Bigger Telescope- will a difference be seen

[pyrasanth]

Is the difference between a Celestron C11 & a C14 noticeable? Either visually or photographically. I'm toying with the idea of upgrading to a C14 but am still in the debate stage as to whether the aperture difference will make new impact as I mostly use the 11" Edge for CCD deep-sky photography. Let me know your thoughts.

[ollypenrice]

For DS imaging, do you really want this extra focal length? (Your cameras don't have large chips.) Can you guide it (Paramount should be OK) and does the seeing allow you to resolve the theoretical increase in resolution? (I'd be a little doubtful. Check out your arcsecs per pixel to see how realistic this would be.)

The increase in aperture, to my mind, is neither here nor there for DS imaging. What you'll notice is the increase in FL. - from the long to the monumental! What are the tiny targets you're after? If you're sure what they are then go for it but in your situation I might want the increase in aperture if it didn't involve the increase in focal length. In other words I'd be interested in upgrading the F ratio (by going for a faster 14 inch) but not the focal length.

Olly

[damnut]

Two brilliant scopes. I think Olly has it from an imaging point of view, from a purely visual the larger aperture will allow the viewing of fainter objects, and the Dawes limit will be reduced resolving closer coupled stars, and increasing planetary detail.

[laser_jock99]

The C14 is nearly 4m focal length- the planetary imagers dream scope!

For the same kind of money I'd be tempted by an Orion Optics AG14 a high quality, fast imager with a manageable 1300mm FL.

They are on 'special offer' at the moment- so £1000 cheaper than a few months ago.

[Owmuchonomy]

On top of the great advice above I would add a comment about LP. Looking at your location I would personally consider if any increase in aperture would benefit the visual experience. More aperture is great but I find it only adds an edge (pun not intended) if your skies are very dark. I only get a better visual experience through my 12" Dob over my 9.25 when I can naked eye see below mag 5.5. It doesn't happen that often here.

[pyrasanth]

Thanks for all the advice. I pondered what the solution could be so I purchased the Celestron RASA for the deep sky wide imaging work I want to do. I will remove the C11 focal reducer & use this to image the planets at native F10 & the brighter small deep sky objects like globular & planetary nebula.  I have 2 good mounts the Paramount & a CGEM DX so either one will be ample for the RASA as it's guiding requirements are not as severe as a longer focal length OTA.

This covers the scales from both ends. I will get a large CCD chip camera for the RASA- I'm toying with an Atik 1100 even though the pixels are quite large but the OPT Celestron review on you tube suggests that this is okay. I have a solution for a light pollution reject filter on the RASA as the price of Celestrons 72 mm filter at £500.00 is a lot steep. I will let you all know how I get on with the new solution.

I've also ordered an 80 mm guide scope for the RASA which will be here shortly as I intend to go deep with the RASA perhaps up to 3-5 minute exposures but that will be determined by light pollution tests. The filter mount will give the option of narrow band through a mono camera as well on the RASA as I don't intend putting a filter wheel in front & blocking a substantial percentage of the mirror but again Celestron have demonstrated that a QSI with integrated filter wheel works fine.