celestron c9.25 vs skywatcher 190nm

[willcastle]

Which one do I get? Looking for an upgrade for the 200p. I'm more into dso imaging... and in all honesty would rather have the skywatcher... but I'm worried about apparent faults with the 190MN... I suppose I should ring a supplier to see what they have to say. Shame it might have problems though seeing as it looked perfect before I found posts about it.

[Freddie]

I have both and for DSO definately the MN190. What faults are you referring to as I'm not aware that mine has any, you just need to keep on top of collimation for the best results. If you have any specific questions feel free to reply or PM me.

[willcastle]

Really? Sweet that's useful that you have both. means you are a good person to talk to! Apprntly it has had problems with the focus part isn't square with the secondary mirror. Though not on all models... It results in poorly shaped stars. is the 190 a significant step up from the 200p? Obviously it costs waaay more and has better features. But I mean from an optical point of view

[JamesF]

Why the C9.25? Are you after something that will also serve for planetary imaging or visual use?

James

[willcastle]

It's always nice to have an all rounder right? But then again my 200p is capable of stunning planet pictures under good seeing conditions so I don't think the MN would let me down... And the 9.25 is a legendary scope for planets... Is good quality and falls into my budget

[Freddie]

Can't really comment on 200 Vs 190mn but I think you'll find the FL of the 9.25 a bit too much for long exposure DSO images. It's also a bit slow at F10. I have seen a few comments about the focus tube but not too many and a bit of packing always looks like it gets the issue sorted so I wouldn't let those rare comments put you off.

[willcastle]

Yer I would be using a focal reducer with the sct... But even then the MN would be a faster focal length... But then you do get a larger aperture with the sct... But the NM is half an inch less diameter than my Newtonian... So you like both Scopes? Both worth the money? And... A bit of 'packing'?

Cheers for replies btw

Will

[JamesF]

Aperture is not so important with long exposure imaging.

James

[willcastle]

Ah really? I'll throw away my 3 metre aperture refractor then! Haha only kidding.yes you are right of course. Though when it comes to planets.... Buuuttttt I'm more into dso as I said with the odd planet and moon attempt

Will

[Freddie]

Yep, like both but I stick with the 190 for DSO and the 9.25 for planetary. Even with a FR I don't think the 9.25 is the way to go for DSO. If I could only have one, I think it would be the 190.

[Naemeth]

To elaborate on James' point, aperture gathers light, more aperture obviously gathers more light in a single second. But, if you have hours of exposure, that will beat pretty much any light you could see visually in that second, more important in imaging is the exposure time and very accurate tracking .

[fatwoul]

No question: For deep sky, MN190 every time.

[carlc]

No affiliation etc but there's a Skywatcher 190MN on Astro Buy Sell at the moment and it's in Ashford.

In the interests of balance there's a C9.25 in the classifieds here on SGL.

No mounts for either though.

[Kbramley]

The 190MN is superb, the flat field right to the edges will blow you away, not bad for planetary either, I have used mine with a cheap 2x Barlow and a webcam with reasonable success, with a higher quality Barlow or similar and a dedicated fast ccd you will should get good results.

I haven't experienced any problems with mine apart from the supplied dovetail could be better.

[nmoushon]

Sorry for the small high jack but what makes a MN so much better than just a regular Newt? Been thinking of a newt once I get a pier going and wondered what made the MN so much more expensive?

[JamesF]

It's a fairly fast scope even by the standards of modern newts, baffled internally, has no spider so there are no distraction spikes and allegedly has a flat, coma-free field though not having played with one I can't speak for that. That said, I imagine a certain chunk of the cost is purely a premium because they won't sell in huge numbers.

James

[willcastle]

Her Carl thanks for the heads up but I think that is too much for s/h! It's only gonna cost me 800ish new.

And actually my standard sw 200p is faster. and I doubt premium comes into it... I think the optics of the scope are the equal to a celestron c9.25 BUT for imaging and observing different things. I may not have one yet... But I think the MN is a very high quality scope (and I'm not biases towards either the sct or MN as I would love to have both equally were it not for my dso requirements)

[carlc]

Sorry I was comparing to the price on FLO (£1K).

I must say it's a sexy looking scope.

[willcastle]

Yer no worries mate! I appreciate you telling me. I'm getting it bundled with an neq6 tho, so the over all costs go down for each the mount and the scope. But yer, it's looking like my dream scope... Along with the c 9.25... If I had both... They would do everything I ever wanted out of astronomy. but I think the MN is much more versatile

[Auntystatic]

Sorry for the small high jack but what makes a MN so much better than just a regular Newt? Been thinking of a newt once I get a pier going and wondered what made the MN so much more expensive?

The 190mn costs more because of the great big piece of glass in the front, which you don't get in a newt, and the other optics are superiour quality, its what gives it the flat coma free images