Celestron C 9.25

[Guest]

So I have an Orion Optics 8 inch F6 1/10 wave mirror and a champayne colour Skywatcher 120 ED.I really enjoy using these instruments. I got these after a bad experience with a Celestron SE 8 inch SCT. The thing is that at the back of my mind I find myself wanting a Celestron C9.25, even after convincing myself that I never want another SCT again. I have heard some people describe the C9 as a class apart from other SCT's.

It would be mounted on an Altair Sabre for manual star gazing.

I would be interested to hear others experiences with the C9.

All the best,

Martin. 

[Joves]

My personal opinion is that I'd never want to be using my 10" LX90 manually. Think it would drive me out of the hobby altogether.

[Pig]

Martin,

I had one on the CPC mount and loved it, I had to sell it in the end as I hurt back and I didn't want to aggravate it further by lugging the scope around.

I have considered, like you, buying the OTA only and using it manually. One thing that stops me is objects may be almost impossible to find due to the limited sky coverage.

[Mr Spock]

Great scope optically, but it needs an EQ mount to get the best out of it.

[Tomjo59]

Great scope optically, but it needs an EQ mount to get the best out of it.

Hi Michael, I have considered buying a C9.25, but have been put off a bit by the usual talk of SCTs lacking contrast due to the large central obstruction. Have you used a Newtonian in the past so that you can compare the two? I know people have obtained excellent images with the C9.25, but my usage would be primarily visual.

I just wonder if the 'lack of contrast' thing is a bit overplayed?

Tom

[Pig]

Tom

I have had a few scopes now and I never even noticed the central obstruction in the SCT .... the views are excellent  I cannot comment on AP as I have never done any.

[Telescope40]

Martin. I have one.  Not had too much time with it since purchase but so far so good.  I'm Lucky to have a nice refractor too.  Bought my 9.25 18 mths after selling a 10 in, fork mounted, Meade LX90 SCT.  Missed the scope for it's great views but i sold as was bulky.  The C9.25 has a good following so went for it.  

My C9.25 is now used on my Skytee mount and a NEQ6 pro EQ mount I got with the funds from the LX90.  Always horses for courses. Central obstruction comes with the scope but I have no issues with this. Just the good old weather thats my main beef.  I've got nice kit but not able to use it as much as I wish.

Cant see you going wrong with a C9.25

HTH   John

[PeterCPC]

What problems were there with the 8"? I've had the 8" on a CPC and now have the 9.25 on an AVX - good experiences with both so far.

Peter 

[Northern Soul man]

Hi Martin, 

Can't comment on the 925 but I have owned an 8 and now the 11 SCT and have found both to be really nice - as mentioned I think that the central obstruction debate is wearing a little thin - In my view the Planetary, I think, can be on par with a similar Newt, the difference being that you can't really compare the two.  Newts of this aperture seem to be on the whole a much lower focal length with the similar SCT, so going from around F5 (the typical Newt focal length of this aperture) to F10 gives you a larger image scale to start and going from the views of Jupiter on the last apparition, the talk of lower contrast was probably as far from my mind whilst at the eyepiece - I think the MAIN problem is the very different seeing/transparency we get here in the UK - with Jupiter so high last apparition, the Jovian detail, for me, was absolutely amazing, with an absolute wealth of detail on show - not having to worry too much about the atmosphere taking hold of the images - they were far steadier than I had seen for such a long time - I've been waiting for Jupiter to rise in a more "Earthly" hour - so not had much time on the Jovian disk this time around - set up last night hoping for a long session, but the clouds soon put this to bed for me - so a set up and take down without the corrector cover off!!

I think the stars are a little more "bloated" in the SCT compared to the Newt, but I find the FOV usable for most DSO's as I have a lot of light pollution to put up with, so the "expanse" of a Frac field probably wouldn't be of any help here for me - that's why I have geared my set up to longer focal length scopes - not that there is anything wrong with a Frac FOV - its just that my skies and the experience I have gained over the years from the SCT's give me all that I need and have learned exactly what to expect under my sky conditions and just learn to live with it - I know that if I were under very dark skies my equipment would be totally different to what I have now.

The SCT's, for me, are a fine scope and with each different scope you have different challenges - slightly "bloated" stars with the SCT, diffraction spikes and mountings for the larger Newt as well as the larger fracs - these need to be mounted correctly - so there is "swings and roundabouts" with all different mirror/lens systems - but for visual I don't think you can beat a dual fork arm mounted Alt/Az SCT - but I think you can tell I'm a little Biased !!

Paul.

[Owmuchonomy]

You can see my scopes in my signature. For manual star gazing, which was your original question, I would choose the 9.25 last of the three. For planetary viewing and imaging however it would be my first choice. Primary issue is its amazing ability to suck all the dew out of the North Yorkshire air.

