Jump to content


Photo

New Celestron CGEM DX- 50lb capacity!

  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#1 Jim7728

Jim7728

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7869
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2005
  • Loc: Stoop Landing Observatory, NYC

Posted 07 January 2011 - 08:57 AM

For $1999.

http://www.celestron...D=78&ProdID=761

Got a better link. So it's a CGEM with a beefier tripod?

#2 Chris.Baron

Chris.Baron

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 945
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2006
  • Loc: Maple Ridge, British Columbia Canada

Posted 07 January 2011 - 09:13 AM

Looks very much like a current cgem but with a longer counterweight bar and a better tripod and spreader. I could be wrong, but Celestron's site lists the weight of the mount as being 18.6KG for both mounts.

So no magic here, but slight tweaks to the existing product ala an NEQ6 vs EQ6.

Celestron's product page

Cheers,
Chris

#3 t.r.

t.r.

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4439
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 07 January 2011 - 09:18 AM

Now it's getting too close to the price of a Losmandy G11 Gemini II though...

#4 Jb32828

Jb32828

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 479
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Orlando, FL USA

Posted 07 January 2011 - 09:59 AM

A Losmandy with Gemini Goto is like 3200 bucks isnt it and is rated for 60 pounds.

#5 RTLR 12

RTLR 12

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4558
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2008
  • Loc: The Great Pacific NorthWest

Posted 07 January 2011 - 10:03 AM

If you only want an SLT...A GLT Go/To will cost an additional $1000+.

Stan

#6 t.r.

t.r.

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4439
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 07 January 2011 - 10:03 AM

Where did you see the $1999 price quoted...its not on the C site?

#7 LLEEGE

LLEEGE

    True Blue

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

Posted 07 January 2011 - 10:06 AM

Looks like a $600 tripod "upgrade".
For 600 beans, I'd just buy a used Meade GFT.
I don't think a bigger tripod will increase the CGEM capacity 10 lbs. :shrug:

#8 fetoma

fetoma

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Southern NJ

Posted 07 January 2011 - 10:09 AM

So it's a CGEM with a beefier tripod?


That looks right on the button to me, a $600 tripod upgrade. :vomit:

#9 Chris.Baron

Chris.Baron

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 945
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2006
  • Loc: Maple Ridge, British Columbia Canada

Posted 07 January 2011 - 10:25 AM

And a longer looking counterweight bar, we mustn't overlook that.

#10 LLEEGE

LLEEGE

    True Blue

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

Posted 07 January 2011 - 10:35 AM

Looks like they added a hub to the base to mount on the larger tripod.

#11 Jim7728

Jim7728

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7869
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2005
  • Loc: Stoop Landing Observatory, NYC

Posted 07 January 2011 - 10:41 AM

Where did you see the $1999 price quoted...its not on the C site?


http://www.highpoint...ipod-91528.html

If anything, the larger tripod looks like a better match for the CGEM head than the CG-5 legs. I imagine Celestron will offer that tripod separately for those who want to upgrade their CGEM tripod.

#12 Chris.Baron

Chris.Baron

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 945
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2006
  • Loc: Maple Ridge, British Columbia Canada

Posted 07 January 2011 - 10:45 AM

Well then, there you have it. There's roughly $50 in raw costs added to the mount so there's your $600 delta between the CGEM and CGEM DX.

Perfectly justifiable right?

I guess they found they've created a hole where the the CGE used to sit and need to add a middle tier. There's no way to downgrade the capacity of the CGE PRO I guess. It's too bad the CGE is no more. I was finally going to be able to convince the CFO I could afford to buy one. Now I either have to sit tight, try the used market or continue to save for a much larger jump up.

Alas.

#13 Jb32828

Jb32828

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 479
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Orlando, FL USA

Posted 07 January 2011 - 10:56 AM

Well I for one am lost on the new Celestron offerings.

First we have that SkyProdigy series with a 70mm refractor for 699, a 90mm mak for 749 and a 130mm newt for 799. What scares me with these offerings is that these are the same scopes they offer on the SLT mount, so do we have an SLT mount with a better computer?

Now we have what looks to be a GCEM with a better tripod and longer counterweight bar with a claim of 50 lbs capacity? Does that mean I can toss 25-30 lbs of equipment on this for imaging? It looks like the same mount? Does that mean I could replace the CW bar and tripod on my CG-5 and get a 45 lbs capacity? I have to think that would be ridiculous thinking right?

Am I the only one scratching my head at this?

#14 Goodchild

Goodchild

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 881
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2008

Posted 07 January 2011 - 10:58 AM

I don't own a CGEM but I've seen several threads addressing its problems. Do you suppose Celestron has worked out the kinks with the deluxe?

#15 Chris.Baron

Chris.Baron

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 945
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2006
  • Loc: Maple Ridge, British Columbia Canada

Posted 07 January 2011 - 11:01 AM

Am I the only one scratching my head at this?


Scratching your head perhaps. I think the rest of us are shaking our heads.

As for working out the kinks in the CGEM, my money is on no. These might ship with the latest firmware, but I doubt there's anything craftsmanship wise that's been improved upon.

#16 hfjacinto

hfjacinto

    I think he's got it!

  • *****
  • Posts: 11810
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Land of clouds and LP

Posted 07 January 2011 - 11:01 AM

I would have purchased it, I wonder if they are just selling the tripod?

#17 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • ****-
  • Posts: 10879
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 07 January 2011 - 11:08 AM

I don't think a bigger tripod will increase the CGEM capacity 10 lbs.

It is if the current tripod isn't capable of dampening vibrations at the heavier weights. Assuming the existing bearings and motors can handle the increased weight the other components needed to handle a weight increase are the tripod and the counterweights.

A tripod upgrade is the number one method of increasing a mount's carrying capacity. Adding weight to an existing tripod helps dampen vibrations, increasing leg diameters and the overall robustness makes a marked improvement in a mount's capacity.

The CG-5 and CGEM/Atlas/EQ-6 have very similar (35 vs. 40lbs) weight carrying capabilities while they have very different bearings and motors, the common element between them is the tripod. The CG-5 went from 25-30lb carrying capacity to 30-35lbs with primarily a tripod upgrade (the 2" steel leg version).

It's very common for folks with pier mounted configurations (the ultimate "tripod" upgrade) to report that they are very happy with a particular mount's carrying capabilities when loaded at or exceeding the rated capacities.

This new CGEM DX appears to be using a revised CGE tripod (same leg diameters, same leg clamps, same spreader bar) to provide part of the increased capabilities. Seems like an easy and smart move on Celestron's part to offer another mount to help fill the gap left by the CGE.

The question for Celestron is if this revised mount is indeed capable of carrying 50lbs of equipment on a regular basis. If there are any weak points in the existing CGEM mount's capabilities the DX will certainly highlight them.

#18 t.r.

t.r.

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4439
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 07 January 2011 - 11:18 AM

Personally, I don't think the Big "C" cares...just throw it out there and see what sticks! :lol:

#19 hfjacinto

hfjacinto

    I think he's got it!

  • *****
  • Posts: 11810
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Land of clouds and LP

Posted 07 January 2011 - 11:34 AM

The CGEM is certainly capable of imaging with more than 25lbs of weight. The below image of M57 won't win any awards but it was taken with a 9.25 (no focal reducer so imaging at 2300MM Focal length) an 80 MM EON Guide scope and cameras attached. The weight was over 30LBS and only 1 image wasn't usable. This was also taken in a white zone with the full moon out.

Attached Files



#20 fetoma

fetoma

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Southern NJ

Posted 07 January 2011 - 11:36 AM

Personally, I don't think the Big "C" cares...just throw it out there and see what sticks! :lol:


Hmmm, it's easy to feel that way at times! :grin:

#21 Chris.Baron

Chris.Baron

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 945
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2006
  • Loc: Maple Ridge, British Columbia Canada

Posted 07 January 2011 - 11:46 AM

I think the CGEM capable is a mount, but I'm not sure how long an exposure one can take at higher focal lengths. When I had my SV90TBV I could go for 30min exposures and had to toss out a few, but not many. I've now moved to a carbon fibre R200SS which funnily enough isn't much heavier than the SV90TBV but balancing it is different.

Of course I developed a problem with my RA gear before I was able to test the R200SS. I was just out of warranty and so sent it down to be hypertuned and had the gear repaired.

I just got it back but the weather has been brutal. I'm hoping I can get a clear night over the next while. I'd be happy with 10 minute subs to begin with, but would like to get back to 30min subs. All told I'm hovering around the 20lb mark so we'll see what a hypertuned CGEM can do.

I have an observatory and plan on getting a pier, but a better tripod could be a stopgap. As long as it isn't ridiculously priced that is. $600 for the DX over the stock CGEM seems a bit steep to me.

Chris

#22 hfjacinto

hfjacinto

    I think he's got it!

  • *****
  • Posts: 11810
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Land of clouds and LP

Posted 07 January 2011 - 11:54 AM

I don't know what the Tripod costs but lets compare to Losmandy.

The LW Tripod costs $450
The HD costs $700
The FHD MA costs $1190

I think that the CGE Pro tripod is almost as capable as an HD Tripod.

Remember this manufacturers recommended, it will $1799 in a couple of months.

I know people are going to say that it isn't a fair comparison, but we would need to see test images. So far while Losmandy makes a great EQ head, the Gemini system has left me wanting.

#23 nemo129

nemo129

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3109
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2010
  • Loc: WMass

Posted 07 January 2011 - 12:18 PM

It will be interesting to see what comes out of this as the first ones hit the market and we get first light reports. The mount head looks exactly the same, and that is where the issues have been, not the tripod. ...still saving for an AP900 or Mach1.

#24 LLEEGE

LLEEGE

    True Blue

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

Posted 07 January 2011 - 03:31 PM

I imagine Celestron will offer that tripod separately for those who want to upgrade their CGEM tripod.

You would need to replace the polar fork on the mount as well.

#25 RTLR 12

RTLR 12

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4558
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2008
  • Loc: The Great Pacific NorthWest

Posted 07 January 2011 - 03:39 PM

What is a polar fork?

Stan






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics