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

Edge HD vs. XLT

  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#76 Jonathan

Jonathan

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2004
  • Loc: Cranberry Twp. Pa

Posted 05 December 2018 - 07:52 AM

Hello Daniel and interesting post,

 

do you believe that the white paper on the edge HD design is mostly a marketing tool and the info within the paper is misleading? Anyone else have an opinion on this topic?

 

Thank you



#77 SandyHouTex

SandyHouTex

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3846
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 05 December 2018 - 09:07 AM

Hello Daniel and interesting post,

 

do you believe that the white paper on the edge HD design is mostly a marketing tool and the info within the paper is misleading? Anyone else have an opinion on this topic?

 

Thank you

Having read and researched it, Celestron’s White Paper is a factual and well written document.  They are using it to demonstrate the Edge HD’s superiority for wide field imaging over their competitors.


  • Daniel Mounsey and Sarkikos like this

#78 Daniel Mounsey

Daniel Mounsey

    Vendor (Woodland Hills)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 7428
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2002

Posted 05 December 2018 - 07:32 PM

Hello Daniel and interesting post,

 

do you believe that the white paper on the edge HD design is mostly a marketing tool and the info within the paper is misleading? Anyone else have an opinion on this topic?

 

Thank you

 

Not at all. The White Paper is wonderful and Celestron did an outstanding job. I was with Celestron during the time they were completing it. I just think observers are making their own misinterpretations and taking matters out of context without even realizing it. The Edge HD is a wonderful telescope both visually and especially photographically. My main complaint is eyepieces and I think observers just need to take that matter into consideration. 


  • Sarkikos, jallbery and Ryan L like this

#79 Jonathan

Jonathan

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2004
  • Loc: Cranberry Twp. Pa

Posted 05 December 2018 - 09:12 PM

Yes, it does emphasize in the documentation that premium eyepieces are required to to take full advantage of the edges' design, i.e., wide field.

 

Thanks


  • Daniel Mounsey and Sarkikos like this

#80 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 29626
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 06 December 2018 - 06:39 AM

Probably better for 2 flights of stairs than the 11 lol.

Would you get a CPC model? Or can you place the OTA on a cpc heavy tripod or a tad lighter and lighter mount?

A 9.25 will do a great job on so many more objects, I like the 11 for it helps me see faint Galaxies also from the backyard. Not that a 9.25 wouldn't but considering I use my 11" 90% of the time from an easily accessible backyard patio 5 feet away, I may as well get the biggest aperture I'd feel ok carrying in one shot. 5 feet is just 5 feet. smile.gif

A lighter CPC mount/model in the future would be great.

The 11 is quite daunting in the beginning, but as a backyard patio grab n go it seems to work well. I take it to dark sites as much as possible, the OTA and attached mount sit in the front seat first class. You can pretty much make the tripod and tray turn into the size of a golf club bag.

No, I would not get the CPC.  I don't need goto.  Actually I want to avoid goto.  I'm a seasoned star hopper.  Goto just gets in my way.  Tracking is nice, but the extra weight and bulk is not worth it to me.

 

I'd want to mount either a 9.25 or 11 on my DM6 on T-Pod 110.  LC for the DM6 is 40 lbs. LC for the T-Pod is 220 lbs. 

 

But neither would be a backyard scope for me, because I don't have a backyard. wink.gif  At home I usually take out smaller Cats, small APO refractors or binoculars.  For now, either would be mostly a dark site scope.

 

Mike


Edited by Sarkikos, 06 December 2018 - 06:40 AM.


#81 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 29626
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 06 December 2018 - 06:43 AM

Just the OTA for the EdgeHD 8" is about $1400.  Why not put some money into the eyepieces?  The Edge scopes are well-corrected.  Why wouldn't you want to use well-corrected eyepieces? shrug.gif

 

I even use my well-corrected eyepieces in my less well-corrected scopes.  It certainly doesn't hurt.  And you can have a much clearer idea of the quality of the telescope.

 

Mike


Edited by Sarkikos, 06 December 2018 - 06:50 AM.


#82 Procyon

Procyon

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6054
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Eastern Canada

Posted 06 December 2018 - 08:11 AM

Yea, but you have every eyepiece already. You need more scopes. :)

#83 ensign

ensign

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1182
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2008
  • Loc: South Georgian Bay

Posted 06 December 2018 - 08:37 AM

Not at all. The White Paper is wonderful and Celestron did an outstanding job. I was with Celestron during the time they were completing it. I just think observers are making their own misinterpretations and taking matters out of context without even realizing it. The Edge HD is a wonderful telescope both visually and especially photographically. My main complaint is eyepieces and I think observers just need to take that matter into consideration. 

I agree.  Premium eyepieces make a big difference.  My collection consists of Pentax (40  XL, 30, 10 and 7 XW) and Televue (Nagler 22 and 17 Type 4, and Delos 14 and 4.5).  I had to forego Ethos eyepieces because I need long eye relief.  My bank account has also been spared a huge dent. grin.gif 

 

I particularly like the 40 XL in the Edge with the reducer,  It gives a 1.5 degree true field with only a trivial amount of vignetting.

 

The focal length of the 9.25 rendered the shorter focal length eyepieces mostly unusable until I added the reducer into the mix.  Fortunately all of the EPs were ( and are) usable in my Equinox 120.


  • Sarkikos likes this

#84 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 29626
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 06 December 2018 - 08:43 AM

Yea, but you have every eyepiece already. You need more scopes. smile.gif

No more scopes ... unless I sell some to make room.

 

:grin:

Mike



#85 stevew

stevew

    Now I've done it

  • -----
  • Posts: 5861
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2006
  • Loc: British Columbia Canada

Posted 09 February 2019 - 04:14 PM

. You guys want to know who hated SCT's more than anyone? Me! Nobody hated the image quality of SCT's more than I did. 

 

All this over the course of the past 25 years. I said to myself....How do observers enjoy looking through these SCT scopes, they're too soft for my tastes?  It was like they just rarely ever came to a crisp, hard focus like they did in Newtonan's and fine refractors for me. For that reason, I stayed away from SCT's for many years. I simply didn't like the image quality in them. When I looked at Jupiter for example, I usually found myself wanting to see more fine detail with higher contrast because of other optical systems I compared them too. Even with star clusters, I usually found something left to be desired. Today, its different though and there's never been a better time for mass produced Cats.

You have made your disdain for SCT's pretty clear over the years. This is precisely why I take everything I read in these forums with a grain of salt. I prefer to make my own decisions based on my own observing experiences over the past 35 years. It's similar to the achromat vs the apochromat debate. I'm not sure how many people that rave about today's fast F-ratio ED refractors have actually spent time with a very high quality achromat. I agree that all SCT's are not created equally, and that they are fussy little scopes that must be cooled and precisely collimated to perform at their best. My own standard C8 has shown me all the details and more on Jupiter that my 130 triplet has shown me under similar seeing conditions. My C11 XLT displays more planetary details than any refractor that I could afford.

There is no doubt that SCT's are compromised telescopes, but don't most telescopes have some sort of compromise. The Refractor is limited in aperture, and the Newtonian's sheer bulk and spider veins are also a compromise. The SCT is a great telescope for many observers. The compact size makes it easy to mount, store and travel with. Having 8 inches of aperture and a long focal length in a very compact optical tube is a big plus for many. And lets not forget why we buy telescopes. To get out under the stars and observe the wonders of the universe around us and to try and satisfy the curiosity we have about our place in the cosmos. I have observed many memorable sights in the eyepieces of less than perfect telescopes. And while it is fun to discuss the merits and pitfalls of various telescopes, lets not forget to see the forest for the trees. 

 

Steve


  • paul m schofield and jjack's like this

#86 gnowellsct

gnowellsct

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15168
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2009

Posted 10 February 2019 - 05:10 PM

You [Mounsey] have made your disdain for SCT's pretty clear over the years. 

 

Steve

Mr. Mounsey certainly has shown a great deal of disdain, and some of that within the past year.  But I agree with most of his main points in that particular, very unexpected, long post.  And if he has indeed come round to SCTs: well, better late than never (and better never late).  But I think the loose attitude towards qc/qa of the SCT makers has cost them dearly in reputation over the decades and I don't put it all on the prejudice of the detractors.  What *does* get imputed (by me at any rate) to the prejudice of the detractors is their propensity to compare the worst (and often oldest) SCTs with the best Newts.  In fact even high end Newts are often working with mirrors that need recoats, a year or more of dust, turned down edge which is not masked, etc.   In short, they are far below their potential.  And some of the China import Newts didn't have much potential period, they were (and some still are) poorly made, but no one went off on rants about the inferiority of the Newtonian design. 

