| Info | Votes | Messages | More Stats |
 Up One Level
|
 | ||||
Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.194.13 By: Richard In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.194.13) (Original Vote) Date: 08/18/2002 02:25:14 am PST >The Orion Optics GX-250 has a super light weight tube assembly and super mirrors but the mechanical construction is total rubbish , focuser is a cheap rate affair which is not set at 90 degrees with the tube making collimation a major problem . the two vaned secondary mirror assembley is nothing else but rubbish. Many people who I chat too on the internet all have to same problems and even worse is the dreadful after sales service which is second to none , matter of fact there is no after sales service. So unless you want problems please buy somethink else from another source. Not a very happy astronomer. > >Ratings -10 total junk. The mechanical construction may well be a bit 'basic' but nothing like as bad as the author above states. I had the same OTA until recently and only sold it (reluctantly) to buy the 12" version. Optically it was superb. The problems described are easily remedied at little cost (upgrade focuser to 2", new spider) which still means the 'scope is a bargain. To rate it 'total junk' after describing the mirrors as 'super' is a bit of a contradiction and certainly neither helpful nor, in my experience, anything like a fair reflection of the 'scope's performance. Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.194.13 By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.69.34) In Reply to: Richard (Original Message) Date: 01/29/2003 04:55:29 am PST >>The Orion Optics GX-250 has a super light weight tube assembly and super mirrors but the mechanical construction is total rubbish , focuser is a cheap rate affair which is not set at 90 degrees with the tube making collimation a major problem . the two vaned secondary mirror assembley is nothing else but rubbish. Many people who I chat too on the internet all have to same problems and even worse is the dreadful after sales service which is second to none , matter of fact there is no after sales service. So unless you want problems please buy somethink else from another source. Not a very happy astronomer. >> >>Ratings -10 total junk. > >The mechanical construction may well be a bit 'basic' but nothing like as bad as the author above states. I had the same OTA until recently and only sold it (reluctantly) to buy the 12" version. Optically it was superb. > >The problems described are easily remedied at little cost (upgrade focuser to 2", new spider) which still means the 'scope is a bargain. > >To rate it 'total junk' after describing the mirrors as 'super' is a bit of a contradiction and certainly neither helpful nor, in my experience, anything like a fair reflection of the 'scope's performance. I would have to disagree, there is some truth to what the first author had to say. And its not a contradiction regards the mirror and mechanical assembly. The primary is good but if the secondary spider is of such poor quality and not properly aligned with the eyepiece, making collimation V.difficult, the telescope will never perform. The tube assembly has the feel of a school boys machine shop project. And feels of poor quality even alongside comparable Synta made telescopes. It could be that Orion's QC isn't terribly good, which would explain variations in performance between owners. Its not total junk though, the Vixen GP mount is top quality and the optics are good. But the tube may require some post purchase work to get the full potential from the telescope. Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.194.13 By: Richard In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.69.34) (Original Message) Date: 02/01/2003 08:00:43 am PST >>>The Orion Optics GX-250 has a super light weight tube assembly and super mirrors but the mechanical construction is total rubbish , focuser is a cheap rate affair which is not set at 90 degrees with the tube making collimation a major problem . the two vaned secondary mirror assembley is nothing else but rubbish. Many people who I chat too on the internet all have to same problems and even worse is the dreadful after sales service which is second to none , matter of fact there is no after sales service. So unless you want problems please buy somethink else from another source. Not a very happy astronomer. >>> >>>Ratings -10 total junk. >> >>The mechanical construction may well be a bit 'basic' but nothing like as bad as the author above states. I had the same OTA until recently and only sold it (reluctantly) to buy the 12" version. Optically it was superb. >> >>The problems described are easily remedied at little cost (upgrade focuser to 2", new spider) which still means the 'scope is a bargain. >> >>To rate it 'total junk' after describing the mirrors as 'super' is a bit of a contradiction and certainly neither helpful nor, in my experience, anything like a fair reflection of the 'scope's performance. > > >I would have to disagree, there is some truth to what the first author had to say. And its not a contradiction regards the mirror and mechanical assembly. The primary is good but if the secondary spider is of such poor quality and not properly aligned with the eyepiece, making collimation V.difficult, the telescope will never perform. The tube assembly has the feel of a school boys machine shop project. And feels of poor quality even alongside comparable Synta made telescopes. It could be that Orion's QC isn't terribly good, which would explain variations in performance between owners. Its not total junk though, the Vixen GP mount is top quality and the optics are good. But the tube may require some post purchase work to get the full potential from the telescope. I think we're actually agreeing, more or less, rather than disagreeing! The construction is indeed basic as I've stated and certainly doesn't confer the 'pride of ownership' that my Takahashi does. That scope is a real pleasure to use, mechanically as well as optically, everything feels over-engineered. Collimation isn't difficult but does need frequent checking which is a nuisance (see my comments re. DX300). I suspect the 2-vaned spider is at least partially responsible. The post-purchase work you mention would be in my opinion a decent spider and focuser as I've suggested. Your suspicions regarding Orion's QC are certainly borne out by my experiences (missing parts etc) but to be fair to Orion they dealt with it quickly. Still don't agree with calling the 'scope total junk though! Perhaps a 'work in progress'? Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.194.13 By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.104.186) In Reply to: Richard (Original Message) Date: 02/02/2003 08:07:43 pm PST >>>>The Orion Optics GX-250 has a super light weight tube assembly and super mirrors but the mechanical construction is total rubbish , focuser is a cheap rate affair which is not set at 90 degrees with the tube making collimation a major problem . the two vaned secondary mirror assembley is nothing else but rubbish. Many people who I chat too on the internet all have to same problems and even worse is the dreadful after sales service which is second to none , matter of fact there is no after sales service. So unless you want problems please buy somethink else from another source. Not a very happy astronomer. >>>> >>>>Ratings -10 total junk. >>> >>>The mechanical construction may well be a bit 'basic' but nothing like as bad as the author above states. I had the same OTA until recently and only sold it (reluctantly) to buy the 12" version. Optically it was superb. >>> >>>The problems described are easily remedied at little cost (upgrade focuser to 2", new spider) which still means the 'scope is a bargain. >>> >>>To rate it 'total junk' after describing the mirrors as 'super' is a bit of a contradiction and certainly neither helpful nor, in my experience, anything like a fair reflection of the 'scope's performance. >> >> >>I would have to disagree, there is some truth to what the first author had to say. And its not a contradiction regards the mirror and mechanical assembly. The primary is good but if the secondary spider is of such poor quality and not properly aligned with the eyepiece, making collimation V.difficult, the telescope will never perform. The tube assembly has the feel of a school boys machine shop project. And feels of poor quality even alongside comparable Synta made telescopes. It could be that Orion's QC isn't terribly good, which would explain variations in performance between owners. Its not total junk though, the Vixen GP mount is top quality and the optics are good. But the tube may require some post purchase work to get the full potential from the telescope. > >I think we're actually agreeing, more or less, rather than disagreeing! The construction is indeed basic as I've stated >and certainly doesn't confer the 'pride of ownership' that my Takahashi does. That scope is a real pleasure to use, mechanically as well as optically, everything feels over-engineered. > >Collimation isn't difficult but does need frequent checking which is a nuisance (see my comments re. DX300). I suspect the 2-vaned spider is at least partially responsible. The post-purchase work you mention would be in my opinion a decent spider and focuser as I've suggested. > >Your suspicions regarding Orion's QC are certainly borne out by my experiences (missing parts etc) but to be fair to Orion they dealt with it quickly. > >Still don't agree with calling the 'scope total junk though! >Perhaps a 'work in progress'? You are right, a new spider and focuser would give anybody a really good scope. I've found Orion Optics easy to deal with and have so far sorted out any problems. My telescope was missing two items on delivery but were quickly sent on afterwards. I wouldn't agree with calling it junk, far from it. But I have purchased an Orion USA XT10 and been amazed by the difference in quality. I also think the Synta made XT10 outperforms the GX250 optically. Which was a real surprise considering Synta's reputation for QC. Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.194.13 By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.34.177) In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.104.186) (Original Message) Date: 02/14/2003 11:51:32 pm PST >>>>>The Orion Optics GX-250 has a super light weight tube assembly and super mirrors but the mechanical construction is total rubbish , focuser is a cheap rate affair which is not set at 90 degrees with the tube making collimation a major problem . the two vaned secondary mirror assembley is nothing else but rubbish. Many people who I chat too on the internet all have to same problems and even worse is the dreadful after sales service which is second to none , matter of fact there is no after sales service. So unless you want problems please buy somethink else from another source. Not a very happy astronomer. >>>>> >>>>>Ratings -10 total junk. >>>> >>>>The mechanical construction may well be a bit 'basic' but nothing like as bad as the author above states. I had the same OTA until recently and only sold it (reluctantly) to buy the 12" version. Optically it was superb. >>>> >>>>The problems described are easily remedied at little cost (upgrade focuser to 2", new spider) which still means the 'scope is a bargain. >>>> >>>>To rate it 'total junk' after describing the mirrors as 'super' is a bit of a contradiction and certainly neither helpful nor, in my experience, anything like a fair reflection of the 'scope's performance. >>> >>> >>>I would have to disagree, there is some truth to what the first author had to say. And its not a contradiction regards the mirror and mechanical assembly. The primary is good but if the secondary spider is of such poor quality and not properly aligned with the eyepiece, making collimation V.difficult, the telescope will never perform. The tube assembly has the feel of a school boys machine shop project. And feels of poor quality even alongside comparable Synta made telescopes. It could be that Orion's QC isn't terribly good, which would explain variations in performance between owners. Its not total junk though, the Vixen GP mount is top quality and the optics are good. But the tube may require some post purchase work to get the full potential from the telescope. >> >>I think we're actually agreeing, more or less, rather than disagreeing! The construction is indeed basic as I've stated >>and certainly doesn't confer the 'pride of ownership' that my Takahashi does. That scope is a real pleasure to use, mechanically as well as optically, everything feels over-engineered. >> >>Collimation isn't difficult but does need frequent checking which is a nuisance (see my comments re. DX300). I suspect the 2-vaned spider is at least partially responsible. The post-purchase work you mention would be in my opinion a decent spider and focuser as I've suggested. >> >>Your suspicions regarding Orion's QC are certainly borne out by my experiences (missing parts etc) but to be fair to Orion they dealt with it quickly. >> >>Still don't agree with calling the 'scope total junk though! >>Perhaps a 'work in progress'? > > >You are right, a new spider and focuser would give anybody a really good scope. I've found Orion Optics easy to deal with and have so far sorted out any problems. My telescope was missing two items on delivery but were quickly sent on afterwards. I wouldn't agree with calling it junk, far from it. But I have purchased an Orion USA XT10 and been amazed by the difference in quality. I also think the Synta made XT10 outperforms the GX250 optically. Which was a real surprise considering Synta's reputation for QC. Yes, Synta are turning out some fairly decent stuff. I've just acquired a CG5 (EQ5) as part of a p/x deal, and a cursory test reveals it's certainly more capable than my GP in terms of load-carrying ability. It has two steel bearing races in place of the GP teflon (I think) bearings. Weighs about 1kg more than the GP and feels more solid. I'll post a comparison in the appropriate section when I've had a chance to compare the two thoroughly; the Vixen's lapped-gears are reported to be more accurate for long exposure work. Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.194.13 By: Richard In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.34.177) (Original Message) Date: 03/25/2003 11:16:26 pm PST <snipped by webmaster> > >Yes, Synta are turning out some fairly decent stuff. I've just acquired a CG5 (EQ5) as part of a p/x deal, and a cursory test reveals it's certainly more capable than my GP in terms of load-carrying ability. It has two steel bearing races in place of the GP teflon (I think) bearings. Weighs about 1kg more than the GP and feels more solid. I'll post a comparison in the appropriate section when I've had a chance to compare the two thoroughly; the Vixen's lapped-gears are reported to be more accurate for long exposure work. Another comment; I notice Orion are now using an improved stainless steel spider on their reflectors. Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.194.13 By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.1.25) In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.34.177) (Original Message) Date: 06/04/2003 07:49:40 am PST Although i agree the telescope based on the quality of the optics is not a "piece of junk". However, people should be aware that the Telescope has some fundamental flaws that cannot easily be upgraded out. These are too a lesser or greater extent. The OTA is bright white, this is a hinderence more than an issue. The OTA's length is incompatible with most low profile focusers such as JMI NGF range you will need to extend the tube to accomadate these focusers with any real success. The OTA's width is worth mentioning here. The OTA's width is 11" holding a 10" mirror further the sturdy band at the top (That saved the previous posters mirror) cuts the open aperture down to 10" this has obvious issues with photography and wide FOV EP's such as vignetting could be an issue. The closed mirror cell is just an absolute nightmare and i am not convinced that the tube currents ever dissipate completely. I have owned my DX250mm for nearly 3 years and have over that period tried to upgrade out the various problems i am still on this path. When after spending £1300.00 on this scope i should not need to be considering these issues. Orion Optics customer service is something of an animal. When i first had to talk to Orion Optics i was most impressed. a gentlemen thier even gave me his home number so that at night we could discuss collimation (as my scope arrived completely out of allignment) very brave i thought and i was most impressed. However, Orion Optics do not take kindly to negative comments about thier scopes. I myself have come up against this with my thoughts on the above problems. Yet the above problems are facts measurable in every sence. The mirrors are brilliant. The OTA's are very short sighted in design. A work in progress - emmm the newly designed scopes only address some of the above issues. Page 1 of 1 | ||||||||
