Celestron G-9¼


 Info  Votes  Messages  More Stats  Up One Level
Vote
Page 1 of 3 Next

Celestron G-9¼
Mount is satisfactory however tripod is not. This requires extra money to correct and it makes the value not so good. The optics on teh one I ahve seen were about as good as I have ever seen in a mass produced scope.

Overall Rating: 8
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.96.107)
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38222


Celestron G-9¼
Is excelent device.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.34.160)
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38224


Celestron G-9¼
I have a 9.25 mounted on a Losmandy G-8. The only complaint I have is that I wish the newer 9.25s would not have removed the digital focuser micrometer. I have tried a few older models with that item and they are much tighter.

Overall Rating: 9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.194.184)
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38225


Celestron G-9¼
The OTA is excellent, produces very sharp Star Images, also quite good on Planets. I use the GP-DX Mount and a very sturdy wooden Tripod (Berlebach) instead of the GM-8. This Mount is good enough for visual Use and can be equipped with the Skysensor 2000. I also replaced the original Viewfinder with the 7x50 Model.

Overall Rating: 9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.218.208)
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38226


Celestron G-9¼
I have the C-9.25" mounted on a genuine Losmandy GM-8. I have owned quite a few SCT's and MCT's and am pleased to report that this one has the finest optics of all I have used. The finder needs replacement with an 8x50 minimum. I use a 2" diagonal to take advantage of the long focal length with 2" eyepieces. Planetary images are as good as a 4" APO (which I would have never believed about a compound telescope if I had not seen it with my own eyes), stars are pinpoints, and the detail in nebulae is fantastic! Requires a long cool-down period (90 minutes to go from +60* to -20*. I cooled down a lot in that period also.) A major bargain compared to APO refractors and has LOTS of aperture in a relatively compact unit. Why can't all commercial telescopes be this good?

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 3 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.20.10)
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38227


Celestron G-9¼
I have been truly amazed by the performance of the 9.25" Celestron. I don't often have greate seeing, but on those rare occasions when I get it, planetary views are extraordinary, with velvet black background and sharp, sharp details. Star test is rock solid -- this scope has a reputation for being better than the average SCT, and I find that to be true. I have owned other SCTs, and the 9.25" is certainly well above every 8" I have tried. Owners of other sizes of SCTs often comment on this when they look through the scope.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 3 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.220.31)
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38228


Celestron G-9¼
I got this scope early 2000 from a mail order firm for only $1299. The scope itself is excellent, I have only had it out a few times, but the CG-5 mount is not heavy enough for the scope and the tripod is flimsy. Brightness is good, stars focus down to pinpoints, almost as tight as my Pronto. I rate the scope a 10 but the tripod/mount a 6.

Overall Rating: 8
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.172.144)
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38229


Celestron G-9¼
I've only had this scope for about a month, but I have been amazed with the views it has given me. Brightness, contrast and resolution are superb when compared to 8" and 10" SCTs owned by friends and are probably comparable to a 5 or 6" refractor in terms of quality. I have pumped up the magnification to over 600x on the moon with spectacular results and it seems that it could give more when excellent seeing allows. On the down side, it seems that I can see more with my naked eye than through the supplied 6x finder and the real drawback (and everyone seems to agree) is the jitters that you get at high magnifications because of the inadequate aluminium tripod that comes supplied. The CG5 mount seems just about adequate, but the tripod will definitely need changing to allow a more stable viewing/photographic platform. Losmandy G11 would be nice, but maybe a sturdy pedestal with the supplied mount will do the trick without the need for another costly outlay. 10 out of 10 for the OTA, 6 out of 10 for the substandard mountings supplied.

Overall Rating: 8
Weight: 3 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.250.68)
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38231


Celestron G-9¼
The C9.25 is probably the best telescope I've ever owned. 6th wave on the star test. Very smooth optics. It produced the best planetary images I've ever seen to date in any scope I've owned and that includes a Tak FS128 5" Apo and a C102 Flourite 4" apo. I've compared images side by side with 6 and 7" ED and Apo refractors and 6" and 7" MacNewts and this scope is as good on the planets as any of them with lots of detail and better and brighter images on deep sky objects. It was better optically than my Meade 10" SCT, and the images were just as bright. Highly portable with excellent contrast, and detail on all stellar and none stellar objects. One of my friends observed Saturn at 475X on one of those rare nights and exclaimed "It looks like a Hubble Space Telescope Photograph!". The mount is solid, and nice looking, but, there is some play in the Equatorial axis bearings NOT the worm gear. I've noticed this in many of the GM8 mounts. The aluminum tripod is not very stiff and does not dampen very well. Could use a much better tripod, and I eventually made one out of Oak. What an improvement!
I give the Scope a 10 and the mount a 9, the tripod is a dismal 6. Overall a 9.

Overall Rating: 9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.195.54)
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38233


Celestron G-9¼
This is a great scope. The only reason it doesn't get a 10 is due to the tripod and mount. I've had mine about a month now. I took it to a star party the other night, and was able to compare it to a C11. I came away liking the 9 1/4 better. The C11 had a great mount, but suffered from a (IMO) severe image-shift problem when focusing. I didn't find the images all that much better either, considering the price difference.

Overall Rating: 9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.134.200)
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38235


Celestron G-9¼
I've been waiting for months to finally get this model; the 9.25"
specifically. After all of the stories and reviews about it having
curiously superior optics compaired to scopes around its class,
seems to be, in fact quite true. In reading the reviews, I did avoid
buying one with the standard mount and went with a Losmandy
G-11 so I can't comment on the stock mount, but scores of people
can't be wrong in saying it's too weak to handle it (as for the Losmandy
I can't say enough about it- purely a work of art!). Anyway, back to the
OTA. The star test was right-on the money and views in general seem
to be brighter than those I've viewed through other SCTs similar
in size and certainly as crisp as any. The size is great too; It's that last extra "umpf" of aperture that stands just right at the line between portable and generally a little much at 10 inches. I got my OTA for $999 which, in my openion, has definitely been worth every last penny. You won't be disappointed if you avoid the stock mount (the 6x30 finder should be upgraded, but that's minor and applies to most scopes).

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.142.206)
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38236


Celestron G-9¼
I bought my 9.25 3 weeks ago, before i was using a lx200 10" goto scope. The optics are compared to the lx200 the same, i think the 9.25 showed me a little more detail and was a bit more brighter than the lx200. I'm using the GP-DX mount and this is a good mount for it. In the future i'm thinking for buying the skysensor 2000.
Just viewed the moon a couples of days ago , and was surprising about the power the 9.25 have, i was viewing the moon with a 6mm eypiece and still clear pictures even when the air wasn't clear.
The other scope i owned was a celestron cr150-hd refractor, this is a nice scope but compared to the 9.25 it has some optic drawbacks.
So my conclusion is, i rate this a 10+

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 4 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.5.124)
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38237


Celestron G-9¼
This is the largest SCT that I felt I could manage to setup and handle by myself safely. For less than $1300 (plus about $55.00 shipping) I feel I am getting my moneys worth. The star test is excellent. Sharp pinpoints of light across the field. I use a 19mm Panoptic mostly and switch to a Vixen LV zoom EP for the planets and Moon. Tripod is very shaky and the grease in the GEM may as well be mud for all the "smoothness" it provides. I have only had the scope a few months so far and have not done the re-lubricating that is described at the astronomyboy.com's website, but expect to do that before cold weather settles in. The 6X finder is barely adequate as well, but is expected on an instrument in this price range. It is a good all around scope for people who can't handle anything better. For deep sky objects, a larger Dob would be a wiser choice.

Overall Rating: 8
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.94.52)
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40610


Celestron G-9¼
This is the first SCT I've owned and will probably be the last since I've just sold it. I purchased the scope new and used it under a variety of conditions for about 9 months. First, the included finder scope, diagonal and tripod are junk. Going beyond the accessories, I'll just comment on the optical performance. Under good seeing conditions, the lunar and planetary performance is excellent, but no better than an apochromatic refractor. I could take this scope up to ridiculous powers (400++) on the moon and still see more detail. On stars however, I could never get a crisp, pinpoint image like some claim they can (all my other scopes are refractors, so that's my frame of reference). And that's even after extended cooldown (2-3+ hours) and careful collimation at high powers. I enjoy the view through my refractors much more and I don't have to deal with collimation and cooldown. I'd considered keeping this scope just for deep sky observing, but it requires too much upkeep and is not cost effective for such occasional use. If this scope represents the best that an SCT design can offer, then apparently I just don't get along with SCTs, or I got the lemon of the batch. I did comparisons with a 6" Maksutov-Cassegrain and the Mak truly produced refractor-like images and blew away the SCT in every category except light gathering.

Overall Rating: 7
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.87.202)
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38239


Celestron G-9¼
I have had this 'scope for 19mo and found the original CG-5 mount shaky with problems with the grease and machining as mentioned by another poster. I regreased it with Sta-Lube Moly and ran the RA drive for a week, and it got somewhat better, but still not all that great. After painstaking adjustment of the RA and DEC worms, I finally got it working well enough to use for hand-guided astrophotos, but it only stayed that way for three nights or so, after which it would require more adjustment. My opinion is that the OTA is undermounted and Celestron would be better served to go back to the older Losmandy-type mounts with this OTA. The finder was also a bit disappointing, but I quickly re-equipped with a more appropriate 8x50 and have never looked back.
I have surrendered and remounted the OTA on a Losmandy G-11. As far as the OTA, it is bright and (after collimation- be prepared to do it every time you want to do astrophoto if you carry it in the car anywhere) gives good-to-excellent Airy disks. I use Televue Naglers from 9-22mm, and the new Pentax 5 and 7.5 and 40mm. I have found it the equal of a same-night-collimated Meade 10" Newt (Starfinder), and of most refractors under 5 inches (sorry guys, aperture almost always wins). On planetary it is generally a bit bright, get an ND filter; for deep sky, considering the ease of setup, it beats anything but really large apertures (14 inch SCT, Obsession Dobs, and so forth). I have had nights where I pushed well beyond 500x on planets and been well pleased with the results.
In fairness, for the price, I still consider myself decently treated despite the useless CG-5 mount and 6x30 finder; thus the 7 rating. For visual astronomy the system would be fine, and was, but if you want to do astrophotos, take my advice, avoid the experimentation and buy the OTA only and a Losmandy mount.

Overall Rating: 3
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.243.145)
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40611


Celestron G-9¼
I HAVE OTA ONLY WHICH IS MOUNTED ON VIXEN GP WITH OAK LEGS.
I HAVE HAD 15 TELESCOPES SINCE 1974 AND THE VIEWS THROUGH THE 9.25 ON
THE MOON AND PLANETS ARE THE BEST OF ANY SCOPE I HAVE OWNED.
HOWEVER STAR TEST ON SAME SCOPE HAS BEEN THE WORST OF ANY OF MY SCOPES
UNABLE TO GET A TIGHT AIRY DISK.I HAVE COLLOMATED SECONDARY MIRROR WHICH
DOES MAKE BETTER STAR IMAGES BUT STILL NO AIRY DISK, FLARE FLARE EVERY WHERE
SCOPE HAS BEEN USED SIX TIMES IN PAST TWO WEEKS.I HATE TO BE THE ONE TO
COMPLAIN BECAUSE I REALLY DO WANT TO LIKE THIS SCOPE IT IS VERY EASY TO USE
HAS OUTSTANDING CONTRAST,VIEWS OF M42 STRAIGHT THROUGH WITHOUT DIAGONAL
AND WITH 35mm PANOPTIC IS FANTASTIC ONLY WISH STARS WOULD FOCUS DOWN TO
PINPOINTS THAT WOULD MAKE THIS SCOPE THE BEST OF THE SCT. I PLAN ON DOING
MORE OPTICAL TESTS IF OPTICS ARE FOUND TO BE DEFECTIVE I WILL SEND BACK TO
BE FIXED OR EXCHANGED FOR EXCELLENT OTA AND BE A HAPPY MAN.

Overall Rating: 8
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.27.147)
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40612

>I HAVE OTA ONLY WHICH IS MOUNTED ON VIXEN GP WITH OAK LEGS.
> I HAVE HAD 15 TELESCOPES SINCE 1974 AND THE VIEWS THROUGH THE 9.25 ON
> THE MOON AND PLANETS ARE THE BEST OF ANY SCOPE I HAVE OWNED.
> HOWEVER STAR TEST ON SAME SCOPE HAS BEEN THE WORST OF ANY OF MY SCOPES 
> UNABLE TO GET A TIGHT AIRY DISK.I HAVE COLLOMATED SECONDARY MIRROR WHICH 
> DOES MAKE BETTER STAR IMAGES BUT STILL NO AIRY DISK, FLARE FLARE EVERY WHERE
> SCOPE HAS BEEN USED SIX TIMES IN PAST TWO WEEKS.I HATE TO BE THE ONE TO  
> COMPLAIN BECAUSE I REALLY DO WANT TO LIKE THIS SCOPE IT IS VERY EASY TO USE
> HAS OUTSTANDING CONTRAST,VIEWS OF M42 STRAIGHT THROUGH WITHOUT DIAGONAL
> AND WITH 35mm PANOPTIC IS FANTASTIC ONLY WISH STARS WOULD FOCUS DOWN TO 
> PINPOINTS THAT WOULD MAKE THIS SCOPE THE BEST OF THE SCT. I PLAN ON DOING
> MORE OPTICAL TESTS IF OPTICS ARE FOUND TO BE DEFECTIVE I WILL SEND BACK TO
> BE FIXED OR EXCHANGED FOR EXCELLENT OTA AND BE A HAPPY MAN.

If you are getting the planetary views your getting, the mushy star images are due to atmospheric turbulence, and not do to poor optics.

Celestron G-9¼
STAR TEST ON MY SCOPE NEEDED FINE HI POWER ADJUSTMENTS BOY THAT MAKES
A WORLD OF A DIFFERENCE.CONTRAST IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN I EVER THOUGHT
COULD BE FROM SCT.
WITH 35MM PANOPTIC M42 HAS MORE CONTRAST THAN MY 4" APO AT LOW POWER.
JUST SEEN 8 BANDS ON JUPITER WITH WHITE OVALS AN OTHER FINE DETAIL
SATURN SUPERB ALSO. SOME SUPER STEADY AIR ONLY FOR ABOUT 30 MINUTES I'M GLAD I
HAD SCOPE OUT TO SEE THAT.FINDER IS SHARP BUT HAS THICK CROSS HAIRS.
BRIGHTNESS IS STUNING ALSO.AS FOR CG5 MOUNT I SOLD BECAUSE I ALREADY
HAD VIXEN GP WITH DUAL DRIVES. THE VIXEN GP NOW HAS OAK LEGS AND SHAKE
ENDERS VIBRATIONS NOW ARE CUT DOWN TO 1.5 SECONDS AT HI POWER.
THIS IS THE BEST AND LAST SCOPE I'LL EVER NEED.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.74.72)
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40613


Celestron G-9¼
TO THE ABOVE COMMENT.BRIGHTNESS OF THE C9.25 IS STUNNING NOT 6X30 OF COURSE.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.133.97)
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40614


Celestron G-9¼
Questions: I have been told several times (by folks who ought
to know!) that the 9.25 has better than average optics for any
sct, because... all 9.25 optical sets are hand figured? I was
told if buying any sct including the G8 ota's repiyted to be
very good optically, the 9.25 was the place to go.. due to
superior optics on average. But I come to the comments above
and see nothing to support this? Im a little perplexed...
I had expected to see raves but what I find is a low rating
based mainly on poor mounting. What's the optical truth here?
jw

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.70.160)
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40615


Celestron G-9¼
Very happy with OTA (upgraded to TeleVue 2" diagonal and 9x50 finder, both good moves and worth the $). Bright images (much better with premium diagonal). For me this scope is a great balance between light gathering and portablility. Excellent star test, but this is VERY collimation dependent. On arrival from factory stars were nowhere near pinpoint, and with transport I find that the scope needs a little touchup for optimum performance. This is my first SCT, so maybe this is the case with the breed. As an aside, I tried one of the Kendrick laser SCT collimators and found that the results were unsatisfactory; reproducibility was poor and I was better off (and $150 richer) with results from star testing. Under clear skies and with good collimation the planetary views are extraordinary (see photos at http://www.weatherman.com for examples). Star images are sharp, but seem more sensitive to sky conditions than my old 8" reflector.
The mount and tripod are not meant for a scope of this size. It is acceptable for visual now after a rebuild with lithium grease ($3), a new homemade oak tripod ($40), and the addition of both Celestron vibration suppression pads ($49) and a CosmicOne tripod stabilizer ($49). The polar scope is junk, but the cheap dual axis drives actually work well for me since the rebuild, which significantly smoothed out the motion of the mount. I have the newer version with ball bearings in the RA axis. I plan to upgrade someday to a Losmandy G11, and IMO you would be better off buying this premium OTA with a premium mount in the first place if you can afford it. My rating of 9 is for OTA alone.

Overall Rating: 9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.60.22)
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=40616

Page 1 of 3 Next

[Click Here to Login]
Don't have a login? Register!