Cody
01-08-2014, 12:16 AM
I've been tossing up between these two and reading a lot of comparisons on the forums. While it seems that some people can't see any difference, most believe the Edge is better visually and especially good for AP.
However I can also see that you can buy the official Celestron Focal Reducer for the 925 quite cheaply, whereas the Edge version has been promised for 4 years now and still has not been released (which indicates it may never be released?) There are two third party versions that are very expensive and with varying reviews and compatibility (I didn't keep notes but seem people had to switch back to their standard focuser, others had issues with being unable to use some accessories because of spacing).
Like everyone I've been wanting to get a scope that is going to last and gives me options; the SCT fits the bill because of f/10 plus f/2 if I go HyperStar down the line. But the FR is a real spanner in the works.
So here's the pros and cons.
925:
- Cheaper scope
- Default f/10 view and AP not as good.
- Cheap FR
- f/6.3 with FR should be similar to Edge (it does flattening and correction)
- f/2 with HyperStar should be the same as Edge
925 Edge:
- More expensive.
- Default f/10 view and AP better than 925.
- Expensive FR with possible issues
The Edge also has a few other little features like vents and a 2" diagonal, but I was planning to get the 2" Celestron eyepiece kit (because I own none now and it seems like a good way to start) which comes with a back for the 925 anyway.
On the other hand I would hate to buy the 925 and then feel I wish I had gotten the Edge version later... lots of people do post about regretting not getting Edge versions but very few of them focus on the focal reducer part. I don't have a list of favourite things that I want to look at or image in order to determine what focal lengths are important to me and how important a focal reducer is in the grand scheme of things. All I read is either "f/10 is too slow and difficult for AP" and "f/2 is too wide and makes everything look too small". So my assumption is that f/6.3 is some mythical sweet spot.
Any comments?
However I can also see that you can buy the official Celestron Focal Reducer for the 925 quite cheaply, whereas the Edge version has been promised for 4 years now and still has not been released (which indicates it may never be released?) There are two third party versions that are very expensive and with varying reviews and compatibility (I didn't keep notes but seem people had to switch back to their standard focuser, others had issues with being unable to use some accessories because of spacing).
Like everyone I've been wanting to get a scope that is going to last and gives me options; the SCT fits the bill because of f/10 plus f/2 if I go HyperStar down the line. But the FR is a real spanner in the works.
So here's the pros and cons.
925:
- Cheaper scope
- Default f/10 view and AP not as good.
- Cheap FR
- f/6.3 with FR should be similar to Edge (it does flattening and correction)
- f/2 with HyperStar should be the same as Edge
925 Edge:
- More expensive.
- Default f/10 view and AP better than 925.
- Expensive FR with possible issues
The Edge also has a few other little features like vents and a 2" diagonal, but I was planning to get the 2" Celestron eyepiece kit (because I own none now and it seems like a good way to start) which comes with a back for the 925 anyway.
On the other hand I would hate to buy the 925 and then feel I wish I had gotten the Edge version later... lots of people do post about regretting not getting Edge versions but very few of them focus on the focal reducer part. I don't have a list of favourite things that I want to look at or image in order to determine what focal lengths are important to me and how important a focal reducer is in the grand scheme of things. All I read is either "f/10 is too slow and difficult for AP" and "f/2 is too wide and makes everything look too small". So my assumption is that f/6.3 is some mythical sweet spot.
Any comments?