Celestron C9.25

matt · #1 08-10-2005, 12:25 PM

Guys

Just weighing up the pros and cons of the Celestron 9.25 and Meade LX200GPS 10 inch.

I don't see how a 9.25 can offer better views over a 10, which is in fact really a 10.25 (or thereabouts) given Meade's use of oversized primaries.

Isn't the old rule: the greater the aperture, the brighter and better the view?

If anyone's looked through both scopes and can back that claim I'd like to hear from you.

Also, it's a bit confusing choosing between 9.25s of different product lines from different eras. I've read the new CPC 9.25 is not as good as its predecessors because, for some reason known only to Celestron, they've chosen a larger (more obstructive) secondary mirror. Is true?

If so, can anyone recommend a 9.25 from another series or prior generation? I'm after the one that everyone raves about, but there's so many Celestron 9.25s

Keep in mind I'm first and foremost a visual planetary observer, but I'll definitely be getting into imaging at some point.

It'd also be good if some can recommend which mount and tripod to put with it, from a weight perspective. i wanna be able to lug it around!

Cheers

Matt

Striker (Tony) · #2 08-10-2005, 12:33 PM

There you go...buy it.

http://www.celestron.com/prod_pgs/tel/c914sgt.htm

If you want a better mount go for an EQ6 with Skyscan or for more money Losmandy G-11.....

The 9.25 OTA is a great scope.

I had a 10 meade SCT....not much between the 2 you have mentioned but the celestron has got the better record for Astrophotography.

Check out Robby's website...he use's the 9.25.

http://www.star-mate.com/

matt · #3 08-10-2005, 05:35 PM

G'day Striker.

Thanks for getting back to me. That raises some questions.

Why did you get the Meade first rather than the 9.25???

How can the smaller aperture C9.25 offer better viewing than the larger Meade when they both offer the same f10 ratio??? I'm still confused.

Also, mate... can you tell me why the 9.25 would be better for visual planetary viewing???

Didn't you like your Meade? Why did you move from that to a C11???? Is that much of a gain?

Cheers

Striker (Tony) · #4 08-10-2005, 05:47 PM

I feel like I'm on sale of the century...do I win anything...lol

For a start 1 inch of aperture is not going to make any difference.

I purchased a LX200 10" fork mount but then decided I wanted to do Astrophotography....instead of paying out for an expensive wedge I decided to go down the EQ trail which gave me virtualy unlimited room for camera and accessories....plus I wanted to try a EQ mount as I have never had one.

The c9.25 is said to be slightly better then the Meade 10" due to its Secondry mirror F value....but we are clutching at straws here...they are both nice scope....personaly I dont think you will see any difference between the both.

Check this out.

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ighlight=c9.25

matt · #5 08-10-2005, 06:55 PM

Yes mate, you do win something. The respect and gratitude of one firghtened little newbie with many big and varied questions! LOL

You should feel flattered all us littlies look up to ya, big fella'!

I guess we wouldn't ask so many questions if you didn't appear happy to offer so many answers

Now I'm not sure what to blow a stack of cash on! I was certain for weeks I'd go down the LX200GPS path, but now I'm shot to pieces.

Lee at Andrews has got me interested in the new CPC 9.25XLT, but I've been reading numerous websites that reckon the newie isn't as good as the oldie.

I mean, can you imagine Celestron making any changes at all, especially of a negative type, to its most highly-regarded optical system?!?!? The 9.25 has an almost mythical reputation. Surely they wouldn't do anything different in the optical dept???

h0ughy (David) · #6 08-10-2005, 07:10 PM

Matt, I know you have PM'ed me but I will answer here, if it is planerary work you want to do then get an 8" mak, you can get a mak for $1200, then get the Eq6 mount with skyscan. For astrophotography go the celestron, for general all purpose stuff go the meade.

matt · #7 08-10-2005, 08:09 PM

Thanks guys

All very helpful.

They all seem like suitable options.

gbeal · #8 09-10-2005, 06:05 AM

Houghy,
I would have to be the biggest fan of the Mak design on this forum, but I might not agree entirely with you when you suggest a $1200 Mak over a C9.25", sorry.
There are Maks, and there are Maks. I would want to see them both in the flesh first.
As an example, my MN76 is about US$2500 to buy new, and it is only 7". OK, maybe I paid too much, but the quality is definitely there. The 8" version was about twice that price. But I conceed it does all relate to your expectations. Best advice is try it first, especially at a star party, if you can.
Gary

Robby · #9 09-10-2005, 06:54 AM

Ok... Both C9.25 & Meade 10 are f/10 scopes true, but there is a difference... And that is the figure of the mirrors. The C9.25 has a f/2 primary & a f/5 secondary. The Meade 10" has a f/2.4 primary & a f4.2 seconday (or there-abouts).
Because of the the C9.25 has a slightly smaller secondary.
You won't notice the difference in aperture when viewing unless you have an exceptionally steady night and crank the magnifaction power up.
What you may notice is that the C9.25 will give slightly sharper images, and hence this is why it is more popular for astrophotography. However you'd have to have a pretty keen eye to notice this visually....
Both are nice scope and you'll be happy with either. Most importantly once you have decided make sure you get a decent mount! Nothing can ruin you views thorugh a good scope more than a crappy mount.
Good luck.

h0ughy (David) · #10 09-10-2005, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbeal

Houghy,
I would have to be the biggest fan of the Mak design on this forum, but I might not agree entirely with you when you suggest a $1200 Mak over a C9.25", sorry.
There are Maks, and there are Maks. I would want to see them both in the flesh first.
As an example, my MN76 is about US$2500 to buy new, and it is only 7". OK, maybe I paid too much, but the quality is definitely there. The 8" version was about twice that price. But I conceed it does all relate to your expectations. Best advice is try it first, especially at a star party, if you can.
Gary

Gary, I wasn't saying that this OTA was vastly superior, but just that a mak was more for planetary work, and that there was a cheap version that size available, I think if he did his research he would pass out at the cost of one that size from a decent manufacturer (as you have pointed out).

the little M500 Intes I bought recently has knocked my socks off. it is an exceptional scope and I am more than impressed.

gbeal · #11 09-10-2005, 09:30 AM

Houghy,
you are on the same wavelength then. The first rule is you get what you pay for, normally. The second is you may be happy with a particular item whereas someone else may not be.
I agree with the M500/M503, it is a good wee scope.
Having said that, there are a lot of longer focus newtonions out there as well, that will do all and more. Horses for courses.
Gary

matt · #12 09-10-2005, 11:52 AM

OK

Anyone know of some good LX200GPS websites I can visit to have a look at what Meade users are saying about their scopes ... and get an idea of the pix the 10 inch is capable of???

rumples riot · #13 09-10-2005, 01:10 PM

Matt as you might know I own a 10" Lx200. I get good images of the planets, but it cost a lot of time to get the collimation right. Hi res images of the planets must have very good coliimation.

The beauty of the Lx200 is you can set up in about five minutes and get to observing within about 7 minutes. The 9.25 will take a little longer to setup being an eq mounted scope. You can get fork mounted 9.25's but not recommended. Fork mounts do have their advantages but also have some glaring disadvantages.

The Lx200 is from a planetary point of view slightly inferior to the 9.25. Reason also being as those mentioned and the scope has a longer close focusing distance. This makes a big difference. The figure of the primary is also a lot tighter than the 10". Some of the best planetary imagers are using the 9.25"scope. A good example is Damien Peach found here: http://www.damianpeach.com/barbados05.htm Bear in mind that he has very good seeing, but this is still better than my best effort with the LX200 found here:
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ht=jupiter+GRS (look at the second image)

Incidently, recent changes to Celestron structure may have affected manufacturing capabilities.

I did have a link to the Meadelx200 GPS. com but it seems to have changed. If anyone has the updated link, perhaps they can supply it. It is a very useful site and gives an insight into the minor problems the scopes have.

This one is also reasonable: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LX200GPS/

Best of luck with your decision.

matt · #14 10-10-2005, 06:24 AM

Houghy

Re: EQ6 mount and Skyscan...

Did I read somewhere you had this for sale?

I'm leaning toward the C925 sittin' atop that combo.

Is that the Skywatcher EQ6 with Skyscan??? Or do you recommend some other manufacturer??? Where can I get those items and what do you reckon's a fair price?

Thanks

matt · #15 10-10-2005, 07:13 AM

Also...

i've already got the EQ5 mount ... which my Skywatcher 8-inch sits on.

If I just get the C925 OTA for now, will I be able to sit it on the EQ5 temporarily, just to get me through the next few weeks until I get the EQ6 and Skyscan??

Ta

h0ughy (David) · #16 10-10-2005, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt

Houghy

Re: EQ6 mount and Skyscan...

Did I read somewhere you had this for sale?

I'm leaning toward the C925 sittin' atop that combo.

Is that the Skywatcher EQ6 with Skyscan??? Or do you recommend some other manufacturer??? Where can I get those items and what do you reckon's a fair price?

Thanks

Matt,

it was for sale on this site by Mick Pinner, I was tyre kicking for sometime until I had problems with my 12", then that made me go this way. Then I fixed the 12". No regrets but!

h0ughy (David) · #17 10-10-2005, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt

Also...

i've already got the EQ5 mount ... which my Skywatcher 8-inch sits on.

If I just get the C925 OTA for now, will I be able to sit it on the EQ5 temporarily, just to get me through the next few weeks until I get the EQ6 and Skyscan??

Ta

I can't say as I have never owned a EQ5.

matt · #18 14-10-2005, 08:18 PM

Can anyone explain the difference between the Advanced Series C9.25 ... the CGE 925 and the CF????

Do all these simply refer to the mount and goto set-ups etc separate to the OTA, or is there a difference in the scope as well???

Thanks

Astroman (Andrew Wall) · #19 14-10-2005, 08:28 PM

From what I can see, the mounts are different in the Advanced and CGE, the CGE is the newer German Equatorial and the Advanced is the CG-5 GEM. The CF simply refers to Carbon Fibre OTA.

I could be wrong on the mount though.

Eardrum73 · #20 18-10-2005, 09:57 AM

I have called up some celestron dealers and they said that there is no difference in the scope itself, it is the very same 9.25 scope used in all their products.
Just the mount is different. And also the Goto, which has a 3 star align system, and sat GPS, which is suppose to beam down your coordinates and time so you don't have to enter them mannually. The shop guy said the goto is now easier to use than previous models.