Jump to content


Photo

I want to mount my Meade 10" OTA on an equatorial

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Maxedout

Maxedout

    Explorer 1

  • ***--
  • Posts: 97
  • Joined: 09 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Arizona

Posted 06 May 2011 - 10:38 PM

Want to keep it under a grand.
The GG5 has a weight capacity of 38 lbs. The OTA is 28 lbs.
I plan on only doing astro work with my canon dslr.
Is this mount a good one for the price?

#2 gillmj24

gillmj24

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4910
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2005
  • Loc: PA

Posted 06 May 2011 - 10:49 PM

That's a visual capacity. You won't be getting good pictures at 2500mm focal length on a CG5. Even with a focal reducer it is a stretch.

Look for a used Atlas even that is borderline. $1000 won't buy you much quality at the payload you need to carry.

#3 Bowmoreman

Bowmoreman

    Clear enough skies

  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Bolton, MA

Posted 06 May 2011 - 11:46 PM

yep. wrong scope (too long focal length) and not enough mount to start AP with... will be massive frustration...

#4 mistyridge

mistyridge

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3036
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Loomis, CA

Posted 07 May 2011 - 10:56 AM

You will need a Losmandy G11, Celestron CGE(used) or Celestron CGEM-DX at a minimum.

#5 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15554
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 07 May 2011 - 12:47 PM

You will need a Losmandy G11, Celestron CGE(used) or Celestron CGEM-DX at a minimum.


All those are nice mounts, but a Meade 10 will ride _quite_ nicely on an Atlas EQ-6, too.

#6 gillmj24

gillmj24

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4910
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2005
  • Loc: PA

Posted 07 May 2011 - 02:23 PM

Oh yeah it'll ride ok but imaging with that mount and tube will be a challenge. If he said he were visual only I'd recommend the atlas without hesitation. Unfortunately he wants his cake and to eat it too.

#7 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15554
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 07 May 2011 - 04:03 PM

Oh yeah it'll ride ok but imaging with that mount and tube will be a challenge. If he said he were visual only I'd recommend the atlas without hesitation. Unfortunately he wants his cake and to eat it too.


It's more than possible to image with this OTA on an Atlas. Yes, it would be easier with a larger mount...but substantially easier in this case would need to be the next step up from a G11...Titan, AP, etc. ;)

Frankly, I don't think a 10-inch Meade is a very good imaging solution for most folks. It is heavy, and the major "gain" over a C8 is a narrower field...which ain't much of a gain.

#8 meademan4

meademan4

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2010

Posted 07 May 2011 - 08:46 PM

The Meade 10" ACF is an excellent choice for imaging CAT man. Nice Wide Field also.

#9 Bowmoreman

Bowmoreman

    Clear enough skies

  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Bolton, MA

Posted 07 May 2011 - 09:33 PM

NOT for a noob to AP, it isn't...

between that focal length (can you say spend at least $5 k on a mount)? and it's sheer weight (can you say spend at least $3k on a mount for visual?), it is NOT a scope for AP for the faint of heart... and a CG5?...

:lol:

fuggedaboudit

not gonna happen...

Meade 10'ers are nice scopes, but for AP, one has to know what one is getting into... they are heavy for their aperture...

#10 Gargoyle

Gargoyle

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 348
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Long Island, New York

Posted 07 May 2011 - 10:32 PM

The Meade 10" ACF is a good scope for AP, but its challenging and is not easy. I've had a long love-hate relationship with my LX200 and we've been on speaking terms only since its been sitting on a GEM. And even with that it still is a challenge.

For AP you'll need a mount that can handle the weight (28 lbs naked, and there's a whole mess of other stuff that goes on there too - camera, finder, rails, etc.). You'll also need to respect the focal length constraint.

I'd say you'd be at a disadvantage with a CG5, and should re-think that first.

Jerry

#11 jgraham

jgraham

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13745
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Miami Valley Astronomical Society

Posted 07 May 2011 - 10:48 PM

Hmmm, for a smallish CCD a 10" is a big scope, but for a DSLR it should work fine. A CG5 is probably a tad light unless you're careful. I've been imaging with an LXD75 AR-6 and a DSI Pro III and this is a fairly heavy scope (about 28+ pounds fully loaded), but I wouldn't recomend it for a beginner.

#12 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15554
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 08 May 2011 - 08:55 AM

The Meade 10" ACF is an excellent choice for imaging CAT man. Nice Wide Field also.


Nice wide field, huh? It may have other strengths, but even reduced to f/6.3...Not So Much to that. :lol:

#13 meademan4

meademan4

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2010

Posted 08 May 2011 - 09:35 AM

The field is awesome. Even reduced to 6.3. :roflmao:

#14 hickeydp

hickeydp

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 540
  • Joined: 14 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Ireland

Posted 08 May 2011 - 09:36 AM

I did put my old Meade 10" on my old Atlas and for visual it was fine if a little prone to vibrations when focusing making that job difficult.

Imaging was a whole different matter. To image, a guide scope is essential adding to the overall weight along with whatever camera+imaging accessories you use. In my case I very rapidly maxed out the mount.

If well balanced it will swing it around but I found that the amount of counterweight needed at the end of the bar caused some nasty vibrations that made imaging impossible and focusing was near impossible. In a nutshell, with all that weight, I never got a useable image.

After that experience I sold the M10 in favour of the much lighter C9.25.

I should also add that this change didn't solve all my problems. I've been trying to image for about 2 years now and only in the last 6 months do I feel like I'm getting a handle on things. This is largely due to the fact that I gave up my stubborn pursuit to image at long FL and resorted to my WO110 at 650mm. Guiding this on my EQ6 was a joy and I finally managed to get some images I would be happy for others to see (still not great but presentable). Only when I gave into this did I feel like I started to learn what I was doing. Before with long FL heavy scopes it was an exercise in frustration.

I now have a G11 that's awaiting first light so I'm hoping this will give me the extra pulling power I need to move beyond the WO.

#15 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15554
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 08 May 2011 - 09:59 AM

The field is awesome. Even reduced to 6.3. :roflmao:


Awesomely _narrow_. :lol:

#16 clchildress

clchildress

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1083
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2010
  • Loc: NW Georgia, USA

Posted 08 May 2011 - 01:11 PM

I have found my intro to imaging with a CGEM and a light (13lbs) f/5 Schmidt-Newtonian challenging...I can only imagine the frustration of attempting to begin imaging with a heavy, "slow" tube riding on an even lighter mount...

#17 Maxedout

Maxedout

    Explorer 1

  • ***--
  • Posts: 97
  • Joined: 09 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Arizona

Posted 08 May 2011 - 06:47 PM

Seems you dont know your own nuts from your mounts CAT man. :lol:

#18 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15554
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 09 May 2011 - 05:19 PM

Seems you dont know your own nuts from your mounts CAT man. :lol:


I know about one nut around here, though. :roflmao:

#19 Bowmoreman

Bowmoreman

    Clear enough skies

  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Bolton, MA

Posted 09 May 2011 - 09:47 PM

:cool:lets keep it calm and clean, gang...

;)

#20 Krish Mandal

Krish Mandal

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 243
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Forest Hills, NY

Posted 10 May 2011 - 12:21 AM

How the heck can a 10-inch SCT have a wide field? My 8-inch is a 2000mm FL. :shrug:

#21 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 33791
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 10 May 2011 - 12:30 AM

How the heck can a 10-inch SCT have a wide field? My 8-inch is a 2000mm FL. :shrug:


Depends on your frame of reference. Your C8 has twice as wide a field as a C14 at 3900mm! :lol:

#22 tboconnor

tboconnor

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 68
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2010

Posted 10 May 2011 - 04:01 AM

Thats nothing - I have a meade 12inch ACF that is riding on a CGEM. Will I try imaging with it? Might give it a shot with an OAG, but I will stick with the WO 90 megrez for the most part :)

#23 Bowmoreman

Bowmoreman

    Clear enough skies

  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Bolton, MA

Posted 10 May 2011 - 05:53 AM

How the heck can a 10-inch SCT have a wide field? My 8-inch is a 2000mm FL. :shrug:


only when using hyperstar, bot then it is an f2...

and NOT for visual

#24 Geo.

Geo.

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2840
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 10 May 2011 - 08:15 AM

It's really amazing how much larger a C11 or 2120 is than a C8 or 2080. Reminds of sailboats, add four feet and there's twice the bottom to clean and the dockage doubles too!

#25 tboconnor

tboconnor

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 68
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2010

Posted 10 May 2011 - 08:33 AM

It's really amazing how much larger a C11 or 2120 is than a C8 or 2080. Reminds of sailboats, add four feet and there's twice the bottom to clean and the dockage doubles too!


Tell me about it - Im going to have to do some serious weight training to get comfortable lugging stuff about now. :tonofbricks:






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics