Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Trading a C11 for a C9.25

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
74 replies to this topic

#1 braindontstop31

braindontstop31

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 560
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2004

Posted 13 November 2005 - 03:12 PM

In my quest to aquire a great planetary scope I am trading my 6 month old C11 for a 1 year old C9.25. The gentleman also gave me 600 USD for the difference. I hope this will help me with bettter veiws of the Planets. I enjoyed the C11 but I never had views Planets that blew me away. I collimated the C11 to as near perfection as I could with my skies and allways allowed 2-4 hours of cool down time before viewing. I had a Celestron C8n newtonian that gave sharper images of saturn than the C11 every time. I have done a lot of reading about the 9.25 with the different primary and secondary configuration giving a flatter F.O.V. and a lot of reputible people raved of the optics in the 9.25 as being sharper. I will truly see now if there is difference or not. I will post a first night out with this scope to let you know what I think. I am not trying to start another C11-C9.25 conflict.
 

#2 ForgottenMObject

ForgottenMObject

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,785
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2004

Posted 13 November 2005 - 05:37 PM

Good luck!

While I don't know much about the 2 scopes in question from first-hand experience, I'd bet the 9.25" scope would reach thermal equilibrium faster, which is good for planets.
 

#3 JerryWise

JerryWise

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,699
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2003

Posted 13 November 2005 - 07:07 PM


I got'um both. That 9.25 is one sweet OTA. If one had to go.... somebody would get a fine nearly new C-11 XLT.
 

#4 braindontstop31

braindontstop31

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 560
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2004

Posted 13 November 2005 - 08:12 PM

I Hope I have made the right decision. I have read alot of reports, post, and feedback. Viewing will tell the story, and when I get the 9.25 I will put it through the test.
 

#5 Teal'c

Teal'c

    Indeed

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,367
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2005

Posted 14 November 2005 - 12:04 AM

Please excuse my ignorance but the 9.25 has less aperture and I think a larger central obstruction for its size. How is it possible for it to be a better performer?
 

#6 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----

Posted 14 November 2005 - 03:01 AM

No one is getting my C11 :lol:

Hope your trade in works for the best.
 

#7 JerryWise

JerryWise

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,699
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2003

Posted 14 November 2005 - 08:05 AM

Regarding the 9.25, I didn't believe it could be any better than any other SCT. Wanting to be fair I bought one to try. It's easy to use, focus, is very clear, great contrast and comfortable to handle.

Two OTAs I play with (9.25 and RCX 10) have larger central obstructions. Yet both show fantastic detail and contrast. Let me try and describe something I don't quite understand (many know a lot more about this than me and I would appreciate their input). You can move the RCX or 9.25 just out of focus and clearly see diffraction rings just as in other OTAs. However, these two OTAs show a tiny well resolved dot in the very center of the star image and as you move outward the rings are very crisp and well resovled. The rings are very sharp and show strong contrast to the dark background they are superimposed on. The other OTAs I have/have had recently do not show this nearly as clearly and crisp. These include the C-14, LX200 14, C-8, SN-10 and C-11. On planets and globular clusters I find the scopes showing this clarity have "stunning" views. Saturn is just plain wow. On deepsky, they don't show the fuzziness of galaxies any better than the others and they are a bit dimmer because of aperture. Nebs are a mixed bag but the central star in the ring comes out sharper as well as Orion's detail. It's all in what you want but a side by side comparison sure puts it on the table for examination.

IMHO.
 

#8 mistyridge

mistyridge

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,036
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2005

Posted 14 November 2005 - 05:13 PM

I have both scopes (C11,C9.25). I bought the C9.25 after I had done a lot of reading of reviews of this scope. I originally bought the C11 because the more aperture the better. Well in theory that was the idea, however in practice it did work out that way. The C9.25 gives me the shapest most detailed planetary images of the two. It is even better than my 5.1" semi apo refractor, which cost a lot more. The C11 is much better on DSOs. I think this is where aperture rules.
 

#9 LittleDob

LittleDob

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,444
  • Joined: 10 Dec 2004

Posted 14 November 2005 - 05:43 PM

People should serious look at the images that Robert76 captures with his C11. Yes, I've heard great things about the 9.25, and often wish that I had opted for one rather than a C11 (lighter, less expensive, flatter field), but in the hands of someone like Robert the C11 becomes a "planet killer."

Jason
 

#10 JerryWise

JerryWise

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,699
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2003

Posted 14 November 2005 - 06:18 PM

Is there a link to Robert76 images? I see a lot of post.
 

#11 braindontstop31

braindontstop31

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 560
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2004

Posted 14 November 2005 - 09:16 PM

I just wanted to experience the difference over a long term period of time. I gave the C11 a lot of time on planerary veiwing and I still believe the C8-N gave crisper images. Maybe my C11 optics were not the best or maybe I was expecting more than I should. My experience with planetary viewing has only been with my scopes that I have purchased in the last 5 years. There has got to be some truth in which a lot of people on CN rave about the 9.25 optic even those that also have larger SCT's. I am taking a calculated gamble so to speak I guess. No matter which way it turns out, I will give my honest report over the next couple of weeks. :rainbow:
 

#12 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----

Posted 14 November 2005 - 11:50 PM

People should serious look at the images that Robert76 captures with his C11. Yes, I've heard great things about the 9.25, and often wish that I had opted for one rather than a C11 (lighter, less expensive, flatter field), but in the hands of someone like Robert the C11 becomes a "planet killer."

Jason


Thanks Jason, I appreciate your kind words.

My post above was to give the other side of the coin, that there are indeed many (immensely) satisfied C11 owners out there.

Chris Go is now using a C11, Dave Tyler who is Damian Peach's imaging buddy uses a C11, Richard Bosman uses a C11, and the list of famous planetary observers / imagers goes on and on.

You always have to be careful about disagreeing with the so-called "norm" around here, seems to elicit responses such as

I see a lot of post.

Thanks Jerry, I guess I better post less here so that'll make everyone happy.
 

#13 darylf96

darylf96

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,478
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2004

Posted 15 November 2005 - 12:17 AM

Thanks, Robert!

I have just bought a CGE mount and have been thinking of ordering a C11 as soon as possible. I am happy with the MN66, would never give it up. But for big sky imaging, I want more aperture, and the C11 is the perfect fit for my new mount. I have heard nothing negative about the C11 optics prior to this thread. You have made my day!
 

#14 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Posts: 35,616
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003

Posted 15 November 2005 - 12:23 AM

Thanks, Robert!

I have just bought a CGE mount and have been thinking of ordering a C11 as soon as possible. I am happy with the MN66, would never give it up. But for big sky imaging, I want more aperture, and the C11 is the perfect fit for my new mount. I have heard nothing negative about the C11 optics prior to this thread. You have made my day!


I like C11's; I owned a few and they were nice. For deep sky imaging they are awfully long, though, which restricts the FOV. I've just switched in the other direction, going from a 12" SCT to the 150mm Mak-Newt for extended objects.
 

#15 darylf96

darylf96

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,478
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2004

Posted 15 November 2005 - 01:20 AM

Well, John, I have the MN66 f6, which you have gone to for more FOV. Along with the C11 I plan on getting an F6.3 focal reducer/corretor, which works both visually and photographically, which provides for a nice, wide-field scope. Also, for CCD imaging, there is an f3 reducer and the Fastar option for f2. The SCTs are still the most versatile scopes, though the Mak-Newts are more versatile without gadgets. The Mak-Newts also have the best optics, no doubt. Wish I could have bought the 8 inch Intes Macro, but I had no mount for it at the time and the price was out of my range.
 

#16 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----

Posted 15 November 2005 - 02:07 AM

Daryl, I have to totally agree with John, I think if your area of interest is mainly DSO imaging, I'd go with a smaller and lighter scope than the C11 here.

(I'm almost exclusively into planetary observing/imaging)

In any case, good luck with your purchase! And I look forward to your images and reports, as well as the reports on the new C9.25 from Braindontstop31.
 

#17 gazerjim

gazerjim

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,370
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2004

Posted 15 November 2005 - 03:31 AM

I would only add that as aperture size increases for any design, extracting the scope's best possible performance
becomes increasingly difficult.
The 9.25 is indeed a fine design. I think you will like yours.

Jim
 

#18 darylf96

darylf96

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,478
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2004

Posted 15 November 2005 - 04:41 AM

Robert, It's getting a bit confusing here. I have a smaller, lighter scope in the MN66, with which I plan on doing lots of DSO an planetery imagery. However, I also want a larger aperture scope for the deep fuzzies, such as galaxies, and for this purpose the larger aperture, with appropriate reducers and equipment, will be a distinct advantage. I'm not worried about "smaller and lighter" now that I have a mount that will carry 65 lbs with ease. The whole purpose of the mount was the ability to add a lager aperture scope in the future. The SCT is not my ideal scope in some ways, but for astrophoto work it has more support in the industry than any other type of scope. The 11 inch aperture is perfect for the CGE mount. My CG5-A mount can carry the MN66 or the 80ED for visual observing. I think that an 11 inch SCT would be the last socpe I should ever need. To each his own, and I respect all your opinions, which I have put to good use in the past.
 

#19 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----

Posted 15 November 2005 - 04:58 AM

Daryl, I'm certainly the last person to try and talk you out of getting a C11 :)
I think it would make a wonderful imaging platform. Just wanted to reiterate what John was saying about its long focal length (and also size) - 2,800mm of focal length really helps with high resolution planetary imaging, btw.

If you can, choose one of the companies that offer a pre-inspection of the OTA, such as OPT and Company 7. This will ensure you get a good one.
I look forward to seeing your first light reports and results :cool:
 

#20 Paul G

Paul G

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,761
  • Joined: 08 May 2003

Posted 15 November 2005 - 06:01 AM

Excellent advice. I bought my C-11 from Company 7 and it had very good optics. I only had one opportunity to try it side by side with a 9.25, so YMMV, but it gave better planetary views. I couldn't see a difference in contrast, but it had a bit better resolution, as one would expect with greater aperture. And yes, both were collimated. :)
 

#21 JerryWise

JerryWise

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,699
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2003

Posted 15 November 2005 - 07:55 AM

I see a lot of post.

Thanks Jerry, I guess I better post less here so that'll make everyone happy.


Hello Robert. I hope it didn't seem my comment was negative about your post. Mention was made above about some fantastic C11 images you had acquired. I did several searches looking for them. What I should have said is when I did a search on your user name there were a lot of post but I could not find a link to your images. Your post are very informative and based on experience. I don't think I get enough reading intellectual post. Keep them up.

I sure would like to see some of the C11 images. What's the best link to some?
 

#22 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Posts: 35,616
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003

Posted 15 November 2005 - 08:51 AM

Well, John, I have the MN66 f6, which you have gone to for more FOV. Along with the C11 I plan on getting an F6.3 focal reducer/corretor, which works both visually and photographically, which provides for a nice, wide-field scope. Also, for CCD imaging, there is an f3 reducer and the Fastar option for f2. The SCTs are still the most versatile scopes, though the Mak-Newts are more versatile without gadgets.


There certainly are plenty of options these days!

I had used a couple of different SCT's for the planetaries & smaller galaxies, where the focal length is an advantage, and they worked well at their native F/10. In my particular case, the downtown light fog creates fierce gradients when using reducers so I stopped using them. That deprives me of much of the versatility you describe so our situations are different. That's why the Mak-Newt seemed a great choice here for the shorter focal length stuff. I'm gonna be trying the 7" Meade Mak-Cass for longer focal length imaging; my hope is that it'll give me tighter star images than I was getting with the SCT's. I want to see which is more optimal - Barlowing the Mak-Newt (I'm concerned about those pesky gradients) or living with the larger CO in the Mak-Cass.
 

#23 LittleDob

LittleDob

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,444
  • Joined: 10 Dec 2004

Posted 15 November 2005 - 02:01 PM

I sure would like to see some of the C11 images. What's the best link to some?


Why right here on cloudynights!!

Go to Member Galleries -> Robert76

Sorry for promoting you here Robert, but your images are kinda the standard that I'm aiming for with my C11. Really inspirational stuff!! Well, inspiration can turn to frustration when one's skill level is like mine. Nevertheless, your images *prove* to me at least that a well-collimated, well-cooled SCT (even with it's big 'ol central obstruction) can be worthy planetary scopes.

Jason
 

#24 JerryWise

JerryWise

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,699
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2003

Posted 15 November 2005 - 02:45 PM


Ok, I found them. Silly me, I was looking in the Astrophotography section.

Great Jupiter. I'd take another tax hike for a Jupiter like that. Robert, is there a location for the details of the images? Camera, exposures, processing etc.
 

#25 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----

Posted 15 November 2005 - 09:47 PM

Hi guys and thanks again, Jason.

All of my images taken prior to June 2005 were imaged with the ToUcam (Jupiter in particular), the Mars images and others after June 2005 were imaged with the Lumenera LU075. I use RegiStax3 to stack and process the images (what I still don't know about image processing could fill a universe... lol). And all images were taken from my veranda. Imaging details are always given when I post these images in the Solar System imaging forum.

Since Jerry is pressing the issue, here are a few images I thought came out fair despite our local seeing here (be sure to click for the full screen version):
They are in the Astrophotography section, under "Planets."

Tiny version of Mars at around peak diameter:
Mars 1

Same night, different processing version:Mars 2

Mars from September 13:Mars 3

Syrtis Major @ 14.4"
Mars 4

A Mars from Nov 12 taken through the jet stream:
Mars 5

Two average Jupiters:
Jupiter 1

Jupiter 2

The planet Mercury:
Mercury
 


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics