Jump to content


Photo

Celestron VX mount

  • Please log in to reply
1024 replies to this topic

#176 EFT

EFT

    Vendor - Deep Space Products

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 2544
  • Joined: 07 May 2007
  • Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:32 PM

Well hey, compared with the cheapy plastic slack gap *rap gears we saw in the LX80 for the same price point, I think I'll take this one.


No contest there in my opinion. ;)

#177 zehnmm

zehnmm

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Alto, New Mexico

Posted 23 January 2013 - 05:05 PM

i hear of people putting the C11 on a CG-5.. so i guess anything is possible. depends on your definition of reasonable..

personally my C9.25 on CGEM is barely tolerable for visual. Shakes take a couple seconds to damp out after focusing. A motor focuser would be a big help.


Thanks. Unless someone advises me otherwise, I am considering a C11 to be too much for this mount nevermind that Celestron is offering such a product.

#178 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15457
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:02 PM

i hear of people putting the C11 on a CG-5.. so i guess anything is possible. depends on your definition of reasonable..

personally my C9.25 on CGEM is barely tolerable for visual. Shakes take a couple seconds to damp out after focusing. A motor focuser would be a big help.


Thanks. Unless someone advises me otherwise, I am considering a C11 to be too much for this mount nevermind that Celestron is offering such a product.


Depends on your needs. For visual, the C11 is not too much with the CG5 and likely won't be too much for this mount.

#179 tjugo

tjugo

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 946
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2007

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:42 PM

I've done it, C11 on a CG5, with good balance and with no wind it works OK for visual. So if the VX is as strong as the old CG5 it will work.

Cheers,

Jose

#180 dr.who

dr.who

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 1245
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2012

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:30 PM

Yes. Get anti vibration pads though and be prepared for some shaking if you have a standard focuser. I ran a C11 on my CG5 without problem but on a hard surface like my driveway I did get a second or so of vibration when I touched the focuser.

#181 akawaka

akawaka

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Calabasas, CA

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:31 PM

I'm a little disappointed that I bought a CG5 less than a month ago. This mount seems like it would be a nice compromise between the CG5 and the CGEM.

#182 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15457
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:39 PM

A SECOND OR TWO OF VIBRATION? Oh noes! ;)

#183 Brian Risley

Brian Risley

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 2845
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2006
  • Loc: SW Florida

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:47 PM

It least the grease looked good. No Synta Glue on what I could see.
Brian

#184 FoxTrot

FoxTrot

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 417
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2006
  • Loc: Melbourne, Australia

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:43 AM

Geezez Mike, you're a brave man to take apart a new toy so soon... ;-)

There are a few more nice VX videos on Youtube, posted by Mike Fowler. I must say that the mount has some very neat and thoughtful finishing touches for a "CG5 class" mount. And the sound seems more restrained and less screechy than the LXD75 does. Its a nice contender, for sure! Fox

For what they are worth...

Link to the mount sorta disassembled. At least as much as I could with the tools I had. I need a better spanner wrench.

Click here



#185 Mike X.

Mike X.

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 805
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Greece-Athens and Rome-Italy

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:16 AM

I'm a little disappointed that I bought a CG5 less than a month ago. This mount seems like it would be a nice compromise between the CG5 and the CGEM.


I can imagine, but if it helps i can tell you that still you chose a really good mount for the money and if you treat it well i will serve you really well both in photographic and visual use. ;)

#186 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15457
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:31 AM

It least the grease looked good. No Synta Glue on what I could see.
Brian


The grease you speak of hasn't been used in years AFAIK.

#187 dr.who

dr.who

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 1245
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2012

Posted 24 January 2013 - 11:06 AM

A SECOND OR TWO OF VIBRATION? Oh noes! ;)


:lol: Aye! It's a bloody travesty! It didn't bother me but some folks and something about a pea under N number of mattress's... ;)

#188 zehnmm

zehnmm

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Alto, New Mexico

Posted 24 January 2013 - 11:50 AM

"Depends on your needs. For visual, the C11 is not too much with the CG5 and likely won't be too much for this mount."

Hi Rod. Thanks. This might interest me. I have been lurking over at the Mallincam Yahoo forums a bit and I see you have posted there.

Question: Do you think I could "reasonably" use a C11 + CG5/VX mount with a Mallincam setup, like the VSS Color?

Thanks!

Steve

#189 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15457
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:46 PM

"Depends on your needs. For visual, the C11 is not too much with the CG5 and likely won't be too much for this mount."

Hi Rod. Thanks. This might interest me. I have been lurking over at the Mallincam Yahoo forums a bit and I see you have posted there.

Question: Do you think I could "reasonably" use a C11 + CG5/VX mount with a Mallincam setup, like the VSS Color?

Thanks!

Steve


You could. You'll be a-running the C11 at f/3.3 or so to accomodate the Mallincam, of course. To be honest, while I often use the C11 with my Xtreme, especially when I am after small galaxies, I think the C8 is really better overall...for the larger stuff and the prettier stuff, anyhow. Its field at f/3.3 is just about freaking perfect for the M-Cam.

If you do use the C11, be aware that, naturally, there are gonna be some gotchas for imaging, even with a Mallincam. You will want vibration supression pads under the tripod feet, avoid wind, and, one thing that can really help, add a larger tripod spreader, one that goes a little further toward stablizing the tripod.

#190 zehnmm

zehnmm

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Alto, New Mexico

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:02 PM

"Depends on your needs. For visual, the C11 is not too much with the CG5 and likely won't be too much for this mount."

Hi Rod. Thanks. This might interest me. I have been lurking over at the Mallincam Yahoo forums a bit and I see you have posted there.

Question: Do you think I could "reasonably" use a C11 + CG5/VX mount with a Mallincam setup, like the VSS Color?

Thanks!

Steve


You could. You'll be a-running the C11 at f/3.3 or so to accomodate the Mallincam, of course. To be honest, while I often use the C11 with my Xtreme, especially when I am after small galaxies, I think the C8 is really better overall...for the larger stuff and the prettier stuff, anyhow. Its field at f/3.3 is just about freaking perfect for the M-Cam.

If you do use the C11, be aware that, naturally, there are gonna be some gotchas for imaging, even with a Mallincam. You will want vibration supression pads under the tripod feet, avoid wind, and, one thing that can really help, add a larger tripod spreader, one that goes a little further toward stablizing the tripod.


Thanks much Uncle Rod! Great information. 'Preciate that you took your time to help!

Steve

#191 cn register 5

cn register 5

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 760
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2012

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:49 PM

From a look at the two mounts side by side I think that the AVX will carry any load at least as well and the C5 and probably better.

If you find the CG5 impossibly wobbly it's unlikely that you will find that the AVX enough better to be satisfactory but I think you will find it to be better.

Opinions about what counts as rigid or not seem to be far too subjective to be definite.

Chris

#192 kepler22

kepler22

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2012

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:37 PM

i dont know why people keep saying this will carry more
than a CG-5 its just a much better CG-5 with way better
motors and a lot more things but the pay load is still
the same 25lbs and thats pushing it bigtime its really
a cgem lite redesign on a CG-5 frame.

about two years ago a celestron engineer told me the
CG-5 was made for the C-6 and C-8 thats why the cgem
was made because of payload peoblems with the C-9
nevermind the C-11 then people started complaining
about payload problems when imaging with the C-11
that why the cgem dx was made this VX mount will
go into the astronomy history books i have no doubt
but to put a C-11 on it just defeats its purpose.

#193 RTLR 12

RTLR 12

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4515
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2008
  • Loc: The Great Pacific NorthWest

Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:28 PM

Payload for the CG-5 is listed at 35lbs and the pay load for the VX is listed at 30lbs.

Stan

#194 Orionis91

Orionis91

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 203
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2010
  • Loc: Maryland USA

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:48 PM

The CG-5 was "listed" at 35, however there is nothing about it that makes it carry more than the other CG-5 clones, as they were listed for 30, so the CG-5 really carries 30, although some people, really don't care about what is "listed" heeheheh I have seen some LOADED cg-5s... :)

#195 Mike X.

Mike X.

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 805
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Greece-Athens and Rome-Italy

Posted 24 January 2013 - 11:34 PM

35lbs for visual use probably won't break it..but photographically...35lbs is way optimistic for the CG5.Talking about Long exposure.
My opinion from personal experience is that this mount will perform well up to 25-26 lbs maximum and with short OTAs and even better with less weight on it.
Of course that's my opinion only. ;)

#196 A. Viegas

A. Viegas

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1053
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2012
  • Loc: New York City/ CT

Posted 25 January 2013 - 05:06 PM

I have had my CG5 with C8 + C80ed+ finder + filter wheel + malincam. Total weight 29 lbs. unguided I could easily do 30 seconds and guided 1-2 mins no problem, 3 mins showed oval stars. So maybe not great if you are trying Ccd or dslr imaging needing +5 mins. But for video astronomy... No problem! Can't beat it if you can buy slightly used less than $500!

Al

#197 Ken Hutchinson

Ken Hutchinson

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 341
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2003

Posted 25 January 2013 - 09:03 PM

The C6R OTAs are terribly nose heavy. As they come from the factory when they are balanced around the DEC axis the eyepiece end has a close encounter with the ground whenever they are pointed near the zenith. Maybe that is not a problem for those who live closer to the equator but here in northern Illinois the ground is very, very cold this time of year. Triple dog dare or not, no one wants to lay on the ground to look through the EP because forget about your tongue, your whole body sticks to the ground in the winter!

The long introduction explains why my C6R has a counterweight on the EP end so it will balance farther forward to keep it far enough above ground level to sit in an observing chair. As a result it clocks in a little heavier than a C11. I have used it for years on my ASGT. People who like a super steady visual mount won't be happy but it works fine on the ASGT for many people's taste. It works better on the AVX. The long tube of the C6R gives it a higher moment of inertia and a longer damping time so the C11 is only going to work better. Ultimately you have to let your own taste in these matters decide. The AVX can sling the weight around without breaking a sweat, it will point it quite accurately, and it settles fast enough to satisfy me.

Ken

#198 dr.who

dr.who

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 1245
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2012

Posted 25 January 2013 - 09:47 PM

Since we are talking weight load and since I am getting more into the AP side but do not want to deal with the weight of a CGEM (hence why I bought this mount) would you all mind giving me your thoughts on imaging with an ES 127mm APO on it?

Per the website the ES weighs in with all the accessories on it at 18.5 lbs/8.16 kg and is 41.75/1060mm long. That would be with dew shield, finder/guidescope, and Canon XSi. The XSi is 16 oz and the diagonal that comes with it is close to that and the finder it came with is replaced by a Stellarvue 60mm with SBIG ST-iC but I could save weight by about 2 pounds or so by pulling the dew shield...

Much as like the 80mm APO it just too small for what I want to do...

#199 orlyandico

orlyandico

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5349
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Singapore

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:23 AM

i know someone imaging with the ES127 and a G11. it's not a walk in the park. the issue with the ES127 is that it is long. you'll have a lot of vibrations and it will be very susceptible to wind.

#200 dr.who

dr.who

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 1245
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2012

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:40 AM

Thank you Orly for the reply.

Good grief! It has problems on a G11?!? That mount is a tank! I think I can tackle the vibration issue via vibration suppression pads but the wind issue is going to depend on what you mean by wind. If it is a case of winds like you find on a prairie plain or on a busy city street with tall buildings funneling it then I am ok since I am in an isolated area in terms of wind most times but if its a gentle breeze or the air displacement as the ground cools I will be toast...

Or am I fooling myself and need to look at a 102mm APO paired with a FR on the C8...?






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics