I wanted the 9.25" NexStar Evolution, but after seeing your video on the 9.25 I decided that at my age I didn't need the extra weight. A few pounds makes a difference for me. So I started looking for a NexStar Evolution EdgeHD 8". And I couldn't find one. So I started calling around and I found a vendor who said they had an open box one and offered it to me. For $700 off. This was May 2022. At the time the NexStar Evolution 8 was selling for $2,199 and the Edge version was selling for $2,949. $700 off brought it down to $2,249, $50 more than the non-Edge version. When it arrived it was in the original box. The mounting shoe for the RDF and StarSense were already on it. Nothing was missing. If it was out of collimation, I can't tell. And everything on it works fine. I suspect it was used as a floor display model, or maybe for training the store staff on it. I don't know, but I feel like I got a great deal.
I purchased this scope and after a couple months of waiting for a clear sky and learning how to use it, I finally saw saturn for the first time. It's such a surreal feeling that's worth every single penny. I did have to send it back because I immediately broke it when it arrived. I tried using sky align during a cloudy night and the eye peice jammed against the tripod, which stripped the gears and ruined the threads on the thing where the diagonal screws into.
Very useful comparison Ed. I've recently got a good deal on a 925 standard SCT. I couldn't justify the hike up to the Edge and I'm tending to target Galaxies and planets(as I have refractors for the other stuff) mainly so happy with this. Whichever model people go for I must say I've been mighty impressed by this tube and your earlier 925 review played a decent part in my choosing this specific size SCT. I've also been impressed by how well it holds collimation. Cheers Ollie.
Oh my goodness Ed. This literally could not be more timely. I am, as we speak, debating on getting the 9.25" Edge, or standard version. So excited to watch!
I'd get the standard. No need to break bank. If you really need a sharp edge to edge images, get the starizona reducer. if you want to turn your c9.25 into an astrograph, get a hyperstar (which will turn it into a f2). if you're doing planetary and lunar, standard c9.25 is just as good as the edge
Excellent review, Ed. That's something I've wondered about for a few years (actually C8 vs Edge HD 8"), and until now, could only compare written specs. Thanks for taking the time to make the head-to-head comparison.
It is also worth noting that the starizona f/6.3 reducer for the standard sct is really good at reducing coma. After getting that reducer, I have no desire to upgrade to the edge series.
@@jongroubert4203 It's true if you want to shoot at f/10, but most of the time you want that reducer for the improved speed and FOV anyway. So it becomes a competition between the Celestron and the Starizona reducer. I would say celestron HD reducer one has better field illumination but suffer from more chromatic aberration.
@@myfishingadventures1509 Although the 6SE is a bit smaller than the Nexstar 8SE, I just returned it for a dual arm CPC800 XLT. With my 8SE when I tried to focus on Jupiter and Saturn with medium to high power, hand focusing was terribly shaky. In my opinion, with any single arm mount an electric focuser is just about mandatory. With the upgraded mount and electronics with the CPC800, it was a good upgrade that will provide a much better telescoping experience....
One significant feature of the Edge models for astrophotography, which was not really talked about here, are the mirror locks. This is huge. Eliminating the mirror flop is not a small bonus, it is a game changing feature. Also, add to that the vents on the rear cell (which allow for fan mods) and between these two things, the price difference becomes well worth it. Taken altogether, the Edges are built from the ground up to purpose, they are imaging tools. But you are right Ed, serious imagers are kind of a breed apart, we will absolutely invest in small gains that might seem to non imagers to wasteful. But it's the culmination of those small gains that add up to result in better data, and better images. Most of the serious imagers that I know are chasing perfection. And it's chase that only makes sense once you start running :)
Great video! I am a long time astronomer but new to astrophotography and have always wanted an 8 inch SCT but my dream scope was a 9.25. I had a choice between an 8 inch Edge or a non-Edge 9.25 and went with the 9.25. Since I am a fan of moon and planet astronomy I figured this would carry over with astrophotography but of course after a month I started dabbling with deep sky objects. The Edge is better but for my eyes (after some post) I can't tell that much of a difference. Of course my choice was weighted on the assumption that I would only be casually taking photos but as it turns out I haven't used an eyepiece in 6 months now (all EAA or imaging sessions). Knowing what I know now would I get the 8 Edge over the 9.25 SCT? No way I could give up the extra light collection with the 9.25! Side by side with both scopes being 9.25s with one being Edge and one not I would still make the same choice and buy the non Edge. I see a benefit with the upgrade but its not worth 1,000 dollars of extra cost. I agree with your assessment between the two models you reviewed.
How can you be a long time astronomer whilst being new to astrophotography? Literally like 99% of astronomy either involves or is reliant upon astrophotography.
@@stewartgibson5802 It's not just that he's older, but that he is a gentleman too pure of heart, too innocent, compared to the rest of us degenerates 😝
I got to spend some time looking through the 14HD at RTMC 2009, Tom Johnson was even there. I was there with OPT. The views were insane. And yes, meade 3.25" plates wont go on celestron, but celestron can go on the meade. I have the jmi focuser from my c11, that was in a bag of parts that didnt get stolen, and when i got my 10" meade consolation prize replacement, I was able to mount the focuser on the meade to get the full aperture of the rear baffle, and the focuser also worked plugged into the lx6 base, and works throgh the hand paddle, win win. The incompatibility is of course due to different thread pitch but the celestron pitch can go on the meade, but the meade pitch can bind up and jam on a celestron.
6:25 the Edge images seem inferior in contrast-but I should ignore image brightness. At 6:31 there is vignetting. I’m not disagreeing, but have just read the Edge White Paper. As a user of vintage EQ manual Celestrons, a Classic 8 and superb 1970s Orange tube C5, my understanding was that Celestron had redesigned the SCT to become finally on-par with our computer designed >80 degree AF oculars of 2024. I started out with 0.96 inch Kellners and Orthos-Celestron believes they were fine on-axis for my vintage scopes when they were made. Finally, when 65 years old, I want a computerized SCT with best possible off-axis optical performance, for simple visual use… and the Edge design seemed to promise that, right when money isn’t as critical as it used to be. I guess you’re proving my old eyes could never differentiate an Edge from a standard tube when using my old vintage Naglers, Panoptics and Tele Vue Wide-Fields? Anyhow, I still prefer the Edge, but thank you for a wonderful review-I’ve subscribed & Liked :-)
Two comments here: you briefly mentioned the focal reducer. It's worth pointing out that the standard f/6.3 focal reducers are compatible with all of the base model Celestron SCTs (and I've used the Meade version on a Celestron and vise-versa without issue). But they will not work with the Edge models, and the Edge models each have their own specific focal reducer. The standard f/6.3 is a reducer/field flattener, but the Edge already has the field-flattening built-in, which is why the f/6.3 reducers aren't compatible. The other comment was: when discussing the cost of AP you left out a big factor: the cost of aspirin/ibuprofen/acetaminophen you're going to need to take to deal with the headaches you suffer from dealing with AP. Added to that might also be the cost of professional counseling that you'll need when you finally lose all your marbles. :)
I think that if you had the same coatings on each the images would be more comparable. The edge is a fine scope for sure, but the new coatings on the standard make a huge improvement on the light presented to the eye or the camera from my experience. The edge is not worth it to me.
I really enjoy watching your videos! I do like other channels that upload videos that focus mainly on capturing DSO, but it can get tiresome watching each time how they set up the astro gear and especially how the use their software. You speak very well and keep me interested in hearing more!
There is one refreshing take-away here: if you have run-of-the-mill SCT at home, don't let anyone dissuade you from doing astrophotography with it! The Edge would be better, but while you set money aside just go out there and shoot! Thanks Ed!
My high school band director often used this analogy: a Corvette (for $50k) is about 96% of the car you want. But, if you're serious about it, you'll buy the comparable Ferrari for $200k. It's only 4% better, but if you're serious about it, it makes all the difference in the world.
Wonderful review comparison. Owned many Celestron SCTs over the years, mostly 8” and a couple 9.25”. My current 8” Edge is by far my favorite of the bunch. Maybe I just got a good one but that little OTA has been such a good visual performer on both planetary and deep sky objects. The image is just that much crisper/sharper, brighter and vibrant. I agree the gains are small but they are noticeable to me and everyone that’s ever looked through both versions I had set up side by side. I finally sold off the last of my standard Celestron SCTs. The 8” EdgeHD is much cheaper at around $1600 currently. And much lighter so you can use a lighter and cheaper mount. I bought mine a few years back on sale for $1000 bucks. I was shocked at how much they had gone up. Anyways thanks for your comparison and opinion. It confirms exactly what I suspected. It’s an issue of diminishing returns vs money spent. For me the gains where enough to make that trade off worth it but your mileage may vary
I’m using almost the exact same setup, except I use an Optec Lepus reducer. Same camera with Astrodon lrgb filters. I’m using a G11 Gemini 2 with the Ovision worm. The xlt 9.25 just came out when I bought I bought it, so 15 years old. Two things I did. To reduce image shift during focus, I added a fine focus knob from scopestuff. It slides over the focus knob, pressing flat against the tube back. It helps a little. Second thing I did was lock down the threaded collar at the back. It kept coming loose. I tightened the collar firmly and drilled into the seam without going through. I glued 12 gauge wire to act as keyways. I can spin on the Optec dovetail and tighten it firmly with a strap wrench. I’m hanging $5000 worth of gear on it, so I don’t want it to give way. Search for tpicciani on the tumblr site to see some of my images. Hopefully will be at Cherry Springs in May.
I'm not an astrophotographer yet, but I've got the bug! I took your advice and found an edge offered at a discounted open box price. Can't wait until it arrives.
Thanks for that insightful review. I have been pondering that question for a while and you just cleared it up for me...much appreciated. Clear Skies to you Ed. ✨️
Great comparison and conclusions. As always, many thanks! I settled on a base model 9.25 with my current focus on planetary photography. When I do get around to deep sky, I think I’ll just go for a faster apo refractor.
I have a base C9.25 that I bought off the used market for a scant $700 (CAD) few years ago. I use it strictly for visual on my Bresser Exos 2 mount, which still handles it just fine for visual use. Great scope. I'm still flabbergasted all these years later at the stonking deal I was able to get on it. It's a grey tube like the one in this video, but does have the newer Starbright XLT coatings, or at least the sticker on it says so. lol I'd definitely go with some smaller 80mm-127mm scopes on my mount if I did astrophotography with it though. The C9.25 is strictly visual for me.
Great review Ed. I have been thinking of an 8 inch HD Edge but after watching this it would seem that the difference in price would not be worth it for someone with my more basic skill set. Emphasis on the mount seems to be an often overlooked aspect well highlighted in your video. Truly good advice from a professional.
Thanks Ed, always enjoy your video's. I have a Celestron Nexstar Evolution 9.25 which also has the StarBright XLT optical coatings. Would be interesting to see a comparison between the Edge and Evolution. I love the Evolution for visual and just started taking photos with it. It's challenging with the Alt Az mount but if I keep the exposures short, 20-30 seconds it does a pretty nice job, or at least I think so.
To really do the edge test, a 31 nagler, 41 pan, even a 55 plossl would be needed since the 35 pan doesn't quite get to the edge, pardon the pun, of the 2" field
One thing to consider; if you spent an hour and a half on visual before doing photography, that would have mitigated the advantages of the vents in the edge. People also install fans on those vents to speed the cooling. Also, if you're spending $7000 on camera equipment (full frame Astro cam alone can be $4500) and $3500 on a mount that can hold it well, it starts to seem inconsistent to get tripped up over the extra $1500 for the edge. Full disclosure: I may wind up pairing a regular 11 inch XLT with all that if I can find a good used one on astromart, but that would only be until I save up for the scope I want.
I use a standard but new C9.25 for AP and I really don't think I'm missing much, I also have a hyperstar, which if using that, the scopes are then exactly the same.
Great video, as usual. I just bought the Evo 8 HD and the only reason I got it over the base varient is that it was on sale. Got it for the same price as the base varient + starsense (which I was planning on getting). To me it is like a free upgrade. I know starsense is a luxury item and not really needed but, I am lazy, and if this thing can make it point in the right direction at the push of a button then it is worth it to me.
8" reflectors seem to be the right weight to still get away with a much more affordable mount. Anything bigger gets so heavy suddenly the price of the mount also goes up exponentially too.
There are so many variables envolved in phtography, that it's almost unfathomable to determine the best camera's, various lens, apature settings, film, lighting, etc etc etc. Though one has the choice today to buy a scope with photo abilitie already installed. Having the option to change any and all the variables to a normal scope has bigger and better advantages.
That was a really solid review. I have the base version on a CGX on wheels. The only expense you did not mention is my $3000 rugidized laptop with usb 3.1 and a screaming ssd. It doubles the fps compared to my old laptop!
Thanks for the comparison Ed! I would like to add another difference between the two scopes: the mirror locking mechanism. At least with my C11 base model, I notice that the mirror shifts slighty during long exposures, eg. 3mins. There are certain techniques to minimize it like focusing "inward", but I was not able to totally eliminate it. For the edge version with the mirror locking mechanism, I would expect that there is no mirror shift and would consider this as an advantage for astro photography. I can also confirm that the starizona 6.3 reducer does a very good job in correcting the field.
I have two 11" non edge SCTs....one on fork mount and other tube on my Astro Physics 1100. I considered the 9 1/4" Edge but the weight difference between the two and the cost made the 11" a better choice. the light gathering difference is significant between 11" and 9 1/4". Focuser in both of my examples is excellent. You can slightly adjust the 11" focuser for smoothness....I also replaced the standard focuser with the 2 speed Feather Touch and it makes a huge difference. I do have a 8" EDGE and manage an observatory with 14" Edge but not convinced that there is that much difference if any between the two optically normally.
That was interesting indeed. I love the 9.25 myself but have a Meade 14 ACF , which I take is the same idea as the edge. You can see differences at the field edge but for visual use I think it's a waste of money, may even reduce contrast a trace. Any scope over 10 inches needs a fixed mount in my humble opinion. The set up time alone makes it worth the expense.
Hi, Ed, I thought long and hard about C9.25 vs. EdgeHD 9.25. In the end, I went with a C9.25, Baader Diamond Steeltrack (BDS) external focuser, and a Starizona SCT Corrector IV 0.63x focal reducer/corrector. I believe the C9.25 and Starizona SCT Corrector IV match up well vs. an Edge HD 9.25. I get consistently good astrophotographic results from this combination for Deep Space Objects. For planetary work I use the C9.25, BDS focuser, and a 2x Powermate. Honestly, I don't use the C9.25 at its base f/10 configuration for astrophotography. This is because I'd need to swap out the BDS' standard 2-in. ring clamp adapter for an M48 threaded adapter, and I'm just too lazy to do this.
Nice review... that extra 5% cost a lot :) I image with an Edge 8 and have been very pleased with the results. If I were to pick up another SCT for viewing/or planet imaging.. I would also go with a non Edge. CS!
It's waaaaay more than extra 5%. While optically there's no difference due to focal lengths and FoV's involved that can't be chalked up to coatings, photographically - a standard SCT is completely useless with anything larger than micro 4/3" sensors. If he's cropping down to a tiny RoI in the middle of the sensor, of course there's gonna be little difference directly in the optical path. In full frame terms, t's a difference between having 25% of usable to foV and ~70%.
@@TheKain202 Sure.. but this was optically speaking. Very few telescopes can do real justice to a full frame sensor. Many may illuminate a 44mm circle but the stars around the edges are not good. Even the FSQ will struggle unless you forgo the reducers. The Edge 8, which I use won't support a full frame either.
Mr. Ting, Where do you keep your astro photographs? You spend night after night to shoot the photos and day after day to process them.... Can we see some of them?
I have a couple of the regular 11" SCTs....one on a CGE Pro fork mount....the other is used with Hyperstar on my Astro Pnysics 1100 GTO4 mount. The Hyperstar is a pretty simiple and easy to use setup due to its fast speed and great results. My main imaging platform is a 6" APO refractor from Officina Stellare. The images with a SCT can be damn good but the refractor is the best. I also manage an observatory that has a 14" HD Edge on a Celestron Pro equatorial mount. As part of that kit we also have a Hyperstar for that scope. I also have a 8" HD scope with Hyperstar but mainly used through the scope for demo for outreach programs and with a video camera. One thing Ed did mention was the focuser and mirror locks on the Edge scopes. Those are a big upgrade. I have found that the focuers on the Edge mounts seem to be a bit more precise although I have modded my other scopes so they are equally good. For visual you will never use the mirror locks but n photography they can be a big plus.....you can lock the mirror down close to focus and than use an additional focuser on the back of the scope with an electonic drive. You can also get electronic focusers for the regular scopes but they use the regular focuser so you have to deal with mirror shift. I agree with Ed....the most important thing in astrophotography is the mount. Plan on buying the best mount you can and scrimp on the scope if necessary....and used gear can be a great way to save money.
Great video! I use a CGE also, but with my base C11. I tend to use my AVX with my Meade 8” ACF. I believe that my Meade is slightly sharper than the C11, and I have started trying to image through it using the ZWO system. Unfortunately , the CGE is not compatible with the ASI AIR Plus. The CGE is an awesome mount.
I've got the smaller 8" edge. It's a truly lovely bit of kit, but after seeing this I may be having buyers regret. I don't do deep space objects, I'm more in to planets and the moon, which I'm guessing the cheaper version would do equally as well.
i hate coma so its worth it to me i have the 8" EDGE also and its nice to know stars will be nice at the edge when you do look at DSO`s in the future if you want to
I’d like to see an optical difference between the 9.25 and the 11. I’m probably about to buy one, and don’t know if the price difference is worth it. I’m sure some say no, and others yes, but I’d like a way to compare. Either would be an improvement over my 8” 1200 mm dobsonian.
These may or may not be an improvement over your Dob. Like a good refractor, the purchase of a large SCT begins with the mount. You need a CGEM type for the C9.25 as a bare minimum. For the C11, you'll need a G11 or better. Also be sure that your local seeing conditions will support this kind of focal length. A large SCT is a good compliment to an 8" Dob, not a replacement.
I have an older C11 ultima and as I get older, the weight difference between the 9.25 and the C11 can affect how much you end up using the scope! If the coatings are equal, the C11 will give you about 41 percent more light gathering ability and slightly better resolution. The 9.25 will weight on average about 40 pounds less. so you have to weight those factors as well!@@edting
Great Video. As an Astrophotographer the HD model is a oneway road. I have done it too many times.. take something a litle bit less good for less money and after a year or so... pay for the same thing that is a lillte bit better for the money of both..
As someone who's just getting into this, what i tend to be curious about is why you would pay significantly more for the 9.25 Edge when it's only marginally larger than the 8" Edge. Jumping up to the 11" or 14" I get, even with the price hike, but to pay such a significant amount for an incremental gain of little more than an inch? What am I missing?
Good question. The reason to buy the 9.25 has nothing to do with its aperture. The 9.25 is a different design from all the other Celestron SCTs. Celestron isn't talking, but we do know the primary has a longer f/ratio, and there may be other changes as well. The 9.25 is a cult scope, and is my favorite mass-produced SCT of all time.
@@edting Ah, that explains it - paying nearly twice as much for that negligible bit of extra aperture just didn't make sense. Okay, so unless I missed it in among all your other reviews, you need to do one on the significant gain of going from the 8" Edge, which is what I was going to buy as a step up from the regular C8, to the 9.25! - now you've confused matters. :) I only just found your reviews and am lapping them up as I try to stumble my way through the steep learning curve I'm on. I owned a basic reflector years ago, and now that I'm retiring would like to take up astrophotography as a hobby to supplement my lifetime of interest in regular photography. I really enjoy the manner of your knowledgeable presentations.
I see people mentioning the locks and vents for the primary on the edge, sorry but things like that should be insignificant in terms of the cost of the scope and the extra bit of optics is something that could be sold as a separate accessory rather than needing a different model to build it into.
I had to consider this question when I purchased mine, and bought an EdgeHD. I bought mine though with an AVX mount, the price difference back in 2017 was several hundred bucks. Was it worth it? Yes, I can see zero coma to the edge through my Explore Scientific 82 degree eyepieces. That and the provisions for photography are why I bought my 8-inch EdgeHD.
Ed, Not an unexpected result. For the people with mega bucks invested in imaging the Edge is going to be just that little bit they think they need. For the majority of us, it's simply not going to be a significant $1500 difference to return the investment. I did note some elongation in some of the Edge images along the lower right quadrant, possibly a signal of the mount having issues?
im just an observer and im looking for a decent used mount to replace the one that came with the scope, im also looking into an auto focuser and tracking camera cause im just lazy, i can see how this hole you think you can step over sucks you in, by the time i get all that stuff i might as well start with a cheaper camera just to see the really deep dark stuff i cant see by just looking
There are a couple of reasons why SCTs are a bit challenging for astrophotography. The main reason is a "slow" f-number. Even with the 0.7 reducer, the f/7 focal ratio is a bit too slow. It is the f ratio that determines the surface brightness of extended objects, not the aperture diameter, just like for the regular photography. The second reason is that mechanically SCTs, even Edge versions, are not as stable as a well-made reflector. This is less important for guided exposures with an off-axis guider.
I’m surprised that it’s not mentioned that you can mount a hyperstar on as well. Of course this takes quite a few extra $$ but the option seems worthwhile to me.
Great video Ed. I have a question about the C8. How does the current C8 you tested here with the Edge compare to a C8 from the 80's with star-bright coatings. Has much changed with the current generation of C8 (non edge)???
great video / explanation :) those small improvements seem to do the job form the looks of it better go for the EDGE model if i start seriously thinking about deep sky, but at the moment i am happy with my dobs and eq platform XD it does the job well enough
At 11:00 Ed is wrapping up his list of gotchas. One he missed that has contributed to my astrophotography stalling is the loss of sleep. By 11:00 pm, I am done. If I have not got everything working properly, I'm too tired for troubleshooting and too cranky to continue. I would not have guessed that it would be an issue, but it is.
Without spending a lot of money, I think the Svbony eyepiece set with the red rings are really good. Add to that a Baader zoom with the barlow and you've covered a lot of bases. Just my thoughts after having already spent too much money. 😅
🤷♂️ i keep rerunning tutorials on plate solving, where it pushes the picture off so many pixel to get rid of a bunch of hot and dead pixel. Maybe it wasn’t called plate solving 🤷♂️ i am running loops on it.
Most people use auto focusers now which makes the mirror locks obsolete. Saying that the best picture of mars I have ever seen was taken through a c14 with a 4x barlow which yielded a focal length just short of 20000mm and an old converted DSLR camera. On this occasion Mars was at its closest point to earth and the seeing conditions were almost perfect.
Hi Ed, I'm looking at a C11 XLT (£2,750 vs £4,300) and eventually a C9.25 EdgeHD for a more portable setup (38 years old, 6ft & 18st so C11 isn't too bad for me atm). Mount would be a Wave 150i. The C11 Gets Dwarf planets (Pluto, MakeMake and Ceres) and the blue planets so would be a great scope with Starizoner 0.63 Reducer & FF for Galaxies. C9.25 EdgeHD once I'm more proficient at AP (18 months in, mainly visual at the moment). Would you agree I'm being sensible or just get a C11 EdgeHD and have back problems later in life? 😂
I was using a 10” Dob for visual observing and finding it a bit cumbersome, experimented with a standard C8. Even with the .63 reducer/corrector I always found the views to be soft. I took the plunge and got the Edge 9.25 when it was on sale for a mere $2000 and was instantly pleased with the views which were clean to the edge and noticeably sharper than my very good Dob even when using the Dob with a Paracorr. I think it was spherical aberration in the C8 that was the main issue. I twinned the Edge on a dual alt az mount with an 80mm apo which nicely complemented the SCT doing double duty as a wide field scope and a finder (necessary given the Cat’s native F10 narrow field). In short, the Edge 9.25 was head and shoulders better than the standard C8. Perhaps that’s not a valid comparison given the difference in aperture?
Its more than just the price difference,,so do accessories for the edge. The reducer is a rediculous price, which adds even more. For the standard 9.25, you can get the star Arizona reducer, and gives the same preformance as the edge and standard is still far cheaper. I almost got the 8" edge, but ended up getting the standard 9.25" as it was still $200 cheaper than the edge 8" and a 9.25" will be better for planets and gather more light. Aperture rules when it comes to planets
Another thing not motioned is the edge you still need the reducer. Its not only very expensive, but is also very heavy, so the price difference is even greater when concidering which scope. For planets the 9,25 is better, more aperture cheaper price
Thanks Ed. Always enjoy your stuff. I have an older C11 XLT. It's not an Edge. I'm wondering whether you might comment on whether the XLT optical coating on these scopes make all the difference. In other words, do I essentially have an Edge in terms of optics (of course, not all the other features)? I realize you can't answer definitively. Thanks for another interesting video
Cant wait for the Sky-Watcher Goon series.
You are by far the best telescope reviewer on RUclips. Hands down. Thanks...
I always give “edging” a thumbs up 👋
I wanted the 9.25" NexStar Evolution, but after seeing your video on the 9.25 I decided that at my age I didn't need the extra weight. A few pounds makes a difference for me. So I started looking for a NexStar Evolution EdgeHD 8". And I couldn't find one. So I started calling around and I found a vendor who said they had an open box one and offered it to me. For $700 off. This was May 2022. At the time the NexStar Evolution 8 was selling for $2,199 and the Edge version was selling for $2,949. $700 off brought it down to $2,249, $50 more than the non-Edge version.
When it arrived it was in the original box. The mounting shoe for the RDF and StarSense were already on it. Nothing was missing. If it was out of collimation, I can't tell. And everything on it works fine. I suspect it was used as a floor display model, or maybe for training the store staff on it. I don't know, but I feel like I got a great deal.
The results are closer than I would have expected. Great review.
Great video, Ed. I think you hit the nail on the head with this video. The gains are small, but if you're a hard-core imager they are worth it.
When i need correct and honest answers about this hobby, i only turn to you Ed. Thx for sharing your knowledge to all of us 🖖😊
I purchased this scope and after a couple months of waiting for a clear sky and learning how to use it, I finally saw saturn for the first time. It's such a surreal feeling that's worth every single penny.
I did have to send it back because I immediately broke it when it arrived. I tried using sky align during a cloudy night and the eye peice jammed against the tripod, which stripped the gears and ruined the threads on the thing where the diagonal screws into.
Ouch! I've also heard of people dropping the optical tube on the driveway the first time they take it out. They never even got to look through it!
Very useful comparison Ed. I've recently got a good deal on a 925 standard SCT. I couldn't justify the hike up to the Edge and I'm tending to target Galaxies and planets(as I have refractors for the other stuff) mainly so happy with this. Whichever model people go for I must say I've been mighty impressed by this tube and your earlier 925 review played a decent part in my choosing this specific size SCT. I've also been impressed by how well it holds collimation.
Cheers Ollie.
im wanting to use a hyperstar and can not see any benefit with an edge HD
Oh my goodness Ed. This literally could not be more timely. I am, as we speak, debating on getting the 9.25" Edge, or standard version. So excited to watch!
I'd get the standard. No need to break bank. If you really need a sharp edge to edge images, get the starizona reducer. if you want to turn your c9.25 into an astrograph, get a hyperstar (which will turn it into a f2). if you're doing planetary and lunar, standard c9.25 is just as good as the edge
Excellent review, Ed. That's something I've wondered about for a few years (actually C8 vs Edge HD 8"), and until now, could only compare written specs. Thanks for taking the time to make the head-to-head comparison.
It is also worth noting that the starizona f/6.3 reducer for the standard sct is really good at reducing coma. After getting that reducer, I have no desire to upgrade to the edge series.
The understanding is that adding a focal reducer/field flattener to the standard SCT is the poor man's equivalent of the Edge HD.
@@jongroubert4203 ,I Wouldnt Even Want To Attempt To Put One On A Mount,Im Tiny,I Do Good With My 6se..But I Do Love The Optics In The 9.25❤️🔭❤️
@@PafMedic I just ordered a 6se! How do like it?
@@jongroubert4203 It's true if you want to shoot at f/10, but most of the time you want that reducer for the improved speed and FOV anyway. So it becomes a competition between the Celestron and the Starizona reducer. I would say celestron HD reducer one has better field illumination but suffer from more chromatic aberration.
@@myfishingadventures1509 Although the 6SE is a bit smaller than the Nexstar 8SE, I just returned it for a dual arm CPC800 XLT. With my 8SE when I tried to focus on Jupiter and Saturn with medium to high power, hand focusing was terribly shaky. In my opinion, with any single arm mount an electric focuser is just about mandatory. With the upgraded mount and electronics with the CPC800, it was a good upgrade that will provide a much better telescoping experience....
I was on the fence about that, and seeing your review I've made up my mind Edge all the way. Excellent review keep up the great work!
One significant feature of the Edge models for astrophotography, which was not really talked about here, are the mirror locks. This is huge. Eliminating the mirror flop is not a small bonus, it is a game changing feature. Also, add to that the vents on the rear cell (which allow for fan mods) and between these two things, the price difference becomes well worth it. Taken altogether, the Edges are built from the ground up to purpose, they are imaging tools. But you are right Ed, serious imagers are kind of a breed apart, we will absolutely invest in small gains that might seem to non imagers to wasteful. But it's the culmination of those small gains that add up to result in better data, and better images. Most of the serious imagers that I know are chasing perfection. And it's chase that only makes sense once you start running :)
I really really love these side by side films in this video
As always, outstanding reviews. Practical, insightful, and honest. Doesn't get any better.
Great video! I am a long time astronomer but new to astrophotography and have always wanted an 8 inch SCT but my dream scope was a 9.25. I had a choice between an 8 inch Edge or a non-Edge 9.25 and went with the 9.25. Since I am a fan of moon and planet astronomy I figured this would carry over with astrophotography but of course after a month I started dabbling with deep sky objects. The Edge is better but for my eyes (after some post) I can't tell that much of a difference. Of course my choice was weighted on the assumption that I would only be casually taking photos but as it turns out I haven't used an eyepiece in 6 months now (all EAA or imaging sessions). Knowing what I know now would I get the 8 Edge over the 9.25 SCT? No way I could give up the extra light collection with the 9.25! Side by side with both scopes being 9.25s with one being Edge and one not I would still make the same choice and buy the non Edge. I see a benefit with the upgrade but its not worth 1,000 dollars of extra cost. I agree with your assessment between the two models you reviewed.
How can you be a long time astronomer whilst being new to astrophotography?
Literally like 99% of astronomy either involves or is reliant upon astrophotography.
I’d phrase the title and the first five seconds of the video differently. Great video Ed👍🏻
couldn't agree more, although being that ed is older i guarantee you he has no idea what we mean
@@stewartgibson5802 It's not just that he's older, but that he is a gentleman too pure of heart, too innocent, compared to the rest of us degenerates 😝
I got to spend some time looking through the 14HD at RTMC 2009, Tom Johnson was even there. I was there with OPT.
The views were insane.
And yes, meade 3.25" plates wont go on celestron, but celestron can go on the meade. I have the jmi focuser from my c11, that was in a bag of parts that didnt get stolen, and when i got my 10" meade consolation prize replacement, I was able to mount the focuser on the meade to get the full aperture of the rear baffle, and the focuser also worked plugged into the lx6 base, and works throgh the hand paddle, win win.
The incompatibility is of course due to different thread pitch but the celestron pitch can go on the meade, but the meade pitch can bind up and jam on a celestron.
6:25 the Edge images seem inferior in contrast-but I should ignore image brightness. At 6:31 there is vignetting. I’m not disagreeing, but have just read the Edge White Paper. As a user of vintage EQ manual Celestrons, a Classic 8 and superb 1970s Orange tube C5, my understanding was that Celestron had redesigned the SCT to become finally on-par with our computer designed >80 degree AF oculars of 2024. I started out with 0.96 inch Kellners and Orthos-Celestron believes they were fine on-axis for my vintage scopes when they were made. Finally, when 65 years old, I want a computerized SCT with best possible off-axis optical performance, for simple visual use… and the Edge design seemed to promise that, right when money isn’t as critical as it used to be. I guess you’re proving my old eyes could never differentiate an Edge from a standard tube when using my old vintage Naglers, Panoptics and Tele Vue Wide-Fields? Anyhow, I still prefer the Edge, but thank you for a wonderful review-I’ve subscribed & Liked :-)
Two comments here: you briefly mentioned the focal reducer. It's worth pointing out that the standard f/6.3 focal reducers are compatible with all of the base model Celestron SCTs (and I've used the Meade version on a Celestron and vise-versa without issue). But they will not work with the Edge models, and the Edge models each have their own specific focal reducer. The standard f/6.3 is a reducer/field flattener, but the Edge already has the field-flattening built-in, which is why the f/6.3 reducers aren't compatible.
The other comment was: when discussing the cost of AP you left out a big factor: the cost of aspirin/ibuprofen/acetaminophen you're going to need to take to deal with the headaches you suffer from dealing with AP. Added to that might also be the cost of professional counseling that you'll need when you finally lose all your marbles. :)
Thanks for the clarifications!
Wouldn't it be nice if they made a Celestron C6 Edge ?
Edging is so 2023 gooning is the new meta
so true
buying the goon version rn🗣️🗣️🔥
@@newcinema4931 Celestron is teasing a Rizzler 11EdgeHD Pro Max🗣🗣🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥🔥💯💯
I think that if you had the same coatings on each the images would be more comparable. The edge is a fine scope for sure, but the new coatings on the standard make a huge improvement on the light presented to the eye or the camera from my experience. The edge is not worth it to me.
Thank you so much for this review, Ed! This is EXACTLY the information for which I have been looking.
I really enjoy watching your videos! I do like other channels that upload videos that focus mainly on capturing DSO, but it can get tiresome watching each time how they set up the astro gear and especially how the use their software. You speak very well and keep me interested in hearing more!
There is one refreshing take-away here: if you have run-of-the-mill SCT at home, don't let anyone dissuade you from doing astrophotography with it! The Edge would be better, but while you set money aside just go out there and shoot! Thanks Ed!