[Mr Spock]

Before the C9.25 I had a 10" Newt. Can't say I noticed much difference between them contrast wise. Same for detail. I bought the C925 because it's easier to pick up than the Newt.

[Polar Bear]

I previously had a C8 Ultima and loved it for Moon and planetary. This was moved on due to a new job and no time to observe. Currently I have a 10" 250px on a Skytee and put this combo together to get into viewing DSO's but I have horrendous LP and apart from being able to view the obvious really bright DSO's have turned back to solar, Moon and planetary viewing. As such I am now looking to move this on and purchase a 9.25

As Michael (Mr Spock) says, to get the best from a 9.25 or C8 you really need a good EQ (or fork with a wedge) mount. High magnification with a manual Alt-Az whilst possible can be difficult as opposed to letting an EQ track for you. 

No one scope will be good for every type of viewing so I am finding more and more it is important to decide what you want to view and then get the scope to suit. 

Paul 

[Joves]

I'm not sure you necessarily need an EQ or fork mount WITH wedge (the fork mount is just fine, i think perfect, for visual), but I'd definitely recommend go-to with tracking for this focal length scope. I just don't see how you could possibly have an enjoyable evening manually searching/tracking at this focal length. It's doable, sure, but I think it would be an absolute nightmare.

[Polar Bear]

I'm not sure you necessarily need an EQ or fork mount WITH wedge (the fork mount is just fine, i think perfect, for visual), but I'd definitely recommend go-to with tracking for this focal length scope. I just don't see how you could possibly have an enjoyable evening manually searching/tracking at this focal length. It's doable, sure, but I think it would be an absolute nightmare.

This is true, for visual I agree entirely that any mount would be suitable providing it had tracking (and preferably go-to) I had my imaging head on last night! 

[Brian Nordstrom]

I have had my C9.25 for a couple of years now and it still knocks my sox off every tine I use it .

I am mainly Luna/planetary and love the sharp contrasty images it gives with on those good nights huge magnifications 400x plus without breaking a sweat , I love mine and you will to .

Here she is on its HEQ5 mount which holds it easily , a nice set up .

Mine is the CF XLT version and I have an observing buddy with the C8 version on wedge and to be truthfull the views in my C9.25 are better in every way , more so than the 1 1/4 inch would suggest , I think the C9's just hit the spot as a visual scope , perhaps its the f2,5 primary ? compared to all other Celestron's ( and Meade CAT's ) that operate at an f2 primary ??? who knows but mine is a special scope .

Brian.

[Brian Nordstrom]

I just seen Chris's little quib on the dew problem we SCT's owners suffer from ,,, easily fixed with one of these .

Brian.

[Mr Spock]

Here's mine from a few years ago

Here's the Newt

[A40farinagolf]

I'm lucky enough to have a CPC925 and a good frac and they both have their pros and cons.

For example tonight I wanted to do some visual using my frac on my AZ EQ6 mount and by the time I'd set it up it started to rain so I then had to call it a day and pack up.

Saw only Jupiter and M42 for about 10 mins before the clouds appeared.

If I'd have used my CPC925 I'd have seem more as it's quicker to set up and the GPS is fast and easy to align. Finding / tracking is rapid - I think it's a superb piece of kit.

If you want to do any AP get a HD wedge to go with it, they are expensive but very well made.

[Guest]

Well I gone and bought a C9.25 from Angus.ENjoyed very much meeting him.The view of Saturn even through atmospherics was just special.

[Tonynexevo925]

Good choice!

[recceranger]

How would one sit on an HEQ5 mounts guys?

[Mr Spock]

It should be ok. The C9.25 isn't all that heavy and the tube is short so it shouldn't overload the mount.

[Guest]

Thanks Tony. It is to be mounted on an Altair Sabre mount. But I will save up for a computerised mount in the future.

[ollypenrice]

My personal opinion is that I'd never want to be using my 10" LX90 manually. Think it would drive me out of the hobby altogether.

Agreed. The long focal length and attendant small FOV would make me want an SCT on a tracking mount always.

Olly

[Owmuchonomy]

How would one sit on an HEQ5 mounts guys?

It will, but it, and the accompanying paraphernalia is right at the balance limit if you are using the standard weight bar and two SW weights.  I made up my own extended bar from 18mm stainless to get around this.  The extended bar or at least an 'extension' used to be widely available but now they are like hen's teeth.  With this arrangement I have managed quite adequately within my own tolerances.  I also had to tune the mount very carefully, and I mean carefully because 1/16 of a turn on the worm gear play adjusters was sufficient to either cause complete seizure or slop of gigantic proportions under full load.  The Rowan belt mod has helped a lot too.