Jump to content


Photo

Atlas EQ G compared to Celestron CG5 Advanced ?

  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 tim57064

tim57064

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1514
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2012
  • Loc: Southeast South Dakota,USA

Posted 07 October 2013 - 07:13 AM

Hello all,I am just curious about the difference between the Celestron CG5 Advanced and the Atlas EQ-G?

Actually I already have a CG5 Advanced and looking to possibly upgrade and am considering the Atlas. I want to use it for my Celestron CR150 HD6 refractor and at times maybe my Meade 10" f/6.3. I have heard of people using it with a 10" yet I also want to do imaging with it using my DSLR. I know that you may say that you would be better off with a CGE or somthing like that,yet money is an issue here. I would like to here from any of you that possibly has the Atlas EQG mount and if you have imaged with a 10" SCT mounted on it.
I would like to say Thanks for your time and possible advice on the subject.

#2 orlyandico

orlyandico

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Singapore

Posted 07 October 2013 - 07:22 AM

There's someone in the local astro-group here in Singapore who is imaging with an M10 and Atlas. Permanent pier. Results are acceptable, but not something you'd mistake for something from a higher-end mount.

That said, the M10 is heavier than even the C11, so you're both overloading the mount and using a heavier-than-necessary tube.

#3 proteus5

proteus5

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Southern New Jersey

Posted 07 October 2013 - 07:30 AM

Here's a couple shots using my Meade 10" f/10 on the Atlas. I'm just starting out using the 10" sct after a year using an 80ed, so I'm sure they could be better. I'm still working on perfecting guiding and polar alignment at the longer focal length. If you're just starting AP I wouldn't start with the 10". It's better to learn the ropes with a smaller shorter focal length setup. Hope this helps. I've never used a Celestron mount so I can't comment on those.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

#4 dragonslayer1

dragonslayer1

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1023
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2012
  • Loc: SLC, UT

Posted 07 October 2013 - 08:58 AM

well same weight capacity @40lbs, the CGEM is about the same, and the CGEM-DX carried 10lbs more (50lbs) for $500.00 more. Just a thought to keep in mind if ever want to add more weight,
Kasey

#5 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 33795
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 07 October 2013 - 09:03 AM

Hello all,I am just curious about the difference between the Celestron CG5 Advanced and the Atlas EQ-G?


The Atlas weighs twice as much and can probably handle twice the load.

#6 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15567
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 07 October 2013 - 09:28 AM

There's someone in the local astro-group here in Singapore who is imaging with an M10 and Atlas. Permanent pier. Results are acceptable, but not something you'd mistake for something from a higher-end mount.


And yet...and yet... Many Atlas users are taking images that are easily the equal of those done by people who spent for much more expensive mounts. Ground truth? What still matters most is the man or woman behind the camera, not the mount's pedigree.

And, yes, a Meade 10 will do fine on the Atlas. Personally, I think a C8 is still a very good solution, however. Unless you are going after small targets, you get that generous field, and the OTA will not stress your mount whether it is an EQ-6 or a G11 or a shake-your-money-maker. :lol:

#7 David Pavlich

David Pavlich

    Transmographied

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 27521
  • Joined: 18 May 2005
  • Loc: Mandeville, LA USA

Posted 07 October 2013 - 02:33 PM

The Atlas is a better mount, especially if you're considering imaging. Make the addition of EQMOD and you make a good mount better.

Having said that, I'm in the camp that the CG5-GT is the best $600 goto mount that's ever been produced. I have one that I use for outreach stuff and it fits the bill perfectly. Do a 2+4 alignment and you're good for the rest of the evening. And I way overloaded it with a 10" Meade with crayford and finder scope. That combination took four 11 pound counterweights and would put objects in the eyepiece no matter the side of the meridian. Mind you, this is purely visual, but still, it shows that a relatively inexpensive mount can serve you well.

David

#8 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15567
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 07 October 2013 - 02:51 PM

Amen. For visual, especially with a C8, the CG5 fraking rules.

#9 David Pavlich

David Pavlich

    Transmographied

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 27521
  • Joined: 18 May 2005
  • Loc: Mandeville, LA USA

Posted 07 October 2013 - 05:28 PM

I just set up my CG5 with my brand new $59 4" Celestron refractor and it was nice just having to use ONE counterweight. :grin: Time to give the scope its check ride!

David

#10 Stelios

Stelios

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1974
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003
  • Loc: West Hills, CA

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:32 PM

Amen. For visual, especially with a C8, the CG5 fraking rules.


My CG-5 is 10 years old, and with a fair polar alignment and 2 additional calibration stars it puts objects near the center of the eyepiece all night long. And I never thought it unduly burdened with my C9.25" for visual--I can well imagine it supporting the C11 for visual.

#11 Stelios

Stelios

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1974
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003
  • Loc: West Hills, CA

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:33 PM

I love your blue snowball. One of the most lovely objects. Some day...

#12 tim57064

tim57064

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1514
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2012
  • Loc: Southeast South Dakota,USA

Posted 07 October 2013 - 09:50 PM

Thanks to everyone for your replies and advice. I just noticed one,Atlas eq-g ,for sale yesterday and when I went to check it out today again,it was already sold.. I guess the old saying applies,"You snooze you lose", and I did,lose out on a good deal.

#13 David Pavlich

David Pavlich

    Transmographied

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 27521
  • Joined: 18 May 2005
  • Loc: Mandeville, LA USA

Posted 07 October 2013 - 09:54 PM

Well, I just came in from my C102's first light. Nice little refractor! But the real reason for the post is to reinforce just how good the ole' CG5 is. I plopped it in the backyard pointing it where I thought north would be. The first alignment star, Arcturus, wasn't even close. No surprise. The second star, Vega was closer but still out of the FOV. First Cal star was close, but out of the FOV. The second cal star was dead center! The third and fourth were centered and it was off to the races.

First object was M31. There it was, so I thought I'd see how well it would do on the other side of the meridian. I punched up M13 and it was centered.

Not bad for just putting it in a spot and doing an alignment. A good mount, that one!

David

#14 tim57064

tim57064

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1514
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2012
  • Loc: Southeast South Dakota,USA

Posted 07 October 2013 - 10:05 PM

David,Thanks for your reply. I do like My CG5 advanced mount. I just would like it to be a little more robust so as to handle my Meade 10" for when I want to use it for imaging. I have the 10" on an LX200 mount at the moment yet would love to be able to do some long exposure imaging with it,especially now that I am now building my observatory.

I also think that my CR150 HD6 Refractor would benefit a larger mount as it weighs more than my 8se ota. I have used my 8 se on the CG5 and like that combination. I have no intention on getting rid of the CG5 mount.

#15 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20320
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 07 October 2013 - 10:54 PM

The Atlas is heavier, carries a larger payload more stably, costs a lot more, is and much quieter when slewing and tracking.

Regards,

Jim

#16 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20320
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 07 October 2013 - 10:57 PM

Agreed. The C8 is the perfect payload for the CG5. It's almost as if the CG5 was patterned after a mount developed specifically with the C8 in mind. :lol:

- Jim

#17 Moromete

Moromete

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 665
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Romania

Posted 07 October 2013 - 11:09 PM

Well, I just came in from my C102's first light. Nice little refractor! But the real reason for the post is to reinforce just how good the ole' CG5 is. I plopped it in the backyard pointing it where I thought north would be. The first alignment star, Arcturus, wasn't even close. No surprise. The second star, Vega was closer but still out of the FOV. First Cal star was close, but out of the FOV. The second cal star was dead center! The third and fourth were centered and it was off to the races.

First object was M31. There it was, so I thought I'd see how well it would do on the other side of the meridian. I punched up M13 and it was centered.

Not bad for just putting it in a spot and doing an alignment. A good mount, that one!

David


David,

Do you have at least the same level of GOTO precision with the Atlas Eq G on both parts of the meridian after callibrating with only 2 or 3 stars and only pointing to north(not even using the polar scope)?

#18 David Pavlich

David Pavlich

    Transmographied

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 27521
  • Joined: 18 May 2005
  • Loc: Mandeville, LA USA

Posted 07 October 2013 - 11:17 PM

The Atlas is heavier, carries a larger payload more stably, costs a lot more, is and much quieter when slewing and tracking.

Regards,

Jim


That the Atlas is quieter is an understatement! The CG5 sounds like a thrashing machine compared to the Atlas. :grin:

David

#19 David Pavlich

David Pavlich

    Transmographied

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 27521
  • Joined: 18 May 2005
  • Loc: Mandeville, LA USA

Posted 07 October 2013 - 11:19 PM

You will definately have a better mount with an Atlas. I would guess that it has a better native PE than the CG5 and your 10" Meade won't stress it.

David

#20 David Pavlich

David Pavlich

    Transmographied

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 27521
  • Joined: 18 May 2005
  • Loc: Mandeville, LA USA

Posted 07 October 2013 - 11:24 PM

Well, I just came in from my C102's first light. Nice little refractor! But the real reason for the post is to reinforce just how good the ole' CG5 is. I plopped it in the backyard pointing it where I thought north would be. The first alignment star, Arcturus, wasn't even close. No surprise. The second star, Vega was closer but still out of the FOV. First Cal star was close, but out of the FOV. The second cal star was dead center! The third and fourth were centered and it was off to the races.

First object was M31. There it was, so I thought I'd see how well it would do on the other side of the meridian. I punched up M13 and it was centered.

Not bad for just putting it in a spot and doing an alignment. A good mount, that one!

David


David,

Do you have at least the same level of GOTO precision with the Atlas Eq G on both parts of the meridian after callibrating with only 2 or 3 stars and only pointing to north(not even using the polar scope)?


My first GEM was an Atlas and while the alignment in that hand controller only allowed for 3 stars, the gotos were alway good. But it was only good if I used all three stars. The third star corrected for cone error and that's important.

Where Celestron's hand controller wins the day is the All Star Polar Alignment routine.

David

#21 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20320
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 07 October 2013 - 11:25 PM

Happy B-Day, David.

- Jim

#22 Moromete

Moromete

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 665
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Romania

Posted 07 October 2013 - 11:43 PM

Well, I just came in from my C102's first light. Nice little refractor! But the real reason for the post is to reinforce just how good the ole' CG5 is. I plopped it in the backyard pointing it where I thought north would be. The first alignment star, Arcturus, wasn't even close. No surprise. The second star, Vega was closer but still out of the FOV. First Cal star was close, but out of the FOV. The second cal star was dead center! The third and fourth were centered and it was off to the races.

First object was M31. There it was, so I thought I'd see how well it would do on the other side of the meridian. I punched up M13 and it was centered.

Not bad for just putting it in a spot and doing an alignment. A good mount, that one!

David


David,

Do you have at least the same level of GOTO precision with the Atlas Eq G on both parts of the meridian after callibrating with only 2 or 3 stars and only pointing to north(not even using the polar scope)?


My first GEM was an Atlas and while the alignment in that hand controller only allowed for 3 stars, the gotos were alway good. But it was only good if I used all three stars. The third star corrected for cone error and that's important.

Where Celestron's hand controller wins the day is the All Star Polar Alignment routine.

David


Thank you David for your opinion.

Help me better understand please. You are saying that the GOTOs of an Atlas EQ G aligned on 3 stars are as good as those of a CG5GT aligned on 2+2 stars(or 2+4) even with a rough polar alignment of both mounts?

Than why doesn't one have the same GOTO precision with CG5GT after callibrating with only 2+1 stars, the other 3 stars becoming redundant somehow?

#23 David Pavlich

David Pavlich

    Transmographied

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 27521
  • Joined: 18 May 2005
  • Loc: Mandeville, LA USA

Posted 08 October 2013 - 01:44 AM

I wouldn't say redundant. Allow me to back up just a little. When I had the Atlas, I would actually use the polar scope to get it lined up quite close to where the mount should be pointed before I started the alignment. This helped putting the first alignment star into the FOV. From there, the remaining alignment stars were very close to being centered.

With the CG5, I don't bother even getting close to a polar alignment before I started. In this case, it does take an extra star or two to ensure that the mount is aligned properly. My guess is that if I were to actually look through the polar scope and do a polar alignment like I used to do with the Atlas, the stars beyond the first two alignment stars and the first cal star would probably be redundant.

Having said that, it takes little time to add all 4 cal stars and ensures that the pointing model is quite accurate.

David

#24 David Pavlich

David Pavlich

    Transmographied

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 27521
  • Joined: 18 May 2005
  • Loc: Mandeville, LA USA

Posted 08 October 2013 - 01:44 AM

Happy B-Day, David.

- Jim


Thanks, Jim!!

David

#25 orlyandico

orlyandico

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Singapore

Posted 08 October 2013 - 01:53 AM

Rod, that may be generally true if you have a short refractor there or a C8 at most.

However an M10 on an Atlas imaging at native FL? I have no doubt it can be done, but it's not something I'd wish on my worst enemies... I am losing enough hair as it is.

I would actually put more money on a C11 on an Atlas, simply because it weighs less than the M10. Although a C9.25 or C8 would be a much better choice on weight grounds alone.


And yet...and yet... Many Atlas users are taking images that are easily the equal of those done by people who spent for much more expensive mounts. Ground truth? What still matters most is the man or woman behind the camera, not the mount's pedigree.

And, yes, a Meade 10 will do fine on the Atlas. Personally, I think a C8 is still a very good solution, however. Unless you are going after small targets, you get that generous field, and the OTA will not stress your mount whether it is an EQ-6 or a G11 or a shake-your-money-maker. :lol:








Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics