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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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 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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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. :)
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.
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.
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..
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.
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 :-)
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 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.
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.
GM Ed,I Really Enjoyed Seeing The Comparison Of These,Even Tho I Wont Ever Have 1,Little Too Big For My Comfort Of Handling,lol,But Do Love My 6se,and Recently Got The AR102/1000 For Some Deep Sky Asto..I Also Havent Seen The Sky Anymore Than a Few Min At A Time,Its Been Horrible In NWPA.Have a Great Day,Stay Safe,and God Bless❤️🙏🏼🔭✨🌏
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.
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
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
Nice review ! To me the biggest advantage is the mirror lock. That way you can use a focuser like the Prima Luce Lab Esatto and keep the mirror locked at all time which is a plus when you create a pointing model.
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
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
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)???
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
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?
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.
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.
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. 😅
Nice review Ed. I think celestron edge HD is compatible with APO refractor accept larger diameter wins, but my experience for AP with CAT'S is worst, image shift, mirror tilt and bright star internal reflection. Specially Meade LX200 16" ACF sct bad scope for AP.
I've recently found your channel and I must say I really enjoy your presentations. You are an accomplished amateur with enough knowledge and ability to educate and entertain. I have minimal equipment and can only dream of gazing through some of those scopes you easily describe. You have another fan!😁
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 think with the 9.25 Edge price you would have bought the C11, both are around 3K USD, and the normal 11" non-Edge is way much better than the 9.25 Edge one, in all aspects including deep sky imaging.
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.
Very nice Review. I own a Standard C8 and after some tries with DSO Imaging i just use it for Lunar and planetary imaging. Did you use flatteners with both Imaging rigs?
g`day ED i have the 8"EDGE i had a 6" standard SCT first and caught i minor dose of aperture fever and then a 2nd hand 8" EDGE came my way for $1,000 australian ($700 US) and haven't looked back i noticed a huge difference in sharpness and the visual edge performance. the 0.7 focal reducer was a eye watering $650 australian over 3 years ago from the local dealer but its a very nice bit of glass and well made but wow it felt like extorsion at the time of purchase i would like to see a hyperstar video if possible and your thoughts on that system for SCT/EDGE scopes. i enjoyed this video and great advice cheers james D
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
Cant wait for the Sky-Watcher Goon series.
I always give “edging” a thumbs up 👋
You are by far the best telescope reviewer on RUclips. Hands down. Thanks...
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.
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’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
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!
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 🖖😊
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.
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.
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
I really really love these side by side films in this video
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.
Thanks Ed! Before Meade discontinued the standard SCTs in favour of the ACFs, did you ever do a comparison between the 2?
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!
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.
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 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 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 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.
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🗣🗣🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥🔥💯💯
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.
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, 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.
Thank you so much for this review, Ed! This is EXACTLY the information for which I have been looking.
As always, outstanding reviews. Practical, insightful, and honest. Doesn't get any better.
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.
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 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
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. ✨️
A fantastic look at two fine telescopes. Give me either one of the Celestron 9.25" sct's and I am a happy camper.
The algorithm knows i really REALLY like telescopes
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.
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!
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.
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.
...gives me FITS, bravo sir
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.
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!
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!
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!
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.
Wouldn't it be nice if they made a Celestron C6 Edge ?
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.
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..
I prefer to edge. It's way more satisfying, and lasts a lot longer too!
I made the right choice, thanks!
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.
This title is an extremely naughty double entendre. And here I was thinking you a man of unsullied values ;)
Always edge, fellas.
your videos are a wealth of information. thanks. new fish here.
Thanks, I try not to waste your time.
Ed, great review as always! Any chance you will be reviewing a ZWO AM5 anytime soon?
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 :-)
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.
Very interesting thanks!! Would also enjoy seeing comparos with RC designs etc.
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.
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.
Not what I thought he meant by edge
Seems to me one could edge and use their telescope at the same time
This settles my thinking of the choice Edge vs base model. Base for me.
I think I clicked on the wrong video.
yeah... this guy doesnt even mew :steamlaughcry:
@@sal-1337bye bye! 🤫🧏♂️
@@user95395 icewhore starts playing
Sir this is a Wendy’s
GM Ed,I Really Enjoyed Seeing The Comparison Of These,Even Tho I Wont Ever Have 1,Little Too Big For My Comfort Of Handling,lol,But Do Love My 6se,and Recently Got The AR102/1000 For Some Deep Sky Asto..I Also Havent Seen The Sky Anymore Than a Few Min At A Time,Its Been Horrible In NWPA.Have a Great Day,Stay Safe,and God Bless❤️🙏🏼🔭✨🌏
What struck me is just how good the "basic" version is.
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.
Thank you for the review!
Great video, Ed! Thanks for posting. On a totally unrelated note, what do you think of Unistellar's eQuinox's telescopes?
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
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
Thank you for sharing and explaining. Excellent
I managed to just get a C11 XLT standard OTA for $1100. I will pair it with a Starziona reducer.
Thanks for another interesting review
Nice review ! To me the biggest advantage is the mirror lock. That way you can use a focuser like the Prima Luce Lab Esatto and keep the mirror locked at all time which is a plus when you create a pointing model.
Oh yeah, forgot about that!
The Esatto is pretty cool. I still haven't managed to get 3rd party autofocus to work but it felt good to rack in and out without do much flop.
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
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!
Very helpful! Thank you!
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)???
i didn't look at the thumbnail while reading the title and i was very concerned for a split second.
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.
Always edge
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
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?
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.
"Deep sky imaging always gives me FITS"
Why yes, yes it does. :D
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.
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. 😅
Nice review Ed. I think celestron edge HD is compatible with APO refractor accept larger diameter wins, but my experience for AP with CAT'S is worst, image shift, mirror tilt and bright star internal reflection. Specially Meade LX200 16" ACF sct bad scope for AP.
I've recently found your channel and I must say I really enjoy your presentations. You are an accomplished amateur with enough knowledge and ability to educate and entertain. I have minimal equipment and can only dream of gazing through some of those scopes you easily describe. You have another fan!😁
On the Edge plus side, the Celestron logo on the Edge is properly aligned ;)
Yes, so true!
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?
Edge seems worthwhile, if you feel you need and can afford it. It’s a premium product at a premium price.
I think with the 9.25 Edge price you would have bought the C11, both are around 3K USD, and the normal 11" non-Edge is way much better than the 9.25 Edge one, in all aspects including deep sky imaging.
Funny title thx, but it’s what I’m looking for
Great job Ed Ting
Thanks Ed.
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
😂
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.
Very nice Review. I own a Standard C8 and after some tries with DSO Imaging i just use it for Lunar and planetary imaging. Did you use flatteners with both Imaging rigs?
What focuser do you use? I will say 0.63 reducer + moonlite motorized focuser will edge the edge.
g`day ED i have the 8"EDGE i had a 6" standard SCT first and caught i minor dose of aperture fever and then a 2nd hand 8" EDGE came my way for $1,000 australian ($700 US) and haven't looked back i noticed a huge difference in sharpness and the visual edge performance. the 0.7 focal reducer was a eye watering $650 australian over 3 years ago from the local dealer but its a very nice bit of glass and well made but wow it felt like extorsion at the time of purchase
i would like to see a hyperstar video if possible and your thoughts on that system for SCT/EDGE scopes. i enjoyed this video and great advice
cheers
james D