2.71
#...
·
 |
|---|
|
Howdy peeps! I’m considering getting a c9.25XLT with the starizona v4 reducer. I’ll be using it with a 294mm pro, and can’t see myself buying a larger sensor camera for the foreseeable future as I’d like to get a smaller pixel planetary cam first. Do you think this combo is a step down from the edge hd 9.25 for DSO work? Since I want to autofocus, I would imagine that the mirror lock would be useless ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If it is a step down, is it at least a step up from the edge hd 8, given the size of the 294mm sensor, or should I just go for the edge 8. I can’t afford an 11 lol, but the 9.25 seems to give a boost in detail for jupiter and the rest of the planets. I tried advil and tylenol and I still have aperture fever. |
1.81
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Hi, I doubt you'll find many people on here who have tried both and I'm in that group but it's definitely a tough choice. I'd very highly recommend the HyperStar as your first purchase over a reducer (although it's effectively a reducer). If you're in to DSO then the HyperStar is a game changer. If it doesn't fit in your budget then for got the 8 inch and HyperStar. I'm not sure you'll notice much between the XLT and EdgeHD, there IS a difference but certainly not worth the upgrade for planetary as you're not using the edge of the field. Get a Barlow for planetary. Hope that helps a little... |
|
2.71
#...
·
|
|---|
| I can’t afford the filters for a hyperstar at this point and I have a fairly widefield scope already. Also I want to be 1500mm to as deep as I can get on lucky occasions. |
3.61
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I had a guy at Celestron tell me that an XLT is a better option than the Edge if you are shooting with a reducer. There’s less glass in your optical train with the XLT. I had an 8 (came on a Nexstar originally) and upgraded to the 9.25XLT. The 9.25 is slightly faster yielding 1480mm and .528”/px with the Starizona v4 vs ~1450mm and .535”/px with the 8/v4, both with the ASI2600MC. Apparently the 8” scopes are closer to f/11 than f/10. As John Davies mentioned above, for planetary the Edge has no benefit when paired with a small sensor. I cannot comment on how well the mirror locks work on the Edge or if they can be used with an autofocuser, and I do find that I need to refocus more with my XLT than my 10” Newtonian, I assume because of mirror shift inherent to SCTs. Unless you intend to shoot DSOs without a reducer, I think the XLT is the way to go, and 9.25 has a few advantages over the 8. |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
Hi, I just read your post and would like to give a feedback. I have owned a C9.25 for seven years now and can say without any doubt it’s amazingly capable in planetary imaging for its size. It’s lightweight and give crisp details on planets when properly collimated. I would always recommend it! Btw, if you wanna see some images taken with it I have some on my wall. Here’s an example Saturn on September 3rd, 2022. Excellent seeing Carlos Cheers |
|
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
| My older C9.25 is not compatible with Hyperstar. If you're buying secondhand you should check this. Having said that, the C9.25 works very well with camera formats from 4/3 and smaller; I use an ASI 533MC. |
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
From my own experience, I’ve used the C9.25 EdgeHD with Hyperstar (V3 at f2.3) or natively at f10, or for planetary at f20. It’s a very versatile telescope and you’ll enjoy it. You can see my images at my gallery. I’m sure the regular C9.25 XLT will perform very good as well. You’ll have enough focal length to image the smaller DSOs and also for planets. If you want to go for the wider FOV, you can try later the Hyperstar. |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
| I also have an older 9.25 that is not Hyperstar ready but I do have a Starizona focal reducer. I initially used it with a Celestron .63x FR. The Celestron FR worked pretty well but the Starizona is better. On the Starizona, you do have to be sure you have the 90 mm backfocus spacing correct and the scope collimated to get the best results. I use an Askar OAG for guiding. Before I used that OAG I would get a lot of pixel drift in my exposures. I don't know if that was due to mirror flop in the 9.25 or flexure in my guide scope but the OAG basically eliminates that. Supposedly the Edge with its locking mechanism doesn't have mirror flop, but there are some comments to the contrary. While I can't compare my 9.25 to an Edge since I have never used the latter, overall, I am satisfied with what I have. |
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I used to have the 9.25 xlt. I sold it and got the 8xlt. That cut the weight almost in half, which at my age is important. The 8, while not as much as the 9.25, has plenty of aperture. With these scopes you have great flexibility to image at f10, f6.3 (Celestron or starizona reducer) and f1.9 (hyperstar). Also much joy with eyepieces too ! Enjoy ! |
5.73
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
I Have Carbon Fiber C9.25 XLT, C11 XLT. I also have an Edge 8. I imaged for years with the C11 Hyperstar 3 at F2. Hyperstar is a whole ano1thern game. I did mono with a filter drawer. Also in another post it was said that Hyperstar was a Reducer. It is not a reducer. It is a Flattener working off the primary F2 spherical mirror. Celestron 8 &11 SCT's primary mirrors are F2. The secondary mutifies x 5 giving a F10. The C9.25 primary is F2.5 and consequently not needing to be multiplied as much by the secondary. Consequently, the longer tube. I have used the Sarizona 3 F7.5 reducer/Flattener with both the C9.25 & C11. Other than magnification, I didn't see any more resolution in the C11 to justify the additional weight. I NOW use the Starizona 4 F6.3 Reducer/Flattener on the C9.25. With the C9.25, the Starizona 4 will render F6.5. It will correct ASP-C chip. I have a QHY268M. HOWEVER, I use a Starlight Xpress Trius SX694 with 4.5 pixels for better sampling. That chip is large enough for most galaxies that I image with the C9.25. I have always used Starlight 2" Feather Toutch Crayford focuser at the rear when 1using the Starizona R/F. I highly suggest you use either a Starlight or Moonlight 2" focuser, rather than the Celestron primary mirror moving focuser. Always end final stardard Celestron focus with upwards mirror movement. The Starizona R/F will slide into the Crayford focuser. I only image galaxies with the C9.25. Due to it's longer focal length. I have done planetary at F20 with it. You can also image small Planetary Nebula with it at F20 using RGB. I only use the Edge 8 for casual visual on Evolution mount. It will render round stars to Edge with Televue Delos eyepieces. I prefer refractors or imaging. I leave in Bortle 7 skies and can only do narrowband imaging. My Takahashi FSQ106ED at 106mm aperture at F3.6 will out perform the C11 Hyperstar 280mm aperture for resolution. Lynn K. Do consider weight when choosing between 8, 9.25 & 11 SCTs. The 9.25 &11 will require a heavier mount. Also consider the field of view. |
3.21
#...
·
|
|---|
Sean Mc: Hi I have EdgeHD11+HyperStarV4, with Baader f/2 Highspeed filter. If you use regular narrowband filter, you will lose 40-50%? of photons (regular filter can not pass the lights coming in with angle). for DSO I use 6200MM Bin2, without reducer. (optically equal to 1400mm f/5 + ASI1600MM) 9.25 : it's sweetspot between weight and aperture. Edge or not Edge : with large (pixel and format) sensor, it sure works for DSO. But nothing better for planetary. SCT : with reducer + small sensor for DSO, with Barlow for Planetary, HyperStar for Wide field. HyperStar is really bright but not so good as refractor in terms of resolution. I will go from HyperStar 540mm f/2 APS-C to 700mm f/5 refractor x2 full frame. |
6.76
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
I have the 925 XLT with Starizona reducer and am super happy with it. The Edge increases cost so there needs to be some advantage to recommend it, and I have never seen any issue that would make me want to change. Indeed, some say the 925 XLT has the best performing optics in the Celestron line, though I cannot confirm that. I run my XLT only with the reducer (or hyperstar). There are no issues that I have had at f6.3 with the Starizona reducer, though I do only use an APSC camera, so I don't know if there would be issues with the reducer with a full frame camera. The Edge will put you at a disadvantage at f/7 with the reducer, reducing your signal by 20% for nebula and other extended objects (lower Entendue) compared to the XLT. Not sure why one would use an XLT or Edge without a reducer, f/10 is really too high for deep sky imaging, and makes no sense in terms of sampling anyway, unless perhaps you are on a mountain top with great seeing and a camera with small pixels. The lower F/ratio of the XLT has great sampling at near 1500 mm with around a typical 4 micron pixel, which is perfect even if the seeing is good. For planetary imaging the FOV required is small, and you would add a Barlow, so the Edge has no edge over the XLT. As far as I know, near center for XLT and Edge have identical performance, Edge is only useful for wider fields if you want to image at F/10. Field flatteners, as there is in the Edge are great, but unfortunately flattening an image at F/10 is not that useful, unless you meet amazing imaging conditions. If you want to do deep sky, F/10 is a non-starter for most of us. I use the Hyperstar occasionally. Both the recent XLT compatible models and Edge can use it equally well. With Hyperstar the two are identical performance, as the Edge lens is not used in this configuration. Thus, whether or not you want to do Hyperstar, it doesn't play into your decision on which to purchase. I would not worry about mirror flop. The XLT holds focus well. After the meridian flip I do a focus, which changes slightly. But on either side of the meridian, unless temperature is changing a lot, I do not need to refocus for 2 or 3 hours. For focus and collimation I use a tri-bahtinov mask, I do not see any shift in collimation after meridian flip. As an XLT user, I would never switch to Edge, as I can no reason to do so, and many reasons not to. CS Rick |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I am very pleased with the 9.25 XLT recently purchased. After collimating the ,view of Saturn was as good as any SCT that I ever used. That includes an 8", 10", 11", two 12", and even two 14". The focuser is surprisingly good. Very little image shift even at magnifications upwards of 200x. This one looks like a keeper. Oh, and the weight is very easy to handle. -Bob |
|
2.71
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Am I hearing correctly that you need to use a 2” compression connection with the starizona .63 reducer on the 9.25?!? sounds like a recipe for tilt  |
1.20
#...
·
|
|---|
| I wouldn't worry about the amount of glass in the optical path. I had and 9.25XLT with Celestron .63 fr and sold it. I got a130 PHQ and have been happy. The 2" compressor did introduce some tilt clearly evident with a 533 chip and I'm sure the starizona reducer would have been a better choice. All this to say I think I would have had a much better experience with an edge scope for DSO work. If you don't have enough money for an edge, save for it. I think you'll be much happier in the long run. Stash your cash in a high yield savings account or Treasury ETF like TFLO and just save for it -especially with high interest rates! |
|
2.71
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Alright, debate over. I ordered the edge 8. for ONE reason. Space in the jeep. I finally realized that the 9.25 would cause packing problems haha. Would love to have had the extra resolution though. Thx for all the replies! |
|
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
Sometimes I have a lot of snow, so I can't open the roof of the observatory. I have a Meade 8 inch in the attic from previous years and I have a modern 6.3/v4 reducer from Starizona available. When there is a lot of snow I use a portable device on an EQ6-R. Up until now I've mostly used a c6 hyperstar or a Vixen FL102/920 reduced to f=720mm. The FL is too small for small galaxies. Now I'm thinking about doing a few tests with the Meade 8 in order to later upgrade to a c9.25 or c11 - perhaps with a permanent mount if it's too small. But I have the feeling that the c11 is far too unwieldy. The 8 inch meade "feels" good, but it may be too small. And now my question: What is the handiness of the c9.25? Can you grasp it? There is a RASA 8 in the observatory - it's actually a bit heavy for me from a weight perspective. And it is too susceptible to adjustment. Hence the c6Hyperstar. So, what du you think? |
