF you saw me use will fill perhaps 1/2 the field of a full frame sensor, if that.
Hi, Great videos and explanations, Thank You. I'm looking for my 1st scope and on a tight budget. I found a Celestron Astromaster 130eg with the mount and the motor drive brand new still in the box for $200.00 I want something that would be easy to transport and set up too. Is this worth giving it a shot? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Hi, I crossed that off my list to buy. Lol I've be looking at an Orion Skyscanner 135mm for $299.00 new or just saving up for the XT6 or the Orion Skyline 6 both of those are $449.00 new. Thank You for any direction you can give me.
Hello Ed! I bought this exact OTA AFTER buying an AVX mount for my then mothballed 8" SCT about 3 years ago. This was my start in EAA and astrophotography. I had been a visual observer for many years, but the light pollution pretty much put an end to what were somewhat decent suburban skies. The Omni 150 was recommended as a good workhorse scope. It now rides on an EQ6 R Pro, along with AsiAir Pro, ZWO EAF, and a ZWO asi 533 MC Pro. It has been a great scope, and had no need for any corrector whatsoever. I've modded it a bit with a rear cooling fan. I 3D printed a flanged insert for mounting the fan, as well as eliminating the light leakage. It has been an outstanding performer from the beginning, and would highly recommend it to anyone, based on what I've gotten from it. Collimation has been almost rock solid, but I would reccommend a set of Bob's Knobs to make things easier when it's necessary. As you have said, skies make a huge difference. My home went from Bortle 4.5 to 7.5 over the past 10 years, but still do most of my imaging here, and use this scope more than my 8" SCT. I think if you were to play with it some more, you would find it to be one of those hidden gems for its price point. I always look forward to your next video!
It's $700 with the cg-4 mount. I feel like for that money you'd be much better off getting an 8" dob. You can find these 2nd hand, but you can also find skywatcher 8" dob 2nd hand (although often without the base).
I bought a barely used AP rig in 2017 that included the XLT150 with MPCC, ST80 guidescope w/asi120mc, all on an NEQ6 Pro. Since your spacing with CC was imprecise I think it unreasonable to compare the results with any APO. The 150s effective aperture is around 127mm and even with a decent CC far less than any triplet refractors using FFs. I'm loathe to sell off my XLT150 as I think I can mount it on an old LXD55 or LXD75 for cheap EAA work.
Ed, when you say, "It doesn't look too bad" @12:27, what do you mean? What's wrong with those captures of M31, NGC 891, the Veil, M27, Crescent, and Pacman? Is it the corners?
Those images are severely cropped (close to 50%) so you don't see the massive distortion at the edges. Also, I had to do a ton of post-processing work to get those to look acceptable. A nice refractor will fill the frame to the edges without distortion, and its images will look great straight out of the camera and barely need post processing.
My first telescope; bought 16 years ago. Best paint job in the industry. Glad to see it now offered with a 2" eyepiece focuser.
Beyond the paint job, do you like it? Is it ok? Would you recommend it or no?
Thanks
@VirgilTStone it's a great value scope. It'll show you a lot of stuff before getting big and bulky. If your goal is to casually view the moon, planets, and some deep sky stuff, then this is a great choice. Collimation is a one person job.
I picked up my Celestron Omni last fall for a bargain price of $200 for the OTA only. Used with my Berlebach Castor II mount, it makes for excellent grab-n-go deep sky observing sessions!
Don't underestimate the size of this scope. Just as Ed pointed out at 10:08, a 6" reflector can show you so many popular objects, even from my Bortle 7 backyard! My Mother loves to view Jupiter and Saturn through this telescope. The views are sharp, it's lightweight, extremely cheap for the aperture, and heavily upgradeable. You can change out the extension tubes for ones with compression rings, you can upgrade the focuser, you can flock the interior of the tube, upgrade the included eyepieces, the sky's the limit! Plus, it's colored blue! :)
Overall, I highly recommend anyone this scope! Just as long as you have the proper mounting, this scope will give you years of observing! Hopefully when the weather clears up I'll check out some open star clusters later this week. Thanks for the review!
Note: The reason why I chose the Omni over the Celestron C6-N was due to it's focuser. The Omni has a 2" metal focuser that allows both 1.25" and 2" eyepieces. The C6-N however has a 1.25" plastic focuser that allows only 1.25" eyepieces. That was a big deal breaker for me.
Hmmm, my C6-N had a metal 1.25 focuser that I have in a drawer after putting a 2" Crayford on it. Upgrades? I did the ultimate upgrade and had my mirror refigured to 1/12th wave and a Strehl of .98 with 96% reflectivity. Near perfect is all I can say about it. edit; I bought it at a pawn shop.
8:06, my back had started to hurt from looking at the focuser's palcement on the alt-az mount.
I bought mine when it was $200.00 ! I got lucky with a "good" mirror. It is excellent condition, holds collimation very well. I do very limited imaging with it (yep, under mounted) it's my medium visual quick setup scope and I love the thing!
This scope was the first on my list when I started in the hobby, i didn't get it till last year, as I was afraid from collimation, however, with a laser collimation the process is a breeze and it is the second lightest scope after an 800mm refractor or a C90, in my opinion.
One thing to mention, Celestron originally provided this OTA with a 1.25" rack & pinion focuser then silently updated it to 2" Crayford style
I have this scope on Orion's Skyview Pro GEM (manual), which, as far as I know, is one of the EQ5s. I use it for a visual work and I also use my ZWO ASI 224 to stack lunar and planetary images.
I bought this scope with the CG-4 mount about 3 yrs ago. This has been a great scope to get back into astronomy after a 25 yr hiatus. I've done some modification like flocking the tube and painting the edges of the mirrors but nothing too major or expensive. I did add an Astrogadget Goto to the mount for tracking which works great. Have had great luck with imaging with a non modified DSLR (no filters, correctors or reducers). Not professional quality but good. Good collimation is the helps too.
Ed, you keep talking about hidden gems but in reality you are the hidden gem. Thanks for the amazing videos 💯
I have been waiting for this video!! I'm getting this scope as my introduction to astrophotography.
Every video is like Christmas. Thank you for all the work you do. Your videos are the best.
Ed is a legend, his knowledge is gold.
@bill murphy penguins Ed is definitely a legend. One of the best to gift his knowledge to us.
Just bought the coma corrector and yes, it helps. Thanks for the advice. 👍
You forgot the Celestron C6-N Ed. It is the cheaper version of the 150. That's the one I had the mirror refigured to near perfect focus and had to put a JMI focuser on it because the 1.25" wasn't cutting it. I use a Celestron CG-4 and it isn't shaky at all with the C6--N. It handles the 12 lb. scope just fine. I've taken some pictures, but it is a manual mount so very short exposures. Guy in my club used it to take some photos, but he put it on a heavy mount.
I have one of those. Effectively I don't see the need to upgrade to other model, it does what I need for visual astronomy.
I bought the motor for the CG-4, very convenient for tracking objects, specially when using high magnification.
I split the difference and went for the skywatcher 130pds. 5" of absolute visual joy.
your a star mate really , well done , love the ending 👍👍
Great review Ed. Bought this Telescope with the CG4 mount and have been very happy with it.
i owned a 32mm omni plossl that had extreme seagulling coma. I wanted to give it away to a beginner but luckily tested it with a coma corrector prior to listing it. It greatly cleans up the plossl. I've had this combo together for about 3 years now.
I ordered 1 today. My first real telescope. Thank you
I have a Orion 6” Astrograph. It comes with a metal 2” focus which was I wanted over the Orion Skywatcher. It’s a shorter tube which means it needs extensions tubes in the focuser. It works pretty well for my purpose of visual observation, but also trying some photography with it. I don’t have a tracker mount, so photography hasn’t gone far yet, but it’s a fast telescope at F4. The build quality is a bit suspect though, as a few screws were loose on the scope when I opened the box. One screw had even fallen out into the tube! I can’t really compare to another brand yet as I haven’t tried anything else like it. The views are comparable to my Orion XT8 dobsionian, just a bit dimmer.
That photo of NGC 891: sublime!
Really enjoy your vids
Cheers from Australia
Hey Ed! Very nice review of a scope I know well - my first one. You did well to buy the sample ;D! I graduated to costlier OTAs but cannot bring myself to part with it, and won't. Mine is a good one, splitting doubles right down to Dawes' limit and showing beautiful star colours. I'd be perhaps a little more sanguine about the mount: having used the kit for 2 1/2 years I think that the bundled CG-4 is A-OK for it (visual or full disk lunar photography), even ditching the 6x30 finder and loading it with a 1kg RACI finder and additional red dot. But admittedly I use light 1.25 EPs and skip the whole 2" hand grenade + coma corrector thing: a good 32mm Plössl gives me a nice wide field without too much curvature, so… long live the OMNI 150 and thanks for the review!
Nice review. I use this scope on my EQ6 so rock solid. Light leaks were an issue on my copy but easy enough to address.
Perfect review, Thanks Ed.
Excellent useful info on the GSO coma corrector. Many thanks!
I have one of these. I added an Astro--Gadget motorized go to conversion kit to the CG-4 mount and it works quite nicely.
Though being elderly and feeble, I find it difficult to put the 12 pound optical tube on the mount, so I usually use my Orion Spaceprobe 130 ST, my Celestron 6" SCT or my Sky Watcher Startravel 120 refractor and the mount handles all very well.
A few years ago I ordered a 150mm f5 Refractor from a local dealer here in Australia , they sent one of these instead , and I was so amazed with its performance I kept it , it was basically perfect optically .
I used the difference in price to grab a few eyepieces and a drive for my EQ5 mount , a great telescope that I used and loved for years .
Ed,
I’ve always liked the Vixen C6 even with the sliding focuser. I used an adapter to fit a 2 inch eyepiece, yes vignettes but visually ok. I’ll never forget the views of comets Hale-Bopp and Hyakutake in it.
I wonder how these newer scopes compare to the old Vixen.
12:01 thats what a separate ir filter is for and honestly a non rich begainner is not going to be using expensive/new equipment if they can help it, this is the approach i took anyway.
Interesting - the double diffraction spike means the spider vanes are not collinear! The tube holes for the spider must not be evenly spaced. Never have seen this before.
In China,we have the sky-watcher version and it's probably the best seller for serious beginners especially for those who want to do astrophotography.The sellers have all the modifications to deal with all the problems this scope would come across.Maybe I would buy the newly-come-out f/4 version for nightvision in order to get larger exit pupil diameter.
I love your show. I’ve learned a lot and have enjoyed buying some telescopes you talked about and they were the right choice for me in my situation.. thanks
Hello Ed, love your channel. I'm in a tear right now between the celestron evolution 6 and the celestron advanced vx 6" Schmidt cassegrain scope. Would love to see a comparison video !
Between the two, always choose the AVX. It is more accurate.
Ed.. I'm real surprised at your take on AP with this scope, so much so I think it could use further elaboration. I Think it's more than capable of good AP. The SW 130PDS for example has a very large AP following. I have a SW 150 f/4 as well as an AT80EDT and the newt produces better deep sky AP.
I was thinking about the same, what about the 130pds, and SW recently put out the quattro 6". Maybe with a few modifications (flocking, blackening mirrors, covering the back, etc) the Omni XLT should deliver good images.
The Omni 150 is a great bargain but it will always be a cheap scope. Compared to a first rate apo it feels like a toy. It won't come close to filling the frame of a full-frame sensor without distortion and even with an APS-C camera attached I had to crop 1/3 to 1/2 of the image so you wouldn't see what was happening at the edges. I also had to do tons of post processing to make the images look acceptable. As you saw the contrast was also lousy. The Stowaway's field flattener is an astonishing piece of optics that fills a full frame sensor all the way out to the edges, and images look great straight out of the camera. Then there's the unparalleled contrast of a fine refractor...
I use the 150pds for astrophotography and I can say it is fantastic, I don’t care how fine those apos are, a decent 150mm reflector will show better detail than a fancy 120apo simply because of aperture.
Also a good coma corrector will be able to cover an APS-C sensor more than efficiently.
I’m not here to start some beef but I feel like the quality of Ed’s images are due to his abilities as an astrophotographer not because of a cheap newt.
Love this man channel tho.
I agree, I started with an Orion Starblast with an upgraded focused 😮and an Atik Infinity camera for EAA..and it was my go too. Night after night for deep sky objects that I could never see in my backyard. The 6” f5 Newtonian has a special place in my collection.
@@robertlautenslager9832 I still have my Orion Starblast 4.5 and have upgraded it as well. Flocked, bob's knobs, upgraded 1.25 focuser. Setting on the bench waiting are a 46.5mm secondary and 2" Skywatcher crayford focuser. The Cameras I use with it are my ASI585MC and SvBony 905C (The 905c is about the right size to show no-to minimal coma). Small sensors, but many of the targets I want to image are small. 3.75um pixels = about 1.72" per pixel and 2.9 is 1.33" per pixel.
I have the TS Photon clone and I am pleased with the scope - my next purchase is a better mount as I only have an EQ3-2 which is not up to the job.
Ed, I think it would be really nice if you could make a video reviewing other budget 5" astrograph reflectors (like the Skywatcher 130PDS, or the GSO, which I know you made a video about a year ago, although it was the F/6 and that review seem to have been dedicated to visual astronomy only). Any chance the mirror (spherical maybe?) in this celestron could be the cause of the low quality results? Always enjoy your videos. Thanks!
I bought the sky watcher version which came with the EQ3-2 mount. Found the mount to be a bit too small. I fitted sky watchers electric focuser which does improve the focusing experience. I did try imagining with it but found my results (excepting the moon) somewhat disapponting but that may have been due to my own inexperience at the time. Visually I found it to be fine for the money paid and still use it for lunar imaging.
At 1:00 if you look at the tube rings on those no name newts they look like they were made by GSO. Also the dove tail as well.
I have the Orion version and I never thought it was that bad. But then again I haven’t used it since I’ve stepped up to much better scopes. 🤔
This looks like a nice equatorial scope. I have a Meade 4" that I got as a Christmas present over 10 years ago, but since I can't get parts for it anymore, I'm looking to upgrade to a 6 or even 8 inch. Since I'm only looking at things like Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, I probably only need a Dobsonian mount, but a computerized equatorial would be nice.
For people with not so deep pockets, its a good one, especially if We don't want to do photography but just enjoy gazing at the skies!!
Mr. Ting you are spot on and hit all the pros and cons points. I have owned one for over 4 years now and experienced what you have described. The CG-4 mount is okay but to light due to the fact it only takes a couple of accessories to run right up to the weight limit. Why oh why is the eyepiece draw tube painted silver?! I airbrushed it ultra flat black with better results with viewing now especially using Tele Vue Panoptics. So why did I buy it? Yes for the price and because it is blue in color. I'm a blue-a-holic so there you go. As for the coma corrector (yes I purchased one) it would have been better to put the money towards another Tele Vue eyepiece. Anyway clear skies and congratulations for buying another telescope.
🤣😅🤣😅 I am laughing with you because I have five now and have other to get. 🔭🔭🔭🔭🔭👍 Besides, in another 100 years it isn't going to matter.
Somehow I lucked out and got one (used) with a 2-speed focuser. Makes it far more pleasant to use.
Have had one for 15 years or so on an Atlas mount. I use it quite often here in southwest TX even though I have many larger and more expensive scopes. Not sure if the new ones from Celestron come standard with a 2" focuser.
SW Texas has some of the darkest and clearest skies I've ever witnessed. Went to McDonald Observatory few times and did some AP south of Van Horn once. Beautiful place for astronomy.
I looked at one of these from a fellow club member when I was looking to upgrade my 130 mm Meade reflector. We ran it on his AVX. His price to me was $200 but I ended up passing. I knew I needed a good mount as well. I would suggest a 8 inch AD Dob from High Point Scientific instead. It would be a similar price but comes with a mount. The weight would be more, but I think that it is a much more flexible instrument. I ended up buying a 10 inch AD Dob, so I may be biased.
i was undecided & had already ordered the Orion AstroView 6 but it was on 2 month backorder... after listening to your video, i cancelled & ordered this one today.😀
Had the Sky-Watcher version of this as my first scope spesifically for astrophotography. Bought as a bundle with an EQ3 Pro. Undermounted, as you say, and the scope is optically "OK" but doesnt really produce sharp stars. The stars in your images are well representative to what this scope can manage to offer.
Do have a link to video showing or telling what modifications u had to do to your camera for beginning astro-photography
I've been looking into getting one of the Orion SkyQuest dobs and noticed something off. I was under the impression that the XT8 comes with a metal 2" Crayford focuser and the XT6 uses a plastic 1.25" rack & pinion focuser. But when looking at Orion's website listings they both say and show a "precision 2" Crayford focuser with 1.25" adapter".
Looking through their online e-catalogue which hasn't been updated past 2020 still shows what I thought to be the case, XT6 uses a plastic 1.25" focuser and the XT8 uses a metal 2" focuser. Before I purchase anything I just want confirmation that the focusers on the XT6 and XT8 have changed since 2020 and if the new ones are any good (I've desperately tried looking into the new focusers on reviews/forums/etc to no avail).
I own this telescope, bought used, and it is not bad for the price. I've added the Lacerta dual speed microfocus upgrade for a more precise focus setting. With a good Coma Corrector like the Baader MPCC Mark III, it can be good. I would have a picture of M51 taken Tuesday night to share with you, but unfortunatly it is not possible here.
Best, marketing, ploy, ever… Get Ed to review your old equipment, then buys your old equipment.
Ed is the mirror parabolized? I had to jump in at the last moment and stop a friend from buying a 5" Celestron with a spherical mirror (I know from experience) - that scope had HORRIBLE SA and was IMO just about useless.
I do not like finder scopes. So, I mounted a rail with a SvBony 60mm Guide scope with a diagonal. 'Tis now a finder and then some.
The Omni XLT series also has 102mm & 120mm doublet refractors. Would love to hear your thoughts on those.
I got the 102mm. Yes, there is some CA, but for my needs of beginner visual astronomy it is perfect!
I'm about to buy the 102mm and agree a review on the refractors would be great!!
saw an omni xlt 150 in classifieds recently for $250....included a cg-4 mount. I really should have picked it up
A wise man once told me, "the best scope in the world is the one you have". @edting did you include the link for the aperture corrector?
Hello sir
Could you please make a video on how to do astrophotography with smart phone and a telescope in a light polluted sky.
🙏
Ed, love all of your videos. What is the blue telescope to your right?
Love your channel, Ed..... I just bought a pair of Celestron 8X21 binoculars to stow in the console of my SUV for quick object inspection. Are these still your choice for small, inexpensive binoculars under $25? Amazon reviews are mostly positive, but I don't mind spending up to $50 for better quality. I have Leica Trinovid 8X42s for serious general viewing. Thanks for your thoughts, Michael
It looks like you might have been slightly miscollimated for some of your astro photos there; I see a distinctive double-image in your vertical diffraction spikes, and I usually get that when I've got something misaligned in my 6" f/4 newtonian. With everything aligned, it's an excellent astrophotography tool; I pair mine with the Quattro 4-element (GPU) corrector which produces very sharp and well-corrected results for the price.
I think this type and class of telescope is under-rated for astrophotography; being reflectors they're fully free of chromatic aberration, and if you have a good figure on the primary and a good coma corrector, they're free of spherical aberration and coma too (leaving only some largely unnoticeable astigmatism as possible errors). Even with a coma corrector factored in, they're substantially cheaper than triplet refractors of similar light-gathering capability (with better resolution owing to the larger aperture), and can produce fabulous views either visually or photographically.
I couldn’t agree more, I use the 1500pds with the GPU coma corrector and after some mods and good collimation it delivers stunning results. A friend of mine owns a skywatcher esprit 120 and his images aren’t superior in any way despite the price difference.
Will you be reviewing psv-14 night vision?
Great review Ed..thanks 👍
Excellent review!
Can't find review of 6" Orion Starblast with poor optics which Ed mentioned at 1:15. Please help.
(Looked here, and at scopereviews, but haven't found)
On Scopereviews the review is on Page 32. It can also be found off the Master List.
@@edtingThanks Ed, I thought it's a different one, as it's written there that "Optically the scope is pretty good", and "I had some trepidation about buying it, as a recent sample of Orion's 6" f/5 Imaging Newtonian (same OTA as the Starblast) left much to be desired optically. ", so I suggested that there's another review of the not-so-good Orion 6" f5
I found that Baader MPCC works pretty great for this family of telescope models (I'm using ts-photon branded one), and crucially, is adjustable. With coma managed, it's a remarkably versatile imaging telescope. One point of interest, however, is that open cell design for primary can introduce light leaks - I am not sure how prevalent of a problem it is though.
Shower cap over the end sorts it out.
Even tho i already have a couple of telescope, a 6" newt is something ill probably get at some point. Very nice size and also fits well with many cameras.
I have the 5"? version of this, and I have a blast with it, the optics aren't great, but if I drop it I'm not going to cry.
Part of my gripe with these faster newts and the "cheap" coma corrector is the lack of dial adjustment - like the parracor - (IMO required) You need to play with spacer rings for each eyepiece. Seriously detracts from the enjoyment of observing. If you upgrade to a paracorr, it cost more than the entire OTA, putting you at the same price as a 6" SCT.
Another great video Mr. Ting, thank you for your efforts.
Any chance of reviewing the cousin to that reflector, the Omni XLT 120 refractor?
Is it worthwhile?
Thanks again.
Clear skies, warm nights to you.
I haven't seen one of those in a while. If I get one in I'll let you know.
@@edting
You honor me with your reply, thank you sir.
A loyal viewer from Ohio in a Bortle 23 or so area. Yes, I know the scale as 1 to 9, but you should (try to?) see our sky....
Long time subscriber, Mak user.
Looking at first steps into refractor world, other than the department store 60mm I've been using since high school (too many decades ago).
Time to get a Chevy or Buick, rather than a Cadillac or Bentley, figuratively speaking, of course.
"Decent" will be good enough, don't need (or want to afford) the really "nice" ones.
Thanks again for your efforts, and your reply.
Good health to you and yours.
P.S. the humorous moments are a
nice touch. Well done!
what is the highest feasible limiting magnitude reachable with a solid budget as an amateur? currently really demotivated to pay solid money for something that shows way less than the sdss9 or dss or hsc surveys in stellarium..
Ed How much does the draw tube interfere with image due to an obstruction.?
This is common with inexpensive Newtonians. I wouldn't worry about it.
After a lifetime of hardwork finally can afford a couple of decent telescopes. So I bought a 6" Celestron F-8 refractor on a VX mount, an Orion 10" F-4 Newtonian Astrograph (mount pending), and a Celestron 7" F-15 Mak. Upgraded to 2" star diagonal. Due to eye issues (I'm 62) my eyepieces are all 2". So far have Baader Hyperion 31mm, 17mm and 8mm.
Have heard that not all eyepieces are optimal in all type of telescopes. What would be a good selection of two eyepieces for the otas listed. I'm looking at Explore Scientific 2" eyepieces, but not sure what size. Any suggestions?
Good job getting into the hobby! You are going to have mount issues with all three optical tubes. The AVX is not strong enough to hold that 6" refractor. I had the Astro-Tech variant of the 10" f/4 and my G11 would not hold it. You are going to spend many thousands on a mount for it. I don't know where you live, but our conditions here in the northeast can rarely support the focal length of that Mak. It needs a VERY sturdy mount.
Thank you.
What is the focal length of that telescope. Is it a 150 mm aperture by 750mm focal length
Yes.
Are there any better telescopes with similar price for mainly deep sky ?
There's the standard recommendation of the 8" Dob.
Hey, Im searching for a good first time telescope and came across the Skywatcher N 150/750 Star Discovery P1 50i SynScan WiFi GoTo and was wondering if its a good option. What do you trunk about IT?
The issue is the mount. That mount is sold in the US as the NexStar SLT and Orion had a variant as well. You might get an accurate one, you might not. I also have concerns about long term reliability.
@Ed Ting Thanks for your reply. Do you have a recommendation for a other telescope about this size and price?
@@edting or do you have a recommendation for a alternative mount?
What type of modification did you do on the camera? I was thinking of getting my Canon modified for imaging faint galaxies.
I paid someone to remove the IR filter on the T3i. This is a good, but not great modification. It works well enough for the purposes here in the video.
@@edting I was thinking of the full spectrum mod, but expensive.
No problem Ed! We all know that as with anything else in life, the idea amount of telescopes = N+1. 👍
with shooting, your scope shouldn't cost more than the gun. What's the analog in astrophotography?
In astronomy, it's common for your eyepieces to be worth more than your telescope. It's common for your telescope to be worth more than your car. Astrophotography is even more counterintuitive. The optical tube is far down the list of what's important. Imaging is all about the mount. Then it's the post processing, then the camera, then the field flattener/coma corrector and autoguider, and then maybe the optical tube.
Which make would you say is best, as a general rule, celestron or orion? I was looking at the 10 inch dobsonion.
All that stuff comes from the same place. Get the one offering the best deal, or whoever has what you want in stock.
@@edting thank you Ed. What should I look for if buying second hand?
As long as it hasn't been abused or dropped, used scopes are usually very safe buys. The owner is probably just looking to get something else. One exception - if you are buying a fancy goto scope, *assume* the electronics are dead or will die at some point (hint: it's a good assumption).
@@edting thank you very much again. I'm a total technaphobe, point and observe is my limit. That's why I was thinking of the 8 or 10 inch dobsonion.
This scope is faster than AP Stowaway, but it looks like it loses half of the light. Mirrors can't be that bad, maybe the corrector? It's a mystery.
There's something about the contrast of a refractor. The field flattener for the Stowaway costs more than the entire Omni 150 tube and is an amazing piece of optics. It will fill the frame of a full-frame sensor with no distortion. The cheap FF you saw me use will fill perhaps 1/2 the field of a full frame sensor, if that.
Soooooo can I look at planets with this telescope?
Hi, Great videos and explanations, Thank You. I'm looking for my 1st scope and on a tight budget. I found a Celestron Astromaster 130eg with the mount and the motor drive brand new still in the box for $200.00 I want something that would be easy to transport and set up too. Is this worth giving it a shot? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
AstroMasters and PowerSeekers are variations on the same junk. See my review of the PowerSeeker 127.
@@edting Thank you very much for the heads up I'm checking it out now👍
Hi, I crossed that off my list to buy. Lol I've be looking at an Orion Skyscanner 135mm for $299.00 new or just saving up for the XT6 or the Orion Skyline 6 both of those are $449.00 new. Thank You for any direction you can give me.
Very interesting
Hello Ed!
I bought this exact OTA AFTER buying an AVX mount for my then mothballed 8" SCT about 3 years ago. This was my start in EAA and astrophotography. I had been a visual observer for many years, but the light pollution pretty much put an end to what were somewhat decent suburban skies. The Omni 150 was recommended as a good workhorse scope. It now rides on an EQ6 R Pro, along with AsiAir Pro, ZWO EAF, and a ZWO asi 533 MC Pro. It has been a great scope, and had no need for any corrector whatsoever. I've modded it a bit with a rear cooling fan. I 3D printed a flanged insert for mounting the fan, as well as eliminating the light leakage. It has been an outstanding performer from the beginning, and would highly recommend it to anyone, based on what I've gotten from it. Collimation has been almost rock solid, but I would reccommend a set of Bob's Knobs to make things easier when it's necessary. As you have said, skies make a huge difference. My home went from Bortle 4.5 to 7.5 over the past 10 years, but still do most of my imaging here, and use this scope more than my 8" SCT. I think if you were to play with it some more, you would find it to be one of those hidden gems for its price point. I always look forward to your next video!
🔭Nice review....Thanks 🖖🏼👽
I find my Omni 150 to not have the smoothest of surfaces and does not do well on high magnification. Perhaps its not made for that.
Bought your book!
'Clone' may not be the best term, as I suspect the majority of those models are the same scope. At least the same optical train.
It's $700 with the cg-4 mount. I feel like for that money you'd be much better off getting an 8" dob. You can find these 2nd hand, but you can also find skywatcher 8" dob 2nd hand (although often without the base).
I wanted a wider field of view in a rich field telescope.
And a 6" fast Newtonian is closer to a grab and go than an f/5 Dob.
I bought a barely used AP rig in 2017 that included the XLT150 with MPCC, ST80 guidescope w/asi120mc, all on an NEQ6 Pro.
Since your spacing with CC was imprecise I think it unreasonable to compare the results with any APO.
The 150s effective aperture is around 127mm and even with a decent CC far less than any triplet refractors using FFs.
I'm loathe to sell off my XLT150 as I think I can mount it on an old LXD55 or LXD75 for cheap EAA work.
I would never make fun of you, Ed. ;)
Guan Sheng and aperture are the same, just saying.
First viewer. Pin me!
Ed, when you say, "It doesn't look too bad" @12:27, what do you mean? What's wrong with those captures of M31, NGC 891, the Veil, M27, Crescent, and Pacman? Is it the corners?
Those images are severely cropped (close to 50%) so you don't see the massive distortion at the edges. Also, I had to do a ton of post-processing work to get those to look acceptable. A nice refractor will fill the frame to the edges without distortion, and its images will look great straight out of the camera and barely need post processing.
@@edting Got it; thanks.