by Jay Reynolds Freeman
My report on the NexStar 8 is not done, not nearly -- I have modifications and refinishing in the works, and will post about them in due course. Yet before then, I want to offer some conclusions about the telescope as shipped, and some recommendations, not only for users and prospective users, but perhaps also for Celestron.
First, the NexStar 8 works well. By and large, it does what it is supposed to do, with a user interface that is easy to learn, and with acceptable pointing accuracy.
Second, it is lighter and at the moment notably less expensive than corresponding Meade models (though a price war may be in the offing). Based on modest experience with other peoples' Meade LX-200s in the field, I suspect the LX-200 is more functional -- bigger databases, better software, better pointing accuracy, and more features. (I haven't seen an LX-90 yet, so have no opinion on that model.) Someone willing to wrestle with a heavier unit, or have it permanently mounted, might prefer an 8-inch LX-200 over a NexStar 8, but that someone isn't me -- I already have a Celestron 14 for pumping iron and practicing astronomy at the same time. I wanted a lightweight instrument with minimal setup time and effort, and that is exactly what the NexStar 8 provided.
Third, it looks like a cinch to modify the NexStar 8 mounting to hold other small telescopes. I am surprised Celestron doesn't offer the NexStar mount as a separate product, perhaps with a dovetail clamp or something similar. I think it would sell well.
Fourth, the software has problems that will puzzle those who do not understand them and annoy those who do. I don't think the problems are occur frequently enough to warrant not recommending the NexStar 8 to beginners, but Celestron's image is at stake here -- like it or not, the NexStar line is going to be perceived as Celestron's main battle line, engaged in a do-or-die gunnery duel with a fleet of Meade LX200s. Software isn't like optics -- you only have to get it right once, then you ship a zillion identical copies. Celestron *ought* to get it right.
Fifth, Celestron should upgrade their web site with a list of known bugs and work-arounds in the software, as well as with text discussing any frequently-asked questions or other matters that should have been in the manual but were omitted. If anyone at Celestron is reading my words, that person is probably thinking "We can't publicly admit problems with our product." Not to worry, most of your user community has been using personal computers for a decade or two by now. They already have cried all the tears they have to cry, about buggy software. Shucks, some of them probably get lonesome with no bugs to talk to.
In conclusion, I would certainly recommend a NexStar 8 to a beginning stargazer. I will also venture that a serious and experienced amateur astronomer will find the NexStar 8 to be a high point on the curve of optical performance versus portability. It is a very compact telescope with quick set-up time, that can easily be picked up and moved around, with an enormous aperture -- eight inches -- for that degree of portability. It has computer-controlled pointing ability that is fast and easy to use, and is more than accurate enough to be useful. For me, the NexStar 8 is a keeper. I will be using it a lot once the new paint job dries.
| Prev | I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII | VIII | Next |