My high school band director often used this analogy: a Corvette (for $50k) is about 96% of the car you want. But, if you're serious about it, you'll buy the comparable Ferrari for $200k. It's only 4% better, but if you're serious about it, it makes all the difference in the world.
Thanks Ed. Great video.
Wonderful review comparison. Owned many Celestron SCTs over the years, mostly 8” and a couple 9.25”. My current 8” Edge is by far my favorite of the bunch. Maybe I just got a good one but that little OTA has been such a good visual performer on both planetary and deep sky objects. The image is just that much crisper/sharper, brighter and vibrant. I agree the gains are small but they are noticeable to me and everyone that’s ever looked through both versions I had set up side by side. I finally sold off the last of my standard Celestron SCTs. The 8” EdgeHD is much cheaper at around $1600 currently. And much lighter so you can use a lighter and cheaper mount. I bought mine a few years back on sale for $1000 bucks. I was shocked at how much they had gone up. Anyways thanks for your comparison and opinion. It confirms exactly what I suspected. It’s an issue of diminishing returns vs money spent. For me the gains where enough to make that trade off worth it but your mileage may vary
I’m using almost the exact same setup, except I use an Optec Lepus reducer. Same camera with Astrodon lrgb filters. I’m using a G11 Gemini 2 with the Ovision worm. The xlt 9.25 just came out when I bought I bought it, so 15 years old. Two things I did. To reduce image shift during focus, I added a fine focus knob from scopestuff. It slides over the focus knob, pressing flat against the tube back. It helps a little. Second thing I did was lock down the threaded collar at the back. It kept coming loose. I tightened the collar firmly and drilled into the seam without going through. I glued 12 gauge wire to act as keyways. I can spin on the Optec dovetail and tighten it firmly with a strap wrench. I’m hanging $5000 worth of gear on it, so I don’t want it to give way. Search for tpicciani on the tumblr site to see some of my images. Hopefully will be at Cherry Springs in May.
I'm not an astrophotographer yet, but I've got the bug! I took your advice and found an edge offered at a discounted open box price. Can't wait until it arrives.
Thanks for that insightful review. I have been pondering that question for a while and you just cleared it up for me...much appreciated. Clear Skies to you Ed. ✨️
Great comparison and conclusions. As always, many thanks! I settled on a base model 9.25 with my current focus on planetary photography. When I do get around to deep sky, I think I’ll just go for a faster apo refractor.
I have a base C9.25 that I bought off the used market for a scant $700 (CAD) few years ago. I use it strictly for visual on my Bresser Exos 2 mount, which still handles it just fine for visual use. Great scope. I'm still flabbergasted all these years later at the stonking deal I was able to get on it. It's a grey tube like the one in this video, but does have the newer Starbright XLT coatings, or at least the sticker on it says so. lol I'd definitely go with some smaller 80mm-127mm scopes on my mount if I did astrophotography with it though. The C9.25 is strictly visual for me.
Great review Ed. I have been thinking of an 8 inch HD Edge but after watching this it would seem that the difference in price would not be worth it for someone with my more basic skill set. Emphasis on the mount seems to be an often overlooked aspect well highlighted in your video. Truly good advice from a professional.
Thank you for the review!
Thanks Ed, always enjoy your video's. I have a Celestron Nexstar Evolution 9.25 which also has the StarBright XLT optical coatings. Would be interesting to see a comparison between the Edge and Evolution.
I love the Evolution for visual and just started taking photos with it. It's challenging with the Alt Az mount but if I keep the exposures short, 20-30 seconds it does a pretty nice job, or at least I think so.
To really do the edge test, a 31 nagler, 41 pan, even a 55 plossl would be needed since the 35 pan doesn't quite get to the edge, pardon the pun, of the 2" field
One thing to consider; if you spent an hour and a half on visual before doing photography, that would have mitigated the advantages of the vents in the edge. People also install fans on those vents to speed the cooling.
Also, if you're spending $7000 on camera equipment (full frame Astro cam alone can be $4500) and $3500 on a mount that can hold it well, it starts to seem inconsistent to get tripped up over the extra $1500 for the edge.
Full disclosure: I may wind up pairing a regular 11 inch XLT with all that if I can find a good used one on astromart, but that would only be until I save up for the scope I want.
I use a standard but new C9.25 for AP and I really don't think I'm missing much, I also have a hyperstar, which if using that, the scopes are then exactly the same.
Great video, as usual. I just bought the Evo 8 HD and the only reason I got it over the base varient is that it was on sale. Got it for the same price as the base varient + starsense (which I was planning on getting). To me it is like a free upgrade. I know starsense is a luxury item and not really needed but, I am lazy, and if this thing can make it point in the right direction at the push of a button then it is worth it to me.
Thanks for another interesting review
8" reflectors seem to be the right weight to still get away with a much more affordable mount. Anything bigger gets so heavy suddenly the price of the mount also goes up exponentially too.
By the way, Mount Twilight I AZ from ES should pull such a pipe well. And it costs no more than $ 300.
Very helpful! Thank you!
There are so many variables envolved in phtography, that it's almost unfathomable to determine the best camera's, various lens, apature settings, film, lighting, etc etc etc.
Though one has the choice today to buy a scope with photo abilitie already installed. Having the option to change any and all the variables to a normal scope has bigger and better advantages.
Thanks Ed! Before Meade discontinued the standard SCTs in favour of the ACFs, did you ever do a comparison between the 2?
As I only wanted this rig for Lunar & Planetary viewing/imaging, I went with the standard C8. Just waiting for clear skies.
That was a really solid review. I have the base version on a CGX on wheels. The only expense you did not mention is my $3000 rugidized laptop with usb 3.1 and a screaming ssd. It doubles the fps compared to my old laptop!
Thanks for the comparison Ed! I would like to add another difference between the two scopes: the mirror locking mechanism. At least with my C11 base model, I notice that the mirror shifts slighty during long exposures, eg. 3mins. There are certain techniques to minimize it like focusing "inward", but I was not able to totally eliminate it. For the edge version with the mirror locking mechanism, I would expect that there is no mirror shift and would consider this as an advantage for astro photography.
I can also confirm that the starizona 6.3 reducer does a very good job in correcting the field.
I have two 11" non edge SCTs....one on fork mount and other tube on my Astro Physics 1100. I considered the 9 1/4" Edge but the weight difference between the two and the cost made the 11" a better choice. the light gathering difference is significant between 11" and 9 1/4". Focuser in both of my examples is excellent. You can slightly adjust the 11" focuser for smoothness....I also replaced the standard focuser with the 2 speed Feather Touch and it makes a huge difference. I do have a 8" EDGE and manage an observatory with 14" Edge but not convinced that there is that much difference if any between the two optically normally.
I would love to see a comparison between the C 14 EDGE HD and the RASA 36, even though they are completely different telescopes.
I'd like to see that comparison too!
Make that a C 14 EDGE HD w/Hyperstar versus a RASA 36. One is a little less than 1/2 the cost of the other
😂
That was interesting indeed. I love the 9.25 myself but have a Meade 14 ACF , which I take is the same idea as the edge. You can see differences at the field edge but for visual use I think it's a waste of money, may even reduce contrast a trace. Any scope over 10 inches needs a fixed mount in my humble opinion. The set up time alone makes it worth the expense.
Hi, Ed, I thought long and hard about C9.25 vs. EdgeHD 9.25. In the end, I went with a C9.25, Baader Diamond Steeltrack (BDS) external focuser, and a Starizona SCT Corrector IV 0.63x focal reducer/corrector. I believe the C9.25 and Starizona SCT Corrector IV match up well vs. an Edge HD 9.25. I get consistently good astrophotographic results from this combination for Deep Space Objects. For planetary work I use the C9.25, BDS focuser, and a 2x Powermate. Honestly, I don't use the C9.25 at its base f/10 configuration for astrophotography. This is because I'd need to swap out the BDS' standard 2-in. ring clamp adapter for an M48 threaded adapter, and I'm just too lazy to do this.
Ed, great review as always! Any chance you will be reviewing a ZWO AM5 anytime soon?
Nice review... that extra 5% cost a lot :)
I image with an Edge 8 and have been very pleased with the results. If I were to pick up another SCT for viewing/or planet imaging.. I would also go with a non Edge. CS!
It's waaaaay more than extra 5%.
While optically there's no difference due to focal lengths and FoV's involved that can't be chalked up to coatings, photographically - a standard SCT is completely useless with anything larger than micro 4/3" sensors. If he's cropping down to a tiny RoI in the middle of the sensor, of course there's gonna be little difference directly in the optical path.
In full frame terms, t's a difference between having 25% of usable to foV and ~70%.
@@TheKain202 Sure.. but this was optically speaking. Very few telescopes can do real justice to a full frame sensor. Many may illuminate a 44mm circle but the stars around the edges are not good. Even the FSQ will struggle unless you forgo the reducers. The Edge 8, which I use won't support a full frame either.
Mr. Ting,
Where do you keep your astro photographs?
You spend night after night to shoot the photos and day after day to process them....
Can we see some of them?
Very interesting thanks!! Would also enjoy seeing comparos with RC designs etc.
...gives me FITS, bravo sir
I have a couple of the regular 11" SCTs....one on a CGE Pro fork mount....the other is used with Hyperstar on my Astro Pnysics 1100 GTO4 mount. The Hyperstar is a pretty simiple and easy to use setup due to its fast speed and great results. My main imaging platform is a 6" APO refractor from Officina Stellare. The images with a SCT can be damn good but the refractor is the best. I also manage an observatory that has a 14" HD Edge on a Celestron Pro equatorial mount. As part of that kit we also have a Hyperstar for that scope. I also have a 8" HD scope with Hyperstar but mainly used through the scope for demo for outreach programs and with a video camera. One thing Ed did mention was the focuser and mirror locks on the Edge scopes. Those are a big upgrade. I have found that the focuers on the Edge mounts seem to be a bit more precise although I have modded my other scopes so they are equally good. For visual you will never use the mirror locks but n photography they can be a big plus.....you can lock the mirror down close to focus and than use an additional focuser on the back of the scope with an electonic drive. You can also get electronic focusers for the regular scopes but they use the regular focuser so you have to deal with mirror shift. I agree with Ed....the most important thing in astrophotography is the mount. Plan on buying the best mount you can and scrimp on the scope if necessary....and used gear can be a great way to save money.
Why do you waist such fine mount and load on it some Sct?! You should get 12” Paramount, even better 14” version.
A fantastic look at two fine telescopes. Give me either one of the Celestron 9.25" sct's and I am a happy camper.
your videos are a wealth of information. thanks. new fish here.
Thanks, I try not to waste your time.
Thank you for sharing and explaining. Excellent
Great video! I use a CGE also, but with my base C11. I tend to use my AVX with my Meade 8” ACF. I believe that my Meade is slightly sharper than the C11, and I have started trying to image through it using the ZWO system. Unfortunately , the CGE is not compatible with the ASI AIR Plus. The CGE is an awesome mount.
What struck me is just how good the "basic" version is.
I've got the smaller 8" edge. It's a truly lovely bit of kit, but after seeing this I may be having buyers regret. I don't do deep space objects, I'm more in to planets and the moon, which I'm guessing the cheaper version would do equally as well.
i hate coma so its worth it to me i have the 8" EDGE also and its nice to know stars will be nice at the edge when you do look at DSO`s in the future if you want to
I wouldn't fret too much, you are getting a better focusing system which helps even visually.
Yep, you need to get 14” edge!
The algorithm knows i really REALLY like telescopes
I’d like to see an optical difference between the 9.25 and the 11. I’m probably about to buy one, and don’t know if the price difference is worth it. I’m sure some say no, and others yes, but I’d like a way to compare.
Either would be an improvement over my 8” 1200 mm dobsonian.
These may or may not be an improvement over your Dob. Like a good refractor, the purchase of a large SCT begins with the mount. You need a CGEM type for the C9.25 as a bare minimum. For the C11, you'll need a G11 or better. Also be sure that your local seeing conditions will support this kind of focal length. A large SCT is a good compliment to an 8" Dob, not a replacement.
I have an older C11 ultima and as I get older, the weight difference between the 9.25 and the C11 can affect how much you end up using the scope! If the coatings are equal, the C11 will give you about 41 percent more light gathering ability and slightly better resolution. The 9.25 will weight on average about 40 pounds less. so you have to weight those factors as well!@@edting
Great Video. As an Astrophotographer the HD model is a oneway road. I have done it too many times.. take something a litle bit less good for less money and after a year or so... pay for the same thing that is a lillte bit better for the money of both..
On the Edge plus side, the Celestron logo on the Edge is properly aligned ;)
Yes, so true!
As someone who's just getting into this, what i tend to be curious about is why you would pay significantly more for the 9.25 Edge when it's only marginally larger than the 8" Edge. Jumping up to the 11" or 14" I get, even with the price hike, but to pay such a significant amount for an incremental gain of little more than an inch? What am I missing?
Good question. The reason to buy the 9.25 has nothing to do with its aperture. The 9.25 is a different design from all the other Celestron SCTs. Celestron isn't talking, but we do know the primary has a longer f/ratio, and there may be other changes as well. The 9.25 is a cult scope, and is my favorite mass-produced SCT of all time.
@@edting Ah, that explains it - paying nearly twice as much for that negligible bit of extra aperture just didn't make sense. Okay, so unless I missed it in among all your other reviews, you need to do one on the significant gain of going from the 8" Edge, which is what I was going to buy as a step up from the regular C8, to the 9.25! - now you've confused matters. :)
I only just found your reviews and am lapping them up as I try to stumble my way through the steep learning curve I'm on. I owned a basic reflector years ago, and now that I'm retiring would like to take up astrophotography as a hobby to supplement my lifetime of interest in regular photography. I really enjoy the manner of your knowledgeable presentations.
Found a near new 9.25 EdgeHD for $2400 this weekend!
I see people mentioning the locks and vents for the primary on the edge, sorry but things like that should be insignificant in terms of the cost of the scope and the extra bit of optics is something that could be sold as a separate accessory rather than needing a different model to build it into.
I wonder about the Edge against the ACF?
I had to consider this question when I purchased mine, and bought an EdgeHD. I bought mine though with an AVX mount, the price difference back in 2017 was several hundred bucks. Was it worth it? Yes, I can see zero coma to the edge through my Explore Scientific 82 degree eyepieces. That and the provisions for photography are why I bought my 8-inch EdgeHD.
I managed to just get a C11 XLT standard OTA for $1100. I will pair it with a Starziona reducer.
Not what I thought he meant by edge
Seems to me one could edge and use their telescope at the same time
Ed, Not an unexpected result.
For the people with mega bucks invested in imaging the Edge is going to be just that little bit they think they need. For the majority of us, it's simply not going to be a significant $1500 difference to return the investment.
I did note some elongation in some of the Edge images along the lower right quadrant, possibly a signal of the mount having issues?
I prefer to edge. It's way more satisfying, and lasts a lot longer too!
im just an observer and im looking for a decent used mount to replace the one that came with the scope, im also looking into an auto focuser and tracking camera cause im just lazy, i can see how this hole you think you can step over sucks you in, by the time i get all that stuff i might as well start with a cheaper camera just to see the really deep dark stuff i cant see by just looking
Ed, did you use the focal reducer for either scope? Or were they used at their native focal length? I assume the latter, but just wondering.
I didn't use a focal reducer. If you must, get the better .70 (~$400) one, not the cheap .63 (~$150) unit.
@@edting I’m pretty sure the .7 is made specific for the edge variant, and the .63 is for the base version. Correct me if I’m wrong on that.
There are a couple of reasons why SCTs are a bit challenging for astrophotography. The main reason is a "slow" f-number. Even with the 0.7 reducer, the f/7 focal ratio is a bit too slow. It is the f ratio that determines the surface brightness of extended objects, not the aperture diameter, just like for the regular photography. The second reason is that mechanically SCTs, even Edge versions, are not as stable as a well-made reflector. This is less important for guided exposures with an off-axis guider.
I’m surprised that it’s not mentioned that you can mount a hyperstar on as well. Of course this takes quite a few extra $$ but the option seems worthwhile to me.
Didn't have time!
Great video Ed. I have a question about the C8. How does the current C8 you tested here with the Edge compare to a C8 from the 80's with star-bright coatings. Has much changed with the current generation of C8 (non edge)???
"Deep sky imaging always gives me FITS"
Why yes, yes it does. :D
Which would be the better option just for looking at the night sky and not taking pictures edge or not edge
?
great video / explanation :) those small improvements seem to do the job form the looks of it better go for the EDGE model if i start seriously thinking about deep sky, but at the moment i am happy with my dobs and eq platform XD it does the job well enough
At 11:00 Ed is wrapping up his list of gotchas. One he missed that has contributed to my astrophotography stalling is the loss of sleep. By 11:00 pm, I am done. If I have not got everything working properly, I'm too tired for troubleshooting and too cranky to continue. I would not have guessed that it would be an issue, but it is.
Ed, great video, as always!. Please consider making some recommendations on how to go about choosing good eyepieces.
Without spending a lot of money, I think the Svbony eyepiece set with the red rings are really good. Add to that a Baader zoom with the barlow and you've covered a lot of bases. Just my thoughts after having already spent too much money. 😅
C9.25 edge has a lot of hot pixel in it in the whirlpool galaxy M51.
🤷♂️ i keep rerunning tutorials on plate solving, where it pushes the picture off so many pixel to get rid of a bunch of hot and dead pixel.
Maybe it wasn’t called plate solving 🤷♂️ i am running loops on it.
Most people use auto focusers now which makes the mirror locks obsolete. Saying that the best picture of mars I have ever seen was taken through a c14 with a 4x barlow which yielded a focal length just short of 20000mm and an old converted DSLR camera. On this occasion Mars was at its closest point to earth and the seeing conditions were almost perfect.
Hi Ed, I'm looking at a C11 XLT (£2,750 vs £4,300) and eventually a C9.25 EdgeHD for a more portable setup (38 years old, 6ft & 18st so C11 isn't too bad for me atm). Mount would be a Wave 150i.
The C11 Gets Dwarf planets (Pluto, MakeMake and Ceres) and the blue planets so would be a great scope with Starizoner 0.63 Reducer & FF for Galaxies. C9.25 EdgeHD once I'm more proficient at AP (18 months in, mainly visual at the moment).
Would you agree I'm being sensible or just get a C11 EdgeHD and have back problems later in life? 😂
I was using a 10” Dob for visual observing and finding it a bit cumbersome, experimented with a standard C8. Even with the .63 reducer/corrector I always found the views to be soft. I took the plunge and got the Edge 9.25 when it was on sale for a mere $2000 and was instantly pleased with the views which were clean to the edge and noticeably sharper than my very good Dob even when using the Dob with a Paracorr. I think it was spherical aberration in the C8 that was the main issue. I twinned the Edge on a dual alt az mount with an 80mm apo which nicely complemented the SCT doing double duty as a wide field scope and a finder (necessary given the Cat’s native F10 narrow field). In short, the Edge 9.25 was head and shoulders better than the standard C8. Perhaps that’s not a valid comparison given the difference in aperture?
Great video, Ed! Thanks for posting. On a totally unrelated note, what do you think of Unistellar's eQuinox's telescopes?
The big thing the EdgeHD has going for it is the Fastar compatibility allowing it to function as an f/2 for astrophotography.
Most of the newer C9.25 base models should be Fastar compatible.
@@edting Oh, that's a nice change!
Its more than just the price difference,,so do accessories for the edge. The reducer is a rediculous price, which adds even more.
For the standard 9.25, you can get the star Arizona reducer, and gives the same preformance as the edge and standard is still far cheaper.
I almost got the 8" edge, but ended up getting the standard 9.25" as it was still $200 cheaper than the edge 8" and a 9.25" will be better for planets and gather more light. Aperture rules when it comes to planets
This title is an extremely naughty double entendre. And here I was thinking you a man of unsullied values ;)
Lmao - Love the premise Ed! Keep it frosty 🍦
I would get the base version for the lunar and planetary imaging, for deep-sky the f ratio is fairly high. For deep-sky I would add the hyper-star.
Another thing not motioned is the edge you still need the reducer. Its not only very expensive, but is also very heavy, so the price difference is even greater when concidering which scope. For planets the 9,25 is better, more aperture cheaper price
Thanks Ed. Always enjoy your stuff.
I have an older C11 XLT. It's not an Edge. I'm wondering whether you might comment on whether the XLT optical coating on these scopes make all the difference. In other words, do I essentially have an Edge in terms of optics (of course, not all the other features)? I realize you can't answer definitively. Thanks for another interesting video