Jump to content

NLCbanner2024.jpg.2478be509670e60c2d6efd04834b8b47.jpg

Mak 180 or SCT 8/9.25

Gary70

Recommended Posts

Gary70

Gary70

Posted
Posted

I am torn and need a shove in one direction or the other.

I am saving and had a plan all being well to get myself a Skywatcher 180 Mak sometime late this year, anyway as always happens I have contracted aperture fever and have been browsing around and I am getting drawn towards a celestron SCT 8 or most likely 9.25 .

The Mak would work out cheaper, but for a few months more saving which I don't mind to get a decent scope, I can get an SCT with GOTO.

I am not really into AP so don't need absolute precision or a fast tube,just good views, I and especially my wife! prefer the portability and space saving of either over a Newt or huge refractor.

What do you think is the wait and cost worth it to get the bigger SCT?:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

The central obstruction in the SCT is much larger than the Mak I believe, so although there is more aperture it's not as much more as you might at first think. Definitely would be something to check, anyhow.

The C9.25 is, err, "surprisingly large" when you open the box, too. If you're having to take it outside to set up each time you use it then you might want to consider how much hassle it is to actually lift it onto the mount. It could well be better to have the smaller scope if you would end up using it more...

Not that the C9.25 isn't lovely :(

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macavity

Macavity

Posted
Posted

One hears great things of the current C9.25's - Even among SCTs? Just about manageable with an HEQ5? Focal reducers allow Webcam (Video) astronomy at F3.3 etc. Nine inches seems a fair old aperture... Less (collimation) "screwing around" than a Newtonian? Maybe one day... :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nightfisher

nightfisher

Posted
Posted

A difficult decision, i have the 180 pro mak and really like it, it is a superb scope, but if i had to replace it i might be tempted with the c9.25, if i had to choose i think it would be c9.25 or even the c 11

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Arushin

Arushin

Posted
Posted

Hi

I also have the 180 pro and was toying with either the C11 or C9.25 first. After speaking to a lot of people at Astrofest this year it seemed that the general opinion was that I would not really benefit from a C11 over the 9.25 in an urban area. I do believe that the 9.25 is a really great OTA but went for the 180 pro as I just happen to love the Sky-Watcher kit which I think is awesome value for money.

I used to love my 127 version and always regretted selling it on. I have to say that I have not been disappointed with the 180's performance and it came in around £300 cheaper than the C9.25. The money I saved paid for my autoguider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Radman40

Radman40

Posted
Posted

One of the problems living in the the world today is 'choice stress'. Whether it is cars or televsions or whatever there are so many different options that one spends so much time considering, weighing up options, looking at relative costs that you end up going round in circles and end up not doing anything at all in case you might make a costly mistake or worrying about 'regret trauma'. That is when you finally buy something you spend your time full of nagging doubts about if you have done the right thing or if the the other one would have been better in some way.:(

And so it is with telescopes. I have taken great comfort from this thread and would thank you all for its theraputic value. I have had exactly the same dilemma with the same scopes though I have narrowed it down to the Mak or the 9.25. I have spend hours researching this and I am now firmly of the concusion that it has to be the C9.25...hands down. The thing that has really swung it for me are various images of the moon and planets folk have posted. There really is a very noticable difference between the resolution you get with the celestron and that of the Mak. The celestron is also a bit more of a all round perfomer compared to the Mak.

So thanks for this chaps. The discussions above have confirmed my decision relating to the scope.....now what about a mount....oh dear, here we go again:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nightfisher

nightfisher

Posted
Posted
If you believe Celestron (I'm not saying we should!) but the CG5 should be man enough for a C9.25 for visual. Heck, they even try to flog us a C11 on it :(

Well i have my 180 pro on the EQ5 with CG5 tripod and its pretty stable, and i think the mak is heavier than a c9.25

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayju01

hayju01

Posted
Posted

I have no experience with the Mak, all I can say is that after a year with my C9.25 and NEQ6pro I do not regret buying these and so far aperture fever has not hit me.......yet :(

Mainly due to the lack of consistent nights usage thanks to Uk weather I have yet to do everything I know this scope is capable of and indeed most of the extra 'must have' bits have not seen the light of night e.g. OAG, QHY8pro, 3.3Fr, 6fr you get the picture.

I would say that anything bigger (C14+) would need me to be able to have some kind of perm/semi perm setup which isn't feasible right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gary70

Gary70

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks everyone,

It does seem silly but after my mortgage and car this will probably be my biggest single outlay, so patience will pay off eventually.

Most of you have said what I "really" hoped you would, It looks like I will be saving a bit longer and investing my money in the C9.25.

At least summer is almost upon us so I don't feel like I am missing too much.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayju01

hayju01

Posted
Posted
I'm going to play devil's advocate here, but once you mentally settle on the 9.25, the C11 is just a little more saving away :(

How right you are :D and exactly what I went through last year. It was Damien Peach's views on the C9.25 that kept me honest. I'll dig out the link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayju01

hayju01

Posted
Posted
Why not a HEQ5 pro if primary interest is not ap. Lighter to move around and a bit cheaper than NEQ6?

Certainly lighter and more manoverable but what about the inevitable upgrade once aperture fever sets it :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
neil phillips

neil phillips

Posted
Posted

The C9.25 would be my vote. The central obstruction would be more a contrast issue, which is often exagerated. The resolution of the larger scope would still be better. but with a very slight. and i mean very slight contrast loss. Compared to a mak. The extra Light and resolution would more than make up for that.

worth saving for

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phil Fargaze

Phil Fargaze

Posted
Posted

I use my C9.25 on a HEQ5 (black version) without any problems. I mount it in the observatory usually. The scope and mount are just right for portability when I need it, such as star parties, or when the target is close to the horizon.

I don`t do CCD imaging with it though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gary70

Gary70

Posted
  • Author
Posted

9.25 is my limit, HONEST :(

Well it has to be, but I do see your point 24 months saving isn't that long is it?

Thanks for that link, a nice read and nice images for expected performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.