Jump to content


Photo

Celestron CGEM vs CGEM DX

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Ain Soph Aur

Ain Soph Aur

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2011
  • Loc: West Tennessee

Posted 28 August 2011 - 09:04 PM

I know the CGEM DX can handle more load than the CGEM. Is this due to an improved tripod on the DX, more robustness to the GEM head or a combination of both?

I was initially looking at the Atlas when I upgraded to the GEM mount later this year, mainly because of the tinkering with EQMOD, but am slowly leaning toward the Celestron mounts. I am almost to the point of waiting until I can afford the CGEM DX due to the larger payload, but would like more info for the major differences between the CGEM and CGEM DX.

#2 Tiny

Tiny

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 826
  • Joined: 01 May 2008

Posted 28 August 2011 - 10:20 PM

From my research there are basically just 2 primary differences. The first obviously is the addition of the much more robust [and taller] CGE Tripod. The second difference is they've either increased the power available to the motors or replaced them. When it was announced they made it simply sound like they increased the power so i'd imagine this was accomplished with some minor tweaks to the circuitry. With electric motors i like letting the amount they draw be the judge as to the power available in the actual motors.

CGEM = 3.2 amps of 12VDC
CGEM DX = 3.5 amps
and i believe the CGE Pro is 3.5 amps


#3 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

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

Posted 29 August 2011 - 06:57 AM

And there is a new larger dec counterweight bar.

#4 Starhawk

Starhawk

    Space Ranger

  • *****
  • Posts: 5546
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2008
  • Loc: Tucson, Arizona

Posted 29 August 2011 - 08:37 AM

According to Celestron's intro video, they're just running more power to the motors.

-Rich

#5 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20268
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 29 August 2011 - 09:01 PM

It's actually the CGE Pro tripod. The CGE tripod is quite a bit less beefy than the CGE Pro tripod, though still much more beefy than the standard CGE tripod. It is worth noting though that the CGE Pro tripod is ungodly heavy and bulky; heavier than the EQ mount head, in fact. Something to consider if you transport your gear often or have a long schlep from storage to the yard.

While I hate undermounted OTAs, over mounting also brings with it headaches. What OTAs are you planning on mounting? I'd let that guide me to the correct balance between sufficient capacity and excess mount mass.

Regards,

Jim

#6 Ain Soph Aur

Ain Soph Aur

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2011
  • Loc: West Tennessee

Posted 29 August 2011 - 09:32 PM

I will initially only be mounting the Comet Hunter, but I want to get a mount that will handle heavier OTA's as my collection grows. I'd like to eventually get a 10" Newtonian and a C11 SCT, so I'm leaning toward saving up for CGEM DX. Perhaps Celestron will put them on sell sometime this year, and I can pick one up from telescopes.com with one of their 11% coupons.

But now I notice that Orion has their Atlas mounted 10" f4.7 Newtonian on sale right now. Only $200 bucks above the cost of the Atlas mount for what I understand is a decent OTA.

Decisions, decisions :)






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics