Any reason not to buy CPC925

[ollypenrice]

In visual use the only real SCT negative is the long focal length which produces a narrower field of view than you could achieve in a faster scope. One of the above contributors once dismissed this point as nonesense though it is patently correct.

The question is, do you mind the long the long FL? If you don't, then that's fine.

The positive is the remarkably compact physical size of the SCT. It's an attractive scope, but so is a larger Dob for the same price. There isn't a 'right answer' but only a personal preference based largely on which is the most practical in your circumstances. I feel a bit 'boxed in' by my SCT but it has many virtues and I'm guilty of under-rating it, I think.

Olly

[Mr Spock]

One of the points of confusion over the role of a C9.25 is people not knowing the difference between 'wide field' and 'deep sky'.

A C9.25 with it's 1.3° maximum field cannot be called wide field, but it is an excellent deep sky scope

[swamp thing]

A C9.25 with it's 1.3° maximum field cannot be called wide field, but it is an excellent deep sky scope

That is similar to my 16" Dob with a 31mm Nagler. Most objects fit in the field easily enough.

I actually had my 16" set up alongside a C9.25 a few nights back unfortunately it clouded over before much observing got done.

All I would say is set up and take down time is similar, I think I just edged it with the Dob though.

Regards Steve