Quote:I have a Cpc1100... your making the envy boil now lol. Let's just say I got an 11" edge HD.. visually.. would I see a difference?
Sean Celestron 9.25 EdgeHD CGEM TMB-92L AVX Nikon D90/ Canon T2i Entropy is not chaotic but is rather an expression of organisation, just look up to the heavens above. Onward and upward - astroboy
Money can't buy happiness, but it sure makes living with misery a lot easier!
Quote:Having said that, I've read a couple of new owners that are SC veterans say that the optics of their Edges were better than their other SCs. It's tough to tell. I owned two C14s and it was clear that the first one I owned was better and that was without side by side comparison, it was that stark.
Clear skies, Scott my scopes: a few refractors (50-102mm), 2 Newts (4.5-12"), and an 8" SCT
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." Psalms 19:1
Quote: I have noticed that a fair no. of them have been sold in the last 3 or 4 months on Astromart. I am not sure why, though.
Quote:On axis, I would think that if both scopes are XLT coated and the optics are, other than the flattener, the same, there would be so little difference that you wouldn't be able to tell.
Quote: Quote:On axis, I would think that if both scopes are XLT coated and the optics are, other than the flattener, the same, there would be so little difference that you wouldn't be able to tell. This assumes all telescopes behave according to their theoretical spot diagrams - but if that were the case then all designs corrected for spherical and chromatic aberration would be perfect and equivalent on axis - but that is obviously not true.You need to consider the tolerances in the design, ease of collimation, and sensitivity to decollimation - among other things. A Maksutov is theoretically excellent on axis, but the surfaces need to be made exactly right or the result will be terrible - hence their higher cost.The Edge design, assembly, and sensitivity to collimation error is very different from a normal SCT - while still being based on spheres. So I was not surprised when users noticed an improvement in on-axis performance - which does seem to be the trend in reports. Theoretical performance based on a spot diagram is very different from the realized performance and range of quality in the delivered product.Frank
Quote: I have a Cpc1100... your making the envy boil now lol. Let's just say I got an 11" edge HD.. visually.. would I see a difference?
Quote:Would having an Edge HD make a difference for Hyperstar imaging at all? Or would it be equivalent in results to a regular C11?
Quote:Like I said, all things being equal which means the optics are essentially the same quality. Under typical conditions (not in an optical lab) and "all things being equal", it would be difficult to see a difference on axis.
Quote:Quote:Would having an Edge HD make a difference for Hyperstar imaging at all? Or would it be equivalent in results to a regular C11? Again, assuming that the Edge 14" and the standard Celestron 14" mirrors were equal and Hyperstar imaging is the main reason for the scope, then no, I wouldn't pay the extra for the Edge. The corrector lenses are in the baffle tube. The Hperstar uses only the corrector plate and the primary mirror. The primary mirror is around f2, hence the reason that the HS is f2. In the 14, I believe it's f1.9.The corrector lenses would essentially become useless weight for HS imaging alone.David
9.25 EDGE HD | TMB92SS | XT10 | EON120 | SV110ED | LS60THa
TV Ethos 8, 13, 21, Nagler 31, Delos 4.5, 6, 10 | Paracorr 2, Powermate 2x TMB Planetary II's, Baader 8-24mm
MIII Maxbright bino, ES68 20 pair
Atlas EQ-G, DSV-3, DSV-1
ASI120MM, Baader Herschel Wedge
Quote: Quote:Like I said, all things being equal which means the optics are essentially the same quality. Under typical conditions (not in an optical lab) and "all things being equal", it would be difficult to see a difference on axis. Well - if all things are equal - then all telescopes are equal, and there is no possible discrepancy at all as long as the spot diagrams are good. Instead there are a wide variety of designs possible, and the ones that become popular at low cost are the ones that have generous design tolerances and can be made well and reliably.In other words, all things being equal in the making of individual components may end up with a very different spread of results in the output - due to the difference in tolerances of the design. So - all things being equal, any difference in the design could make the performance quite unequal - and the tight tolerances on a maksutov I mentioned are an example.There may be other differences in the manufacturing that result in overall improved performance - I don't know. But the main thing is - we know the designs are different, so that is an inequality right there. And there may be other differences also.Frank
“I am the only person to ever ace a 1951 USAF resolution test. My 'to observe' list says 'done'. I do not use charts or atlases when I starhop; men do not use maps. One of my sketches won an SBIG deep sky imaging contest. I am the life of star parties I have never attended. I never say anything looks like a faint fuzzy - not even a faint fuzzy. Pilots aim green laser pointers at me. Don Pensack proofreads my CN forum posts.” - The Most Interesting Astronomer in the Universe
Refractors Reflectors Two Cats A few eyepieces
Quote: it would take a very keen eye to see the difference.
Uncle Rod Uncle Rod's Astroblog: http://uncle-rods.blogspot.com/
Quote:Quote:Would having an Edge HD make a difference for Hyperstar imaging at all?
Or would it be equivalent in results to a regular C11?
No, there will be no difference.
Quote:Would having an Edge HD make a difference for Hyperstar imaging at all?
Or would it be equivalent in results to a regular C11?
Happy owner of-- A Mag 1, 12.5 inch Porta Ball A Dual Axis Equatorial Platform A PST Double Stack
Quote:I spent some time tonight with my new EdgeHD 8" and all I can say is this is the best scope I've ever owned. When someone says that you can get the same image as a standard SCT at the center of the fov, they're right. BUT, with the EdgeHD, you no longer have to observe in the center of the fov...you're not constrained to making sure your object is centered. When observing, I've always found myself fiddling with object positioning, trying to get it centered just right. It doesn't matter with the EdgeHD. That really came home to me tonight while observing the Trap. The seeing wasn't too great, but the transparency was excellent. Nevertheless the stars were round without flaring all the way to the edge. I sat there looking at the Trap's splendor with it sitting 2/3rd of the way off center. That was amazing. I can't wait to see what this scope can do with great seeing.Patrick
Quote: Quote: I have a Cpc1100... your making the envy boil now lol. Let's just say I got an 11" edge HD.. visually.. would I see a difference? Assuming optical quality is similar, at the center of the field, the view would not be better.My last C8 had excellent optics, and on planets and the moon, at the center of the field, the view was about exactly the same.All of the benefit of the EdgeHD design is to be found in the off axis performance. The value proposition for the EdgeHD (in my own opinion) is for imagers and for people that enjoy using modern ultra-wide field eyepeices.If you are content with Panoptic class eyepeices, it is very difficult for me to say that the EdgeHD will be a better scope. With Panoptics or similar high quality 68 degree wide field eyepieces, the abberations coming from the telescope are not magnified enough to be prominent.If you go to a Nagler (or similar 82 degree AFOV eyepeice) or Ethos (or similar), for the same size true field of view, the magnificaiton of the eyepeice will make the abberated blur at the edge of the field easier to resolve, so the outside of the field will not appear as sharp.The EdgeHD makes the scope visually sharp all the way across when using these new modern wide fields.For someone that is content with Panoptic type eyepeices (or other similar narrower field types with excellent off axis performance), the EdgeHD may not be as compelling.And for those that say that they only look at the center of the field, there would appear to be no value whatsoever in the EdgeHD scope design.But once you become accustomed to using a telescope that presents a pinpoint image right to the field stop of modern wide field eyepieces, you very quickly become sold on the value proposition of the EdgeHD design.Lots of people say "refractor like," and this has been my own message for a decade. The real value of refractors is their coma-free performance.The EdgeHD is not "refractor-like." It is "refractor equal" in terms of across the field performance. It is the only reflecting telescope I use that stands toe to toe with my 6" APO and provides an equal across the field viewing experience. With the 31mm Nagler, the view is amazingly brilliant.Of course I am limited to the 1.1 degree true field in the EdgeHD 8", but since getting the EdgeHD 8" the 6" APO has been a hanger queen more than ever before. It only comes out for the Milky Way when I want 2 degree fields. If it will fit in the field of the EdgeHD 8", the view is better in the EdgeHD 8". The best SCT ever made in my opinion.Is it right for everyone? Dedicated planatery observers will find no benefit and narrow feild eyepeice users will see only a tiny improvement.But imagers and Nagler, and Etho fans will be in a new place.A footnote.. When using Ethos and even Naglers, seeing will keep stars from appearin pinpoint in larger SCTs even at the center of the field. The field will still appear much sharper in the EdgeHD scopes because it is all in focus (much of the "Bloat" we observe in SCTs is simply due to the field only being partially in focus), but stars may still appear bloated at the center when you compare the view of a 21mm Ethos to a 35mm Panoptic.And the bigger the SCT, the worse this will occur.Even at the center of the field, I prefer the 41mm Pan to my 31mm Nagler in the C14. Stars are just more pinpoint at the center.For this reason, the bigger the SCT, the more serious the problem becomes, and the value propsition shifts if the user tends to have migrated to Panoptics vs Naglers.For visual use, I am not sure that the C14 EdgeHD value proposition is still there. I have struggled with this myself. I am not sure I would use Naglers in the C14, so the extra benefit of sharper off axis performance might not be important. I am a staunch advocate of Panoptic class eyepeices in the C14 because of the seeing bloat issue, and the improved off axis performance is negated if you are only using Panoptics.
.... back yard astronomer ================= Don't forget to look at the moon often. Its a play ground of fun if you throttle up the magnification!
... and still the best wife I could wish for!