 

But if an SCT is uncollimated and 30 years old (as many are, it's an extremely durable configuration) any deficiency is imputed to intrinsic design rather than the age or lack of collimation of the OTA.   Still:  the decades came and went without substantial improvements in quality control by Celestron and Meade and ultimately the large stable of SCT internet trolls is on them. Personally I think Celestron and Meade should offer 30% off on a new OTA to anyone who turns in an old one.  That would get some of their past crimes against quality control out of circulation.  

 

1.  The China SCT optics are really much more consistent, and better, than most of the Torrance output.  But what's going on is a tighter production standard. The average is higher because the variance has greatly decreased.   The best Torrance optics were always good, but you knew never what you were going to get.  China manufacturing in general (not limited to astro) is all over the place in quality control, but for whatever reason, the Celestron SCTs are hitting a consistent good spot.  Someone is on the ball.  I bought my pre-China c14 from Company Seven because of the variance issue and partly got what I wanted:  good optics, but there were mechanical issues that needed resolving after it arrived. 

 

2.  I was "forced" to buy an XW40 when I got an f/6.5 102mm ED doublet to go on my C14 back in...I dunno, 04, 05. Mebbe later.  Whenever the XWs first came out.  Anyhow, my UO MK70 40mm just could not deliver a nice 4.25 degree field (it was awful, in fact).  When I put the XW40 in the refractor, problem solved.  But the big surprise that astonished me was how much nicer the views in my C14 were when I used the same eyepiece!  It was like a new scope. I felt that I had been misled by a large number of people who generously but erroneously said that you don't need good eyepieces in a slow scope.  That's hogwash.  I converted to all Pentax XW or equivalents (Nikon, Leitz) etc. and have never regretted it.

 

3.  My thoughts on c8 XLT versus 9.25 EdgeHD...I think the 9.25 EdgeHD is a terrific scope.  I also think my 2015 XLT optics c8 (in the shell of a 1988 c8) are excellent.  I think the 9.25 delivers a high performance view that is better than the c8, but the difference is pretty much what you would expect from the aperture--better color saturation, some incremental detail at the margin.  The XLT c8 is a totally satisfying high performance scope with less aperture.  Back in the early 00s I moved from a c8 to a 9.25 and it was an improvement but my c8 of that time did remarkably well even then.  The reason I moved was that I was going to have one and only one scope.  The 9.25 was it.   Nowadays I have half a dozen scopes including apos and I appreciate the c8 for what it is: a lot of punch in a tin can a little bigger than those large coffee cans at the supermarket.  I also have a c14, so the temptation to move to a 9.25 is not as great.

 

I would not put a c11 on an ASGT. 

 

I think the overall discussion of Edge versus non-edge, and whether to have 9.25 or 11" etc., is trivial.  The real discussion should be putting whatever sct he chooses on a super stable mount with a three or four inch apo on top.  Because no matter what the SCT or what the apo, the sum of the two is greater than the value of each component by itself.  It's an awesome combination, and for the budget minded IMO the best competitor for a 5" Tak or 5" astro-physics is not a less expensive 5" china import apo but a c8 or 9.25 with a 3 or 4 inch apo on top.    I own a GT130 and I often find myself puzzling whether to take it out or the c8+81 mm apo.  Or a four inch apo, I can do that too (and have orders in  for two 92mms, for the helluvit.  I'm not sure I'm going to see either of these two scopes any time soon.).  The apo delivers wide fields.  The 8 inch delivers globulars with some punch.  What's not to like?

 

All of this requires a good mount....I have two, a g11 and an AP900 (both non-go-to).  

 

I think the latest generation of SCTs are selling themselves into apo and Newt ownership circles in spite of the bad mouthing.  Sometimes they are purchased "in addition to" a stable of apos or a Newt, and sometimes they are bought as replacements because for whatever reason the owner has decided a change is necessary.  It's been happening in my club at any rate.

 

A 9.25 EdgeHD on a Mach1 mount with some good eyepieces is a very sweet high performance rig.  I'm not surprised one of my observing buddies finds it a little harder to bring out his 14" T-scope with servos (it's an excellent scope) now that he has a 9.25 Edge and a Mach 1. I keep waiting for him to put a refractor on the 9.25.  smile.gif

 

Greg N


Edited by gnowellsct, 10 February 2019 - 05:28 PM.

  • stevew, Steve D. and jjack's like this

#87 gnowellsct

gnowellsct

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15168
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2009

Posted 10 February 2019 - 06:01 PM

incidentally...

 

here is an edgeHD 8" photo of the sun in Airylabs  h-alpha configuration.  These are powerful instruments.  It's easy to forget.  Greg N


  • Scott Beith and Cpk133 like this


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