I Think I have made up my mind, C-9,25 and C-11
Posted 05 September 2005 - 12:59 PM
I´m going to buy me a Celestron...
I have two choices, The C-9,25 and the C-11. If I find a good C-11 used and can buy it from a good Rated user at astromart I will buy one. And if I don't find one, I will buy a C-9,25 new.
What do you guys think of this plan
Posted 05 September 2005 - 03:22 PM
I'd say get the new scope, unless you can visually test out the C11 up close and star test it.
Posted 05 September 2005 - 06:26 PM
Posted 05 September 2005 - 07:14 PM
I would buy that C14 CGE scope with all the accessores. Theres one up at Astromart now with all the bells and wistles for $5500. My C11 is all I need, but if it was not there, I would go for this one.
Posted 06 September 2005 - 12:20 AM
Posted 06 September 2005 - 10:27 AM
I've got both the C-14 and C-9.25 and use a CGE mount. Guess what.... the 9.25 stays on the mount most of the time. Every now and again I'll mount that monster C-14 and put a camera on it. Astrophotography is so much more difficult with a longer FL scope. Off it comes and the C-9.25 goes back on. Both were bought used. The 9.25 was perfect. The C-14 needed a lot of work. Now I want to put an XLT corrector in the thing. Only 1,600 more dollars (estimate from Celestron).
Over the last 3 years I've had a 10" LX200, 14" LX200 and the Celestrons. Trying to find the perfect scope. I keep going back to and using the 9.25" to 10" OTAs. They just work out better all the way around for me. (Considering seeing, location, preferences, etc.)
I think the smartest part of your equation is getting the G11. Then you can play with the OTAs until you are happy.
Posted 07 September 2005 - 01:54 AM
Posted 07 September 2005 - 05:01 AM
The only negative thing with larger scopes is that they are more “influenced” by bad seeing than smaller ones…
Anyway whichever you choose, they are both very nice scopes.
Just my 2 Eurocents...
Posted 07 September 2005 - 05:05 AM
Posted 07 September 2005 - 07:44 AM
From my experience the Focal Length determines the sensitivity to "seeing" conditions. Last night it was windy here. The 9.25 would star trail a bit if hit by a gust during time exposure. I had a Tak 4" mounted beside it (Losmandy dual plate) and when the wind picked up it started star trailing and "blobbing" the stars too. So off it came and a little $150 "Shorty" achromatic scope went on. Wind blew and the Shorty took fine widefield images. If the C14 or a C11 had been mounted it would have been a short night. The longer FL OTAs generally mag more and will be influenced more by conditions. But then again, you won’t get a stunning M2 for this months camera contest with a Shorty 80.
Posted 07 September 2005 - 08:28 AM
How was your RCX400? If you compare them with your other scopes?
Posted 07 September 2005 - 09:39 AM
It's just a personal opinion but the RCX has refractor like visual views. Take the Tak FS102 and make it a lot bigger and give it a ton of features with a built in mount and you have an idea of the RCX. (SRF note: side by side with the Tak and Meade 102ED the RCX optics when collimated are a doozie of a good system.) Sharp optics and a spot on GOTO. It is a new system and so you expect bugs. I found one.
Either EQ or Forks works fine for me. Just glad to have good equipment.
Posted 07 September 2005 - 09:53 AM
I had a Meade LX200 10" GPS, but found trouble with the software and the electronic focuser just died. Never got the GPS to work. To much electronic. The RCX looks great on the paper, but all that electronic makes me not to buy one. But I would like to have one :-)
Posted 07 September 2005 - 07:54 PM