Jump to content


Photo

bulkier/heavier ... CGEM or Atlas?

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
5 replies to this topic

#1 NHRob

NHRob

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5021
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2004

Posted 14 March 2009 - 09:12 AM

OK, I've been reading many posts regarding the CGEM. There have been conflicting claims on its bulk and weight. Some claim that it is heavier and bulkier than an Atlas and others have claimed the reverse.

Any definitive word on this?

Rob

#2 Dave H.

Dave H.

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 220
  • Joined: 29 Feb 2008

Posted 14 March 2009 - 09:43 AM

Rob,
I have owned them both, having elected to sell my Atlas the very day I read about the launch of the new CGEM as the All Star Polar Alignment is a feature I really need. These mounts are both so similar it would be hard to honestly say one is bulkier than the other. These are of course both EQ6 mounts made by Synta the parent company of Celestron, and IMHO synta designed the CGEM to be an updated or refreshed version of the EQ6 that had been marked sucessfully under the Orion and Skywatcher brands. The weight capacity, tripod construction, and overall mount weight without counter weights is virtually identical, the EQ head design of the CGEM is a newer design.

The big difference in these mounts is the operating software, and having used them both, the CGEM software is without question superior. However the 3rd party freeware EQMod PC based software developed for the Atlas mount has many very loyal fans and certainly there are those that would contend with EQMod the Atlas software is superior.

Hope this answers your question.

#3 NHRob

NHRob

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5021
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2004

Posted 14 March 2009 - 10:41 AM

Thanks Dave. That is a clear answer. Are you happy with the CGEM so far?

Rob

#4 Lane

Lane

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3593
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2007

Posted 14 March 2009 - 03:31 PM

The Atlas mount head of course has the counterweight bar permanently attached and weighs 36 lbs according to a few folks out here who actually took the time to weigh it. The CGEM mount head with it couterweight bar and bar lock attached weighs 40 lbs. Without it the weight is 38 lbs. The CGEM is slightly bulkier but not so much that it is an issue. Those giant knobs tend to add to the bulky look.

#5 Dave H.

Dave H.

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 220
  • Joined: 29 Feb 2008

Posted 14 March 2009 - 08:03 PM

Rob,
Like most folks, I am very happy with my CGEM when the weather cooperates and I can use it... :confused:

I often observe and practice imaging on my back deck, and my home blocks out polaris. Since in the recent past that used to leave only the drift align option for polar alignment (and I just can't justify the time to drift align), the All Star Polar Align routine is perfect for me.

At this point my largest optical tube used on the CGEM is a F6.7 150ED Borg refractor, and with this 6" OTA coupled to my 450D, and an ST80 with the Star Shoot Autoguider, the CGEM tracks great and handles this moderate payload almost like it is not even there.

While my imaging skills certainly still need improvement, I am pretty confident that the CGEM provides me with an EQ platform that represents an optimum balance of value and performance consistent with my budget and skill level.

Best of luck! :grin:

#6 tboss70

tboss70

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2619
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted 14 March 2009 - 08:18 PM

How long are your subs while still retaining round stars?






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics