Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

stargazine_ep3_banner.thumb.jpg.5533fb830ae914798f4dbbdd2c8a5853.jpg

markclaire50

Probability of new/used C9.25 being a duff one?

Recommended Posts

Yes, Bob's Knobs. I like to collimate using a star test and fiddling with a screwdriver in the dark is almost impossible. Bob's Knobs make the whole thing easy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

Yes, Bob's Knobs. I like to collimate using a star test and fiddling with a screwdriver in the dark is almost impossible. Bob's Knobs make the whole thing easy.

That's what I like to hear, even though I don't actually know what Bob's Knobs look like. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, markclaire50 said:

That's what I like to hear, even though I don't actually know what Bob's Knobs look like. ?

Like this...

c9.25std_1.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with all the advice but I think there is a variation in quality between the best SCTs and the rest - less so these days than 20 years ago perhaps but still apparent. One I had appeared to be perfectly collimated yet never provided sharp stars. A C8 Edge I had was a lot better, though couldn't compete with an excellent apo-like Mak on Moon and planets. Yet some SCTs deliver amazing images. Perhaps a degree of inconsistency is inherent to the design? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Highburymark said:

Agree with all the advice but I think there is a variation in quality between the best SCTs and the rest - less so these days than 20 years ago perhaps but still apparent. One I had appeared to be perfectly collimated yet never provided sharp stars. A C8 Edge I had was a lot better, though couldn't compete with an excellent apo-like Mak on Moon and planets. Yet some SCTs deliver amazing images. Perhaps a degree of inconsistency is inherent to the design? 

Hi. Which sct did you have? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a C6 first - maybe the problem was that it was only my second telescope, and the first was a superb Meade Maksutov, which was a hard act to follow. The optics on those Meade scopes were very good indeed, rather better than the electronics. I did a lot of research before I later bought my C8, and it was users in the US in particular who reported varying quality of SCTs - how the best were outstanding, and if you found one, you should hold onto it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.