Jump to content


Photo

CGE Pro Mount ...........who's got one!

  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#1 phanf4

phanf4

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 196
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2007
  • Loc: Over there in Chattanooga

Posted 04 March 2009 - 11:23 AM

Some sites state that they are "in stock". Does anyone have one? Looking for your thoughts and first report on this mount :jump:

Hope I did not miss a thread about this. :foreheadslap:


#2 Steve Fisher

Steve Fisher

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2806
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Utah

Posted 04 March 2009 - 01:13 PM

Phanf4:

Member since 07 and your 3rd post? Welcome!

I'm waiting not only for the first reports but maybe for the first resale by an early adopter.

#3 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
  • Joined: 24 May 2007
  • Loc: Southern Tier NY

Posted 04 March 2009 - 01:15 PM

I'm hoping mine will be here in the next week.
Phil

#4 LLEEGE

LLEEGE

    True Blue

  • *****
  • Posts: 12889
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2005
  • Loc: Cloud-chester,NY

Posted 04 March 2009 - 01:49 PM

I'm hoping mine will be here in the next week.
Phil

Let me know when it does, Phil. I'd love to drive down and check it out.

#5 phanf4

phanf4

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 196
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2007
  • Loc: Over there in Chattanooga

Posted 04 March 2009 - 02:02 PM

I guess the real reason I am asking is that I am considering either the CGE pro or an AP Mach 1. Is the Mach 1 worth ~1800 more? (Considering extras needed for the Mach 1: Saddle plate, Peir, powersupply etc)
AP would be the main interest long term and I really only want to buy just one!

Tom

#6 LLEEGE

LLEEGE

    True Blue

  • *****
  • Posts: 12889
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2005
  • Loc: Cloud-chester,NY

Posted 04 March 2009 - 02:18 PM

That would depend on how the CGEpro is rated for capacity. The Mach1 in rated for 45lbs in photographic terms. The CGEPro is listed at 90 but I don't know if that is a visual or photo rating. If I were to choose between the two, I would wait for some real world reviews before deciding. And it would still be a difficult choice.
Both would handle your C8 without a sweat for either purpose. If you plan to primarily use it for visual, the CGEPro might be a better option.. :shrug:

#7 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
  • Joined: 24 May 2007
  • Loc: Southern Tier NY

Posted 04 March 2009 - 04:06 PM

I'm hoping mine will be here in the next week.
Phil

Let me know when it does, Phil. I'd love to drive down and check it out.


Will do, your welcome to see what you think.

Phil

#8 Alph

Alph

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1755
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Melmac

Posted 05 March 2009 - 08:50 PM

I am considering either the CGE pro or an AP Mach 1. Is the Mach 1 worth ~1800 more?


The G11 will handle the C8 with ease and you definitely don't need the CGE Pro.

#9 gordianknot

gordianknot

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 542
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2005

Posted 05 March 2009 - 09:11 PM

I suspect that the Mach 1 has lower error and is more accurate but the CGE Pro has a higher capacity. Having never seen an error curve for a CGE Pro however, that's just speculation.

#10 phanf4

phanf4

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 196
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2007
  • Loc: Over there in Chattanooga

Posted 05 March 2009 - 09:11 PM

I was looking to the future. My plans include multiple scopes on side by side saddle. C8 and a TV127is with camera setup. Would a CGE do for this?

Tom

#11 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 19769
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 05 March 2009 - 10:56 PM

The only downside I see for the CGE Pro is the weight. It is porky, porky, porky.

The mount head alone is 75#. That's quite an armload to put on and take off the tripod solo in the dark. It's a heavy mount for its rated capacity. Conversely the Mach 1 GTO is a light mount for its rated capacity.

I'm very curious about this mount, but more for a permanent installation with an 8" or 10" long focus achromat.

Regards,

Jim

#12 Steve Fisher

Steve Fisher

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2806
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Utah

Posted 05 March 2009 - 11:50 PM

Jim:

Permanent mount should be great! I'm hoping I can make a pier extension and see how it handles a 8" f/12 as a "grab and go". :grin:

Mine should be a magnet for people at star parties and outreach.

#13 Telescopeman54

Telescopeman54

    Vendor - Trapezium Telescopes & Services, LLC.

  • *****
  • Posts: 1715
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2007
  • Loc: New Hampshire

Posted 06 March 2009 - 12:11 AM

I just saw one at the WSP. It is a MONSTER!! It is very well built and very attractive. However, it's a bit pricey for my budget. Still, if I had the funds...

Steve

#14 DaveJ

DaveJ

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1680
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2005
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 06 March 2009 - 08:10 AM

I just saw one at the WSP. It is a MONSTER!! It is very well built and very attractive. However, it's a bit pricey for my budget. Still, if I had the funds...


No pictures????? :shocked:

#15 Gord

Gord

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1686
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2004
  • Loc: Toronto, ON, Canada

Posted 06 March 2009 - 09:08 AM

Personally, I don't think a heavy mount is such a bad thing. Yeah, it's could be a bit much to haul around in some cases, but as with everything, it's about trade-offs.

I heard it said once, don't put more weight on it than it weighs itself. From what I have seen, this is pretty good advice. I put together a list of a whole bunch of mounts once based on this criteria and compared it to what they were rated as.

Top mounts tended to stick close to the 1:1, while some did push it to 1:1.5 or even 1:1.75 (like the CGE for example). Then there are the extreme's like the ASGT where it is 1:3. I think 1:1 is a safe estimate for photo work, and in my experience 1:3 can work prefectly well for visual only. But, a lot of that is based on personal taste as well.

So this new CGE Pro could work quite nicely for a visual load of 250+ lbs. At least in theory based on what I've experienced in the past.

Cheers,

-Gord

#16 Steve Fisher

Steve Fisher

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2806
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Utah

Posted 06 March 2009 - 12:19 PM

I just saw one at the WSP. It is a MONSTER!! It is very well built and very attractive. However, it's a bit pricey for my budget. Still, if I had the funds...

Steve


Steve:

Do you think it is a mount I should consider for my soon to arrive 8" f/12 or am I still looking for an MI or AP?

#17 Alph

Alph

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1755
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Melmac

Posted 06 March 2009 - 01:51 PM

Top mounts tended to stick close to the 1:1, while some did push it to 1:1.5 or even 1:1.75 (like the CGE for example).



You got the numbers really wrong.
Paramount ME 150/65 = 2.2
CGE 65/42 = 1.5 (not top mount at all)

#18 LLEEGE

LLEEGE

    True Blue

  • *****
  • Posts: 12889
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2005
  • Loc: Cloud-chester,NY

Posted 06 March 2009 - 02:33 PM

So this new CGE Pro could work quite nicely for a visual load of 250+ lbs. At least in theory based on what I've experienced in the past.

Cheers,

-Gord

I think that is a bit optimistic. I don't know that I would put that much on an AP1200.

#19 Gord

Gord

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1686
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2004
  • Loc: Toronto, ON, Canada

Posted 06 March 2009 - 04:53 PM

You got the numbers really wrong.
Paramount ME 150/65 = 2.2
CGE 65/42 = 1.5 (not top mount at all)


Actually, I never said the CGE was a top mount, but it's certainly proven to be quite a decent one. I believe the ME is actually closer to 70 lbs (68?), and I think it's over-rated slightly at 150.

If you look at the Tak's, the MI (such as the 500 and up), you will see they all stick closer to the 1:1. But, some seem to do fine going higher (like many people's experience with the ME).

250 being optimistic for the CGE pro is I think based on how you are looking at things and what trade-off's are accepted. Is 35 lbs on an AS-GT optimistic? In a lot of ways yes, but they still do it, and in a lot of cases it works ok. I've used worse. Remember, it's a 12 lb mount.

And I think the advice that AP gives always needs to be considered: some tubes are long for their weight and others are heavy for their size. The numbers are just guidelines.

Cheers,

-Gord

#20 CounterWeight

CounterWeight

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8101
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Palo alto, CA.

Posted 07 March 2009 - 02:47 AM

If I take all my scopes, and add, maybe a kitchen sink, I'll be over 95 lbs. If I don't add the kitchen sink, I'll be in the 'middle 2/3 of' the rated capacity.

Sure is impressive, but wonder 'who needs one?'. I know i don't, but then I'm just small fry. My fleeting imression is that folks with $20,000 scopes want at least $10,000 mounts... call it the glam factor or what you you will, but I wonder if this mount has the 'cache' to appeal to the high end high weight crowd?

Time will tell...

:question: :roflmao: :tonofbricks: :roflmao: :tonofbricks: :confused:

#21 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 19769
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 07 March 2009 - 10:33 AM

The CGE Pro is a better choice for the C14 and also puts the cross-hairs on the Losmandy Titan and MI-250. Two birds with one stone - give the C14 a mount that it deserves and pick up a share of the mid-priced heavy duty mount market.

I may sell my 15" Obsession to go for a C14 on the CGE Pro once there are some user reports on the mount. I'm still a bit put off by the 75# mount head. I like to observe solo much of the time. While I can certainly lift the 75# to the tripod cap, I don't think it would be "fun" to do so on a regular basis.

Regards,

Jim

#22 Steve Fisher

Steve Fisher

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2806
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Utah

Posted 07 March 2009 - 06:50 PM

Sure is impressive, but wonder 'who needs one?'. I know i don't, but then I'm just small fry. My fleeting imression is that folks with $20,000 scopes want at least $10,000 mounts... call it the glam factor or what you you will, but I wonder if this mount has the 'cache' to appeal to the high end high weight crowd?


Could be for someone with reasonably priced "large" OTA's that are really just a little to much for a CGE and who doesn't want to buy a Paramount ME. :grin:

Attached Files



#23 CounterWeight

CounterWeight

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8101
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Palo alto, CA.

Posted 08 March 2009 - 06:39 AM

:) perfect answer :)

Is that a CGE I see straining under that whopper? Only 1 counterweight?

Beautiful scope and pic, wow.

#24 JWW

JWW

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Arizona or Mexico hard to tell

Posted 08 March 2009 - 02:14 PM

I wonder if there are any reports on the accuracy of the CGE Pro for imaging purposes. It seems there are other mounts in that price neighborhood that have end user data on them. Found this?

-JWW:

Attached Files



#25 Chris Rowland

Chris Rowland

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 586
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2005

Posted 08 March 2009 - 04:39 PM

So there's no confusion, I think the mount in the picture above is one of the original CGE Pro prototypes of a few years ago; they never went into production. It's got the original CDK 20 on top.

It isn't the current CGE Pro, that isn't quite as big.

Chris






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics