Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_3.thumb.jpg.30e9b298c34c80517e8b443ce153fce3.jpg

Where to buy a Celestron 9.25" EdgeHD?


Recommended Posts

Hi all!  I've decided I'd like to buy a Celestron 9.25" EdgeHD, and have a few questions:

  1. What's a reputable place to buy these?  Online, retailer, etc... I live in Indiana and am willing to drive a couple hundred miles to pick up if necessary.
  2. Anyone seeing anyplace where these are *not* on backorder?  Am I just going to have to be patient?
  3. Any recommended mounts?  I was considering the Skywatcher EQ6-R Pro, but am slightly concerned that the 21lbs of the OTA almost hits the halfway mark of the 44lb capacity.

Any answers/suggestions are greatly appreciated!

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, moonlit_night said:

Any recommended mounts?  I was considering the Skywatcher EQ6-R Pro, but am slightly concerned that the 21lbs of the OTA almost hits the halfway mark of the 44lb capacity.

What are you planning to use the scope for? If you intend to use it for deep space astrophotography, you should consider buying a short focal length telescope more suited for the purpose.  If it is for visual only, the mounts bundled with it by Celestron would be adequate, and an EQ6-R would probably be overkill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd ultimately like to do both AP and visual, and was thinking this might be a decent "best of both worlds" choice.

Quote

...you should consider buying a short focal length telescope more suited for the purpose

I'm also considering investing in a hyperstar at some point to reduce it to f/2.  I'm curious though... is a 2350mm f/10 really ill-suited for DSOs?  I understand that larger (apparent) objects like the Andromeda galaxy and Orion nebula would extend beyond the FoV, but would I be at a disadvantage for the smaller (apparent) galaxies and nebulae as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, moonlit_night said:

I'd ultimately like to do both AP and visual, and was thinking this might be a decent "best of both worlds" choice.

With great respect, I think you need to do more research into the subject. There is no such thing as a 'best of both worlds' scope. It's like trying to buy an automobile that is suitable for use as a pickup truck and for oval racing.

 

8 hours ago, moonlit_night said:

I'm also considering investing in a hyperstar at some point to reduce it to f/2.  I'm curious though... is a 2350mm f/10 really ill-suited for DSOs?  I understand that larger (apparent) objects like the Andromeda galaxy and Orion nebula would extend beyond the FoV, but would I be at a disadvantage for the smaller (apparent) galaxies and nebulae as well?

A hyperstar is, by all accounts, for 'advanced astro-imagers only', and not something you would want to swap on and off.

Yes, a 2350mm f/10 is ill-suited to DSOs.  Every expert will advise you to start with someting like a 80mm apochromatic refractor of about 500mm focal length. The reasons are too technical to explain briefly here. Over here, we advise every would-be astrophotographer to read a book called "Making Every Photon Count" by Steve Richards.  If you can get a copy, I recommend you read it.  It could save you a lot of wasted time and money.

From personal experience, I have not delved seriously into astroimaging, but many of the deep-space images I took with a 102mm f5 refractor were quite pretty, while all those I took through a 203mm f10 SCT were rubbish.

Edited by Cosmic Geoff
Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO @Cosmic Geoff is giving you good advice. C9.25 is long focal length suited to planetary / advanced DSO users with guiding and expensive well set up mounts. Obviously it's not impossible but unless you are very lucky with conditions etc you will soon get disheartened by images with long egg shaped stars.

Probably the closest to an all round scope would be the C8 but that is still hard to image with.

Have a look on the imaging section here and check the equipment used in profiles, you'll see lots of HEQ5, EQ6R and 70 to 80mm refractors.

For the price of the C9.25 alone you could get an HEQ5 / 80mm frac for imaging and a 8" synscan Dob for visual and still have money left over 🙂

You're doing the right thing by researching before buying though, wishing you all the best of luck and clear skies.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to have A C9.25 on an EQ-6. The two are made for each other. Absolutely rock solid.

Let's get rid of some of the myths though.

The C9.25 is perfect for visual deep sky. My 42mm LVW gave x56 and was as wide as you can get. However, on deep sky objects I preferred a 22mm eyepiece as it gave a better image scale.
Don't confuse deep sky with wide field - wide field is entirely different. For wide field a short focal length refractor is better.

2350mm is a bit long for deep sky imaging, though some use it for that. You will need some serious tracking skills though - not for beginners. That's why people recommend an 80mm refractor - they are easier to learn with. But let's be clear, an 80mm short focal length is more wide field than deep sky. 
It excels though at planetary imaging.

Hyperstar can give good results, but again, it's not something for beginners.

There's no such thing as an all-round scope. You need to decide what your priorities are and choose accordingly.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

I used to have A C9.25 on an EQ-6. The two are made for each other. Absolutely rock solid.

Let's get rid of some of the myths though.

The C9.25 is perfect for visual deep sky. My 42mm LVW gave x56 and was as wide as you can get. However, on deep sky objects I preferred a 22mm eyepiece as it gave a better image scale.
Don't confuse deep sky with wide field - wide field is entirely different. For wide field a short focal length refractor is better.

2350mm is a bit long for deep sky imaging, though some use it for that. You will need some serious tracking skills though - not for beginners. That's why people recommend an 80mm refractor - they are easier to learn with. But let's be clear, an 80mm short focal length is more wide field than deep sky. 
It excels though at planetary imaging.

Hyperstar can give good results, but again, it's not something for beginners.

There's no such thing as an all-round scope. You need to decide what your priorities are and choose accordingly.

Great advice 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not only the focal length of the C9.25 that isn't suitable for beginner imaging, but also its focal ratio and sample rate. f/10 is awfully slow. Compare that to a f/5-ish refractor or newt, you will need 4x amount of exposure time to get the same SNR in your image. Also you'll be oversampling with most popular cameras (e.g. DSLR, 294MC, 1600MM, etc.) unless you use binning which is again not for beginners.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, thanks for all the great advice!  Prior to the C9.25, I had my heart set on a ES 80mm APO, but I think I started to get aperture fever...... before even buying a scope!  Well... I've had scopes before, but this is the first time I've ever had a sizeable budget.  I'll probably regroup and consider what @knobby said about going with an 80mm with a dob on the side.

6 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

...let's be clear, an 80mm short focal length is more wide field than deep sky.
It excels though at planetary imaging.

Are you saying the faster 80mm scopes excel at planetary imaging?  Would a barlow be needed/advisable?

Thanks for the book recommendation @Cosmic Geoff !  I'll see if I can find it.

  • Like 1
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

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.