A bit of uncertainty.....

[Stridor]

I know there are endless questions on the forum regarding telescopes, and which one to get. I am decided already that I am going to get a `Schmidt Cass., 8 or 9.25"` as I think with what I know and the research I have done that this will suit me `hopefully` best.  I know that with each type of scope one will achieve certain advantages & disadvantages, but I am hoping I will be generally happy with the cross section of objects viewed, ie The Moon, Planetary and DSOs; I just wonder if I am going to suffer a bit of disappointment with such things as DSOs (and imaging; eventually) with my choice, as  I notice several mentions of SC telescopes being for planetary obervations, and Refractors for DSOs.  It is some considerable financial outlay for me, so I won`t be able to run out the following day to by a `back-up scope`............well not for a while anyway.

[knobby]

I'm a DOB fan myself but the 9.25 Cass will be sweet on planets visually and ap wise (what mount are you thinking of) as for DSO I would imagine it will still be pretty good. I've a 10" dob and a 6" Mak... The dob is obviously better on DSO but not by a massive margin. If say orion neb was an 8 out of 10 in the dob it would be a 6 out of 10 in the Mak.

with yours being an extra 3" it should be still pretty good.

only downer I can think of is wide field being narrower.

hth

[Mr Spock]

The C9.25 is great on planets. As it's 9.25" it's good on deep sky too. The only thing it can't do is wide field - 1.3° is the best it can manage. For wide field a short focus ED refractor is better.

For planetary photography you won't find better at the price. It can do deep sky photography, but you need a serious mount and even more serious skills.

If it's deep sky/wide field you are wanting to photograph then that's expensive even at it's simplest. A good mount (EQ6), a 80mmED refractor and a good camera is the minimum you need.

[scarp15]

An SCT 8" or 9.25" will be a good performer on deep sky objects to, in particular if you can get to a dark sky. They are very portable for taking to star parties, particularly if you have camping gear and passengers. At such events I like to use an F6.3 reducer / corrector for visual, some people (myself  included) like them for this pursuit, whilst others do not care for them though. They are more than capable, from what I have seen, (I am a visual observer only) of taking good deep sky images, there are of course other scope tytpes that excel at this.

The SCT is a good all-rounder, easier on eyepieces, excellent for holding collimation, can be fantastic on planets and well worth considering.

[Stridor]

I'm a DOB fan myself but the 9.25 Cass will be sweet on planets visually and ap wise (what mount are you thinking of) as for DSO I would imagine it will still be pretty good. I've a 10" dob and a 6" Mak... The dob is obviously better on DSO but not by a massive margin. If say orion neb was an 8 out of 10 in the dob it would be a 6 out of 10 in the Mak.

with yours being an extra 3" it should be still pretty good.

only downer I can think of is wide field being narrower.

hth

I was going to go with the CGEM (clue to scope !?) , but may do NEQ6 or even an AZ-EQ6GT or is that going to be overkill.........don`t know how things may pan out in the future though?

[faulksy]

hi the 9.25 is a brilliant all rounder and will do everything, you will love it when you get one

[brantuk]

The 925 is a superb scope - I have the CPC version and as mentioned above it's great all round with the only limit being wide field views of the largest dso objects. It would be perfect on an NEQ6 or AZEQ6GT but I'm quite at home with putting my alt/az version on the newer style wedge.

It will satisfy most observing and imaging aspirations for a long while to come and with the 6.3 reducer gives a dual purpose instrument. The optics are great and whilst it does excel with planets due to the long focal length, it certainly won't disappoint on dso's. I wouldn't part with mine. Hth

[Alien 13]

Great advice from everyone as usual if however you think you might be missing out on the realy wide field stuff you could always piggback your camera on the scope with a 100-200mm lens or get a pair of binoculars for visual wide field.

[Stridor]

As usual; some good and reassuring advice..............thanks all for responding