Can O Worms

As an up and coming rookie at this I recently sold my ETX and have been trying to decide on either a Televue 102 or the C 9.25 as my next scope. I had pretty much decided on the 9.25 until a fella brought up the performance of the two in a suburban setting. Most of us have light, although my back yard is not to bad, I think? Any comments would help.

I've read plenty of good reviews regarding the C9.25 due to its longer focal length primary mirror and shorter focal length secondary mirror compared to other SCT's. I'm debating between getting this OTA and a C11 OTA. The only problem with the C11 is the resale value is horrible. The C9.25 holds its value well. The 9.25 won't have the sharpness and contrast as the TV 102, but the deep sky objects will be much brighter and planetary objects will have better resolution.

Rob

Not to worry, as the C9.25's light gathering advantage is far more significant than the impact of scatter and light pollution. Bigger scopes do fine in the 'burbs, and have enough extra gas to make blocking filters a viable option if needed.

Since you have almost decided on the C9.25, it would be rude to extoll the virtues of the fantastic TV102, which would get used more often!

What was your ETX (ETX70, ETX90, ETX125?), Derek? What is your portability requirement?

I don't know who the fella was and don't know what he meant. But if he meant DSOs, I was in the city just a couple of week ago with my 8" Dobs looking for M51 under lots of light pollution. The view through my 8" Dob from the middle of the city was worse than my 4" TV-102 from my fairly dark backyard. So the 4-incher would fare far worse in the city! All I could see was the two bright cores :-(! Needless to say, M51 was even better through my 8" Dob from my backyard than my 4" TV-102.

Thanks,
Ron B[ee]

I, another fella, hereby counteract and respectfully (though emphatically) disagree with that other fella's notion that the C9.25 might be at a disadvantage under suburban skies.

So now you're even.

Use a shield/baffle on the front end of that C9.25, and it will perform darn well.

Best wishes, and good luck in your decision.
-Dan

Derek,

I was in the same boat as you recently. I'm only a couple of years in the hobby also. Still learning lots and enjoying it very much. The truth is, strive for both...eventually.

I started out with Orion's 5in Mak, fairly cheap and a good performer. About 6 months later, I picked up a short-tube 80 and put it on a photo tripod. I got some really nice wide views, and it really helped me learn the sky that way.

About 6 months ago, I sold the short tube 80 and got an Astroview 100/F6. A little more aperture...you know how that goes. But the darn thing is soooo handy and quick to set up. I love it.

Keep in mind, none of these scopes cost more than 400 bucks.
In the meantime, I was saving up for a big purchase. I had the same thoughts you are having now. I decided to buy a Nexstar 9.25GPS. It came in about a month ago, and all I can say is...WOW! My 1st big scope, and 1st goto scope. I'm definitely having a lot of fun now. I'm tickled pink by the 9.25's performance....AND, I still have that little 100/f6 scope. I STILL use it a lot.

Now that I have the 9.25. I will save up again for a TV102 on a solid mount. It took me a year to save up for the 9.25. So I hope to be sporting a TV102 this time next year. Until then though, I've got a big scope for the faint fuzzies, AND I've got a very convenient, very handy little refractor, in which I've grown to appreciate the virtues of it's wide field, light weight, and portability.

Good luck with your choice. Just remember, it doesn't have to be and either/or decision, more of a matter of which scope 1st.

Cheers,
Steve

I think the advice to get the 9.25 is probably right, with a few cautions:

(1) If your sky is so bright that even large-aperture views of galaxies aren't worth much, then the TV-102 may give you better views of many of the things you can see, except probably globulars. I say "may" because there is a subjective element in judging views that gets belabored heavily in these forums. I don't want to get into that, but you should be aware of it.

(2) If learning the sky is part of the picture, and if you want practice finding objects without using GOTO, then the TV-102 is a better way to start with that, because you can find things much more easily in its wider views.

(3) Wide views have their own virtues, and the TV-102 is a versatile scope with potential stretching from 3-degree true fields to 300x planetary power...but of course it's not the best for deep sky. For me, the hardest choice would be if you had a pristine dark sky. The wide-field views of the milky way you get through the TV-102 are so staggering I would be reluctant to give them up for anything but more APO aperture.

Hope this is helpful,

Steve

I've got both
and wish I didn't.
Televue's too small,
the Celestron isn't.
Bob

Thanks for the input everyone, now that I have decided on the 9.25 comes the next question. The mount? The new advanced series is priced right(maybe to good to be true). Then there is the Nexstar system which looks to be really nice. I could also go for a third party mount. Input is welcome.

Thanks

Derek