Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Equipment Discussions >> Cats & Casses

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)
amdizack
member


Reged: 08/23/12

Loc: Goodyear, AZ
To those that said an Edge would blow me away...
      #5619262 - 01/12/13 03:23 PM

You were RIGHT! Unreal compared to my Nexstar 8SE. I'm seeing things I've never been able to see before!

I'm (even more) addicted now!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Footbag
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/13/09

Loc: Scranton, PA
Re: To those that said an Edge would blow me away... new [Re: amdizack]
      #5619411 - 01/12/13 04:41 PM

I had a serious "Wow!" moment when first looking though my Edge after coming from a CPC-800. I think Celestron really did a nice job on them.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Motokid600
super member


Reged: 06/27/10

Loc: Berlin, New Jersey
Re: To those that said an Edge would blow me away... new [Re: amdizack]
      #5619566 - 01/12/13 06:10 PM

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?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ewave
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 05/16/09

Loc: northwest NJ
Re: To those that said an Edge would blow me away... new [Re: Motokid600]
      #5619587 - 01/12/13 06:21 PM

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?



Perhaps you just might. I went from a CPC-11 to a C9.25 Edge and my view of the planets improved. I also liked the pinpoint stars across the entire field of view, even if it is only about one degree.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David PavlichAdministrator
Transmographied
*****

Reged: 05/18/05

Loc: Mandeville, LA USA
Re: To those that said an Edge would blow me away... new [Re: amdizack]
      #5619617 - 01/12/13 06:36 PM

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. The only way to truly test them is side by side using the same ep and having a couple of people looking through them.

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.

David


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott in NCAdministrator
80mm Refractor Fanatic
*****

Reged: 03/05/05

Loc: NC
Re: To those that said an Edge would blow me away... new [Re: David Pavlich]
      #5619720 - 01/12/13 07:40 PM

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.





Yeah, I'm wondering if the "improvement" that a lot of people think that they see really has to do with Edge vs. non-Edge optics or just simply the normal inter-unit variation in optical quality that seems to be commonplace with mass-produced SCTs. Either way, what's important here is that the OP seems to have ended up with a good one!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
coopman
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 04/23/06

Loc: South Louisiana
Re: To those that said an Edge would blow me away... new [Re: Scott in NC]
      #5619730 - 01/12/13 07:50 PM

I have yet to see any Edge HD users say that they were disappointed with their scope. 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.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Footbag
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/13/09

Loc: Scranton, PA
Re: To those that said an Edge would blow me away... new [Re: coopman]
      #5619854 - 01/12/13 09:41 PM

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.




Maybe they're going bigger?

Edited by Footbag (01/12/13 09:41 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
amdizack
member


Reged: 08/23/12

Loc: Goodyear, AZ
Re: To those that said an Edge would blow me away... new [Re: Motokid600]
      #5620131 - 01/13/13 02:17 AM

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?




Easy--YES! I went from a C8 to the Edge 8 and noticed a big difference just for visual. Planets, nebula, star clusters--very crisp and clear through my edge!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
freestar8n
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/12/07

Re: To those that said an Edge would blow me away... new [Re: David Pavlich]
      #5620174 - 01/13/13 04:31 AM

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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
04yellowf150
member


Reged: 01/08/11

Re: To those that said an Edge would blow me away... new [Re: freestar8n]
      #5620229 - 01/13/13 07:01 AM

I just recieved my 8inch edge as well. Cant wait to mess with it. Its my 1st scope

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
telfish
sage
*****

Reged: 11/17/10

Loc: Adirondack Mountains NY
Re: To those that said an Edge would blow me away... new [Re: freestar8n]
      #5620301 - 01/13/13 08:52 AM

Does that mean the edge is more tolerant of poor collimation and holds a good collimation better?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
freestar8n
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/12/07

Re: To those that said an Edge would blow me away... new [Re: telfish]
      #5620335 - 01/13/13 09:13 AM

Any design with reduced coma will be less sensitive to small collimation errors. And if the collimation changes a bit over time - that would also be less noticeable.

Frank


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David PavlichAdministrator
Transmographied
*****

Reged: 05/18/05

Loc: Mandeville, LA USA
Re: To those that said an Edge would blow me away... new [Re: freestar8n]
      #5620465 - 01/13/13 10:33 AM

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




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.

David


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Eddgie
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 02/01/06

Re: To those that said an Edge would blow me away... new [Re: Motokid600]
      #5620496 - 01/13/13 10:49 AM

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.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Taylor
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 07/10/05

Loc: Owasso, OK
Re: To those that said an Edge would blow me away... new [Re: Eddgie]
      #5620520 - 01/13/13 10:57 AM

Would having an Edge HD make a difference for Hyperstar imaging at all?
Or would it be equivalent in results to a regular C11?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David PavlichAdministrator
Transmographied
*****

Reged: 05/18/05

Loc: Mandeville, LA USA
Re: To those that said an Edge would blow me away... new [Re: Taylor]
      #5620629 - 01/13/13 12:00 PM

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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
freestar8n
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/12/07

Re: To those that said an Edge would blow me away... new [Re: David Pavlich]
      #5620656 - 01/13/13 12:12 PM

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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Taylor
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 07/10/05

Loc: Owasso, OK
Re: To those that said an Edge would blow me away... new [Re: David Pavlich]
      #5620693 - 01/13/13 12:31 PM

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




Thanks for the info David, I didn't know that.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
AstroGabe
sage


Reged: 01/10/10

Loc: SE Wisconsin
Re: To those that said an Edge would blow me away... new [Re: Taylor]
      #5621179 - 01/13/13 04:34 PM

I completely agree. I received my new (to me) 9.25 edge a few weeks ago. First light was incredible. My 21 ethos just barely fit the double cluster in the FOV, but the view was very sharp. I had previously owned a C9.25 a few years ago, and quickly sold it since I had issues with pinpoint stars. This one is definitely a keeper!

Gabe

Edited by AstroGabe (01/13/13 04:36 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)


Extra information
6 registered and 10 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Starman27, kkokkolis 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 5213

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics