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

Is it worth paying Double the Celestron C 11 to get Edge HD 11

astrophotography catadioptric Celestron CMOS
  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Michaeljhogan

Michaeljhogan

    Messenger

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2014

Posted 02 May 2020 - 02:09 PM

I know the Edge HD 1100 is better than the Celestron C-11 XLT but how much better  is it really we all know their has been many debates before on this many say its the mount  

with these Schmidt-Cassegrains that makes the difference but he is using a SkyWatcher AZ-EQ6 Pro yes a very good mount but not a premium mount.

 

I dont see any difference between these and the Edge HD his stars are round to the edge just from a cheap Celestron 6.3 focal reducer / corrector is it really worth paying double

the price of the Celestron C-11 XLT to get the Edge HD 1100 that is the question i know the edge is better but double the price better im not so sure. ?

 

https://www.astrobin...o2w5i6/?nc=user

 

https://www.astrobin...393770/?nc=user

 

https://www.astrobin...398703/?nc=user

 

https://www.astrobin.../full/415107/0/

 

https://www.astrobin...420368/?nc=user

 

https://www.astrobin...ezcvh4/?nc=user

 

https://www.astrobin...cxxyea/?nc=user

 

 



#2 Sweep

Sweep

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 47
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2018

Posted 02 May 2020 - 03:39 PM

Can’t see it costing Celestron 80% more to manufacture edge to xlt.

So most likely good marketing, and edge still at a price point of a lot of mid range refractors.



#3 KTAZ

KTAZ

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,292
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2020
  • Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

Posted 02 May 2020 - 07:00 PM

I am with you on the merits of your argument; I think the XLT coupled with the right R/C can provide some very high quality mages. That would be my choice.

 

However, you do understand that the camera he is using costs more than the C-11 XLT, right?


Edited by KTAZ, 02 May 2020 - 07:00 PM.


#4 dustyc

dustyc

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 608
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2014
  • Loc: Phoenix,AZ

Posted 02 May 2020 - 08:16 PM

Had a C11 Edge and used it strictly for visual. Excellent image quality out to the field stop. Mirror locks and vents work well. Great scope. Maybe consider buying used? Couple hundred bucks more than a new XLT could get you a used Edge.



#5 RichA

RichA

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,864
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 02 May 2020 - 08:19 PM

I know the Edge HD 1100 is better than the Celestron C-11 XLT but how much better  is it really we all know their has been many debates before on this many say its the mount  

with these Schmidt-Cassegrains that makes the difference but he is using a SkyWatcher AZ-EQ6 Pro yes a very good mount but not a premium mount.

 

I dont see any difference between these and the Edge HD his stars are round to the edge just from a cheap Celestron 6.3 focal reducer / corrector is it really worth paying double

the price of the Celestron C-11 XLT to get the Edge HD 1100 that is the question i know the edge is better but double the price better im not so sure. ?

 

https://www.astrobin...o2w5i6/?nc=user

 

https://www.astrobin...393770/?nc=user

 

https://www.astrobin...398703/?nc=user

 

https://www.astrobin.../full/415107/0/

 

https://www.astrobin...420368/?nc=user

 

https://www.astrobin...ezcvh4/?nc=user

 

https://www.astrobin...cxxyea/?nc=user

Double?  Maybe. Consider the f/6.3 reducer/compressor and the conventional 11" as a cheaper alternative.


  • db2005 likes this

#6 gfstallin

gfstallin

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,105
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2015
  • Loc: Cheverly, Maryland USA

Posted 03 May 2020 - 01:08 AM

This is a tough call. It really depends on what you are planning to do with your telescope. I am a happy C11 (and C9.25 and C8) XLT (non-Edge) customer. 

 

Advantage XLT: 

  • For imaging, a focal reducer for the Edge is going to cost you ($700) in case you wanted to go that route. And it will only work for the C11 Edge, not any other SCTs you might acquire. 
  • I just bought a Starizona Night Owl for EAA, which will correct the image for a 16mm image circle. It will work with all of my SCTs.
  • Caveats: You might want an imaging circle larger than 16mm. The Night Owl is not going to help you there with a SCT. 

Advantage Edge: 

  • The ventilation holes on the Edge definitely would help with cooling. I've had them installed on my standard C11 and I wouldn't call doing that cheap. By the time you factor in the cost of shipping, drilling of holes, and installation of fans, I'd say that you are easily eclipsing the cost of a used Edge.
  • No need to spend $130 to $300 or more to correct for edge of the field of view flaws inherent in the design of SCTs, images are perfect right out of the box. 
  • Caveats: A Lymax Cat Cooler is a cheaper way to go to speed up cooling for the XLT. Depending on your climate, that might be all you need for cooling. In humid climates with typically low temperature deltas, a non-ventilated C11 should be able to keep up with temperature changes many if not most nights. Of course, you can insulate the XLT (or the Edge, folks are doing that) to minimize any cooling of the optics. Folks have had success with that, and that might negate any advantages to having ventilation on your SCT. 

 

I should note that I've never used a C11 Edge, so I don't how it compares to my C11 XLT. My eyes/brain also adjust quite well for field curvature (currently), but you might be different. Field curvature is virtually a non-issue for me in any telescope unless I really look for it. With field curvature-curing superpowers and a strong weakness for seeing color (I'm color blind), I've defeated every regular SCT and achromatic refractor I've ever come against. Though I currently have two ED refractors (planning on selling or donating one of them), I'm possibly the King of Cheaper Optical Designs. 

 

Having extolled the virtues of the XLT SCTs, I should note that my primary interest is planetary imaging. The Edge models offer no advantage for me on that front other than ventilation, which can be partially solved with a Lymax Cat Cooler (~$100). Flaws inherent with traditional SCT design are mostly solved for me with a Starizona Night Owl or a standard Celestron or Meade F6.3 focal reducer, but might not be solved for other people with different planned applications. If imaging with sensors larger than 16mm were my goal, I'd probably give the Edge a hard look. 

 

If you are convinced that DSO imaging with a larger sensor is in your future, have you considered looking at a smaller Edge model? The 8" Edge is much more reasonably priced, will still collect a ton of light, and as an added bonus, will be slightly more forgiving than a C11 of any design when it comes to mounts and tracking errors. 

 

George


Edited by gfstallin, 03 May 2020 - 01:09 AM.

  • Starman81 likes this

#7 Eddgie

Eddgie

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 27,519
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 03 May 2020 - 01:08 PM

It is totally subjective and no one can answer this question but you.

 

I have used the EdgeHD in 8" and found it far more pleasing to use than the standard SCT, but at that time, the price differential was not what it is today.  Now I no longer have any interest in SCTs really, so I could not really say that I would pay the extra for the EdgeHD today because I think it is overpriced, but that is me but I would not have the standard SCT because I don't like the edge of field, so I would look for something other than either of these. 

 

For someone that values having excellent off axis performance and would be bothered by the aberrations in the C11 (and I have owned one and yes, the field is aberrated at low power) then maybe the cost difference could be justified.

 

The off axis performace of the EdgeHD is superior to the off axis performace of the non EdgeHD.  No one can really tell you if the price difference is worth the benefit.  I would not own an EdgeHD 11 at the current price, but I would not want a standard C11 anymore having used the EdgeHD because the EdgeHD was way better off axis.   Again, I don't really have much use for SCTs anymore, but I can tell you that having used both types, the EdgeHD is better.  I can't tell you if it is that much better that it is worth the price being asked.

 

So, too subjective.  You will get arguments each way, but in the end, the price difference is only worth it if you feel that it is imperative to have the benefits the design offers.  


Edited by Eddgie, 03 May 2020 - 01:18 PM.

  • Jon Isaacs and PETER DREW like this

#8 Jared

Jared

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,448
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Piedmont, California, U.S.

Posted 03 May 2020 - 07:22 PM

Please keep in mind most of the images you linked to were using a relatively small chip.  The Edge is corrected to accommodate a full frame chip (42mm diagonal or thereabouts).  If you aren't going to use that large a chip, then the Edge may indeed be overkill.  If you are, then the XLT's performance suddenly won't look as good in the corners.  What size chip were you considering?  Certainly, an XLT is a relative bargain in terms of getting you lots of aperture for a moderate price.  As with anything else, this follows a law of diminishing returns.  As you pay more and more you get improvements, but they are smaller and smaller.  

 

Is it worth it?  Only you can answer for your own uses.  What camera were you thinking of?  That will help you make a decision. 


  • Jon Isaacs and Jaimo! like this

#9 Reid W

Reid W

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,073
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2010
  • Loc: Shreveport, LA

Posted 03 May 2020 - 07:52 PM

My only issue with the edge scope family is the inability to service/clean the baffle tube correctors.

 

This concern lies with issue of main (front) correctors hazing due to an out gassing problem.

 

I acquired a recent C8 and the inside of the front corrector was literally glazed.  Contributors here have commented regarding this issue .

 

My thought is if the front corrector can "glaze" , then there is no reason for the baffle correctors to escape the impact.



#10 SandyHouTex

SandyHouTex

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,422
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 03 May 2020 - 10:26 PM

I know the Edge HD 1100 is better than the Celestron C-11 XLT but how much better  is it really we all know their has been many debates before on this many say its the mount  

with these Schmidt-Cassegrains that makes the difference but he is using a SkyWatcher AZ-EQ6 Pro yes a very good mount but not a premium mount.

 

I dont see any difference between these and the Edge HD his stars are round to the edge just from a cheap Celestron 6.3 focal reducer / corrector is it really worth paying double

the price of the Celestron C-11 XLT to get the Edge HD 1100 that is the question i know the edge is better but double the price better im not so sure. ?

 

https://www.astrobin...o2w5i6/?nc=user

 

https://www.astrobin...393770/?nc=user

 

https://www.astrobin...398703/?nc=user

 

https://www.astrobin.../full/415107/0/

 

https://www.astrobin...420368/?nc=user

 

https://www.astrobin...ezcvh4/?nc=user

 

https://www.astrobin...cxxyea/?nc=user

The easy answer is no.  The ONLY reason to get the Edge is if you are going to take pictures using a full frame dslr or large format dedicated astro camera.  Visually you won’t see a difference because your eye will accommodate for field curvature, and at f/10, the only time you’ll see coma is if you’re using a very long f.l. eyepiece.  It’s not worth double the cost, and I was surprised to see that it has become that much of a difference.  From a manufacturing perspective they’re both the same, except your getting an extra 3 lenses that correct the field with the Edge.  They certainly don’t cost $1800 to produce.


Edited by SandyHouTex, 03 May 2020 - 10:31 PM.

  • Ettu, Michaeljhogan, David57 and 1 other like this

#11 JuergenB

JuergenB

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 196
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2015
  • Loc: Lilienthal, Germany

Posted 07 May 2020 - 02:50 AM

Since you own a 10Micron GM2000 HPS, you could also consider getting a Meade ACF 10" or 12" f/10, which are less expensive than the corresponding Edge HDs. Those work nicely with an Astro Physics CCDT67 reducer which can give you f/7 to f/8 and which you can use for other scopes as well.

 

I am not a friend of the f/8 ACF versions because of the larger central obstruction. On the other hand, if you don't consider planetary photography, it could also be a good option.

 

Juergen 


  • eros312 likes this

#12 macdonjh

macdonjh

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,275
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2006

Posted 07 May 2020 - 08:13 AM

I owned a C11 for a while.  I was satisfied with the image it provided, especially once I got collimation dialed in.  I must not be as sensitive to field curvature or coma as Eddgie is.  I want to keep it that way so I don't go looking for it.  smile.gif   For that reason I was never tempted by the EDGE series.

 

If I was to image "large" DSO, I might feel differently.  I agree with SandyHouTex on this point, my thought is the target market of the EDGE scopes is DSO imagers.

 

I just read the thread about the Sky Watcher R300.  If that scope ever proceeds past the vaporware stage, perhaps the increasing price gap between "standard" and EDGE models is the impetus for the new product?



#13 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,238
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 10 May 2020 - 01:16 AM

My eyes are sensitive to field curvature and coma and hence to me visually the difference between the XLT and EdgeHD scopes is quite obvious especially off axis. I have been observing for SCTs for 20+ years and I cannot go back to a regular SCT. Also for imaging I would definitely recommend the EdgeHD version.

 

People underestimate the impact curvature has on the image even for visual observing. In a regular SCT the image starts to degrade rather quickly off axis even if you cannot "see" the coma. The views through the EdgeHD so much superior for this reason alone. For example all moons of Jupiter appear as discs in the EdgeHD with no need to center any particular moon. In the regular SCT they were just not visible as discs without centering.

 

Imo the EdgeHD fixes many of the main criticisms of the SCT design i.e. curvature, coma and thermals. Of course it is still an SCT and will have a smaller fov and slow optics so should be purchased for its strengths which is portable aperture and high magnification.


Edited by Astrojedi, 10 May 2020 - 01:18 AM.

  • zjc26138 and BKBrown like this

#14 Jared

Jared

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,448
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Piedmont, California, U.S.

Posted 11 May 2020 - 10:24 PM

What were you planning on using the scope for? Visual? Astrophotography? Deep sky or planetary? Smaller subjects or as wide a field as possible? Presumably, given the fact that you have a 10 Micron 2000, you are not particularly limited on budget but just want good value for your money, yes? We could probably give additional advice with some more information from you. For example, a RASA might be a better solution than either SCT if all you want wide field astrophotography and don’t care about visual. But that would be a poor choice for planetary nebulae and galaxies just because of image scale. Pro’s and con’s to any optical tube or N.Y. optical design.  What do you want to do with the scope?



#15 Michaeljhogan

Michaeljhogan

    Messenger

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2014

Posted 11 May 2020 - 11:42 PM

What were you planning on using the scope for? Visual? Astrophotography? Deep sky or planetary? Smaller subjects or as wide a field as possible? Presumably, given the fact that you have a 10 Micron 2000, you are not particularly limited on budget but just want good value for your money, yes? We could probably give additional advice with some more information from you. For example, a RASA might be a better solution than either SCT if all you want wide field astrophotography and don’t care about visual. But that would be a poor choice for planetary nebulae and galaxies just because of image scale. Pro’s and con’s to any optical tube or N.Y. optical design.  What do you want to do with the scope?

Jared for me only astrophotography it wont be for a while for deep sky galaxies i know the Edge HD is better I'm not crazy on spider vanes and Edge super easy to collimate 



#16 Benni123456

Benni123456

    Viking 1

  • ****-
  • Posts: 621
  • Joined: 20 Apr 2017
  • Loc: Munich, Germany

Posted 12 May 2020 - 11:31 AM

starizona makes a 6.3 reducer for scts which creates images that are similarly good as an edge with reducer, or even better......


Edited by Benni123456, 12 May 2020 - 11:31 AM.

  • JohnnyLingo and MKibs like this

#17 JohnnyLingo

JohnnyLingo

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 04 May 2019
  • Loc: Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 13 May 2020 - 06:09 PM

I know the Edge HD 1100 is better than the Celestron C-11 XLT but how much better  is it really we all know their has been many debates before on this many say its the mount  

with these Schmidt-Cassegrains that makes the difference but he is using a SkyWatcher AZ-EQ6 Pro yes a very good mount but not a premium mount.

 

I dont see any difference between these and the Edge HD his stars are round to the edge just from a cheap Celestron 6.3 focal reducer / corrector is it really worth paying double

the price of the Celestron C-11 XLT to get the Edge HD 1100 that is the question i know the edge is better but double the price better im not so sure. ?

 

 

No.noway.gif

You effectively pay a full 11' SCT's price for a corrector that you can't collimate, can't remove, and on most climates won't allow your scope to reach thermal equilibrium.

If you are sensitive to field curvature, I suggest to buy a reducer/corrector for the standard SCT. If you want to take large-format photos, you can buy a Starizona reducer/corrector, or, even better, another type of scope (fast APO refractor, RASA, RC, etc.).

Just an opinion..


Edited by JohnnyLingo, 13 May 2020 - 06:14 PM.


#18 Ettu

Ettu

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2012
  • Loc: 45N90W Wisconsin USA

Posted 18 May 2020 - 02:57 PM

C11 Edge, Yes, it is worth it for full frame dslr photography. Can't be beat at f10 for the price, imo - which is the way I primarily use mine

Visually, could be an argument.,

But for myself, having had several SCT's now over 20 years, and occasionally using the C11 Edge visually, I like it by comparison so well, that I am seriously considered selling my SCTs in favor of another Edge, for visual. Probably a used one 

A comment about using it visually. You must follow the back focus distance rule, and place your EP at the correct distance too, just as you would if doing photography, then you will get all it is capable of, which is impressive.


Edited by Ettu, 18 May 2020 - 03:04 PM.


#19 Jeffmar

Jeffmar

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,169
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2012
  • Loc: salt lake city, utah

Posted 19 May 2020 - 10:46 PM

I have compared a fairly new C11 XLT and my C11 Edge HD at a star party. We used some of the same eyepieces. They were 68 degree apparent field models. The guy with the XLT model and I went back and forth between scopes to determine if there was a difference visually. Both of the scopes gave very impressive views of globular star clusters, a few Nebulas, and planets. I could not tell a difference and neither could the other guy. If I had 100 degree eyepieces it might make a difference but I haven’t looked through them so I wouldn’t know. I do know that my C11 Edge can get nice tight stars in the corners, with my full frame cameras, if I get the back focus spacing right. I am glad I got the Edge model just for astrophotos, but if I only used it with eyepieces I might not care. 


  • SandyHouTex and David57 like this

#20 Michaeljhogan

Michaeljhogan

    Messenger

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2014

Posted 20 May 2020 - 08:43 PM

I have compared a fairly new C11 XLT and my C11 Edge HD at a star party. We used some of the same eyepieces. They were 68 degree apparent field models. The guy with the XLT model and I went back and forth between scopes to determine if there was a difference visually. Both of the scopes gave very impressive views of globular star clusters, a few Nebulas, and planets. I could not tell a difference and neither could the other guy. If I had 100 degree eyepieces it might make a difference but I haven’t looked through them so I wouldn’t know. I do know that my C11 Edge can get nice tight stars in the corners, with my full frame cameras, if I get the back focus spacing right. I am glad I got the Edge model just for astrophotos, but if I only used it with eyepieces I might not care. 

Totally agree for visual you would want to be insane a human eye could not tell the difference no matter how great your eyesight and test the two SCTs with 1000 people its when

their used with CCDs or CMOS that's when you see the difference it won't be for another year.



#21 f300v10

f300v10

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 451
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2018
  • Loc: Marietta, GA

Posted 23 May 2020 - 06:00 PM

I'm a bit late to this thread, but I was asking myself the exact same question this time last year.  I wanted a higher focal length scope specifically to image galaxies, so perfect stars across the full frame were not my top concern as I knew I could crop a bit if needed. I was also unsure how well my mount (EQ6-R) would guide at 1840mm, so I hedged my bet and went with the C11 XLT + Starizona SCTIII corrector.

 

One year on I'm sure I made the right decision for me, and I've been very pleased with the performance of both the scope and mount.  Here are some examples images taken with the C11/SCTIII:

 

https://www.astrobin...1wts/C/?nc=user

 

https://www.astrobin...jpp9i6/?nc=user

 

https://www.astrobin...xpn817/?nc=user

 

https://www.astrobin...2o46/D/?nc=user



#22 LookingUpinNYC

LookingUpinNYC

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2017

Posted 23 May 2020 - 08:29 PM

Was angsting over this very topic today, as Celestron is running deals on both (which end up being about $800 difference for the fork-mounted scopes). Going to pull the switch on buying one of the other by month's end.

 

I'm definitely looking to do mainly visual on my C-11, but would like to start AP in the coming years. Doubt that I'll ever be more than a dabbler in that, but don't want to buy a scope that boxes me in. I don't think the difference will matter for lunar and planetary. The money isn't such a big deal compared to the cooling issues, which would seem to limit the Edge's usefulness for visual. Wouldn't mind having the option of using 2" eyepieces for the largest glass to goose a little more field width, but difference with 1.25" is irrelevant for most eyepieces.

 

So the pointed question is: Would the non-Edge box me in from a casual pursuit of AP (i.e., noticeable difference in quality)?



#23 Michaeljhogan

Michaeljhogan

    Messenger

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2014

Posted 23 May 2020 - 09:29 PM

Was angsting over this very topic today, as Celestron is running deals on both (which end up being about $800 difference for the fork-mounted scopes). Going to pull the switch on buying one of the other by month's end.

I'm definitely looking to do mainly visual on my C-11, but would like to start AP in the coming years. Doubt that I'll ever be more than a dabbler in that, but don't want to buy a scope that boxes me in. I don't think the difference will matter for lunar and planetary. The money isn't such a big deal compared to the cooling issues, which would seem to limit the Edge's usefulness for visual. Wouldn't mind having the option of using 2" eyepieces for the largest glass to goose a little more field width, but difference with 1.25" is irrelevant for most eyepieces.

So the pointed question is: Would the non-Edge box me in from a casual pursuit of AP (i.e., noticeable difference in quality)?


If you have the money get the Edge you get a really nice eyepiece with it and in the end you will end up doing imaging like everyone else depends what mount you have
  • LookingUpinNYC 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





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: astrophotography, catadioptric, Celestron, CMOS



Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics