Celestron CPC 800 vs 925 - size and portability 

Thanks, and I agree with the bulk being difficult to manoeuvre. Starizona landing pads look great but they aren’t sold here at all, so I’ll have to practice my weight lifting with the 925 in the meantime!

Awesome, glad it was useful. I loved my CPC800, such a wonderful scope. Good luck!

Thanks, really glad it was useful! Good luck, the observatory sounds amazing.

Thanks! There was some huffing and puffing, hence the music 😄

Storing them at waist level would be great, or even on the tripod, but I don’t have that sort of space! Barlow and ADC have been in use with the 8” for a while now and will be coming out when planets come back 😊 Thanks!

Thanks! Yes this is why I’ve been mulling it over for a while and only now decided to go a size up. That and the fact that larger scopes catch more atmospheric turbulence, something to consider when imaging from somewhere like my location!

The saying is the scope that it easiest to use is the one you will use the most and I agree I have been doing this off and on for almost 20 years. Nice to have the aperture the more light the better but if is difficult to set-up chances are it will sit un-used more.

Imagine if they made a cpc1400. One look at a 14" LX200 and NOPE. Celestron did it right with first the G11s made by losmandy, and a little less right, but better than a fork/wedge with the later ci700 and cge mounts. Both at their limits with a c14, but much easier to deal with an a 14" lx200gps. I still love the cpc1100, but personally owned a USA made c11 on one of those early celestron branded "by losmandy" G11s. Tweakers broke into storage and got all my stuff....

Muchas gracias por los comentarios amables, buena suerte con tu astronomía!

@@CellistOnTheRoof No he podido evitar ver ya todo tu material en esta plataforma y las impresionantes fotos planetarias que compartes en Instagram en donde ya te sigo. Estaré en espera de más videos para continuar con la oportunidad de aprender de ti. Gracias y saludos

Sure, I can do that! You’ll get it all sorted by then though - the nosepiece of the camera goes right into the back where you’d put an eyepiece, it’s that easy. Camera USB3 cable into the blue slot, other end into laptop ISB hub. With filters, you just need a UV/IR cut to start with. You’ve got a great bit of kit there! If you look at my Instagram, there’s lots of photos I’ve done with that exact same setup. Thanks and good luck 😊

Thanks! I applaud you for wrangling the 11” on your own 😊 It’s completely impossible when you’re in as small space as I am, I have 4x4 space outside and that's it!

Wouldn’t a permanent obsy be amazing! I don’t enjoy setting up and taking down every time but there’s no other option when you’re in a small English townhouse. How a telescope model carries and how one size compares to another becomes so much more important!

My thinking this that 1inch of aperture is really not going to make that much difference is worth the extra weight?

Stick with celestron. Meade still hasn't figured out a way to make putting the ota/fork assembly on the tripod less scary, and the electronics can be less reliable. The ACF optics are great, but the HD optics have been shown to beat them. A 12" LX, other than the lx90, which isn't stable, is a 2 person setup.

Hi! I mainly use the CPC for planetary/lunar rather than using a wedge to try and make it do DSO, especially since I’d have to get the Fastar then as well. So the cameras that I use with this one are all planetary - 662mc and 462mm!

​@CellistOnTheRoof you can get away with alt az with hyperstar. You just lose a little of the edge when stacking due to field rotation. Much better than dealing with a wedge and all the balance weights needed.

Absolutely! I would have loved to see someone my size handle them in a video - that’s why I figured I should make one while I have them both! Thanks 🙏

I have! I’ll try and link it but in case it doesn’t work out, my Instagram is the same name (Cellistontheroof), and there’s a Saturn comparison photo if you scroll down just a touch! instagram.com/p/CxLox2wspem/?igsh=MTJ1OHhxc3A1eGxteA==

Oh that’s really awful. I’m sorry you had that happen. I’m not really fussed about the CPC1100 because my conditions here really can’t justify the cost and hassle, the 925 will do just fine - if it ever clears up enough to use it again!

Thanks! I’ve only got a HEQ5 Pro and don’t really want to deal with huge wedges, so for DSO I’m planning on going the RC route - we’ll see, I have yet to graduate from my small RedCat 51 😊

The 2nd grader is equipped with intuitive weight shift and other ergonomic "lift me up" features that make it much easier to lift than an object that is simply dead weight

Yes these have the added mount base! As much as the 11” aperture is appealing, I’d never be able to do it unless it was permanently set up, and in a tiny townhouse that’s never going to happen.

Yeah 11" tube is nothing compared to the CPC1100. I had no problem with my 11" g11 setup before the tweakers stole it. The old meade 10" lx premiere that I got in trade for the tripod and counterweights the tweakers didn't know to steal, much harder to setup because of those forks. And being just an RA clock drive, I have to deal with the wedge as well.

Hi! I’m using them for planetary, lunar, and ISS. If you’re interested in what sort of photos the 800 can produce, there’s loads on my Instagram. I’ll try and make a video about the setup! Good luck with your CPC, it’s a brilliant scope.

@@CellistOnTheRoof Thanks for replying. I've been reading about using an off axis guider with derotation. This seems to work in alt-az no need for a wedge.

Personally I’m a fan of dedicated proper kit for DSO, so I’ve never tried modifying my planetary kit. Good luck!

Same size forks and base (other than the bottom of the fork, which spreads wider), just a bigger tube. The 8 is "over mounted", cpc is pretty beefy. The 9.25 and 11 mounts are identical, note the spacers on the 9.25 tube. It isn't really that much bigger, but it is definitely taller and a little heavier. Most of the weight differential is in the optical tube, which is the biggest jump between 8 and 9.25, about 10 lbs. To go up to the 11" is only about 5-6lbs more. 9.25 ota generally about 22.lbs and c11 is 27lbs. Tube only

They’re all metal gears in the CPC!

​@@CellistOnTheRooflooks like synta puts the same drives and gears in those giant goto dobs as well

If only! I need a gym membership just so I can lift the 925 😄

There is no need for a 6, the 8 is grossly over mounted in the cpc, and is stable even when it is very windy. The 6se is sufficient and if you want it beefier there is the evolution series, which also can be used manually like a cpc, something the se can't do. A cpc600 would look awfully funny, and only be a few lbs lighter than the 800

Thanks Tom! Indeed they don’t need balancing, there’s an in-built bubble in the tripod and then the whole mount-OTA combo just sits on top. Being alt-az, it’s really forgiving!

@@CellistOnTheRoof Looks like I need to upgrade, LOL

Not a good time to tell you the 8” is going to be selling then? 😄

@@CellistOnTheRoof Stop temping me to buy more amazing stuff, LOL. I don’t think my office can take it anymore.

I thought about it but ultimately decided not to bother. For DSO imaging I decided to get a dedicated EQ mount, and for everything else the Alt-Az CPC does the job just fine!

Thanks, and that’s a great tip about Nexstar. The tripod for CPC really is brilliant and more stable than anything else I’ve tried.

@@CellistOnTheRoof The only adjustment I had to make on my tripod was to lower the center pin just a touch. It was a bit too high for the 4/5SE mount. Now it is perfect for both the Nextstar and the CPC. As far as cameras go, my original is a ZWO ASI120MC. I just upgraded to a ASI678MC, but haven't had the opportunity to use it yet. Believe it or not, it is too cloudy this time of year here in New Mexico, USA. I haven't ever, as of yet, had to quickly take my telescopes inside when it started raining. That isn't much of a problem here. 😊

The weight differential between the 8, 9.25 and 11 is not really that much as they all have the same base, and the forks are the same just spaced wider on the 11 vs.the 8. The 9.25 and 11 have the same forks, the 9.25 has spacers on the tube to make up the difference. The bigger ones are taller though, the 9.25 is about the same length as the 11. I used to demo taking them on and off the tripod all the time. The 8 is heavier than most 8s, but the 11 is lighter than a 10" lx200, and much easier to mount to a tripod than any meade SCT

@@k.h.1587 The weight differential between the 800 mount and tube and the 1100 mount and tube is 23 lbs plus the 1100 is longer and wider. The 1100 weighs 65 lbs. It might not be a big difference standing in my office with the lights on, but it is pretty significant out in a field on a cold dark night. Big, clumsy, and very expensive to drop.

@howiem3883 it is the difference between the 9.25 and 11 that is the smallest. The 8 is heavy for and 8 and the 11 is lighter than a 10" lx200. The 8 is significantly lighter than the other 2, you are correct there. But the 9.25 is not significantly lighter than the 11 and it is just as long. I was trying to say that making the jump from 8 to 9.25 is not significantly heavier or more awkward than just going to the 11. The 9.25 does have that magical quality to it, but it is not as magical as the old USA made ones, but the cpc came out after the shift to China, and some changes were made to the 9.25, w Especially the focuser mechanism which is now the same as the 8. You can tell the older 9.25 because the focus knob does not protrude as far out as the others, and some of the early ones had odometer style counters on them. The basic optical prescription seems similar, or else it wouldn't have the narrower proportion, but like they say they don't make them like they used to, though they still make them pretty well. Me personally, I wouldn't generally choose a big beefy fork mount sct, but now I am stuck with 2 older ones because it was all I could afford to replace my previous setups after they were stolen. Better than nothing. But I may end up deforking the 10" if I can ever afford a good enough mount again. But I would always choose a c11 over a 10" meade, it is just that this 10" fell into my lap as a straight trade for the losmandy tripod and counterweights that the tweakers didnt know to steal when they took the g11 head and c11 cases. I wish I could go back and figure out a way to prevent that theft from happening, as they got pretty much everything of value that I owned. But I am well aware of the awkwardness of setting these up, as I used to work at a big dealer for 5 years and we had all of them as well as the meades in the showroom, and the mount/dismount procedure for the CPCs and LX series was something we would do at times for the locals and ones who would travel to us. It was about a 52 mile trip each way for me to go to work there. I was even out observing at a club site with concrete pads when one of our customers who became a bit of a friend, dropped his 8" lx200 to the concrete while trying to put it on the concrete. He got lucky as the fork arm took the brunt of the damage, the glass was unharmed. His alt/dec stopped working, but it turned out to just be a pulled motor wire he was able to fix, and of course it needed to be re collimated. The top of the fork had a nasty hole/gash scar from that. I'm not sure a cpc would have survived such a fall, but they are easier to lift and mount due to their ergonomic design, so I am sure they are not dropped as often . I still think the cpc1100 is the ideal large goto scope for the money, for.visual use and planetary imaging. I would not suggest trying to use a wedge with them, or the meade LX series, that is a pain in the ass. If I recall, our friend Eddie, was using a wedge when he dropped that lx200. It is even harder to lift them onto a wedge. And I have no choice but to use my 10" on the wedge. Same goes for my powerstar c8, but that is much easier to deal with. I doubt I will ever de fork the 8, it is a classic. And a part of me wants to preserve the 10 in its classic configuration as well, to show the public what it was like in the 80s and early 90s. Buy my van, loaded with scopes, mounts and music gear was "stolen" a few years ago, and transport of the 10 is now impossible unfortunately

For planetary? I wouldn’t choose the HD series because they have an in-built corrector/field flattener, which for planetary imaging isn’t necessary and it’s another layer of glass in the optical train.

Thanks for your quick response

I’ve never had the Evolution, but from having a glance, I’d say it’s really well geared towards visual use. It has the inbuilt battery and wifi, but the single fork mount is not what I’d personally go for. Great scope though!

@@CellistOnTheRoof it makes me wonder, because that mount looks sturdy enough for the 8 in sct.

​@@HelenoPaivait is, much bigger than the SE and has the clutches like the cpc. The 9.25 comes with a cpc tripod.

Hi, I don’t use it often but I haven’t had issues!

I just started using SkyPortal alignment feature on my 8SE and it took me 3 times out before I got what I was doing wrong but now no problems and once aligned it puts objects right into the center of eyepiece every time. If you are like me, if all else fails follow the instructions. Clear Skies!

Is it easy to get it to auto track the planets ie keep in the center of view finder

It does, all you need is a 2” visual back adapter.

@@CellistOnTheRoof OH! Thanks.

​@@primoroythere is so much BS going around in the amateur community over the last 30 years saying you can't use 2" on an 8" because the rear baffle is under 2". Light comes through in a narrow cone, it works great with 2" eyepieces. You can get almost as wide a field with the 6.3 reducer and 1.25 eyepieces and diagonal. But you are limted to about a 27mm panoptic, maybe a 30mm superwide, before vignetting is a problem with a 6.3 reducer. But you can hit the maximum 7mm exit pupil with a 40mm plossl on a 6.3 reducer, and you are limited to 5.6mm exit pupil with a 56mm plossl at f10. But 7mm exit pupil is only.good in dark skies or with an OIII filter. 5.6mm exit pupil is quite sufficient for most wide field DSO viewing

@@CellistOnTheRoof Yes! I have switched almost entirely to 2" eyepieces for my CPC-800 and CPC-1100HD and I even use 2" eyepieces on my Celestron C5+. A few years ago, I gave all but one of my old 1.25" eyepieces to my oldest granddaughter (now 15) for her telescope. I kept a 17mm Celestron Plossl for public star parties and because it is a remarkably good eyepiece for the $45 it cost me back in the early 2000s.

Do you think that 1" of aperture makes a noticeable difference?

@@Rick-or2kq Of course, it does.

11” and 14” is even better

As humans, curiosity about our own universe is something afforded to few, but if you can do it - it’s wonderful. 2nd hand, these telescopes are 30-40% cheaper than new and usually in mint condition. Astronomers tend to take very good care of their equipment.