Jump to content


Photo

C11 mount for visual

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 m00nless

m00nless

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 470
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2008

Posted 26 January 2013 - 09:05 AM

I am thinking about getting a C11. What minimum mount would I need for visual observation?

#2 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15701
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:11 AM

How much do you want to spend? Go-to?

The minimum is the Celestron CG5 (or the new VX)...

;)

#3 mgwhittle

mgwhittle

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1374
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Chattanooga, TN

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:33 AM

The mount is 50 percent of the visual observing experience. If you mount shakes and can't handle the load you will be frustrated. If you are trying to go minimal on the mount because you are spending more on the scope then maybe you should rethink it and get a slightly smaller scope with an appropriate mount.

Uncle Rod is right, a CG5 will work, but I bet you would be much happier with something like an Atlas.

#4 magnus

magnus

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 575
  • Joined: 17 Mar 2004
  • Loc: Visby, Sweden

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:59 AM

What is the meaning of "will work"? I am happy with my C8 + CG-5 with 2" steel legs. But at high power (over 200X)there are some vibrations when focusing. The C8 weight is 5.7 kg, I think. I would not dream of having my CG-5 carrying such a massive load as a 13 kg C11. A CG-5 can`t be steady enough for bringing the excellent C11 justice. Not in my world anyway. I`d say EQ6; no less for making a C11 show it`s capability visually!
Regards,
Magnus 57N.

#5 RobertED

RobertED

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3202
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2003
  • Loc: Smithfield, RI

Posted 26 January 2013 - 01:34 PM

I have Orion's ATLAS mount for my basic C-11. Works pretty well for observing!! (...same as EQ-6).

#6 Lane

Lane

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3593
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Frisco, Texas

Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:42 PM

I would not go smaller than the Atlas or CGEM if you want a GOTO EQ type of mount. With vibration suppression pads either of these will have a very low damping time. My CGEM C11 has a damping time of about 1/2 to 1 second depending on where it is aimed and this is with the extension pier on top of the tripod and with the legs half extended. Without the vibration pads the vibration damping is in the 2 to 3 second range.

You don't want to have a scope that vibrates in a small wind or that shakes so badly when you touch the focus knob that you cannot find focus easily, so don't go for the mount that just barely does the job. Get one that definitely does the job and save yourself a lot of frustration.

#7 telfish

telfish

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 491
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2010
  • Loc: Adirondack Mountains NY

Posted 26 January 2013 - 09:07 PM

I use a C11 on an Atlas mount for visual and AP. It works.

I used to use it on a CG5 and it works with a lot of gear grinding.

Terry

#8 t.r.

t.r.

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4488
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 27 January 2013 - 08:35 AM

What is the meaning of "will work"? I am happy with my C8 + CG-5 with 2" steel legs. But at high power (over 200X)there are some vibrations when focusing. The C8 weight is 5.7 kg, I think. I would not dream of having my CG-5 carrying such a massive load as a 13 kg C11. A CG-5 can`t be steady enough for bringing the excellent C11 justice. Not in my world anyway. I`d say EQ6; no less for making a C11 show it`s capability visually!
Regards,
Magnus 57N.


Here we go again Uncle Rod...Here is my C11 mounted on the CG5 Goto, legs retracted, with 2" focuser, 2" diagonal, Denk IIs with powerswitch viewing Jupiter at over 200X! Saying that this mount can't carry the C11 is rubish! It simply comes down to how fussy YOU are and that is a very subjective thing...it certainly can be done enjoyably...FOR HOURS AT A TIME! If you want to spend more $$$ and have the increased hassle of the additional weight toget a one second damping time...go for it! So mine takes 2 seconds, whoop-de-do! ;)

Attached Files



#9 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15701
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 27 January 2013 - 10:00 AM


Here we go again Uncle Rod...


Yep...the common thread is always "Well, I haven't tried it, but it can't POSSIBLY work." :lol:

I will say it one more time: I've used this set up enough over the years to know it works well for visual. Should you put vibration supression pads under the tripod legs? Yes. Should you observe under gale force conditions? No. But it is a pleasant visual set up and a lot easier to tote out than an Atlas, regardless of how much I love my Atlas. ;)

#10 magnus

magnus

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 575
  • Joined: 17 Mar 2004
  • Loc: Visby, Sweden

Posted 27 January 2013 - 12:45 PM

Hmmm...great no one would be happier than me if Iam wrong. If my CG-5GT can handle the C11 at reasonable magnification I won`t hesitate to buy one as I am not intressted in upgrading my CG-5 to something larger, heavier and bulkier.
11" SCT now the skies are really opening up for me in a way I never thougt possible.
Off topic and by the way; I use a 1.25" diagonal + f/6.3 f/r with my C8. Will this also work with the C11?
Thanks for advice.

Regards,
Magnus 57N.

#11 EFT

EFT

    Vendor - Deep Space Products

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 2550
  • Joined: 07 May 2007
  • Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Posted 27 January 2013 - 02:49 PM

People's experience differs but my personal preference is to not put a C11 on anything smaller than a CGEM/Atlas mount. It's just a lot happier there. :)

#12 t.r.

t.r.

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4488
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 27 January 2013 - 03:13 PM

If you are going to make a statement like that (the C11 will be "happier") then please provide objective points to back up your position. In my opinion, this is "leading" and doing an injustice to the OP. The OP is visual only. There can't be a whole lot more loaded on the C11 for visual than I have. I actually use the setup pictured. Other than damping time, which is the ONLY factor we are really discussing (capacity is set, a C11), what does double the mount buy the OP? The OP asked specifically for the "minimum" not the maximum or what others prefer for subjective happiness...I think my evidence proves the CG5 is the minimum. I certainly don't mean this as a personal attack, just trying to do right by the OP. ;)

#13 EFT

EFT

    Vendor - Deep Space Products

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 2550
  • Joined: 07 May 2007
  • Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Posted 27 January 2013 - 04:24 PM

If you are going to make a statement like that (the C11 will be "happier") then please provide objective points to back up your position. In my opinion, this is "leading" and doing an injustice to the OP. The OP is visual only. There can't be a whole lot more loaded on the C11 for visual than I have. I actually use the setup pictured. Other than damping time, which is the ONLY factor we are really discussing (capacity is set, a C11), what does double the mount buy the OP? The OP asked specifically for the "minimum" not the maximum or what others prefer for subjective happiness...I think my evidence proves the CG5 is the minimum. I certainly don't mean this as a personal attack, just trying to do right by the OP. ;)


Since I'm feeling grumpy on this rainy day I guess I will take the bate and answer your post. Other than the binoviewers, I have had this exact setup as well as more mounts that I can remember not to mention working on numerous CG-5 (two right now as a matter of fact) and may other mounts. Sometimes its just easier to let my credentials speak for themself.

What I was trying to do was avoid the standard arguement that ensues whenever this topic arrises (and it arrises at least every month or so, so this horse has long been beat to death). Sometimes it gets old going over the same ground again and again. But since you want more, then here is my expanded opinion. Yes the C11 can be put on a CG-5 but for the average person it is a foolish choice (as is the case with the largest OTA that Celestron tends to sell in combination with each mount). I prefer performance over having to fiddlefart around with a mount constantly every time I want to use it. I also prefer to recommend gear to people that they are more likely to be happy with to start with rather than calling me to try to fix it for them as soon as they see the poor performance.

If you have a lot of experience using and tweaking (or maybe are incredibly lucky) you can use a CG-5 for this purpose. But I work on these mounts all the time and have owned them and do not personally consider the CG-5 suitable for anything bigger than a C8 and that is from my own personal experience. Can I balance a C11 on a CG-5 and make it work. Heck yes, but someone in my line of work should be able to do that just as I would expect Rod to be able to do. Would I ever recommend it to someone else. Never. I could balance a C14 on a CG-5 if I wanted to, but what does that have to do with anything? Personally, I don't even consider the C11/CGEM combination to be my favorite and find the C11 to be better suited to the CGEM DX.

With no information on the OPs background other than it looks like he has only used smallish scopes from his other posts, it is foolish to tell him to go ahead and use the smallest possible, and most difficult, mount to use the C11 on. I'm glad your setup works for you but seeing as you use it on a wood deck you obviously don't care about the shakes in the first place. The average CG-5 with a C11 on it is a rattly piece of bleep that isn't worth the time it takes to set it up. With other scopes on it is is amoung the best in its class. If you want a reasonably good performing mount that can handle the C11 without too much trouble for visual only, then put it on a CGEM/Atlas. You want it to be truly useable, then add an electronic focuser. If you want better performance and the possibility of future AP use then go to a CGEM DX, G11, CGE Pro, etc. in that order.

The injustice is for someone like me to convince someone to buy something that they will ultimately be unhappy with. Better to start out right in the first place and not lead someone down the path of undermounting and better to listen to someone who handles these and other mounts every day rather than someone who has managed to force a mount to do something it is poorly suited to with no explanation as to what amount of effort that took. Mount recommendations like this are all about opinion, now whose opinion is worth more is up to the OP.

Now is that enough or do you want me to dissect the mount piece by piece to explain my position further?

#14 t.r.

t.r.

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4488
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 27 January 2013 - 05:18 PM

Jeez, I guess you are grumpy.

#15 EFT

EFT

    Vendor - Deep Space Products

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 2550
  • Joined: 07 May 2007
  • Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Posted 27 January 2013 - 06:18 PM

Jeez, I guess you are grumpy.


Even I get to be grumpy sometimes. A personal attack is all in how the poster says it and the viewer views it, not whether the poster says it is one (thanks for amending your post). Sorry if you took mine anymore personal than I took yours. ;)

Damping time is actually not the basis of much of my opinion because there are some ways around even that. I am a visual observer and except in the worst of situations (which the C11/CG-5 combination is close), I don't worry all that much about it. It is simply basic design and overall performance. I can simply never in good conscence recommend the C11/CG-5 combination for a variety of reasons and consider Celestron's offering of that combination to actually be the greatest misleading. Undermounting is simply a rescipe for frustration that, while it may make business for me, is not what I ever recommend to friends or stangers.

#16 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15701
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 27 January 2013 - 06:42 PM

[Can I balance a C11 on a CG-5 and make it work. Heck yes, but someone in my line of work should be able to do that just as I would expect Rod to be able to do. Would I ever recommend it to someone else. Never. I could balance a C14 on a CG-5 if I wanted to, but what does that have to do with anything? Personally, I don't even consider the C11/CGEM combination to be my favorite and find the C11 to be better suited to the CGEM DX.



There is certainly a lot of truth to that. However, I will say we have a club member down here who went straight from a Meade DS scope to the C11/CG5, and has been having a ball with the combo for...wow...at least four years now...

#17 t.r.

t.r.

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4488
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 27 January 2013 - 06:57 PM

How can he possibly be happy Rod, after all it is "a rattly piece of bleep that isn't worth the time it takes to set it up"!?!? I couldn't resist Ed... :p
Look, many folks in the hobby are, how shall I say, up tight, OCDish or border on Asperger's syndrome. If the OP is the type...then by all means, you better spend the dough to ensure your "frustrations" don't kick in. Others are much more relaxed, take life as it comes, casual visual observers who simply like to have fun and enjoy an iced tea while we observe...yes, even from our rickety wooden decks. ;) Ed, really if I offended you, I'm sorry, but far too often people here spend other peoples money frivolously...I know that's not your intent. Just want the OP to know that regardless of what they read, the combination is in use, HAPPILY in the field by at least, three of us. :grin:

#18 johnnyha

johnnyha

    Fly Me to the Moon

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

Posted 27 January 2013 - 07:22 PM

It helps A LOT to put the mount on a beefier tripod.

My 2 cents. BTW t.r., love those Gold 50th Anniversary Brandons!

#19 stevew

stevew

    Now I've done it

  • -----
  • Posts: 4373
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2006
  • Loc: British Columbia Canada

Posted 27 January 2013 - 07:39 PM

The C11 and Losmandy G11 are a great combination.

Steve

Attached Files



#20 magnus

magnus

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 575
  • Joined: 17 Mar 2004
  • Loc: Visby, Sweden

Posted 27 January 2013 - 07:55 PM

Wooow, that looks like a healthy combo. Wish I could afford G11+C11....

/Magnus 57N.

#21 Joe Bergeron

Joe Bergeron

    Vendor - Space Art

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1634
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2003
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 29 January 2013 - 12:41 AM

If you have a lot of experience using and tweaking (or maybe are incredibly lucky) you can use a CG-5 for this purpose. But I work on these mounts all the time and have owned them and do not personally consider the CG-5 suitable for anything bigger than a C8 and that is from my own personal experience. Can I balance a C11 on a CG-5 and make it work. Heck yes, but someone in my line of work should be able to do that just as I would expect Rod to be able to do. Would I ever recommend it to someone else. Never. I could balance a C14 on a CG-5 if I wanted to, but what does that have to do with anything? Personally, I don't even consider the C11/CGEM combination to be my favorite and find the C11 to be better suited to the CGEM DX.


My hero!!!

#22 donnie3

donnie3

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2712
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2004
  • Loc: bartlesville oklahoma

Posted 08 February 2013 - 06:05 PM

will, i already have a new cg5 so, im between the 9.25 and 11". i just cant see going from a 8 to a 9.25 if im looking for aperture. so why not give it a try and if its not working purchase a heavier mount. im viewing at low power say in the 70s so i cant see a lot of vibration there,of course i could be wrong!!! any thoughts on that. thanks, donnie.

#23 Lane

Lane

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3593
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Frisco, Texas

Posted 08 February 2013 - 07:18 PM

I have tried my C11 on my Sirius mount before and at its lowest power it will work just fine as long as the wind is not blowing to much. At medium and high power I can't even focus it due to all the shaking. So your theory is sound, the CG5 will probably work at low power too. It might even work at higher power. Just make sure you use vibration suppression pads, those will make a significant difference. Focusing will probably still be a problem but it just means you will be spending some extra time achieving focus.

#24 donnie3

donnie3

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2712
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2004
  • Loc: bartlesville oklahoma

Posted 09 February 2013 - 02:30 PM

this may be a dumb question but with this mount setup(not using the tripod legs) would there be less vibration with a 11" on it or is it the size of the mount itself that causes the vibration. i experience very little if any vibration using my meade 8" on it.

Attached Files








Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics