218 replies to this topic

[jrbarnett]

Lane:

It appears that they took a basic correcter 2-element lens assembly and integrated it into the baffle tube. Sounds like it does half the work of the classic f/6.3 reducer-corrector.

The charge for that and the Fastar optics is about $400 more than the "standard" OTA. My conclusion is that if you (a) don't need Fastar or mirror locks (i.e., don't image) and (b) already have one of the old reducer-correctors, there's not much new here.

I also noticed that the lone "classic" rear cell hold-out, the C14, has finally succumbed to the rear cell redo. The C14 retained its ribbed cell design while everything else 11" and down received a new trifoil cell casting. The new C14 appears to have the updated casting.

Kind of sad. I loved the traditional C14 rear casting - purposeful and workmanlike.

Regards,

Jim

[EdKiefer]

Go ahead and add those accessories to a scope that is already more accessible to more people because it doesn't start out with the extras that you might want but I may not. You wouldn't get much of a break on pricing since only two items would come from Celestron (the diagonal and the FR) and the margins on the basic scope are already very low.

Bob's Knobs - $17
FT SCT microfocuser - $159-189
RACI 50mm finder - $90
2" SCT 99% diagonal - $150
26mm Nagler - $540
F6.3 FR - $130

Total - $1086-1116

Optioning up another model scope means more SKUs which drives dealers nuts. Especially a SKU that won't be that popular and cuts into a dealer's accessory sales (a really big no no). To keep costs down simpler is the way to go, and then let the buyer add what they feel is appropriate.

Edit ... I noticed that C is now including a 2" diagonal with the C11 and 925 models. So drop $150 from my totals. Perhaps they are listening to our cries a bit.

Talking Focal reducers, will they even work with these scopes as the scope has already 0x power field flattener and the FR's have you too in each 6.3 FR.

Of course they could come out with specific FR 6.3 for these scopes with field flattener lens removed I guess.

[pollux]

Here the video all you guys was looking for...

http://www.celestron...s/tours/edgehd/

I find it funny the guy is looking at the ceiling through the scope

[letimotif]

In terms of accessories, they're including a 23mm Axiom EP. That's quite a nice, and expensive, addition. That's a $299.00 EP.

Price for a CGEM HD C11 is $3,499.

Stand alone pricing for the CGEM - $1,400 and Axiom EP - $300, leaves $1,800 for an HD C11 OTA. Seems like a pretty good deal to me if you're in the market for an imaging system.

[Bill Barlow]

Wow...they look pretty expensive for just the OTA..a little more so than the Meade ACF OTA prices for similar apertures.

[jtaylor996]

True, but I wish it was priced where the OTA would be cheaper. I mean $500 for a CGEM would be nice, but I already have a mount, and the OTA alone (at astronomics) is still $3000, not $1800.

At $1800, I would probably go for it (And then sell a bunch of EPs, and then hide it from my wife for a while... and then... and then...)

Right now, I can only drool.

Maybe I should place one of those want ads on Amart for something that's still on preorder... (who really thinks that will work??)



Now, to be a bit more serious. How will this be better than a "normal" C11 using the 6.3FR? Can I buy one of those HD flatteners and put it in my "normal" C11 to save some $$?

[Eddgie]

Well, the f/6.3 focal reducer did not really address coma. It did flatten the field somewhat, but the only coma "Reduction" was really just due to the much lower magnification of the abberation.

The problem with ONLY aspherizing the secondary (as I understand it anyway) is that while you can eliminate coma with this approach, the field curvature gets worse.

So, my bet is that the rear element is a dedicated field flattner.

This means that the scope should be (as they say) a really excellent visual AND photographic platform.

A good move by Celestron, and a great approach. I think they really did their homework on this one.

[Miguel Lopes]

Anyone knows the size of the corrected imaging circle for each scope?

[skyward_eyes]

The video on Celestron says its 42mm.

[Stew57]

It's working, they got me! Just preordered the CGEM 1100HD. I hope it all they say. Just fixing the mirror flop and fastar is worth thr extra to me.

[Peter in Reno]

Sorry, but that description of Celestron's lock sounds even more Rube Goldberg than the kludge mirror lock used in the Meade ACFs.

Is that good or bad? Celestron's mirror lock design sounds better than Meade's even though it may be a bit more complicated. I am not sure I like the idea of flexible rods especially when the weather is at sub-freezing temperature.

It's whole lot better than without mirror lock, bottom line.

Peter

[GJJim]

Sorry, but that description of Celestron's lock sounds even more Rube Goldberg than the kludge mirror lock used in the Meade ACFs.

Is that good or bad? Celestron's mirror lock design sounds better than Meade's even though it may be a bit more complicated. I am not sure I like the idea of flexible rods especially when the weather is at sub-freezing temperature.

It's whole lot better than without mirror lock, bottom line.

Peter

While it may be "better" than none, it certainly puzzles me that Celestron didn't use this opportunity to redesign the rear cell and baffle tube so as to eliminate mirror flop and at the same time provide a decent focuser mechanism. Other companies have sold telescopes with zero-shift, moving mirror focusers since the 1990s. People who want to image with these EdgeHD scopes still have to spend hundreds of dollars to buy a good focuser because there is no way to adjust focus when the mirror is locked (with count 'em, two knobs)! IMO it's a dumb design from that standpoint alone.

Build the focuser mechanism properly and there is no shift or mirror flop, and no need for multiple lock knobs.

[EdKiefer]

Sorry, but that description of Celestron's lock sounds even more Rube Goldberg than the kludge mirror lock used in the Meade ACFs.

Is that good or bad? Celestron's mirror lock design sounds better than Meade's even though it may be a bit more complicated. I am not sure I like the idea of flexible rods especially when the weather is at sub-freezing temperature.

It's whole lot better than without mirror lock, bottom line.

Peter

While it may be "better" than none, it certainly puzzles me that Celestron didn't use this opportunity to redesign the rear cell and baffle tube so as to eliminate mirror flop and at the same time provide a decent focuser mechanism. Other companies have sold telescopes with zero-shift, moving mirror focusers since the 1990s. People who want to image with these EdgeHD scopes still have to spend hundreds of dollars to buy a good focuser because there is no way to adjust focus when the mirror is locked (with count 'em, two knobs)! IMO it's a dumb design from that standpoint alone.

Build the focuser mechanism properly and there is no shift or mirror flop, and no need for multiple lock knobs.

I maybe wrong but this system is not really a lock system, though you can probably do that by tightening the tension rods up.
It sounds more like a friction tension type system, where you set tension only enough to stop mirror flop but still have full focus adjustments available (with sight tension).

Sure they could of done a high tolerance mirror mount slide with focus but i am betting cost would go way up.

This seems like good way IMO, simple so hopefully be trouble free.
Just have to wait an see how it works in real life usage .

[mclewis1]

Ok, I've been watching this roll out for a while and assuming that the preliminary marketing info was just that, preliminary with the usual hyperbole, and that it would tighten up a bit when the release is done.

I guess with respect to Fastar I was wrong. I really don't understand Celestron pushing this concept so hard. In fact the way it's worded one might think that Fastar is a product, it's not. Celestron hasn't sold a Fastar kit for many many years, and to the best of my knowledge has no current plans to do so. The only way to get the F2 capability today on any SCT is to buy a Hyperstar kit from Starizona. Those kits are available for scopes with the removable secondaries (Fastar compatible) and for many without that capability ... for many of those "non Fastar" scopes you simply have to buy a conversion kit for a few hundred dollars.

So why the emphasis? Sure the term Fastar is something that only Celestron can claim and use but the actual product (Hyperstar) is available on a variety of SCTs not just Celestron's new HDs. Sure imaging at F2 is a very neat concept and produces some exceptional extended DSO shots so there's no question Hyperstar has it's benefits. It's also an obvious marketing benefit to have the Fastar checkbox (we got it, they don't) but what I continue to question is the emphasis on it, over and over again in the marketing literature. Perhaps there wasn't enough marketing text on the new HD features themselves that Celestron felt the need to add more to the imaging capabilities?

Don't get me wrong, I think the EdgeHD line brings real value to the commercial SCT concept, but I fear we are entering into a period of increased marketing speak. Lots of hyperbole with neat unique terms (Now with SHS - Super Hypertechno Stuff) and little useful content.

[wb9sat]

Hey Stew. I will be anxiously awaiting your first light report.
Bill

[gatorengineer]

Anyone else go yawn? Disapointing...... incremental improvements, and not many at best. There has been a company selling flattners / coma reducers for these for a while now, forget the name, they were pricey. Celestron just put them in at a chines price point.

They missed fans, two speed focusing knob, carbon fiber tube, dielectric seconday, and an option for premium optics.....

[Stew57]

Well for me I wanted a hyperstar compatible system. The difference that I have found was 300$, add to this vents (that I don't have to do myself) and the mirror lock (maybe not the best we will see) and the price difference is pretty close. I would have to buy a focuser anyway so that is a wash. The flatter field sounds good, I just they had included a hyperstar assembly for 300-400 more.

[ahlberto]

Hi.Its completly ridiculous that "enhancemants" of the "new" cats.Cooling vents?cant they put at least a chepo fan?The focuser....were is the dual speed focuser?...coma free?jesus,meade as that for centuries,nothing new.They make this scopes in the cheapest way possible and call it a revolution.They want our euros,thats what it is.Even the finder continue to be,even knowing we hate that finders the worst findersrs possible..were is a red dot finder?I dont even talk about the bafles that intes micro has-that would be asking to much at celestron.
nothing new...sad

[ahlberto]

And i was forgoten....weres the dielelectric diagonal???

[skyward_eyes]

The scopes havent even been out for 24 hours and people are already ripping these things apart.

Yes, fans would be nice, premium optics package, etc...

But when you add this stuff the price goes up. Eventually the price is so high to where people would rather buy higher end stuff then stuff from Celestron and Meade. Its the same thing that Meade did with their Max Mount 16 and 20. People who are willing to spend that much are not going to look into Meade or Celestron they are going to go towards RCOS and other high end companies.

I see Celestron is trying to give their best without getting into a huge price tags. $10,000 for a CGE Pro 1400 Edge HD seems pretty good to me. 14" SCT with flat field optics and a AP900 Class mount for $10k seems pretty darn good!

[cuir]

It is a good strategy, IMO. The product has some innovations, looks good, and offers something extra. The additional cost to the consumer seems reasonable to me, and they now have something to compete with Meade's ACF, but, most importantly, against the slew of new, inexpensive RCs. If imagers decide to switch en masse to the RC design, Celestron could be in serious trouble. I believe they do not produce any RCs, and whoever is producing the newly arrived small aperture RCs had, and perhaps, still has, a good chance to poke a serious hole in SCT sales.

Celestron reacted swiftly to protect it's market and product against a competing design. IMO, they executed with a finesse rarely seen in large multi-nationals. The competing RC designs are now back on a uphill battle, because no packages with a decent GEM is offered for them. My perception is that they where not pushing Fastar so much as the imaging capability of this instrument.

[skybsd]

Hi,
Well for MY money, I'm just happy these actually did appear.

Ticks all of my boxes for passive cooling + anti-mirror flop solutions.

Subject to first light reports, I'm lining up the EdgeHD 14"

Regards,

skybsd

[Mike Rapchak]

Many thanks for the info, Mike.

Mike R.

[Mike Rapchak]

Pollux,

What I think funny is the frightened look on the guy's face, like "Oh, cr*p, I hope it doesn't fall off the mount!"

Mike Rapchak Jr.

[skyward_eyes]

I would love to see one of these scopes, if I had the money I would be interested in the C-14 model for robotic imaging.

I also see that the 9.25" is Fastar ready?! Could there be a new Hyperstar on the way for the 9.25?