Jump to content


Photo

iEQ45 vs Cgem

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 starbob1

starbob1

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1079
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2007
  • Loc: IN

Posted 17 April 2013 - 03:19 PM

I was told that the Cgem is quite better mount. Has anyone compared,Them. I do like some of the Feature of the iEQ45 and their support seems good. Thanks Bob

#2 Raginar

Raginar

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6138
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2010
  • Loc: Rapid CIty, SD

Posted 17 April 2013 - 05:11 PM

Bob,

I think you'll find they each have their issues. I thought the iEQ45 had balance problems due to stiction and of course the CGEM has cogging/an 8/3 harmonic.

There are plenty of examples on both sides who use them for AP successfully. I think visually they're the same.

#3 mgwhittle

mgwhittle

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Chattanooga, TN

Posted 17 April 2013 - 06:49 PM

I think Chris is right in his assessment. As a iEQ45 owner the things I like over the CGEM is the polar alignment scope, the lighter weight and iOptron's responsive customer service. However the CGEM has the All Star Polar alignment routine, can't do that with the iOptron. One thing to note is that to use the iOptron with a heavier scope (lets say over 35 pounds of gear) is that you have to purchase the counterweight shaft extension.

I would have been happy with either, the main reason I went with the iOptron is the lighter weight so I can carry the mount out, tripod and all in one go.

#4 Mike X.

Mike X.

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 824
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Greece-Athens and Rome-Italy

Posted 17 April 2013 - 08:55 PM

Well support is important and i wouldn't underestimate at this point.If Ioptron is very responsive i find it a thing to keep in consideration.

#5 vdb

vdb

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 431
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2009

Posted 18 April 2013 - 12:12 AM

The Dec sticktation is solved by V2 for the IEQ45, I have owned both and I prefer the IEQ45 by far ...

#6 John Carruthers

John Carruthers

    Skiprat

  • *****
  • Posts: 3552
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2007
  • Loc: Kent, UK

Posted 18 April 2013 - 05:03 AM

I would go with the ieq45 every time, all the bugs in the first version have been sorted and a minor query to their support dept was dealt with within the hour.

#7 starbob1

starbob1

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1079
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2007
  • Loc: IN

Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:34 AM

Well my ieq45 would be pier mounted and what I read says their polar scope is very good. Really do not need the all star rotine. Plus support is very important to me.

Look like this mount would be easy to pier mount also. I own a cgem and it was okay. It also was hard to balance in declination.Thanks

#8 psandelle

psandelle

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 697
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 18 April 2013 - 09:35 AM

I have the iEQ30 and it's been great for polar align, and the new firmware update on the HC has added some more polar align routine (not needing Polaris) - haven't been able to try it out yet ("Dang you weather! Dang you!"), but, although it's probably not the All Star, with the polar scope, should get you very close, very quickly.

And the customer support is fantastic.

Paul

#9 nomosnow

nomosnow

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 371
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2011
  • Loc: Fort Saskatchewan,Ab ,Canada

Posted 18 April 2013 - 10:03 AM

I have had my iEQ45 for a year . I like it simple fast polar alignment , the one star align routine ( which will center my target in the fov always ) ,its heated hand control allowing operation down to - 20 degrees C , its dec guiding adjustments which are very smooth.
The Ra guiding however could be better I find it just ok for my 1.77 arc/secs per pixel scale (750 mm fl).

#10 vdb

vdb

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 431
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2009

Posted 18 April 2013 - 11:11 AM

Hmmm I did use the IEQ45 with a GSO RC 8 to shoot an APOD Bubble nebula at pixel scale 0.7 ...

#11 Moromete

Moromete

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 684
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Romania

Posted 18 April 2013 - 01:46 PM

How good will be a IEQ45 with a C11 + DSLR + guiding stuff(~15-16kg) for astrofoto?

Is it better for astrofoto with 15-16kg than a AZ EQ6/EQ6 Pro or worse?

#12 Erik30

Erik30

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 102
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012
  • Loc: Cottage Grove, MN

Posted 18 April 2013 - 02:23 PM

I have a CG-5 and wanted an upgrade. I looked at the CGEM and iEQ45 and went with the iEQ45. I could not be happier, the goto's are all spot on. Only issue I had was the object I was observing would travel out of the fov. I found that one tripod leg had slipped about an inch throwing the level out. Other than that I love it.

#13 orion69

orion69

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 998
  • Joined: 09 May 2010
  • Loc: Croatia

Posted 18 April 2013 - 04:54 PM

How good will be a IEQ45 with a C11 + DSLR + guiding stuff(~15-16kg) for astrofoto?

Not a good idea.

Is it better for astrofoto with 15-16kg than a AZ EQ6/EQ6 Pro or worse?

Also not a good idea.

#14 Mike X.

Mike X.

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 824
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Greece-Athens and Rome-Italy

Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:07 PM

I think that those focal lengths are a serious limit for all these mounts.At least at f/10.
I got an azeq6 because i didn't wanted to mess with the Cgem cogging issue nor the 8/3 and i guide.The mount so far promises well but a c11? I don't know.nevertheless there are people that have taken images with 1800mm with success on an azeq6 and with no problems at all..But I never tried it.
So maybe if you reduce it and use an oag...I wouldn't even mess with such fl personally. (2000+mm)

#15 orion69

orion69

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 998
  • Joined: 09 May 2010
  • Loc: Croatia

Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:21 PM

Some probably won't agree but I'll say that C11+DSLR+low end mount like CGEM or EQ6 or IEQ45 is a good way to hate AP.

Unless you want to shoot only planets of course.

#16 nomosnow

nomosnow

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 371
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2011
  • Loc: Fort Saskatchewan,Ab ,Canada

Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:38 PM

As I said before I am really happy with my iEQ45 because... I image with a 6 inch F-5 Newtonian and have no frustrations at all. But...my mount would not work well for longer focal lengths due to jumpy RA guiding . I know people have been working hard at improving the RA tracking and you can follow their good work on the yahoo ieq45 imaging group
.
But still for the price this is a great mount. :grin:

#17 Midnight Dan

Midnight Dan

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11520
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Hilton, NY, Yellow Zone (Bortle 4.5)

Posted 18 April 2013 - 07:51 PM

I have not owned the CGEM, but after comparing the two and doing a lot of CN research, went with the iEQ45. Very happy with the decision.

I agree with those above who say that the C11 is not the best choice OTA for doing AP on the iEQ45, CGEM or the Atlas. I'm sure there are those who do it, but it seems like a recipe for frustration to me.

-Dan

#18 blave

blave

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2009

Posted 20 April 2013 - 10:08 PM

I upgraded from an AS-GT to an iEQ45. At one time the CGEM was on the top of my list, but a combination of reading about lots of problems with (at least) the early ones and the fact that the '45 is considerably lighter pointed me at the iOptron. Overall I am quite happy with it -- I was concerned about the learning curve of going from the Celestron HC to the iOptron one, but that's been largely a non-issue. My imaging "adventures" with it, using a 480mm F/L refractor, thus far have been quite positive, although for some reason unguided imaging is pretty much a non-starter; I got better results with my AS-GT for 1 or 2 minute exposures. (This is really a non-issue for me as I will always want to do guided imaging, due to wanting 5 to 10 minute exposure times.)

I recently bought a C8 OTA; I haven't done any imaging with it yet but I would opine that just based on using it for visual stuff so far on the '45, I think a C8 with a small guidescope (e.g. Orion's 50mm, used along with the 0.6x Celestron reducer for the C8) is probably nearing the top of the '45's capacity. IOW, I would never try a C11 with it, and would wonder about even a C9.25 other than for "just visual".

In closing: I am sufficiently impressed with the mount as well as iOptron's support that I am probably going to buy one of their new ZEQ25 mounts to use at my vacation home, with a 66mm refractor. Overall, iOptron seems to be able to deliver a given level of performance at a significantly lighter mount weight based on my experiences thus far. ALso, they have been pretty regular with HC firmware updates, most recently adding what sounds like an "All Star" polar alignment routine, although I have not tried it since I can see the Big P from my location.

imaging setup: http://smu.gs/15tzu6v

C8 on iEQ45: http://smu.gs/106F1b8

Horsehead Nebula taken using the iEQ45: http://smu.gs/106ETZ9

regards,

Dave B.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics