Jump to content


Photo

G11 vs EM200 Imaging Payload

  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 skyler

skyler

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2006
  • Loc: TGPNW

Posted 25 July 2009 - 07:49 PM

Do any users of these two mounts have an idea that is the max reasonable payload for a G11 and an EM200? I own the 200 so I have a good idea there but I don't want to taint any comparisons.

Let me know what you think and why? Any and all welcome to respond.

Thanks !
S

#2 LLEEGE

LLEEGE

    True Blue

  • *****
  • Posts: 12896
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2005
  • Loc: Cloud-chester,NY

Posted 25 July 2009 - 08:29 PM

They're pretty close. The Tak has s slight edge. It's rated at 40lbs for AP, the G11 is rated at 60 for visual or about 50% for AP.

#3 skyler

skyler

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2006
  • Loc: TGPNW

Posted 26 July 2009 - 12:27 AM

I asked this question since I was beginning wonder if they are just too close to call. Will wait to see what the consensus is before I comment again.

S

#4 blueman

blueman

    Photon Catcher

  • *****
  • Posts: 5373
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2007
  • Loc: California

Posted 26 July 2009 - 02:06 AM

According to Losmandy, the 60 lbs is a photo limit for the G-11. I know people that use that much and more. I use about 30 lbs myself, but it would handle more that I am certain.
Blueman

#5 johnnyha

johnnyha

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6500
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Sherman Oaks, CA

Posted 26 July 2009 - 03:26 AM

My EM200 easily imaged with a TOA130 plus accessories which is pushing 30 lbs., and that much again in counterweights for over 60 lbs total. That is a very comfortable weight for the Tak when everything is balanced properly, however it feels like it is on the limit of PEAK performance. I don't know how the G11 does in comparison but it LOOKS like it might handle a bit more.

#6 Luigi

Luigi

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5320
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2007
  • Loc: MA

Posted 26 July 2009 - 06:18 AM

You might also consider things that contribute to stability outside of the mount, like the dovetail system and tripod. Having owned a G11 for 10+ years I can say its dovetail and saddle are very stout and its tripod is extremely stable. I don't know how these compare with the Tak mount. Of course if you're going to put the mount on a permanent pier, the tripod is irrelevant.

#7 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3493
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 26 July 2009 - 07:49 AM

I was not that impressed with my older non GO-TO EM-200 with my TAK FS128. Seemed the mount had the shakes at higher powers.

Chas

#8 Gord

Gord

    Surveyor 1

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

Posted 26 July 2009 - 10:25 AM

Although it's only a guideline, I've heard it said to never put more on it than it weighs itself. I believe this was a reference to photographic work. In that case, they are pretty similar, but I think the G11 has a little more mass (few pounds?).

Does cast vs. machined billet make a difference? I'm under the impression that billet's (usually forged) are always stronger. I know that is the case for performance automobile wheels.

And as Luigi said, the dovetail and tripod factor in as well.

Clear skies,

-Gord

#9 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 33798
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 26 July 2009 - 11:13 AM

Does cast vs. machined billet make a difference? I'm under the impression that billet's (usually forged) are always stronger. I know that is the case for performance automobile wheels.


I shouldn't think so. The usable imaging load will be limited by other factors long before structural failure becomes an issue. Regarding saddles - the EM-200 would have at least a Losmandy saddle (they offer one drilled for the Tak mount) but they are usually equipped with superior units from BT or the like.

The Losmandy tripod is more encouraging but far less portable than the Tak. I don't image in the field so that one's not an issue for me; I just want a portable tripod to take out for occasional field use.

I figure that they both top out at about 40 pounds for undegraded imaging performance but I'd be willing to add quite a bit to either one for visual use.

#10 Luigi

Luigi

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5320
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2007
  • Loc: MA

Posted 26 July 2009 - 01:14 PM

>>>The Losmandy tripod is ... far less portable than the Tak<<<

I have no experience with the Tak tripod but didn't fine the portability of the G11 tripod to be an issue. I'd either transport it assemble in the back of my SUV or pickup or take the three legs off the central pier and stick them in the trunk of my car. It is nearly as solid as a permanent pier and for me that outweighed the relative inconvenience... and that was for strictly visual use with a C11. YMMV

#11 blueman

blueman

    Photon Catcher

  • *****
  • Posts: 5373
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2007
  • Loc: California

Posted 26 July 2009 - 03:36 PM

Indeed, the G-11 tripod is like a portable pier compared to many tripods. It breaks down about as fast as you can fold a tripod and only takes a little room when broken down.
1/4" thick aluminum tubes make for very little vibration.
Blueman

#12 rsbfoto

rsbfoto

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 448
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2006

Posted 26 July 2009 - 05:34 PM

They're pretty close. The Tak has s slight edge. It's rated at 40lbs for AP, the G11 is rated at 60 for visual or about 50% for AP.


Hi,

The Tak has s slight edge. It's rated at 40lbs for AP



I did not find that here in this spec

here in this spec in the Land Sea & Sky website Official Takahashi importer for USA

And here Takahashi Europe states 18kg load capacity which are about ~40 pounds ¿? but also write

" The EM-200 is a German equatorial mounting providing a stable support for any telescope up to 15 kg without the accessories (load limits 18kg, except counterweight)."

Takahashi Europe

Interesting and I am still asking myself from which date does this urban myth come up as well as how long those myths persist ... :bow:

Here is an example of a Losmangy G11 loaded with 66 pounds equipment as well as 66 pounds of counterweights can do good imaging at 3000mm focal length (Mewlon 250S guided with a FS-78)

The next example is a stack of 14 subexposures of 600 seconds each

Arp 29 Original and Arp 29 negative

The EM200 costs about US $ 6,000.00 (NO tripod) and the Losmandy G11 costs about US $ 3,000.00 (NO tripod) plus maybe US $ 1,000.00 for some upgrade pieces, still leaves you a spare of US 2,000.00 for a nice scope :jump:

Just my 2 cents about the " 50% AstroPhotography " rule ... :bow:

#13 jason_milani

jason_milani

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2352
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2004
  • Loc: Northeast Ohio

Posted 26 July 2009 - 10:58 PM

The Orion Atlas is an EM200 clone. Not saying that it is as good as an EM200 just that it is similar in size and design. The Losmandy G11 is in a class above that size. I have a CGE (similar in size/capacity to the G11) and an Atlas and the CGE is a beefier mount. I know others here will say the Atlas is comparable to the CGE/ G11 mounts but they are full of you know what. I have the CGE and Atlas set up side by side right now and if i could find my card reader to post pics i would but i just moved and i can't locate it at the moment.
I'm not knocking any of them just telling it like it is.
Oh, and for those who say that the LXD750 is capable of more payload han the CGE (some nice fellow on astromart has stated that on his recent ad) you are full of cow poopies. The counterweight shaft alone on the LXD prevents it from competing. I am not just speculating - i've owned two LXD750's and three CGE's.

I guess i got off topic a little bit.....sorry :)

#14 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 33798
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 26 July 2009 - 11:09 PM

The Orion Atlas is an EM200 clone. Not saying that it is as good as an EM200 just that it is similar in size and design. The Losmandy G11 is in a class above that size. I have a CGE (similar in size/capacity to the G11) and an Atlas and the CGE is a beefier mount.


Hi, Jason!

No argument there - but having owned both the Atlas and the EM-200 I can report that the Tak is also a beefier mount than the Atlas. The similarities are only skin deep.

Of course, I'm one of those who feels the LXD750 can image with a heavier load than any of the above so we have a fundamental difference of opinion anyway! :lol:

#15 LLEEGE

LLEEGE

    True Blue

  • *****
  • Posts: 12896
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2005
  • Loc: Cloud-chester,NY

Posted 27 July 2009 - 08:40 AM

Just my 2 cents about the " 50% AstroPhotography " rule ... :bow:

Fact or fiction, I don't know. Many say the high end manufacturers rate their mounts for photographic loads and the low/mid range manufacturers rate their mounts for a maximum load. (Excluding CW's)
Losmandy states the "Instrument capacity" of the G-11 at 60lbs. Yet for the HGM Titan, they state "Photographic capacity". I don't know where the source of the ratings came to be about the 50% rule of thumb. I had a G-11 and a TEC160 mounted and to me, the mount seemed to be at it's limit. In fact, I didn't feel comfortable putting that much weight on it. Call me paranoid. I'm not saying people don't image with G-11's with more then the rule of thumb. Lot's of folks do. But I'm sure they put a lot more effort into making sure everything is set up just right.

#16 jason_milani

jason_milani

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2352
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2004
  • Loc: Northeast Ohio

Posted 27 July 2009 - 10:00 AM

The Orion Atlas is an EM200 clone. Not saying that it is as good as an EM200 just that it is similar in size and design. The Losmandy G11 is in a class above that size. I have a CGE (similar in size/capacity to the G11) and an Atlas and the CGE is a beefier mount.


Hi, Jason!

No argument there - but having owned both the Atlas and the EM-200 I can report that the Tak is also a beefier mount than the Atlas. The similarities are only skin deep.

Of course, I'm one of those who feels the LXD750 can image with a heavier load than any of the above so we have a fundamental difference of opinion anyway! :lol:


Hi John. Don't mind me, i was just rambling. (get a few late night cocktails in me and that's what happens ;)) I did have a bad experience with an LXD750 so i guess i'm biased. You've got waay more imaging experience than i do so i'll take your word for it.

#17 skyler

skyler

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2006
  • Loc: TGPNW

Posted 27 July 2009 - 11:35 AM

They're pretty close. The Tak has s slight edge. It's rated at 40lbs for AP, the G11 is rated at 60 for visual or about 50% for AP.


Hi,

The Tak has s slight edge. It's rated at 40lbs for AP



I did not find that here in this spec

here in this spec in the Land Sea & Sky website Official Takahashi importer for USA

And here Takahashi Europe states 18kg load capacity which are about ~40 pounds ¿? but also write

" The EM-200 is a German equatorial mounting providing a stable support for any telescope up to 15 kg without the accessories (load limits 18kg, except counterweight)."

Takahashi Europe

Interesting and I am still asking myself from which date does this urban myth come up as well as how long those myths persist ... :bow:

Here is an example of a Losmangy G11 loaded with 66 pounds equipment as well as 66 pounds of counterweights can do good imaging at 3000mm focal length (Mewlon 250S guided with a FS-78)

The next example is a stack of 14 subexposures of 600 seconds each

Arp 29 Original and Arp 29 negative

The EM200 costs about US $ 6,000.00 (NO tripod) and the Losmandy G11 costs about US $ 3,000.00 (NO tripod) plus maybe US $ 1,000.00 for some upgrade pieces, still leaves you a spare of US 2,000.00 for a nice scope :jump:

Just my 2 cents about the " 50% AstroPhotography " rule ... :bow:



Spoke to Losmandy today and they are confirming the "imaging" load to be 60 lbs. He noted that the max payload is at 75. But when we spoke about what is "ideal" for imaging, he stepped that down to 45-50 lbs to be a comfortable imaging range.

So, I gather that it can carry a bit more and some have probably pushed the limit of the scope and had very good results. I feel it may vary but it is capable.

Will probably need to ask the same question to Art C. at Tak. Am. to see what he has to say.


S

#18 blueman

blueman

    Photon Catcher

  • *****
  • Posts: 5373
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2007
  • Loc: California

Posted 27 July 2009 - 12:51 PM

Hi,
The TEC160 was not so much the weight, but the length of the scope that makes it more difficult to support. Put a shorter scope with less moment arm and then the load can be increased.
A longer scope that weights 25-30 lbs mounted, will definitely test many mounts. Then maybe an AP1200 or AP900 would be a better choice or even the MI250?
Blueman

#19 blueman

blueman

    Photon Catcher

  • *****
  • Posts: 5373
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2007
  • Loc: California

Posted 27 July 2009 - 12:53 PM

Hi Skler,
Yeah, I would agree with that, 45-50 lbs would be a more comfortable weight with the 60 lbs being the absolute limit with the right setup, but would probably be prone to shakes in any wind or other stimulus.
Blueman

#20 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 33798
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 27 July 2009 - 01:09 PM

I did have a bad experience with an LXD750 so i guess i'm biased. You've got waay more imaging experience than i do so i'll take your word for it.


It's just my opinion. I suspect that, of all of my opinions, that's the one with which the most folks disagree! :roflmao:

#21 blueman

blueman

    Photon Catcher

  • *****
  • Posts: 5373
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2007
  • Loc: California

Posted 27 July 2009 - 03:46 PM

I had an LXD-650 with the 127ED and it was not bad, I did do a lot of tuning though to get it to work well. Photography was good, but not great with that mount.
Blueman

#22 Dean

Dean

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5446
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Bailey Co Elev 8780 feet

Posted 27 July 2009 - 05:38 PM

Spoke to Losmandy today and they are confirming the "imaging" load to be 60 lbs. He noted that the max payload is at 75. But when we spoke about what is "ideal" for imaging, he stepped that down to 45-50 lbs to be a comfortable imaging range.

So, I gather that it can carry a bit more and some have probably pushed the limit of the scope and had very good results. I feel it may vary but it is capable.

Will probably need to ask the same question to Art C. at Tak. Am. to see what he has to say.


I don't think what Art says will be of much help. The problem is there's no standard criteria for rating a mount's capacity, so Losmandy and Art/Takahashi most likely won't be using the same criteria.

What might be interesting is to ask both not just what the ideal and/or max imaging capacity is, but also ask them how they came up with those numbers. I think that might shed some light on the expectations they want to set.

#23 rsbfoto

rsbfoto

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 448
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2006

Posted 27 July 2009 - 06:41 PM

It sums down to Relativism ...

Art will say that the Takahashi specs are related to Imaging capacity ...

I asked this once and got that as an answer :bow:

It is also the first time that somebody writes that Scott says the G11 has a imaging capacity of 60 pounds, but ...

That " but " is interesting as it again is against his own words ...

... but it is better just to load it with 45 to 50 pounds ...

¿ What is comfortable imaging range ?

... in the eye of the beholder :question:

Ask 100 people which mount has what carrying capacity and you will get 200 answers which all start with

It all depends ...

Have a nice day or what is left from it :confused: :confused:

#24 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 33798
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 27 July 2009 - 07:12 PM

The problem is there's no standard criteria for rating a mount's capacity, so Losmandy and Art/Takahashi most likely won't be using the same criteria.


Some manufacturers (Tak, AP, MI, others) publish performance specifications for their mounts. In those cases the weight rating must therefore be the weight at which those numbers can be reliably achieved. Thus, those are the manufacturers whose weight ratings are considered to require no derating for imaging.

Other manufacturers make no representations as to performance. Their weight ratings are thus not tied to performance at all; there is no telling what the source of those figures may be. It is those manufacturers whose weight "ratings" are generally considered to require reduction to achieve good imaging performance.

#25 lineman_16735

lineman_16735

    Tak-o-holic

  • -----
  • Posts: 3118
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Central PA

Posted 27 July 2009 - 07:50 PM

I've always thought the EM-200 was just a wee bit "beefier" than the G-11.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics