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

CPC 9.25" and 1100 Question

  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 Rixavatar

Rixavatar

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2018

Posted 21 November 2018 - 11:54 AM

Greetings all, long time lurker joining the fray!  I wanted to ping the group for those who have handled and used both of the CPC 9.25 and 1100 models.  I've seen a few posts on this and it seems the 11" is the more popular choice, but I have to assume that since Celestron has offered the 9.25 for so long, it has a purpose for being in the lineup.  On paper, they seem very close in cost, weight and dimensions.  I assume there is a reason why someone would find one more appropriate than the other, so I am betting the differences are more than what the specs say on paper.  So, I have a few questions I'm hoping someone can help with:

 

  1. Is the "felt" weight and dimension difference for carrying and setup larger than what it suggests on paper? (we ain't getting any younger!)
  2. Aperture rules suggests that choosing the 11" would be best for all objects, solar system and DSO, but maybe there is more to it than that?  I've even seen posts where those with the 11" have switched to the 9.25" and I'm curious why.

 

In short, in considering one of these getting back into the hobby after a 10 year pause (8" LX200 was my previous SCT) why would someone choose the 9.25" over the 11" and vice versa?

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Rix


Edited by Rixavatar, 21 November 2018 - 12:27 PM.


#2 coopman

coopman

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5495
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2006
  • Loc: South Louisiana

Posted 21 November 2018 - 12:52 PM

Well, the CPC 8 and CPC 9.25 models are available for those who don't actually WANT to have back surgery.  Most websites will list the heaviest component for each model.  Because the OTA is attached to the fork assembly, it is quite a bit of weight.  Once you know the weight, go to the weightlifting section of a sporting goods store & stack up that much weight and then try to pick it up.  Now, imagine yourself doing that every time that you want to have an observing session.           


  • Wire and Rixavatar like this

#3 Lola Bruce

Lola Bruce

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1122
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2014
  • Loc: Southern California

Posted 21 November 2018 - 01:48 PM

I have a Mewlon 250 (almost 10 inch), 102 refractor, and a CPC 800. The CPC 800 is the only one that the optical tube and mount are one conjoined lump. This means that the package mainly consists of the head assembly and tripod, two parts. The rest of my collection are three parts tripod, mount, and optical tube. As a result even though I love using my CPC once it is set up it is my least used by far. Don't get me wrong it is a delightful package for observing.  My Mach 1 mount, Berlebach tripod, and Mewlon 250 out weigh and out bulk my CPC 800 buy a good margin but the three piece packaging difference makes it much more friendly to schlep and assemble.

If I did not own the CPC 800 XLT I would buy the Evolution 9.25, for observing the alt/az mounts are just so much more pleasant to use visually compared to equatorial mounts. The Evo breaks down quickly into three parts for schlepping and storage. The Evo does not have GPS but other wise is well appointed and just a delight to use visually. The Evo does not come in an eleven inch.

Bruce


  • Daniel Mounsey and Rixavatar like this

#4 Rixavatar

Rixavatar

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2018

Posted 21 November 2018 - 06:37 PM

Well, the CPC 8 and CPC 9.25 models are available for those who don't actually WANT to have back surgery.  Most websites will list the heaviest component for each model.  Because the OTA is attached to the fork assembly, it is quite a bit of weight.  Once you know the weight, go to the weightlifting section of a sporting goods store & stack up that much weight and then try to pick it up.  Now, imagine yourself doing that every time that you want to have an observing session.           

Thanks for the response and it makes sense.  I actually tried something similar to feel the weight difference using dead weights, but the ergonomics of the CPC factor into things, I'm sure, including not just weight but dimensions.  I guess the question I have is: is the 9.25 CPC noticeably easier to lift/carry/handle than the 11"?



#5 Rixavatar

Rixavatar

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2018

Posted 21 November 2018 - 06:40 PM

I have a Mewlon 250 (almost 10 inch), 102 refractor, and a CPC 800. The CPC 800 is the only one that the optical tube and mount are one conjoined lump. This means that the package mainly consists of the head assembly and tripod, two parts. The rest of my collection are three parts tripod, mount, and optical tube. As a result even though I love using my CPC once it is set up it is my least used by far. Don't get me wrong it is a delightful package for observing.  My Mach 1 mount, Berlebach tripod, and Mewlon 250 out weigh and out bulk my CPC 800 buy a good margin but the three piece packaging difference makes it much more friendly to schlep and assemble.

If I did not own the CPC 800 XLT I would buy the Evolution 9.25, for observing the alt/az mounts are just so much more pleasant to use visually compared to equatorial mounts. The Evo breaks down quickly into three parts for schlepping and storage. The Evo does not have GPS but other wise is well appointed and just a delight to use visually. The Evo does not come in an eleven inch.

Bruce

 

Thanks, Bruce.  I actually considered the Evo 9.25 but from my past experience with the LX200, moving from the early Nextar series, is how much I appreciated that the mount kept the image from shaking during focus.  The experiences I found on CN suggested that the Evo 9.25 did have focus shaking, so I moved my sights to the CPC.  



#6 MikeBOKC

MikeBOKC

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6476
  • Joined: 10 May 2010
  • Loc: Oklahoma City, OK

Posted 22 November 2018 - 08:44 AM

I have the 1100 but have not handled a 9.25. However I doubt there would be much difference in the lifting experience, assuming one is in reasonable physical shape for same. I would go with the extra aperture. There are easy ways to store and move the 1100 fork and OTA assembly without a lot of carrying. 


  • Rixavatar likes this

#7 punk35

punk35

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 985
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Adrian Michigan

Posted 22 November 2018 - 09:31 AM

My CPC11 fork assembly  weighs 65 pounds and is about 31 inches tall. I’m only 5’6” and that makes it a pretty big package for me to lift and carry.  That said, after I practiced lifting it onto the tripod and removing it a couple times, it’s not really that bad. The handles on the side and bottom make lifting and carrying it pretty easy once you get it off the floor. 

 

The Cpc11 is rock solid, and very comfortable to use compared to my EQ mount with a refractor on it. Not that I don’t like the EQ mount, but a fork mounted sct IMO is just a pleasure to use. No matter what size you decide on, you will be very happy with a CPC. 

 

For reference, here I am holding my CPC11.

Attached Thumbnails

  • E6BAE7A8-3A6B-4344-8169-C9660155B50A.jpeg

  • Illinois, JoeBftsplk, Sarkikos and 6 others like this

#8 treadmarks

treadmarks

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 858
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Boston MA

Posted 22 November 2018 - 09:57 AM


In short, in considering one of these getting back into the hobby after a 10 year pause (8" LX200 was my previous SCT) why would someone choose the 9.25" over the 11" and vice versa?

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Rix

I've been eyeing a future upgrade to a CPC11 and the only thing that would tempt me to get a C9 is the fact that you can get it with the Nexstar Evolution mount. But because I already have a C8, it just doesn't make sense to me. C11 is a good 3" jump in aperture, 1.25" is not much of a jump. If you are currently scope-less, I could see the C9 making more sense.


  • Rixavatar likes this

#9 Rixavatar

Rixavatar

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2018

Posted 22 November 2018 - 02:37 PM

Thanks to everyone for the comments.  I pulled the trigger on a CPC Deluxe HD 1100 so now I have to work out what I need most importantly with it!  I’m going with “aperture rules”, especially considering the weight and dimensions of the two scopes are so close.  This still has me wondering what the use case is for a 9.25 over an 11”.  Celestron has offered the two for a long time, so there must be a reason why someone would choose the 9.25” over the 11”.  7lbs of weight savings doesn’t seem like enough of a reason, which is why I assumed that there might be something the 9.25 is better at.

 

clear skies!

 

Rix


  • punk35, Procyon and SpyderwerX like this

#10 Procyon

Procyon

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6328
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Eastern Canada

Posted 22 November 2018 - 02:45 PM

I've been eyeing a future upgrade to a CPC11 and the only thing that would tempt me to get a C9 is the fact that you can get it with the Nexstar Evolution mount. But because I already have a C8, it just doesn't make sense to me. C11 is a good 3" jump in aperture, 1.25" is not much of a jump. If you are currently scope-less, I could see the C9 making more sense.

CPC mount is much more sturdier than an Evolution mount.



#11 Rixavatar

Rixavatar

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2018

Posted 22 November 2018 - 04:34 PM

CPC mount is much more sturdier than an Evolution mount.

That was the reason I didn't consider them for long.  I remember how solid my 8" LX200 was in terms of vibration and image shake during focus or bumps to the fork or tripod at star parties.  I wanted that experience again so I went CPC instead of Evolution.  Also of note is that I had a great experience with the LX200 both mount and image quality, but I went CPC this time based on the many posts I found on CN.  


  • Procyon likes this

#12 Procyon

Procyon

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6328
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Eastern Canada

Posted 22 November 2018 - 05:03 PM

Great choice. But be prepared for a large scope. At first I was like what the heck did I just order when I got my CPC 110 XLT. But after finding those 2 amazing grip holes on the sides I carry the whole setup about 5 feet in one shot to the back balcony. At dark sites, It's easily done in 2 trips. Just remember to take a nice little breather before lifting the ota and mount. You're going to love the scope though, it's very worth it, the difference from the 8 and 11 is huge on many objects including planets.
  • Rixavatar likes this

#13 AxelB

AxelB

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1418
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2015

Posted 22 November 2018 - 06:10 PM

Well, you now have another reason to go to the gym ;-)
  • treadmarks and Rixavatar like this

#14 Rixavatar

Rixavatar

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2018

Posted 22 November 2018 - 09:50 PM

Well, you now have another reason to go to the gym ;-)

The funny thing about that is that I had been lazy about that but I think the scope will get me back into the routine waytogo.gif 



#15 treadmarks

treadmarks

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 858
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Boston MA

Posted 22 November 2018 - 10:06 PM

The funny thing about that is that I had been lazy about that but I think the scope will get me back into the routine waytogo.gif

If you go to the gym regularly you'd realize just how little that CPC11 actually weighs. I lift more weight than that over my head on a regular basis, but all you have to do is put it on a tripod grin.gif


  • Rixavatar likes this

#16 carolinaskies

carolinaskies

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1445
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2014
  • Loc: Greenville SC

Posted 23 November 2018 - 07:06 AM

If you look at the general lineup comparison between Meade and Celestron you have an 8in then a 9.25/10in and 11/12in and 14in.

The 9.25 weight is lighter than the 11" putting it as a choice for those who are less physically able. Also the 9.25 has a longer focal length vs secondary multiplier making it more forgiving at Collimation errors.

The step in price vs aperture is much smaller to gain about 20% more aperture performance from an 8" whereas the 11" is substantially larger.

The OTA weight difference is only about 7.5lbs between OTAs but because of the longer OTA the weight difference is greater between the CPC 800 and the CPC 9.25 and CPC 1100. I suspect this is mainly because the extra length of the fork arms adds significant weight.
  • Rixavatar likes this

#17 carolinaskies

carolinaskies

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1445
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2014
  • Loc: Greenville SC

Posted 23 November 2018 - 07:19 AM

If you look at the general lineup comparison between Meade and Celestron you have an 8in then a 9.25/10in and 11/12in and 14in.

The 9.25 weight is lighter than the 11" putting it as a choice for those who are less physically able. Also the 9.25 has a longer focal length vs secondary multiplier making it more forgiving at Collimation errors.

The step in price vs aperture is much smaller to gain about 20% more aperture performance from an 8" whereas the 11" is substantially larger.

The OTA weight difference is only about 7.5lbs between OTAs but because of the longer OTA the weight difference is greater between the CPC 800 and the CPC 9.25 and CPC 1100. I suspect this is mainly because the extra length of the fork arms adds significant weight.

#18 MikeBOKC

MikeBOKC

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6476
  • Joined: 10 May 2010
  • Loc: Oklahoma City, OK

Posted 23 November 2018 - 08:28 AM

The storage and transport case detailed in this thread is ideal for the 1100.

 

https://www.cloudyni...e-for-cpc-1100/


  • Rixavatar likes this

#19 Rixavatar

Rixavatar

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2018

Posted 25 November 2018 - 04:42 PM

The storage and transport case detailed in this thread is ideal for the 1100.

 

https://www.cloudyni...e-for-cpc-1100/

Nice.  I wonder if cubed foam could be had for that case.  Since I'm mostly viewing at home, I've put off getting a case just yet, but I was considering one of the Pacific Design soft padded cases as well.



#20 RoadsterGirlie

RoadsterGirlie

    Nothing lasts forever

  • -----
  • Posts: 812
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2010
  • Loc: Atlanta, GA

Posted 25 November 2018 - 07:51 PM

I would have loved to have either the 9.25 or the 11, but if memory serves they are very close in weight (high 50s to 65lbs). By contrast, the OTA and fork mounts for the 8 inch is only 40 lbs. this was the greatest factor when I made my decision among the three.

Even the 8” can be unwieldy at 2:00am when I’m breaking down. It’s definitely not what I would consider grab and go. However once it’s set up, the views are incredible even in the 8”. Go-to’s are dead on accurate even when I think I could have done better in the alignment steps.

I am in the process of looking for a grab and go secondary scope when I just want to get outside and say, view Saturn for 15 minutes. This scope isn’t really conducive for that, but it’s stoll an amazing piece. Definitely great to take to a dark site for a full night of observing.
  • Rixavatar likes this

#21 Rixavatar

Rixavatar

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2018

Posted 27 November 2018 - 02:33 AM

I would have loved to have either the 9.25 or the 11, but if memory serves they are very close in weight (high 50s to 65lbs). By contrast, the OTA and fork mounts for the 8 inch is only 40 lbs. this was the greatest factor when I made my decision among the three.

Even the 8” can be unwieldy at 2:00am when I’m breaking down. It’s definitely not what I would consider grab and go. However once it’s set up, the views are incredible even in the 8”. Go-to’s are dead on accurate even when I think I could have done better in the alignment steps.

I am in the process of looking for a grab and go secondary scope when I just want to get outside and say, view Saturn for 15 minutes. This scope isn’t really conducive for that, but it’s stoll an amazing piece. Definitely great to take to a dark site for a full night of observing.

Yeah, I can understand that.  The CPC 1100 is fairly heavy. I sure wouldn't want it any heavier, but I wonder if the 9.25" is that much lighter to really make a difference.  I know the 8" is, but I always wanted more aperture when I had my 8" LX200, so the 9.25" or 11" made more sense to me and since they are so close in weight, the 11" won out.



#22 carolinaskies

carolinaskies

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1445
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2014
  • Loc: Greenville SC

Posted 27 November 2018 - 09:53 AM

Yeah, I can understand that.  The CPC 1100 is fairly heavy. I sure wouldn't want it any heavier, but I wonder if the 9.25" is that much lighter to really make a difference.  I know the 8" is, but I always wanted more aperture when I had my 8" LX200, so the 9.25" or 11" made more sense to me and since they are so close in weight, the 11" won out.

The difference is 9lbs between 9.25(56) and 11(65) ~`6%  and 14lbs from 8(42) to 9.25(56) 33% diff.   So I guess is the 10lb savings in weight more portable vs the aperture.    I hauled my CPC1100 out the other day to the truck and set it on the front seat taking it to a site.  You do have to pay attention to it.  But I think the 23lb difference is less an issue because of the ergonomics of how you move them being the same. They are gripped the same and cradled against the chest the same, and carried to the tripod.   If you are walking any long distance or across uneven ground this might be an issue.  

Ergonomically in moving the CPC series has a better hand placement so that weight isn't nearly as much a concern. The Meade LX90/LX200 by contrast is picked up via 2 parallel handles making similar cradling impracticle. My LX200 8" classic is lighter than my CPC1100 but ergonomically a bit more challenging to move from storage to tripod.  


  • Procyon and Rixavatar like this

#23 Rixavatar

Rixavatar

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2018

Posted 27 November 2018 - 12:03 PM

The difference is 9lbs between 9.25(56) and 11(65) ~`6%  and 14lbs from 8(42) to 9.25(56) 33% diff.   So I guess is the 10lb savings in weight more portable vs the aperture.    I hauled my CPC1100 out the other day to the truck and set it on the front seat taking it to a site.  You do have to pay attention to it.  But I think the 23lb difference is less an issue because of the ergonomics of how you move them being the same. They are gripped the same and cradled against the chest the same, and carried to the tripod.   If you are walking any long distance or across uneven ground this might be an issue.  

Ergonomically in moving the CPC series has a better hand placement so that weight isn't nearly as much a concern. The Meade LX90/LX200 by contrast is picked up via 2 parallel handles making similar cradling impracticle. My LX200 8" classic is lighter than my CPC1100 but ergonomically a bit more challenging to move from storage to tripod.  

That makes sense.  Celestron nailed the ergonomics I think.  What's interesting is that I realized as I carried the CPC1100 out last time is that I am actually taking the entire weight of the thing with just my arms.  For some reason, I unconsciously trying not to let it lean/cradle against my torso.  I am going to try to adjust the way I'm carrying it next time and use my torso to stabilize it and help take the weight.  I'm not sure why I was doing that...



#24 Procyon

Procyon

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6328
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Eastern Canada

Posted 27 November 2018 - 11:16 PM

It's actually great when it's leaning on your chest at times. Watch those patio floor ledges though. I got the hang of the CPC 11" and carry it in one setting with the mount and tripod. But that's only a 5 foot trip. 2 trips are necessary for dark sites. I'd probably avoid this telescope if it needed storage over 2 flights of stairs.

Plan ahead before gripping the 2 side grip handles. Without those I would not really want this telescope. It is a bit intimidating in the beginning for someone who's coming from a 6 or 8".

Celestron really nailed their location. You should be ok if you can bench press about one big plate.

Edited by Procyon, 27 November 2018 - 11:27 PM.

  • Sarkikos and Rixavatar like this

#25 Rixavatar

Rixavatar

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2018

Posted 29 November 2018 - 05:08 PM

It's actually great when it's leaning on your chest at times. Watch those patio floor ledges though. I got the hang of the CPC 11" and carry it in one setting with the mount and tripod. But that's only a 5 foot trip. 2 trips are necessary for dark sites. I'd probably avoid this telescope if it needed storage over 2 flights of stairs.

Plan ahead before gripping the 2 side grip handles. Without those I would not really want this telescope. It is a bit intimidating in the beginning for someone who's coming from a 6 or 8".

Celestron really nailed their location. You should be ok if you can bench press about one big plate.

That depends... if we're talking about Thanksgiving Turkey Dinner plate, then... that might be asking a lot! lol.gif


  • Procyon likes 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