|
Ah, the what is better question.
For what it is worth here are my observations from someone who has owned both scopes listed.
The 9.25 was a great scope and performed very well for planetary imaging with occasional viewing. Very light and had a good light grasp. The central obstruction made for contrast affected views but the detail was sharp. The corrector plate is and can be an issue in areas where dew is heavy. You need to have a dew system that can and does produce irritating tube currents. It is one of the banes of this design and as such I would not use this type of scope as a remote scope. Collimation is a breeze albeit you can be on your knees a lot during the process. These scopes now come with a flat field and reducers are made by the company. Though I don't see many pin sharp images taken with these scopes. I think the star sizes are still a problem and mirror flop is an ever present issue for the design despite locking pins etc.
The RC8-RC12 are good imaging scopes. I have spent a bit of time looking through them and would say the central obstruction does affect performance for viewing. I have looked through a Mewlon too and can say that while stars are refractor like, the contrast levels in RC's are significantly reduced over other types such as a refractor or Newtonian. However, imaging through this type of scope can and does produce great images. Collimation can be a pain and you are best advised to obtain a Tak Collimation scope to ensure you get the collimation right. Using a laser will not work as well if at all. Also you will need a dew heater in the secondary assembly to prevent dewing of the secondary. Also getting a flattener or reducer to work properly with a large sensor is going to test your patience. A 2" flattener will not work with a 11002 sensor and GSO does not make its own flatteners for this scope type. I am still trying to sort a 3" flattener. Overall the images produced by this design are very sharp and detailed.
For me the choice between the two designs is easy. The RC design is an easy winner. The mirror flop and corrector issue is more than enough to not own another SCT for DSO imaging.
|