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

Would an EdgeHD 8 or 9.25 be good choice to pair with a 130mm refactor in a Double alt/az?

  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 Blueox4

Blueox4

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 292
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2015
  • Loc: Upstate New York

Posted 04 January 2018 - 04:06 PM

I have a UA Doublestar Alt/Az mount with encoders installed and using a Nexus DSC. I have since sold the smaller 100mm refractor in the picture and kept the larger APM LZOS 130 f/9 refractor. I may at one point get a GEM again like a Mach1GTO  but right now I only have the Doublestar for visual observing. I see most people who use the larger SCT’s mostly seem to image with them. I’ve only had refractors and really like the APM I currently have but want to go bigger in aperture and compliment the views from my refractor with something with more aperature but want to ask if that’s feasible with my current mount? Do I need to get another GEM to really get the most from a 9.25 EdgeHD SCT or can I enjoy it visually paired with my 130mm refractor in a double Alt/Az mount as pictured? I probably will get a GEM down the road as I kind of want to do some imaging I think at some point but for now It’s been something I’ve been thinking of adding. I’ve never looked through a SCT of any type. Are they able to produce a visual image at the eyepiece similar to what I’m seeing in my refractor? 

Attached Thumbnails

  • C2CC2505-4904-48C7-BDCB-AFE51ED8005F.jpeg


#2 junomike

junomike

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 13180
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Ontario

Posted 04 January 2018 - 04:35 PM

I'd definitely add an SCT as the additional aperture is very noticeable on DSO's and Planetarty when seeing permits.

Best of both worlds IMO.


  • Arizona-Ken, gfstallin and Blueox4 like this

#3 photoracer18

photoracer18

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1181
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2013
  • Loc: Martinsburg, WV

Posted 04 January 2018 - 04:45 PM

Get whichever one has similar weight to your 130/9. I have always been a big fan of the 9.25 optical system but with the Edge optics I might not be as important.
  • Blueox4 likes this

#4 dr.who

dr.who

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 9602
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2012

Posted 04 January 2018 - 05:36 PM

Absolutely! Go 9.25 or even 11 if the mount will support it and you can afford it as well as deal with the weight. Also be sure to add the TEMPest fans for it to aid in cooling. Also look at a 2” diagonal for it.
  • gfstallin and Blueox4 like this

#5 Spikey131

Spikey131

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 136
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2017

Posted 04 January 2018 - 05:49 PM

I use a refractor with a C8 on an altaz mount.  I think the two scopes complement each other beautifully.  I go back and forth between them as I observe.  Get the biggest one you and the mount can handle.


  • Blueox4 likes this

#6 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3193
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 04 January 2018 - 11:26 PM

The tricky part is your refractor is looonnngg. An SCT will be short. Which means rather different eyepiece positions when switching between them. A C9.25 would be longer at least to help match up to the F9 frac. What people normally do is pair a short, wide field frac with an SCT to get the wide field paired with larger aperture. Think SCT with 4 deg fov. Your 5" F9 isnt going to have a huge fov so it isn't as advantageous. Not saying it would be pointless but not like my ES AR102 paired with my Mak. So yes you could do it but it isn't going to give a huge increase in fov, and your frac is kind of big and heavy, so at some point you have to ask if it is worth the trouble getting the SCT out also. 

 

Scott


  • Blueox4 likes this

#7 mikona

mikona

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 334
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2016

Posted 05 January 2018 - 12:58 AM

I am looking to do this too.  I will be using an F7.4 Tak FC100DF and / or an F7.5 ES127ED.  Occasionally, I might set it up with my F6 ES80ED.  Either way, I think it would be great to set up the two in tandem.  I am looking for something as light and portable as possible, with a 7 to 8 inch min/max in aperture.  Was thinking about a SW 180 Mak/Cass, but am leaning against it as I already have an F12 Mewlon 250 for high power planetary work.  An F10 at 8 inches sounds like a pretty good compromise.  Just need to decide between the Edge or ACF.


  • Blueox4 likes this

#8 junomike

junomike

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 13180
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Ontario

Posted 05 January 2018 - 09:07 AM

The tricky part is your refractor is looonnngg. An SCT will be short. Which means rather different eyepiece positions when switching between them. A C9.25 would be longer at least to help match up to the F9 frac. What people normally do is pair a short, wide field frac with an SCT to get the wide field paired with larger aperture. Think SCT with 4 deg fov. Your 5" F9 isnt going to have a huge fov so it isn't as advantageous. Not saying it would be pointless but not like my ES AR102 paired with my Mak. So yes you could do it but it isn't going to give a huge increase in fov, and your frac is kind of big and heavy, so at some point you have to ask if it is worth the trouble getting the SCT out also. 

 

Scott

This was never an issue for me in using a long 6" F9 ED along with a large (10") SCT or even a 10" MN. I just stood while using the SN and used a chair for the Refractor.

The shorter Wide Field is also something I do but the wide field adds little for all but the widest DSO's.  Aperture via the SCT is a better choice IMO.


  • Blueox4 likes this

#9 Bill Barlow

Bill Barlow

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3838
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Overland Park KS

Posted 05 January 2018 - 11:04 AM

If you have a 130mm refractor, I would opt for the C9.25.  The C8 views would be pretty close to what the 130 shows I would think as far as viewing planets and brighter deep sky objects.  Maybe a C11 would be a better option if the extra weight is not an issue.

 

Bill


  • Blueox4 likes this

#10 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 5622
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Netherlands, Europe

Posted 05 January 2018 - 01:18 PM

In my experience, with the instruments that you have (and had), under your viewing climate in NY, the 130 f/9nwill shine and the 8" or 9.25" Edge HD's will disappoint. In Florida, an SCT will perform well and the 9.25" would be my choice to pair with your 130 f/9, as the 8" will not make a big enough difference.

My reference point: mild sea climate with Questar 7 and FS102 NSV.


  • Blueox4 likes this

#11 Luna-tic

Luna-tic

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 389
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Foothills North Carolina

Posted 05 January 2018 - 06:27 PM

Absolutely! Go 9.25 or even 11 if the mount will support it and you can afford it as well as deal with the weight. Also be sure to add the TEMPest fans for it to aid in cooling. Also look at a 2” diagonal for it.

 

If you're talking about the mount in your picture, I doubt it will support it steadily enough to use. What does the APM f/9 weigh? A Edge HD8" weighs 14 pounds, the 9.25 is 21 and the 11 is 28 pounds. Length won't be too much an issue, you can offset the EP positions a bit, but the side-to-side weight difference will make balancing the bigger issue. FWIW, the 9.25 is 22" long, the 11 is 24". My 8" is 17" long, and it works better with the dew shield in place to even them up front to back for balance.

 

I have an 80 APO that I can mount next to my Edge 8, and I have to offset the dovetail adapter as far as it will go to one side, or add 10 lb to the frac side, to get the Dec axis to come close to balance for visual, and forget AP with both on the mount (AVX). I can mount the C6 and the frac, and it balances fairly well.

DSC00049 (2).JPG DSC00054 (2).JPG


  • Erik Bakker and gfstallin like this

#12 Blueox4

Blueox4

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 292
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2015
  • Loc: Upstate New York

Posted 05 January 2018 - 06:57 PM

The Doublestar is rated for 30lbs on the left and 40lbs on the right so I think I’m good and visual is all I would be doing or be capable of with this mount. I have a bigger Berlebach Planet tripod also that I can also mount the Doublestar on and it’s beefier than the one pictured. 



#13 Bill Barlow

Bill Barlow

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3838
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Overland Park KS

Posted 05 January 2018 - 09:16 PM

You could probably max out the mount with two scopes and the Berlebach tripod could handle to load just fine.  I have always wanted to try the UA Doubstar mount.  I own three of UA Unistar mounts and they are very good.  Can carry a 12" Meade OTA fine, but the 7" duel clamping saddle strained a bit with the 52 lb. C14 I once owned.  Too bad they are no longer made.

 

Bill



#14 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3193
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 05 January 2018 - 11:33 PM

 

The tricky part is your refractor is looonnngg. An SCT will be short. Which means rather different eyepiece positions when switching between them. A C9.25 would be longer at least to help match up to the F9 frac. What people normally do is pair a short, wide field frac with an SCT to get the wide field paired with larger aperture. Think SCT with 4 deg fov. Your 5" F9 isnt going to have a huge fov so it isn't as advantageous. Not saying it would be pointless but not like my ES AR102 paired with my Mak. So yes you could do it but it isn't going to give a huge increase in fov, and your frac is kind of big and heavy, so at some point you have to ask if it is worth the trouble getting the SCT out also. 

 

Scott

This was never an issue for me in using a long 6" F9 ED along with a large (10") SCT or even a 10" MN. I just stood while using the SN and used a chair for the Refractor.

The shorter Wide Field is also something I do but the wide field adds little for all but the widest DSO's.  Aperture via the SCT is a better choice IMO.

 

Good point, a chair would solve the issue with eyepiece positions. To me the main point of pairing a wide field frac with a larger cassegrain is easy starhopping. If using goto it doesn't matter as much. To me it is kind of like do i feel like doing a goto alignment, or do i feel like mounting two scopes? But low power surfing is also fun. Personally I wouldn't do SCT and frac with that big 130mm F9. A small refractor isn't a lot of extra effort and it can give a huge increase in FOV. But the 130mm F9 just isn't gonna get me to wide field Nirvana, and it is big and heavy, so what's the point. That's my take anyway but to each his own.

 

Scott


Edited by SeattleScott, 05 January 2018 - 11:41 PM.

  • Erik Bakker and Blueox4 like this

#15 bobhen

bobhen

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2005

Posted 06 January 2018 - 08:01 AM

I use something similar with a Tak Mewlon 210 one side and a Tak TSA 120 on the other. It’s a great combination. I was also seriously considering a C9.25 but went with the Mewlon 210.

I think a C9.25 would be a better complement to your refractor as a C-8 might not be enough of what you are after when comparing it to your refractor.

 

I live in Pa and at your location in New York I can tell you that their will be few nights when the SCT will best your killer refractor on lunar/planetary and it also won’t be a huge step up on deep sky objects that need contrast like M1, etc. but it will deliver the goods for high contrast deep sky objects like globular clusters, etc.

 

For high-power viewing with an SCT at your location, you will also have to take cooling very seriously. For low power deep-sky observing, cooling won’t matter much.

 

SCTs are great at packing aperture in a small package and that makes them a nice complement to a refractor, especially on a twin alt/az mount or mounted side-by-side on a GEM.

 

Bob

Attached Thumbnails

  • IMG_2913.jpg

  • JMKarian, BillShakes, gfstallin and 2 others like this

#16 BGazing

BGazing

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 741
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2016
  • Loc: Belgrade, Serbia

Posted 06 January 2018 - 08:24 AM

NY weather sounds bad. What in particular makes it so adverse? I reckon temp drops are more challenging in a desert...

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

#17 junomike

junomike

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 13180
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Ontario

Posted 06 January 2018 - 09:04 AM

I Dual-Mount for a few different reasons.

 

1) DSO + Wide Field DSO's. 

 

AT111EDT + 10" ACF

AT111EDTM10CN.jpg

 

2) DSO + Planetary/Lunar.

 

Meade 152ED + SN10

DualMeades.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 


  • Brollen and Blueox4 like this

#18 junomike

junomike

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 13180
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Ontario

Posted 06 January 2018 - 09:07 AM

3) Comparing OTA's

 

Meade 10" EMC + Meade 10" ACF.

M10SCTDuoa.jpg


  • Brollen likes this

#19 Bill Barlow

Bill Barlow

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3838
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Overland Park KS

Posted 06 January 2018 - 11:03 AM

Mike, when you had these two Meade 10”scopes out, did the ACF version put up better images?  Did you notice the ACF was a tad brighter with the UHTC coatings?

 

Bill



#20 junomike

junomike

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 13180
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Ontario

Posted 06 January 2018 - 03:33 PM

Mike, when you had these two Meade 10”scopes out, did the ACF version put up better images?  Did you notice the ACF was a tad brighter with the UHTC coatings?

 

Bill

Yes and yes although I believe I referred to the ACF as having better Star saturation and not necessarily brighter Images.

Nonetheless the ACF offered a more aesthetically pleasing Image, most likely due to the lack of Coma.

In all fairness the ACF was also newer and the standard SCT was of the EMC vintage.



#21 Bill Barlow

Bill Barlow

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3838
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Overland Park KS

Posted 06 January 2018 - 08:43 PM

That's why I have held off buying a used 10-12" Meade with the EMC coatings and non ACF optics.  I think it would be somewhat of a downgrade compared to a scope having the UHTC coatings and ACF optics.

 

Bill



#22 mikona

mikona

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 334
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2016

Posted 06 January 2018 - 10:01 PM

I ended up going with a SW 180 Mak.



#23 Brollen

Brollen

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 245
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Maryland, USA

Posted 07 January 2018 - 06:33 PM

I ended up going with a SW 180 Mak.

Nice ... curious though, as you were leaning against it since you have a Mewlon, what swayed you to the 180mm?

 

I'm thinking of upgrading down the road to either a 180mm Mak or a Meade 8" or 10" ACF. This would be mounted alongside a 115mm or 130mm class APO. I'd love the 10" but I'm thinking the 8" is probably easier size and weight wise to move around, hoist, etc. One thing I like too about the SCTs is the grab handle at the mirror end - very convenient to carry the scope. It's too bad the bigger Maks don't provide this.

 

I currently have the 6" Meade SCT - sold as an OTA and appears to be an ACF scope. This SCT provides the sharpest & best views of any SCT I've owned - very Mak-like and it also cools down fairly quickly.

 

The 180mm is very alluring but I'm thinking for me the 8" ACF might be a better choice. Interested to hear what swayed you.

 

Clear skies!


Edited by Brollen, 07 January 2018 - 06:35 PM.


#24 carolinaskies

carolinaskies

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2014
  • Loc: Greenville SC

Posted 07 January 2018 - 09:12 PM

Given you want to move to more light gathering than your 130mm, I'd suggest the 11" Celestron.  It's only around 28lbs and will give a sizeable jump in light gathering you are looking for.  Paired with an F/6.3 FR it would widen the field nicely if you desired.   

Alternately the F8 Meade ACF 10" would be a heavier scope, though when you consider it has a much better focuser now built in the weight difference if you added a good focuser to the C11 wouldn't be so different.  

 



#25 HxPI

HxPI

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1102
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2013
  • Loc: Virginia Beach, VA

Posted 09 January 2018 - 01:03 PM

With the 130mm refractor, I would choose a C11 SCT instead!




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.







Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics