Cosmic Geoff

Check the tripods.  I think the SE and Evolution models have the same tripod, while the CPC800 definitely has a more heavy duty tripod. I have seen the  C8 SE and Evolution set up side by side in a showroom.  The Evolution is evidently a better quality mount, going by the price, spec and reviews.

As for portability, it is not difficult to keep the C8 SE fully assembled and carry it through a standard doorway, so I guess the same applies to the C8 Evolution.

It's really a matter of how much you feel comfortable spending, and whether you want the bigger scope or a smaller more manageable one.

To accurately level the tripod with the provided bubble level, you need to have the mount off. How accurately you need to level the tripod in practice is a matter of judgement. (with my Starsense equipped SE I don't bother). All these scopes/mounts can be rapidly detached from their tripods.

3 minutes ago, Nyctimene said:

(and for faint DSO's, found with a GoTo, you'll need a detailed map anyway).

You don't, as most GoTo systems have a catalog of deep-sky objects programmed into the handset.

Each to their own; some folks enjoy the simplicity of a manual mount and star-hopping, while others regard star-hopping as a total waste of time and would not be without their GoTo.   Depends on whether you will enjoy looking for objects or looking at them.  A lot of people do use GoTo, and the more popular of the heavier mounts are only available in GoTo form.

Many decades ago people used to build their own telescopes because telescopes were relatively expensive. In fact as a teenager I reworked a 4" reflector, refiguring the mirror and building a new tube and mount, and then built an 8" fork mounted newtonian from scratch, including grinding and figuring the mirror and constructing the mount. 

I would not dream of doing that today, when telescopes are so much cheaper to buy compared with average earnings, and many secondhand instruments are available.  Nowadays IMHO the only reason to build your own telescope is because you want to have a hands-on project - and that is a perfectly valid reason.

37 minutes ago, BS269 said:

Well I don’t know how much them being low down obscures the view. I don’t really want to get a mak and then the planets not even be worth looking at due to their position. I’ve just heard about an ADC though so maybe it’s still possible to get good views?

The lower the object, the more atmosphere the light has to travel through, and the shimmering caused by the atmosphere is correspondingly worse.  Have you noticed how stars near the horizon twinkle more than stars near the zenith? And the lower the object, the more the atmosphere disperses the light into colours, acting like a prism.  This last can be fixed (reversed) using an ADC but the shimmering (=bad seeing) can't be fixed in an amateur situation.   In past years I have obtained useful images with planets at altitudes of 12 degrees or less.

Planets near the horizon can also be blocked by buildings and trees. That's another issue altogether, but one you should check before investing £££'s.  You can check the altitude of the planets at any given time using websites like this one: https://heavens-above.com/PlanetSummary.aspx?lat=52.0406&lng=-0.7594&loc=Milton+Keynes&alt=110&tz=GMT

and use a planetarium program in conjunction with what you can see in the southern night sky to estimate the height of any obstacles.

Or get up at 1 to 2 am this coming morning and take a look. 🙂

48 minutes ago, BS269 said:

I am very interested in the mak but worried it’s the wrong time to buy one, given the position of the planets being low. Is there something to help improve viewing with this problem? 

Because it's a specialised scope with a small FOV? There is not much you can do about the planets being low other than observe close to meritian transit, and use an atmospheric dispersion corrector. I'd rate an ADC as an essential accessory this year.

2 minutes ago, BS269 said:

This looks good! But I don’t fully understand the difference between that and an SCT, besides slightly longer focal length it’s fully reflective. Will it give better views than the SCT?

I can't explain that in a brief reply - you'll have to read the 'small print'.  Performance is similar to a SCT but (for instance) there is no corrector plate to get dewed up. And the secondary mirror is hyperbolic (which used to be difficult to make but Chinese technology seems now able to do it affordably.)  There are one or two reviews on this forum from guys who have bought one.

1 minute ago, BS269 said:

How long ago was the years of poor quality control? Just incase I do go for it so I know what years to avoid 😂 I do like the versatility of the SCT, I was just very concerned about getting a bad one.

There are one or two articles online about the history of the Celestron C8 (of which the C9.25 is a variant).  IIRC the C8's manufactured in the USA for the Halley's Comet apparition some decades ago were reckoned to have poor quality control.  The recent ones are made in China.   I don't know how long the C9.25 has been in production by comparison.  Recent ones made in China with Starbright XLT coatings are hopefully okay. 

There's a guy on this forum who is refurbishing a C8 several decades old.

I'd go for the Celestron C9.25.  I have read very positive reports of these, and suspect the negative reports could be over-fussy, or refer to older scopes made in years of poor quality control.  By the 66% rule, £800-£850 seems a sensible price for a used one.

You could be adventurous and buy one of the new 8" Classic Cassegrains.

Or get the Mak 180, which by all accounts is an excellent planetary scope for its size.

I would not recommend a Newtonian, unless you really need to shave a few hundred pounds off your budget. The SCT has a much greater depth of focus, so there will be no problem attaching imaging accessories such as atmospheric dispersion corrector, flip mirror or filter housing. Not so the Newtonian where you may have as little as 20mm focus range to play with.  Also the more compact SCT has an eyepiece conveniently placed that does not move around as much as that on the Newt.

At my location, the 'seeing' seems to be the limiting factor for planetary viewing or imaging.

I have a Nexus 7 tablet on which I installed a couple of apps which in conjunction with the built in digital compass are meant to show a map of the sky aligned with the real sky. The performance was rather hit and miss and I often had to twirl the tablet around in an effort to get the app to align itself with the sky.  Based on this experience I would not expect much of the app system you have bought.

None of these devices are going to align with any great accuracy. Any ferrous metal on or near the scope could affect it, for instance.

1 hour ago, Andy38416 said:

i believe the handset is exactly the same.

Physically exactly the same, but the firmware may not be the same.  With any luck it will at least demonstrate that your SLT handset is at fault, and it may work fully.  If anything weird happens, you may have to do a bit of research to get the full picture, i.e which firmware serves which group of mounts.  When I flashed my SLT firmware a couple of years ago, I think there were just two options, one being the wrong one... Was it alt-az and EQ?  I found that my C8 SE seemed to work with its original Nexstar handset, with the Nexstar+ handset from the SLT, and a Starsense, without having to reprogram anything. 

3 hours ago, Andy38416 said:

My worry with buying a handset is if its the mount itself thats causing the issue.

If the handset was OK and the mount faulty,  you probably would get an Error 16 or Error 17 (horizontal or vertical drive circuit not responding). There is not much in the base besides the horizontal and vertical drive circuits.  You might care to unplug one of these drive circuits and see if it makes any difference on the display. 

If you buy a handset and then decide to upgrade the scope,  you would get more for the SLT working than as spares/scrap, so you could recover the cost of the repair. Your OTA would definitely sell.

At minimum, it seems you are going to have to pay the cost of a handset to get a repaired scope outfit (and a lot more if you upgrade).  

I am not familiar with this camera, but an ASI224 planetary camera will record a 1st magnitude star in about 1ms with an 8" telescope.

If you focus on "leaves" then stars at infinity may be sufficiently blurred that they fail to show.

I did not read the original post very carefully. ☹️ Seems like the OP did all he reasonably could to check out the fault, which is probably a faulty handset.  If the OP acts quickly, there is a Nexstar+ handset for sale for 50 pounds in the For Sale section of this forum.

You may make some progress with your existing equipment, but equally I suspect that a different scope, a dedicated planetary video camera, and a Windows laptop (or dual boot on your Mac) would improve matters.  See the images taken with a 127mm Maksutov in the Planetary Imaging thread.

You may have trouble getting an ADC to work with a PDS Newtonian, as it adds several centimetres to the light path.  Which is why I suggested using a SCT.   I got a  used C8 + SE mount for £650.  You might get an OTA for even less.

What is the issue with the handset/mount?  Mine gave an error a couple of times, and I fixed it by re-loading the mount firmware AFAIR.  A bit of a faff, but did not cost me anything other than for the cable and serial/USB interface.

The 8 SE - stability for what?  It is at the limit with the C8 OTA, but is still perfectly usable as a visual scope, especially if you keep the tripod legs retracted.  If you want it purely for visual use, don't let the stability issue deter you.  If you have put up with the 127mm Mak on the SLT mount, you should not find the stability of the C8 SE an issue.

You cannot just buy the Starsense handset - it is part of a handset/camera package costing £300, and without the camera it just gives a startup error.

It is possible to buy the Nexstar+ handset if that is definitely the problem, and not the handset or mount firmware or other cause.

I recommend that you get the mount properly diagnosed before doing anything else.  You may find www.nexstarsite.com  helpful.

43 minutes ago, JTTW said:

Secondly, can I upgrade this equipment with a mount that will allow my telescope to 'follow' the moon and if so can you recommend a suitable mount?

Read the AZ-GTI manual.

I suggest you check the 'Planetary Imaging' section of the forum to see what gear others have been using.  It's not impossible to image with a Dob (and it's not impossible to cross the Atlantic in 🙂a rowboat. )  But the best tool for the job is a SCT of aperture 8" or greater.  The depth of focus makes it easy to attach imaging accessories - cameras, atmospheric dispersion corrector, flip mirror, filters.  As for the mount, either an alt-azimuth or a equatorial mount will serve, but it makes the task a lot easier if the mount is rigid, tracks, and has a minimum of backlash.  Without accurate tracking, a planet will go out of  a 320x240 pixel ROI very quickly.  The CPC800, for instance ticks all the boxes with its substantial fork mount, mimimum backlash, and GoTo but unless you get a great second-hand deal may cost more than you want to spend.   I also tried using a C8 on a EQ-5 Pro Synscan mount, but by comparison with the CPC800, the amount of backlash was quite annoying, and the potential for a 'meridian flip' when working near meridian transit equally annoying.

And you need a good finderscope - just getting a planet onto a small camera chip is a challenge in itself.

I have the impression that some higher priced scope outfits may be difficult for private sellers to shift second-hand.  I bought an expensive scope outfit in as-new condition for half the new price AND it came with a boxfull of valuable accessories. 

The choice of alt-az GoTo mounts that will handle a 6" or 8" Newtonian is very limited.  I am only aware of the Sky-watcher AZ-EQ5 or an Ioptron model.  These both cost so much that you might as well look at an 8" or 6" SCT on an alt-az GoTo mount. In fact I bought my used C8 SE for less than the price of either of these mounts. 

You could also look at Dobsonians with GoTo.   They are alt-az...

Without looking up the details, I recall there is a known error in the instructions, and that at the relevant stage you have to press ALIGN instead of ENTER.

Also, if you live near the equator, I think I am correct in saying that putting the CPC1100 on a wedge would entail laying the mount almost on its side, which could place an excessive strain on the bearings.

The TEMPest fans are presumably designed to circulate air through the tube so that the optics cool down to ambient temperature more quickly and achieve best performance  sooner.  Before buying them, you should carefully check the specification of the EDGE HD 1100 to see if it doesn't already include equivalent fans.

Re the wedge, first explain why you want to put the scope on a wedge. This will convert the mount to a fork equatorial mount, which would only be required for long exposure imaging of deep space objects.  Despite what the manufacturers and retailers may say, feedback from users of these scopes is that after trying the wedge for these purposes many of them give up and buy a German equatorial mount and a different telescope for the purpose.   If this is indeed your aim, I suggest the additional purchase of an EQ-6 Sky-watcher mount and a small aperture short focal length apochromatic telescope, and the book "Making Every Photon Count."  

If it won't focus even with a Barlow,, you need to get a different scope designed to accept cameras, or modify your scope.

2 minutes ago, matthasboldlygone said:

It looks a lot like your profile pic, silver cog wheel on the side

Not good then; the mount in my profile pic was an EQ-2 clone.   You could try an EQ-2 motor kit if you think it's worth the expense and confirm it's the same mount.