One of the _very_ best out there. Great product line. Courteous, knowledgeable staff. Great service. What more do you want?! :-)

Overall Rating: 10
Price:10 Service:10
Weight: 10
Date: 12/02/2002 01:02:18 pm PST

Replies: 0

Celestron had a few minor bugs to work out with this scope, mostly with the software/firmware, but it is now pretty much "there," (though Celestron continues to improve and update the firmware)--it's very reliable and very impressive.

I down-checked the scope slightly on the "mount" category due to the fact that the standard heavy-duty tripod shipped with the scope is just a little light for CCD imaging. But with the supplied vibration reduction pads, it is more than adequate--and is outstanding for visual use.

My greatest praise for the scope, though, has to do with its elegant simplicity. Sure, bells and whistles, GPS and computers, are nice. But what really makes this scope a winner is its ease of use. To look at M51, for example, hit the "M" key, type "051," and hit enter. The scope hums and goes there--no menus to navigate, etc. My scope easily puts any object I request in the field of a 12mm Nagler at 220x.

The NS11 is both solid and attractive, with its carbon fiber tube getting a lot of second looks, and the C11 optics set is definitely the best its ever been. My other favorite scope, a 1994 Ultima C8 has what I consider outstanding optics, but the 11 bests it.

Finally, no scope is worth a hoot if it's so hard to move and set up that you won't use it. Admittedly, a C11 is a big SCT, but combine the excellent ergonomic handles on the NS11 with the ability to mount the scope alt-az, and it is NOT a hassle to get erected.

I've owned a lot of SCTs over the years, and this has the signs of becoming my favorite one so far! Two thumbs up. If you want a larger aperture goto scope, this is my recommendation: go get an NS11 before Celestron raises prices, which I'm guessing they will do.

As far as the competition goes, the new Meade LX200 GPS also shows signs of being outstanding...BUT...having only been on the market a little while, it's not quite as far along the development path as the Celestron scope.

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

Overall Rating: 10
Optics:10 Mount:8 Ease of Use:10 Value:10
Weight: 40
Date: 05/17/2002 05:21:35 am PST

Replies: 0

I originally bought the Simmons Redline 10x50s for use at public star parties during the days of Hyakutake and Hale Bopp. Why risk a good pair of Celestrons, right? The optics wouldn't be good, of course. WRONG! Optically, these binoculars are easily the equal of considerably more expensive Celestron and Orion mid-level binoculars. The field isn't tack sharp to the edge, no, but given its generous width, this is more than acceptable. Focusing is smooth and precise on the pair that I own (there appear to be at least a couple of designs for the Redline 10x50s), and not as liable to slipping as a pair of Celestrons I have here at Chaos Manor South. The binoculars come with a soft case (usable, if nothing to right home about), a neck strap (minimalist plastic), a tripod mount adapter socket (rare on cheap binos), and a lens cleaning cloth (useless). How GOOD are they for astronomy? I've had some beautiful views with them including the delightful little Comet Ikeya-Zhang here recently. The Moon is sharp, detail-laden, and mostly free of false color. The CATCH? I had to return the first pair of Redlines I bought, as they were severely out of collimation. I had the foresight, however, to purchase them from Wal-Mart, who don't hassle you about exchanges. I'd buy a pair again, but don't need to, since these have been surprisingly robust and have held up well for over 5 years of frequent use.

Overall Rating: 8
Optics:9 Value:9
Weight: 10
Date: 03/25/2002 09:48:02 am PST

Replies: 0

I've really nothing but good to say about Adirondack. Great products and good service.

Rod Mollise

Overall Rating: 9
Price:10 Service:9
Weight: 10
Date: 02/11/2002 05:31:01 am PST

Replies: 0

The Celestron G8 is the heir to a long line of Celestron GEM mounted C8s: the Super Polaris C8 and the Great Polaris C8, both on Vixen mounts. The G8, however, uses a Chinese-built CG5 (aka "EQ4") mount in lieu of the Vixen. Is it as good as a Vixen mount? No. The G8 is a bad scope, then? No, not at all. At considerably less than a grand (without drives) this is a decent value. In order to keep the price at this level, Celestron has had to forego the Vixen mounts for the Chinese CG5, but all is not lost.

The EQ4/CG5 is not the mount the SP/GP were, and the SP/GP were never themselves noted for being steadier than a fork mount C8, but the G8's mount _is_ salvageable. But the new owner MUST take pains to fine tune the mount, degreasing and relubricating it as outlined at . Once this is done, the mount peforms OK, and is certainly good enough for visual use--or even beginning photography. The mount has been improved over the several years its been out, now featuring a good ball-bearing system in the RA axis rather than the initial nylon pads.

Optics? Good Celestron OTA, no different from any other Celestron C8. The newer G8s arre Faststar compatible with the requisite removable secondary. If collimated and cooled, this OTA can and WILL do a heck of a job, even on the planets.

Bottom line? OK, with a little fine-tuning of the mount...but unless you really have to low-ball it, most folks will be happier with a basic Celestar or Meade LX10. And remember, once you add dual axis drives, the price goes up pretty close to that of the Celestar/LX10. If you want a C8 on a small GEM, I'd look for a used SP/GP C8, myself.

Peace,
Rod Mollise

Overall Rating: 8
Optics:9 Mount:7 Ease of Use:8 Value:8
Weight: 10
Date: 12/28/2001 05:15:38 am PST

Replies: 0