Jump to content


Photo

meaningful upgrade?

  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#26 zsb04

zsb04

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 189
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2014
  • Loc: Knoxville, TN

Posted 04 August 2014 - 01:24 PM

thank you all for the help, very informative. it will either be a c9.25 to go on the avx, a cpc 1100 or a 12"+ dob, very indecisive but who isn't :)



#27 mark379

mark379

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 415
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2009
  • Loc: New Jersey

Posted 04 August 2014 - 02:30 PM

question for you guys, i am looking to get a SCT to compliment my other scopes. The scopes i have now are a 4" refractor and a 6" mak-newt. I am looking to get an SCT that will provide a noticeable difference for DSO, especially on M13 and other clusters. at a dark site neither of my scopes can fully resolve M13 and i am looking for an SCT that will be able to. Here are the contenders:

celestron c8
celestron c9.25
meade 10"
celestron c11
meade 12"

i technically won an ebay auction for a meade 12". it looks in good shape but the seller seems to be backing out of it, it went for very cheap, so most likely will not be getting that scope :(

Hello,

With the vx, I'd go for the 9.25 for visual. It holds it just fine. Ive got both a 8 and a 9.25, and can tell you the resolution in what you see is quite a bit more with the 9.25 over the 8. The 8 will get you inb the door for M13, but you'll see more stars with a 9.25 for sure. Some will say that you cannot do a 11" for visual, yes you can . I've done it before with this mount, wti NO trouble. The key is adding a wide dovetail and using an ADm adapter. It's more stable than a 8" Se.It just has to be Ballanced properly before you use it. The 11 is best choice for DSO's , but if you also plan on doing planetary, I'd use the 9.25 for quicker cooldown time. Ckear skies!



#28 Benson

Benson

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 147
  • Joined: 22 May 2010
  • Loc: -6 gmt

Posted 06 August 2014 - 01:35 AM

The Celestron EDGE 9.25 is a fabulous scope from an aperture vs portability and optical quality standpoint. My gripe with the EDGE is price. An EDGE 9.25 OTA is about $800 more than a Meade 10" ACF OTA, a heavier scope, but, of comparable optical quality. The Hyperstar option will add about $800, also pretty high compared to a decent focal reducer. That doesn't make a lot of sense from a cost benefit perspective.


Edited by Benson, 06 August 2014 - 02:05 AM.


#29 Patrick

Patrick

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11345
  • Joined: 15 May 2003
  • Loc: Franklin, Ohio

Posted 06 August 2014 - 10:38 PM

The Celestron EDGE 9.25 is a fabulous scope from an aperture vs portability and optical quality standpoint. My gripe with the EDGE is price. An EDGE 9.25 OTA is about $800 more than a Meade 10" ACF OTA, a heavier scope, but, of comparable optical quality. The Hyperstar option will add about $800, also pretty high compared to a decent focal reducer. That doesn't make a lot of sense from a cost benefit perspective.

 

I think your analysis breaks down with the 'comparable optical quality' view point.  The ACF optics only correct for coma and do not correct for field curvature while the Edge optics correct for both coma and field curvature.  That means the Edge optics produce a flatter field than the Meade with less bloated stars at the edge of the field. 

 

There is an additional set of lenses within the Edge optics also, which I assume adds to the cost.

 

The flat field is worth the extra cost to me.

 

Patrick



#30 stellarvuelomo

stellarvuelomo

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 13 May 2014

Posted 07 August 2014 - 11:03 AM

Buy the cpc 1100 and don't look back.  A great scope, easy to set up if one is in shape, and it provides excellent views.  Just love mine.



#31 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 674
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 07 August 2014 - 02:58 PM

 

If you have to travel further afield for good skies--as I do--then the 11 does get a bit old. This has me going for a 12.5" dob. I don't have it yet, but hope that it'll be an easier move, plus more aperture, and less problems cooling with the open tube.

 

 

Hmmm...uh, I suspect a 12.5" dob is going to be less portable than an 11" CPC once you factor in the longer tube length and the dobsonian rocker box.  Cooling may be a touch easier, but a 12.5" mirror is going to take a while to cool down as well.  Optically there is certainly a case to be made favoring the Newt such as better contrast and the ability for it to go a little deeper.

 

Patrick

 

 

I've gone for a 12.5 Portaball, and I think it has the edge for portability. For my Edge, I have it in a pelican case (surely about 60lb), and then there's the tripod and mount to add (another 25lb?), and a battery to power the fans. 

 

I have no experience with the fork mounted stuff, but it sure does look heavy! So I'd think a well designed premium dob is going to be rather close portability wise. And with an open tube, cooling is surely not going to take longer than the Edge.

 

So, my conclusion--not yet really tested as I have had the PB for a couple of days only--is that it'll go very slightly deeper, has better optics (the Edge is wonderful, but surely can't compete with Zambuto), is slightly more portable, and will cool more rapidly. 

 

The Edge has on it's side being a more comfortable viewing position (largely personal I guess), easy to set up with binoviewers, and lots of great possibilities for astrophotography.

 

Depending on where you live, and your goals/interests with photography would decided it one way or the other for me. But even then, the AP could be done on a smaller 8" edge . . . 



#32 dpippel

dpippel

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1143
  • Joined: 05 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Desierto de Sonora

Posted 07 August 2014 - 03:12 PM

The Portaball isn't a go-to scope on a tracking mount is it? So the Edge has the, um, "edge" there.


Edited by dpippel, 07 August 2014 - 03:16 PM.


#33 StarMike8SE

StarMike8SE

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 23
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2014
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 07 August 2014 - 03:23 PM

I have the 9.25 on an AVX mount with an Orion ST80 as my finder scope, and I love the setup.  I estimate about 27 pounds on the mount but it runs and tracks fine.  I wanted a C11 but the C9.25 gives me really good views.

 

C9Lsm
Album: Mikes scope
2 images
0 comments



#34 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 674
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 07 August 2014 - 04:27 PM

Yep, the Portaball is completely manual. I understand people do tracking platforms. . . but yes, no push to or go to . . . But I got the cgem dx with mine, and it's such a [massive expletive] to carry about that I went and picked up a relativley light/simple alt az set up (skytee2). But that still requires 22lb of counterweights.

 

My solution with the Portaball is to set up my 4" refractor on a half hitch with skycommander side-by-side. . . of course, that has me at about the same on the lug/faff quotient. 



#35 Synon

Synon

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 52
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2012
  • Loc: Flagstaff AZ

Posted 07 August 2014 - 05:42 PM

I've got a 12" LX200 that I always set up myself (and 95% of the time on a wedge). It's definitely by no means light, but it's manageable with good technique (I'm in my early 30's and don't do any kind of weightlifting), I don't find it to be horrible ergonomically (I grab one the handles on the front and one on the back and have the scope at a slight tilt so it rests on my shoulder). If it's not on a wedge I'd say it's quite easy so long as your tripod is level. 

 

I guess I don't have anything to compare to except my 8" Meade on a GEM, sometimes it just depends on whats available in your area if you are looking to buy used.








Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics