Is the Celestron 9.25 the Botham - ie the best all rounder?

[MattJenko]

Hi All,

With the weather playing a dangerous game with me preventing me playing with my existing toys much and forcing me window shopping, I have a question about the C9.25. On paper this looks like a dream all-rounder and is something I am certainly contemplating as my next scope. After some research I have come up with the following scenarios for it:

1.  Visual. I know a few people with C8s who love them and I have used a C11 and have been impressed overall with the views. Plus, the 9.25 would sit happily on my HEQ5 and it weighs enough to not bother me lugging it about.
2. Planetary imaging. It has a long focal length and could be made longer with my existing Baader barlow and imaged with my about to be opened ASI120. This seems to be a great planetary combination as I want to give this a go.
3. DSO. With a reducer, this becomes an F6.3 long focal length galaxy imager. I would need to get an OAG, but with a small chipped CCD in the mix as well, this would allow me to do some small DSO imaging. May need a bigger mount.
4. Widefield. With the possibility of Hyperstar, this is a widefield challenge I could take on at a later date too if I wanted to play with something other than my ED80. I understand this is not simple, but it is certainly possible and the potential of F2 is enormous.
5. Science. I would like to start eventually venturing into CCD photometry and spectroscopy, and this seems like a class scope for this.

The question remains as to the feasibility of all this, and there is the question of whether the Edge HD version is worth the more than doubling of the price of the standard one for any of these activities, which for some it appears not, but possibly for others. This may not be the best scope for each of the activities above, but as an all-rounder, it just seems to be a monster I can't ignore. Are there any others that are even close?

Thoughts welcome.

Matt

[swag72]

I did have a C9.25 for a while and used it solely for imaging. My thoughts on it are as follows.

I didn't use a reducer on mine at all - It was very slow and very demanding on the mount. I would consider an N/EQ6 as a minimum for it.

I found that the images were always a little flat and I suffered with unround stars as I only had the cheap XLT version. Had I wanted to stick with an SCT, I would definitely have gone for the Edge version. The images took one hell of a lot of processing, they just looked flat and soft all of the time. I did compare some one's similar image from a C8 Edge - I didn't think that there was a significant improvement at all.

Just my thoughts.

[Mr Spock]

For visual it's the best 'compact' all rounder. I say compact because a 10" Newt is just as good but very bulky.

A C925 does most things well. Planetary observing is ideal; it has a long focal length, meaning medium focal length orthos can be used; contrast is reasonable, though not as good as a Newt, which in turn is not as good as an apo; optical quality is good too and shows fine detail well. It has the right characteristics for planetary imaging (Google C925 and look at the images ). Deep sky visual is good too. What it can't do is widefield visual - 1.28° is the maximum you can get.

It wouldn't be my choice for deep sky imaging, in either version.

For planetary use, visual or imaging, the Edge version doesn't offer anything. It may be better at that 1.28° visual maximum, but not twice the price better.

Hyperstar looks attractive but is very challenging - be warned

Right now I can't think of anything I would swap mine for at the price.

[spartan2007]

I bit the bullet bought the 925 edge hd on the cgem mount great scope will no disappoint

[Merlin66]

Matt,

I've had the C9.25 for a few years now, basically for visual and spectroscopy. It's a great performer!

My main "data farming" spectroscopy projects ties up the C11/ NEQ6 full time, so the C9.25 gets used on the HEQ5pro. The mount handles it OK, but as you'd guess the NEQ6 is more stable.

Unless you want to get heavily into AP at longer focal lengths, the standard C9.25 is cheaper and certainly good enough for 99% of everything you'll ask it to do.

(I did fit a Feathertouch 10:1 microfocuser and later a JMI focus motor)

[Owmuchonomy]

Hi Matt as others above I have used the 9.25 and HEQ5 pro combination for years in visual mode. Last year I started DSLR imaging with it. My Flickr link below shows the results of this set up and others. I agree with most of the above comments. Using the 0.63 reducer is not all its cracked up to be for two reasons. It causes severe vignetting which I can't remove by spacing adjustment and on targets containing very bright objects it causes severe reflection 'coma'. There is a recent thread on this somewhere and Celestron go very quiet when challenged about it. So stuck at F10 for DSOs is very restricting as Sara says. However for planetary observing and imaging it is the dogs wotsits. I have only imaged planets three times with it and my Canon 60 D and you can see the results on the link.

Interestingly I would argue more strongly that the Scope stretches the HEQ5 pro and I would say it is really RIGHT at the limit for imaging. Balancing is an issue and I had to get a mate to make me a counterweight extension so I could balance it and a guide scope which is far from ideal.

I have since purchased other scopes but will not part with the 9.25 purely for its planetary capabilities.

[Grotemobile]

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/cpc-deluxe-hd/celestron-cpc-deluxe-800-hd.htmlS

This is what I bought @ the beginning of

the year. So easy, to set up & use. I thought

about the 9.25,but it was just the weight.

42 lbs., verses 60lbs.I am glad I did. Trying

to lift it onto the mount. Heaver than what

I thought.Yours is just the scope, so no problems.

Good choice.

Steve.

[blueangel]

As I got into the intricacies of astro imaging, the issue of mirror shift became a major issue on my C11 EdgeHD. Rather than replace it, I found an Optec focus device that fits on the front. It electronically moves the secondary mirror by infintesimal amounts and eliminates my mirror shift issue. It takes quite a bit of research and soul searching to find the right telescope for your needs. And your needs shift more than a mirror does. :-)

[ronin]

I would doubt it for a simple reason, look at what people use for imaging and it is not the CPC 925 that is listed in abundance. Meaning simply no.

Nice visual scope and good for planetary imaging (2 off at present). But more people aim to get the ED80 for DSO imaging and even that is a longish focal length ED doublet, not a short fast apo.

[Chris]

The best Jack of all trades I could come up with was a C8 with a small ED refractor piggybacked on it

[dph1nm]

The way to image with these long focal length SCTs is to use a CCD which can be binned 2x2 or 3x3 (whatever gives you ~1" pixels). You won't be doing glorious wide fields this way, but they will knock spots off smaller aperture scopes for individual galaxies etc if you do this.

NigelM

[MattJenko]

So it seems we have a very good visual and planetary set-up with a standard C9.25 on my HEQ5 with the not insignificant bonus for me that it makes a good scientific tool as well. Hyperstar challenge aside, it appears to not be magic as a DSO scope, but then I guess I knew it would need at least a mount upgrade for that, and I can always stick my 250px on an AltAzEQ6 in the future for those littler galaxies and then I would also get to have a monster 9+" scope visual shoot-out at outreach and observing nights with the 10" newt and 9.25"SCT. All things considered, it appears that the EdgeHD version might have to stay on the shelf when I get round to getting a new telescope, despite the flatter field and I get a new mount for the difference

Thanks all, it is great to get views not purely based on paper specs, and to hear what these instruments are really like to own and use.

[ollypenrice]

I can't see an SCT as an all rounder. Your own initial list is fair enough and does make a good case for the scope covering a lot of bases but it doesn't cover m

[ollypenrice]

I can't see an SCT as an all rounder. Your own initial list is fair enough and does make a good case for the scope covering a lot of bases but it doesn't cover m

   As I was saying...

...it doesn't really cover all that many of them well. Brilliant for planetary imaging, excellent for long FL visual and Ken says excellent for spectroscopy. For me the FL is frustrating visually because, dammit, I have a shorter FL in our 20 inch and that seems silly!

For DS it is either too slow or too fast and both are a pain. Sub F2 is potty and is just begging to be problematic. Give yourself a break and buy a little Newt like Uranium 235's for the wider field DS imaging. It will cost less than a Hyperstar kit and most of the time will get more done. Check out his images.

The Edge is tempting for DS imaging of small targets, mostly galaxies, and has things going for it. But for your entire imaging life to be condemned to such long focal lengths (even with the costly reducer the FL is long) seems alarming. Nights of poor seeing or wind or dodgy guiding will get you.

Reducers need careful thought. They don't speed up the capture of objects which will fit on the chip at native FL, they just make them smaller. You can do that for free on your PC monitor! They do widen the field, of course, and the wider field image can indeed be captured in less time.

In my view the SCT is actually a very specialized scope and not an all rounder when looked at closely.

Olly

[MattJenko]

So the consensus that there is no real single telescope perfect all-rounder is still alive and well ?

I shall be more specific then and get selfish and talk about myself. I currently own an HEQ5, an ED80 and a 10" dob. This is what I use for DSO imaging/visual, and I am extremely happy with it all. For planetary and spectroscopy/photometry, a standard 9.25 would fill those gaps and fill them very well with no need for me to upgrade my existing mount (and I see no need for Edge in my needs). If I wanted longer FL imaging, I would need to get something like an AltAzEQ6 and simply use the 250px tube on it and then get nice visual setup options as a bonus. This does slot into your view that the SCT is a specialised scope to be used for specific activities.

If I then ever decide my existence requires additional challenges and masochism, I buy a hyperstar lens . Its strange, but the more one hears that it is hard, the greater the desire to try. However, there is a lot of sky time between myself and that potential future though, and that also sidesteps the unfortunate reality that all this costs money.