I know this is an old thread that's been resurrected, but looking at the original images, I don't see any curvature or or coma with the Meade reducer. I see elongation, but it's azimuthal, not radial. That points to a different issue.
Edit to add: In fact you can see a hint of it in the Starizona shot as well.
I have to agree that I don't see the added benefit considering the cost. I have been looking online to figure out what is best, Celestron f/6.3 focal reducer/corrector, Baader Alan Gee Mark II Telecompressor or the Starizona. Unless you are a pixel peeper , at least from my simple observations, I just can't see a difference that would prompt me to sink more money for something beyond the Celestron FR.
I tried hard and opened the two images in separate tabs and clicked back and forth to see if anything popped out. Aside from the darker head on the Starizona image, not much else stood out for me. I have another few days to return the Celestron, but looks like I am just going to keep it. I have 2 of them, one for each SCT so definitely more economical.
I will admit that I myself have yet to take any photos with the Celestron FR, but I have looked though it with my CPC800 and really enjoyed the views. Once the weather improves and I have my imaging scope all set up I will see what kind of results I get. My prior images, back from 2019, were with an Meade f/12 6 inch Mak Cass with no reducer, so I expect that I should get better results with the C9.25 and the Celestron FR in less time per frame.
***Well this morning I had a change of heart and I am returning 1 of the Celestron FR, only a few days left to return, and ordered the Starizona SCT Corrector IV - 0.63X Reducer / Coma Corrector from High Point Scientific. The difference in cost is about 2 dinners out so why take a chance with the Celestron FR since I have yet to test it photographically and this is a much better investment since it lasts.
Edited by Paul AZ, 25 July 2021 - 08:28 AM.