Jump to content


Photo

traditional C8 vs EdgeHD C8 for visual

  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#26 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15799
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 25 August 2011 - 06:39 AM

As they say, to each his/her own!
As I see it all new Celestron series will be based on the HD scopes from now on


Unlikely.

#27 barasits

barasits

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 431
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2011
  • Loc: Chicago

Posted 25 August 2011 - 02:07 PM

As they say, to each his/her own!
As I see it all new Celestron series will be based on the HD scopes from now on


Unlikely.

Please elaborate. Do you think Celestron will continue to produce standard SCTs as well as EdgeHD SCTs for the foreseeable future, or do you think the EdgeHD is Celestron's version of "New Coke"?

Geoff

#28 lightfever

lightfever

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2004
  • Loc: Macomb Michigan

Posted 25 August 2011 - 02:24 PM

I really like my 9.25 Edge HD but I can't see Celestron giving up on the standard SCT without an adequate solution to the reducer problem!

#29 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15799
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 25 August 2011 - 06:45 PM

As they say, to each his/her own!
As I see it all new Celestron series will be based on the HD scopes from now on


Unlikely.

Please elaborate. Do you think Celestron will continue to produce standard SCTs as well as EdgeHD SCTs for the foreseeable future, or do you think the EdgeHD is Celestron's version of "New Coke"?

Geoff


The former. I believe Celestron, like Meade, will continue to also sell conventional SCTs.

#30 teskridg

teskridg

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1268
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2008
  • Loc: PA

Posted 26 August 2011 - 12:18 PM

I can NOT answer your question as I own 8 and 11 inch REGULAR Scts BUT have looked thru a buddies new 8' Edge a few times...

To me as a 100 percent visual observer who honestly does not dwell looking at the stars at the extreme edge of the eyepieces FOV I "personally" do not see the Edge being worth the extra money....

BUT BELIEVE Me the edge is better... no ands no ifs nor any butts but a visual observer who uses a Focal reducer combined with a pair of old worn out eyeballs have no desire (READ NEED) to upgrade...

Bob G.


Bob G., I believe you have stated before in reference to the improved coma correction in the Meade ACF line (which does not flatten the edge of field as does the Celeston HD's) that the difference from the standard SCT was worth perhaps another $20 to you; I agree. To which I might add that my understanding is that the passive vents in the HD versions may need to be supplemented with fans in order to equilibrate with ambient temperatures satisfactorily. This adds to the costs, the wiring, and the battery requirements. A beauty of the standard CPC series is that a Starizona battery pack works great on the base of the CPC, there are no cables with which to deal, and cord wrap may be turned off, so the darned thing doesn't have to sometimes rotate forever 359° to goto from one target to another. Of course, as I am thinking about adding a dew heater and strips, all bets are off on the cord wrap deal, but the point is a standard 8" SCT will cool down quicker and depending on your tolerance of edge-of-field distortions, will be very satisfactory to you. My recommendation is, before I invested in the HD, I'd like to try the views through both types and see if the upgrade is really worth it to me. Tim

#31 Eddgie

Eddgie

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13209
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 26 August 2011 - 04:43 PM

I guess I am somewhat surprised at how many people don't really care about the edge of field performance for visual use.

After many years of using refractors, I came to realize that the REAL benefit of refractors was the fact that they tended to have far better off axis performance. I didn't drink the "refrators have better contrast" kool-aid, but every time I looked through refractors with low power naglers in teh diagonal, the view was always amazing. Everything in the field was sharp.

The EdgeHD is the first reflecting telescope that I have ever used that provides esentially the same "WOW" feeling when viewing wide, rich fields.

I personally think the EdgeHD is sooooo far superrior to the standard SCT that I can no longer tolerate Naglers in a standard SCT. The edge of the field (where there is often a lot of stars that add an great deal of context to the field) truely looks "Refractor Like" in the EdgeHD.

Side by side, my EdgeHD gives up very little off axis to my 6" APO when the field is equally as wide. Using it with a 31mm Nagler or a 20mm Nagler is a magnificent experience.

So, you like what you like, and if the loss of off axis sharpness doesn't bother you, I get it, but I just wonder WHY it doesn't bother so many people? 70% of all the background stars in a rich field are in the outer half. It just suprises me that so many people are OK with 70% of these stars being badly abberated.

Anyway, I personally would never buy another standard SCT again. The EdgeHD made the SCT a scope for the 21st century. The old design was a produce of the mid-20th century when 1.25" Erfles were the widefield eyepeice of the day.

So much has changed. And FINALLY, the SCT has caught up to current eyepeice technology.

#32 lightfever

lightfever

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2004
  • Loc: Macomb Michigan

Posted 26 August 2011 - 09:34 PM

I guess I am somewhat surprised at how many people don't really care about the edge of field performance for visual use.

After many years of using refractors, I came to realize that the REAL benefit of refractors was the fact that they tended to have far better off axis performance. I didn't drink the "refrators have better contrast" kool-aid, but every time I looked through refractors with low power naglers in teh diagonal, the view was always amazing. Everything in the field was sharp.

The EdgeHD is the first reflecting telescope that I have ever used that provides esentially the same "WOW" feeling when viewing wide, rich fields.

I personally think the EdgeHD is sooooo far superrior to the standard SCT that I can no longer tolerate Naglers in a standard SCT. The edge of the field (where there is often a lot of stars that add an great deal of context to the field) truely looks "Refractor Like" in the EdgeHD.

Side by side, my EdgeHD gives up very little off axis to my 6" APO when the field is equally as wide. Using it with a 31mm Nagler or a 20mm Nagler is a magnificent experience.

So, you like what you like, and if the loss of off axis sharpness doesn't bother you, I get it, but I just wonder WHY it doesn't bother so many people? 70% of all the background stars in a rich field are in the outer half. It just suprises me that so many people are OK with 70% of these stars being badly abberated.

Anyway, I personally would never buy another standard SCT again. The EdgeHD made the SCT a scope for the 21st century. The old design was a produce of the mid-20th century when 1.25" Erfles were the widefield eyepeice of the day.

So much has changed. And FINALLY, the SCT has caught up to current eyepeice technology.



Hi Eddgie,

I have to agree with your thoughts on the Edge SCT. I bought my 9.25 at the beginning of the year and the more I use it the more I like it, this scope is becoming my favorite.

Just had to suspend my observing tonight because my neighbor decided to put on a fireworks show in August! Anyway I had read your post before going out and was paying more attention to the entire view and it is impressive. My 24mm pan gives pinpoint stars right to the field edge.

#33 Bob Griffiths

Bob Griffiths

    Getting Grouchy

  • *****
  • Posts: 10674
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Frederick Maryland

Posted 27 August 2011 - 08:25 AM

Eddgie:

I just no not see the need to send the extra money for an Edge HD Sct over a regular Sct for a visual observer like myself.

I'm quite satisfied with the views my regular C8 and C11 provide my old eyes...

Bottom line for me is I'm happy with my scopes so why change...


Bob G.

#34 Eddgie

Eddgie

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13209
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 27 August 2011 - 08:38 AM

Well, that is the whole point of this thread. Many people don't think the EdgeHD gives an advantage, and for them, then obviously there is no need to upgrade.

Others that value fidelity not only at the center, but at the edges of the field, will see the EdgeHD as being a big improvement over the standard design.

There is no right or wrong here. We all make our choices based on what compromises we can accept.

#35 teskridg

teskridg

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1268
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2008
  • Loc: PA

Posted 27 August 2011 - 07:39 PM

So, the answer is: 1) Don't use Naglers with a standard SCT, and 2) Don't look through refractors or Edge HD's before you decide to buy a standard SCT. I have read Eddgie's post about accomodating the peripheral field in Naglers with SCT's and can only say that when I owned an 11mm T6, I didn't notice it that much and I'm 62. I loved these Naglers in binoviewers, but the additional f/l of the system when added to the f/10 SCT resulted in a little too much magnification for my seeing for the planets, so I sold them. Not because of edge of field curvature and accomodative issues, but because of too much magnification for my conditions. I parenthetically also have found that the additional AFOV of Naglers isn't as appreciated in binoviewers, which I use all the time, as would be the case in monocular mode.
So, Eddgie, to whatever extent that the edge of view is a problem in a standard SCT with Naglers and Ethoi, it can be attenuated by using binoviewers and 68° AFOV eyepieces or by using the wide field setting of the power x switch/a focal reducer.
I am in that happy place where panoramic fields of view aren't necessary to me, so I don't need to have this feature dictate the type of telescope I would have to choose. Indeed, if widefield views were vital to me, I would probably spring for a rich field refractor and not the SCT. I am also fortunate (or foolish) in that were I in the market for a CPC type Celestron 11" SCT, the price difference between the standard and HD versions would not affect my decision. Therefore, while I agree with Bob G. in that I'm not trading up to the HD, because the premium in performance isn't worth the difference in price (cost of HD new minus the resale value of my present scope), if I were buying new, I'd possibly go with the HD, unless the problem with longer cool-down time proved too onerous. Tim

#36 cbeyond

cbeyond

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 17
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2009

Posted 27 August 2011 - 09:55 PM

I have a new Orion 17mm Stratus eyepiece which has a 68 degree field. The extra eye relief is nice and I really like the eyepiece but I did notice a lack of sharpness at the edges of the field (perhaps 75% of the way from the center) when using my Ultima C8. My eyeglasses were on at the time. If that eyepiece was used in a C8 Edge, would the Stratus eyepiece be sharp to the edge?

#37 gnowellsct

gnowellsct

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6839
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2009

Posted 28 August 2011 - 08:01 PM

I personally think the EdgeHD is sooooo far superrior to the standard SCT that I can no longer tolerate Naglers in a standard SCT.


Some of us crossed the no-Nagler threshold a long time ago, never mind what scope....

Greg N

#38 Patrick

Patrick

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11438
  • Joined: 15 May 2003
  • Loc: Franklin, Ohio

Posted 28 August 2011 - 11:59 PM

Side by side, my EdgeHD gives up very little off axis to my 6" APO when the field is equally as wide. Using it with a 31mm Nagler or a 20mm Nagler is a magnificent experience.



I have nearly pinpoint stars to the edge of the field of view with my standard C11 and 27mm Pan in my Denk PxS in focal reduction mode (0.66x). That's a TFOV of about 0.95 degrees. The C11 EdgeHD (F/10) with a 31mm Nagler is only 0.94 degrees. That's a price differential of more than $1000 if you include the difference between a 31 Nagler and 27 Panoptic. That would more than pay for the Denk PxS, too.

There may be a 'little' difference at the edge of field, but I'm not sure it's worth a whole grand of difference. With CPC's and goto mounts, I don't think most folks are looking at objects on the edge of the FOV. For imaging, it might be worth it, but for visual I know it wasn't for me. And as I said, I'm getting nearly pinpoint stars right now.

Patrick

#39 Patrick

Patrick

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11438
  • Joined: 15 May 2003
  • Loc: Franklin, Ohio

Posted 29 August 2011 - 12:09 AM

I have a new Orion 17mm Stratus eyepiece which has a 68 degree field. The extra eye relief is nice and I really like the eyepiece but I did notice a lack of sharpness at the edges of the field (perhaps 75% of the way from the center) when using my Ultima C8.



I would tend to blame the eyepiece, not the scope. I've looked at a lot of eyepieces in my C11, and by far the TV Panoptic has been superior in regards to edge of field correction. Every other eyepiece I've tried has broken down around that 75-80% field mark. The long focal length and cheap eyepiece scenario is a myth, IMO, at least for SCT's. Try the Panoptics for your SCT...I don't think you will be sorry. :smirk:

Patrick

#40 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15799
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 29 August 2011 - 06:53 AM

I guess I am somewhat surprised at how many people don't really care about the edge of field performance for visual use.


Some people (me) Tend to pay most attention to what's in the middle of the field. Imperfect stars at the edge just bothers some people more than others. Same thing with chromatic aberration. Some folks can't stand the tiniest bit of the color purple...others can tolerate more.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics